Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A very short answer from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is, in a heartbeat. There is not a scintilla of doubt that were a stimulus package worked up that was intelligent, thoughtful, directed and pointed, much like, for instance, the infrastructure proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition about a year ago, we would be avoiding some of the worst excesses of this downturn in our economy.

If the government had done what the Leader of the Opposition proposed, we would have $7 billion already hard at work in the infrastructure of this nation addressing all kinds of issues.

Under the watch of the government, we have gone from “Freedom 55” to “Freedom 85”. Canadians will be working a lot harder and a lot longer because of the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Equalization; the hon. member for Sudbury, Finance.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak in support of our government’s response to changing world economic conditions.

I will begin my remarks by sincerely thanking the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for re-electing me as their member of Parliament for the fourth straight election. They have spoken with clarity in giving me the honour and privilege of representing them as their voice in the 40th Parliament of Canada. I thank them for that privilege.

My thanks would not be complete if I did not mention my family. Their support, love and assistance were vital to me during this election campaign, as it has been in every campaign. I thank them very much for being there for me.

Being elected as a MP is a responsibility that I accept with the full knowledge that decisions the chamber makes on a daily basis affect the lives of all Canadians, whether intended or unintended. That is a significant burden of responsibility. It is a position of utmost trust. I believe that the confidence placed in our Prime Minister and in the Conservative Party is a recognition that we appreciate and respect the trust of the people of Canada and that they in turn trust and respect us to govern Canada in a fair and judicious manner.

As parliamentarians, we in the House have a responsibility to work together and make Parliament work. It is incumbent upon all of us, all parties and all leaders, to put partisanship aside and make Parliament work in the best interests of all Canadians, particularly during difficult economic times. It is equally important that the government and the Minister of Finance are afforded the flexibility to respond to the changing global fiscal situation as the caring, compassionate Conservatives Canadians have come to trust.

For the thousands of Canadians in my riding and across Canada who today do not have a family doctor because the old Chrétien-Martin regime balanced the budget on the backs of the elderly and the sick, that is unacceptable. I will only support measures that are fair, balanced and fiscally responsible. I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister supports that position with me.

Under strong fiscal management by the Conservative government, Canada is the envy of the world. We have been lowering income taxes, creating jobs and paying down debt inherited from previous administrations. This has allowed our government to take a balanced, disciplined approach to current economic conditions.

While our government is prepared to assist specific sectors that may be experiencing difficulties, we are not prepared to throw taxpayer dollars at industries without a plan on their part that includes specific assurances that jobs will be protected or created and that the long term health of their industry does not depend on taxpayer subsidies.

As Conservatives, we recognize that a government can and ought to prepare for economic shocks. We will take the same approach to the upcoming economic shock as we made to the political shock this country suffered.

Just three short years ago, the Conservative government inherited a democratic deficit that some observers blame for the unfortunate fact that separatists still sit in Parliament. The Canadian federation is stronger today than it has been since the Constitution wars almost led to the break-up of Canada in 1995. Thanks to the actions of the current government, Canada is strong.

It will take successive Conservative governments and further actions, such as bringing democracy to the other place, before the threat of Canada breaking up is finally laid to rest.

Canadians feel vulnerable as a result of the looming recession and the global economic situation.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it was the threat by the opposition in the last election to bring in a huge new tax on everything, a so-called carbon tax, or, as it was referred to in my riding, a chimney tax, that resulted in the official opposition having the worst showing since Confederation.

The people in my riding and their Conservative government are smart enough to know that, in a time of global economic uncertainty, the worst possible reaction would be to bring in a huge, new, unknown tax on everything. Now is not the time to be dreaming up some kind of social experiment to push on Canadians. Theories do not pay the bills.

Canadians want sound, practical policies that bring home the groceries.

As compassionate caring Conservatives, we reject the tax-and-spend approach of the opposition. Canadians want a government that plans ahead, prepares for inevitable external shocks and ensures that during those times of international events, over which we have no control, their government is not only prepared to invest in Canadians and to help them through these tough economic times but is also capable of doing so.

I am pleased that our Conservative government, in its first mandate, invested in the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke with $300 million in new funding for Atomic Energy of Canada. Thanks to that direct financial support, the best in over 30 years, the government has provided AECL, which is a principle employer in my riding, with hundreds, if not more, good paying, quality jobs. They have been maintained and added to Chalk River Laboratories of AECL in Chalk River, Ontario.

On behalf of the thousands of Canadians across Canada and in Ontario who are employed in the nuclear industry, designing and building the most technically advanced, clean electrical power generating system in the world, I would tell the people of Ontario to buy Canadian. Reliable, economical, clean electricity has been the backbone of Ontario's success as the manufacturing and industrial hub of Canada. I would tell all Ontarians to put their confidence in the men and women who work and pay the taxes in the province.

The federal government joins the Province of Ontario with our commitment to the environment to reduce airborne pollution 20% by 2020. This complements the goal of the province to reduce pollution caused by coal-fired electricity plants. When we buy Canadian nuclear, we all win.

At this time I send my greetings to the brave women and men who are currently serving in Afghanistan, particularly those whose home base is CFB Petawawa. I thank them for their support. I want to tell them that I have their backs back home. For the families and loved ones of our serving soldiers, I want to say that my thoughts are with them always, especially during this holiday season.

I am very proud to be a member of a government that is committed to providing the best equipment and best support to our armed forces to do their job.

Since I was elected in 2000, CFB Petawawa has experienced tremendous growth. This has happened after years of cutbacks and equipment rust-out that occurred under the old Liberal regime. It reduced our ability as a sovereign nation to act like one.

In Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we have witnessed over 1,000 new jobs added to CFB Petawawa, soldiers and civilians. This growth has been good for the military and good for the upper Ottawa valley.

Like many other parts of Canada, my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has had an equal share of challenges and successes. Challenges remain in our traditional industries. The family farm, which has been a mainstay of life in the Ottawa valley for generations, is under constant pressure. Since I was first elected I have worked on behalf of local farmers to bring forward programs and policies that support farmers. I look forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture, as well as my local farm organizations and their representatives as we negotiate current problems, as we have done in the past.

Our government has demonstrated that it listens to farmers and farmers have responded by sending Conservatives to Ottawa. I say to my farmers that they will always have my support.

The closure of the mill at Portage-du-Fort has had a negative impact on the forestry industry that never fully recovered from the negative impact of the old government's inability to settle the softwood lumber dispute between this country and the United States. It is clear that we need new markets and a new forest strategy particularly when we look at the global marketplace and the rise in low-cost competitors in areas with longer growing seasons. This is an opportunity as much as it is a challenge.

In the throne speech our government confirmed that we will continue to help our forestry sector with measures that promote innovation and the sale of goods abroad. In my riding, private producers are the majority. Forestry producers find themselves in a difficult situation where production costs continue to rise and profits are non-existent. The very survival of many woodlot-based family businesses are in jeopardy.

Business owners and producers in the forestry sector need to be supported in their efforts. Assistance for research and innovation is also needed for the forestry industry, particularly for secondary and tertiary processing.

The future of forestry in the Ottawa Valley will depend on our taking advantage of the so-called green energy market. An example of this market would be the wood pellet industry that uses low-end material from sawmills to create a clean-burning fuel in the form of pellets. These wood pellets can be used to heat homes. Forest residue can also be used for energy cogeneration plants.

The federal government is committed to exploring these and other uses of the forest through our eco-energy initiative. That initiative is our commitment to helping Canadians with practical things like controlling the cost to heat one's home while at the same time planning for the future and a healthier environment by lessening our dependence on fossil fuels for energy.

I would like to thank those constituents who have contacted me and supported my efforts to affordable broadband high speed Internet to the unserviced and under-serviced areas of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I am pleased to confirm that due to the efforts of myself and my fellow Conservative caucus members broadband rural connectivity was included as a category that could be funded under building Canada, our $33 billion plan to rebuild crumbling infrastructure in Canada.

We recognize the importance of modern communication and the need to build the information highway in rural Canada, in places like Renfrew County and all of eastern Ontario. I look forward to continuing to work with those municipalities that have identified modern communications as a priority. Our government is committed to the needs of Canadians and I look forward to working with all members of the House as we pursue common goals.

The events of late have caused great anxiety among constituents who live in my riding. I am going to read several excerpts from phone calls, emails and faxes that have recently been received.

The first one comes from constituent Larry Black, who writes, “Is Canada still a democracy? Is it still viable to ask the average non-voter why you do not vote? Whatever happened to our democratic right? Are elections still worthwhile or should I say democratically still viable? Is Canada going to be under the control of a separatist Bloc party which plays for all the world to see the new Liberal puppet leader? These are very viable questions you need to answer. I don't know the answer and the possibility of the answers scare me. For days now I have been watching Canadian politics with a growing fear that my democratic rights and freedoms are about to be stolen. On October 14, 2008 Canadians went to the polls. We elected a stronger minority Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper, in which we gave the Conservative Party--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian and knows that she cannot use the names of members in the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I beg your forgiveness.

We must mention that the Liberals received 76 seats as opposed to our 143, the NDP 37 seats and the Bloc received 50 seats with two independents. This, as everyone knows, totals 308 seats and under this the Conservatives have 37.6% of the vote, the Liberals 26.2%, the NDP 18.2% and the Bloc 10%. As we face the greater possibility of a coalition government to be led by the Liberals with active support from the NDP and backup from the Bloc, these and more numbers will be very important.

I have a letter from Mrs. Borestski. Her key point is that, “This new government was elected less than two months ago and for the opposition to get together to overthrow the government on the issue of fiscal restraint is abhorrent”.

Ms. Cesar says, “It is probably better to have an election than a coalition. The opposition is hungry for power”.

Mr. and Mrs. Cahill ask, “Is there anything we can do? We do not need the Bloc running this country”.

Mr. Bradley states, “If they are defeated they should be allowed to go back to the people and do it again. I think a coalition government would be a disaster”.

Mr. Edwards wants to know, “What in the heck we can do to try and avert this disaster? Are buses going to Ottawa to rally?”

Mr. and Mrs. Diverge states, “Any kind of coalition government that is being proposed by the leaders of the Liberal, NDP or Bloc parties, while it may be permitted during our present Constitution, it is disgusting and revolting to take power through the backdoor”.

Mr. and Mrs. Whodida ask, “When is the Prime Minister going to see the separatists for what they are, namely a bunch of whiners who are only interested in bleeding Canada economically to death to their sole benefit”.

Mr. and Mrs. Jackson want us to know that they back the Conservative government, “The others are acting like a bunch of baboons and they are idiots”.

Mr. Faught is very angry. He said, “The Prime Minister cannot sit on the fence. He should call an election”.

Mr. Kroeger says he is against this coalition, “It is ridiculous. this is supposed to be a democracy”.

Mr. Kulack cannot understand why they would do something like this. His understanding is if this goes through he will never vote again. He has voted all his life and he knows hundreds of others who have said the same thing. He wants to spread the word.

Mr. and Mrs. Caleo said, “People should organize and do something before this gang of no-goods take charge of our country”.

Ms. Cavanaugh said, “This is just awful what is happening to our country. That Liberal Party didn't even want that man to be in their party to run it and now they want him to run Canada?”

Rita is calling about the happenings on the news. Basically she is seeing three guys from Quebec who are trying to topple the government and hijack the balance of power.

Mr. and Mrs. Kernoff said, “The Prime Minister was voted in and we should leave it at that”.

Mr. Mandan states, “I am just sick about this coalition going on and I would like to express my discontent quickly and would like to know the best way to do this”.

Mr. and Mrs. Grisson are getting a petition to stop the coalition from taking power from our government.

Mr. MacDonald wants to know if the oath that all parliamentarians take when they get elected, that they swear or affirm belief in the government, does the same thing apply to separatist members?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great attention. I have a couple of questions for the hon. member however.

There are many democracies older than ours that regularly have coalition governments. I would like to know if the hon. member considers that these countries and the people who live in these countries have an inferior democratic sense than we do here in Canada. That is the first question.

Second, we do not have the perfect democratic system in this country. No country has a perfect democratic system. As a matter of fact, a government in this country can be elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. In some countries they have runoffs until a party reaches 50% of the vote. Does that mean her government is not as legitimate as a government in a country that gets elected with a clear majority?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the older countries that the member was referring to rarely, if ever, make pacts with separatists. The other industrialized nations are looking to Canada and emulating what we did over a year ago to stimulate our economy. We cut the hated GST. We are in line to continue reducing business taxes. We will continue to take such measures to protect our seniors.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for supporting me once again in the most recent election. I would also like to thank my husband, Réal, our children, Megan and Malte, my staff, and my campaign officials for my re-election.

I would like to remind the member opposite that a majority of Quebeckers—78%—voted against the Conservative government. We got our mandate from our nation, which gave sovereignist candidates running under the Bloc Québécois banner a 75% majority. That makes us legitimate.

Quebec blocked your majority in this House. You have to respect that. The Bloc Québécois has made proposals concerning the economic statement. Rather than act responsibly, the government delivered an ideological statement. It decided to suspend the right to strike and to undermine women's rights.

My question is for the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In a bid to avoid losing the confidence of the House, why did her party not accept some of the measures my party proposed to her government?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 90% of Canadians did not vote for the Bloc Québécois; 0% of Canadians voted for this unholy coalition.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this question to the member opposite. She spoke about the forest industry and the innovation measures that have been taken. My question is this. Why have the mills closed down in the towns in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario, towns like Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, White River and Wawa? There were no innovation measures to keep them open. These communities are going through very hard times right now.

I would like to remind her that her party has lost the confidence of the House. The best thing to do is to let the coalition go ahead and do the work that is needed to protect Canadians and our economy.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind members opposite that in response to the challenging times our forestry sector is facing, we introduced the community development trust. If the member's people have not accessed it, perhaps it is time for her constituents to elect a member of the Conservative Party because Conservative members work for their constituents.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have been having a busy day reading the emails that I received from my constituents today. The hon. member gave a wonderful speech and closed it by referring to some of the emails that she has received. Hon. members in this House need to hear how frustrated and angered Canadians are that the NDP have formed a coalition with the separatists and with the Liberals. I would like, if I could, to read one email very quickly. This email is from the Bruneau family: “On behalf of my wife and children, I want to encourage you and the Conservative Party to take whatever measures you must take to prevent this coalition of the left, that is currently posturing to take over our country. This coup has obviously been in the works for some time and the likes of the Liberals, led by whomever, and the separatists undemocratically taking over the government makes me seethe with contempt”.

That is just one, and as the House can see I have many more. I wonder if the hon. member could refer to a couple more that she might have that she could share with us.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barry Evans wrote, “Regarding the three stooges, is there anything as a person I can do to help?” Mr. and Mrs. Greensleigh are very disturbed over the events in Ottawa and want to know what can be done. Mrs. Brown wrote, “For heaven's sake, have we got anyone that's going to do something about that God-darned coalition government?” Mr. Code wrote, “Just prorogue and cause another election”. Ms. Leedum is very opposed to any coalition. She voted for the Prime Minister. She says that French leader doesn't belong with us. She is a low-income senior and she wants her voice to be heard. Ms. Gilchrist wants to “prorogue this mess and let's have an election”. Mrs. Hopper wrote, “I would prefer to have another election than have these egomaniacs govern Canada”. Mr. and Mrs. Jessop wrote, “These three stooges' affairs must end”.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue that should be of concern to all members here.

The opposition is sitting there very smugly right now. Those members are mocking us. I do not think they realize how divisive their actions are to this country.

I want the member to comment especially on what is happening in rural Canada.

Rural Canadians are, almost without exception, not represented on the other side. Rural Canadians are feeling that it is going to be very upsetting to have their leadership from the big cities and so on.

There is one issue that the NDP is going to have to explain. There are 10 MPs who campaigned on the fact that they were going to get rid of the gun registry. Now they have joined with the people who are strongly supporting it and are going to stick it to the rural residents. This is very divisive.

Is the member hearing anything in her constituency from people expressing concern about what is going to happen to that particular program?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day people call my office to ask when we are finally going to get rid of the gun registry.

It is expensive. It is doing nothing to save people. Taking guns away from hunters and farmers in rural Canada is going to do nothing in terms of stopping gang violence in urban centres.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on the government’s economic statement, because it is at the heart of the democratic crisis that now exists in this Parliament.

Let us remember why an election was called. The Prime Minister had introduced and passed an act providing for fixed election dates. The next election was to take place in 2009. The Prime Minister said there was such a great economic urgency that an election was necessary. He went back on his own word and decided to call an election because of the economic situation.

So, we had an election, and a minority government was elected—a government that does not have a majority in this House. The message sent by the people was that the party forming the government should take account of the views of the opposition parties, when putting forward its proposals, in order to obtain that majority. One would have expected at least a neutral attitude on the part of the Conservative government toward the opposition parties, so this government could obtain their support on economic or less partisan matters. We could have debated the merits of the proposals, put them on the table and moved forward.

Instead of that, the economic statement was a provocation; they added fuel to the fire. For example, they said they would abolish public funding of parties. Do you know what that means? In Quebec, there has been a system of public funding of political parties for 30 years. There was no such system in Canada until a few years ago. The Conservative party decided to do away with that.

Next, they decided to take away the right to strike from public servants. That is another measure that goes against the wishes of the majority, here, in Parliament. The Conservatives thought they could bulldoze the opposition, especially since the Liberal party had lost the election. They were wrong. They fanned the flames when what they should have done, very simply, was to deliver a real economic statement dealing with economic measures.

The government even tampered with the issue of pay equity. This means that three groups of people are affected. There are those who want a healthy democracy, who want the citizens to decide. However, the government said no, we have to go back to the system where it is the businesses that decide. That was the first mistake. Then, the government targeted pay equity by tossing aside all the efforts made by women to achieve equality. The government wants to deprive them of their instrument, it wants to shelve everything.

That is indeed what happened. However, when the government realized that the opposition was standing up to it, it suddenly backed off on each and everyone of its proposals. Public financing was no longer a critical issue, and nor was the right to strike. Worse still is the fact that there is no plan in this economic statement to get the economy back on track. This is truly surreal, considering that the government called an election for that very reason.

We then submitted proposals, at the government's request. The Bloc Québécois tabled a number of them and several ministers said here in this House that this was a good thing, that it was constructive to move forward with those things. However, there is nothing in the economic statement. Throughout the world, whether in Europe, in Great Britain, in France, in Asia or in China, economic recovery plans are being implemented. As recently as yesterday, the UN said that massive investments are required for distribution and creation, to promote world development. However, the Conservative government decided to adopt the exact same attitude as the Republicans had done just before the 1929 crash. It took Franklin D. Roosevelt to get them out of that situation. The Conservatives and the current Prime Minister are behaving exactly like the Republicans, when the Americans had to kick them out in order to be able to emerge from the Great Depression. We find ourselves faced with the same situation.

The government was very surprised, therefore, that the opposition parties could stand up all of a sudden, when actually it was the general public who said they wanted an economic recovery plan. The Conservative government is so caught up in its ideology that it is incapable of making adjustments or proposing different ways of doing things. The opposition parties all told the government, therefore, that it would not have the confidence of the House on the basis of this economic statement.

We started to discuss what it would require of us all and what we could do together. The Bloc Québécois was a bit ahead of the game because we had made some proposals to the current government and submitted them to the parties that are going to form the next government, the Liberals and the New Democrats. These are things we have been requesting for years and I will provide some specific examples.

We have been asking for a program to help older workers who lose their jobs. A few years ago in my riding, Whirlpool closed a factory in Montmagny that provided 600 jobs. We started asking for the restitution of the program for older worker adjustment or POWA. We got some amendments in the Speech from the Throne to this effect, but the Conservatives never kept their promise.

The Conservatives have always considered older workers who lost their jobs to be just workers and not citizens. It never crosses their minds that these people, who have often worked and paid into employment insurance for 25 years, who supported their families for 30 years and are now 57 or 58 years old, deserve a program to help them reach retirement.

When we asked for this to be included in the coalition program, the other parties agreed. This is a tremendous victory for Quebec. It is a victory for all of Canada as well because it is a way to share the wealth. This is the kind of approach that the Conservatives are incapable of taking.

Then we asked for the elimination of the two week waiting period for employment insurance. Is there any greater security we could provide to our working people in recessionary times? When people lose their jobs, from now on, they will be able to draw their benefits during the first two weeks. Is there not some kind of compassionate gesture like this that the Conservative government could have made? We have had a bill to this effect for years—we did not begin asking for it just yesterday morning.

This possibility exists in the program developed by the coalition. Thousands of working people fought the deficit, more than any other group in society. The hon. members of this House got tax cuts. People who have jobs got tax cuts. But the unemployed, who created the $54 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, did not get anything or any return on their investment. Was it so difficult to give them their benefits from the very start because they had been paying their contributions from the first hour they worked? That is the kind of initiative we would have liked to see from the Conservative government but did not find in its economic statement.

We also proposed a support plan for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Everyone says we need to invest in innovation. We must invest in order to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I live in an area where the forestry industry is very important. It is facing a terrible crisis because there is almost no market left in the United States. Would it have been so difficult to have an action plan to increase exports to Europe? Would it have been so difficult to go ahead with a plan to provide better conditions and adequate retraining for the workers affected? No, instead it was decided to leave that sector to its own devices. That is the Prime Minister's ideology. He says we should not interfere with the economy; we should let it adjust itself. The fact that this affects real people does not matter. That is the approach taken by the current Prime Minister, and something that most members and most Canadians do not support.

We also asked that regional economic assistance be restored. Just as the economic crisis was setting in, the good minister at the time decided to cut funding to non-profit economic development organizations in Quebec. Talk about adding insult to injury. It meant telling people that, not only will we do nothing to help you, but we are going to take away the means that were already in place. It is understandable why people were so angry with the Conservative government that 80% of Quebeckers voted for other parties and the vast majority voted for the 49 Bloc members who are here today.

Then there was also restoration of the cultural assistance programs. A lesson can be learned from the cuts to those programs, unless one happens to be one of the ten or so Conservative members from Quebec. In Quebec, culture is more than a business or a market, it is an expression of what our nation is, of who Quebeckers are. If it is affected, the whole population is affected. Would it have been so hard for the Conservative government to admit that they got the message from the election and to restore that money? That would have made it possible to continue to promote culture outside Quebec and outside Canada, so that our authors, our creative people, our artists, can express themselves and have opportunities to make themselves known. There are no better ambassadors.

I recall the words of a Quebec comic during the campaign: pretty soon there would be no one representing Canada abroad except our troops. That was part of a public service message. Humorous messages are often the most effective.

It is all very well for us to have soldiers doing their jobs abroad, but there is no reason to cut the funding for cultural representatives.

So there are five situations that need to be remedied, but the Conservative government has not remedied them. One of these is compliance with the Kyoto agreement. For a long time, Quebec individuals, companies, aluminum smelters and the like have been expressing a desire to see the Kyoto protocol respected, because this is the best way to have sustainable development. They feel the Conservatives' approach is unacceptable.

They were not asking the Conservatives just to bow down and accept the complete protocol overnight, but progress could have been made toward this, and the intention to get on side with the global consensus could have been expressed. On this issue, now that the Americans have elected a new president, Canada is the only one out of step, but they see it as everybody being out of step except Canada. The rest of the world, which wants to improve the environmental situation and deal with climate change, must be wrong. Only the Prime Minister of Canada, who comes from Alberta, is right, and that is because the oil and gas industry has to be protected.

Last year, the government said it would cut corporate taxes according to a multi-year plan. The problem is that companies in the manufacturing and forestry sectors do not turn a profit. Therefore they do not benefit from tax cuts.

Consequently, certain programs were needed, such as programs to provide loan guarantees, assistance for innovation and purchases of new equipment. That is what we expected to hear from the government.

Therefore, we find ourselves in an extraordinary situation. An election was called to obtain a mandate to implement an economic action plan and then, after the election, the elected government decided to attack political parties, women and workers' rights rather than taking action to deal with the economic slowdown.

In my opinion, there can be no baser attitude in Parliament than to have put that statement on the table just when the economy was taking a nosedive. The economic statement should have dealt only with economic matters. They should have tried to help our workers, our regions, our citizens, to cope. But that was not what we found in the government's economic statement.

The economic statement met with a torrent of opposition. The government began backing down on a number of items but it did not seek to bring any resolution to the main issue of tabling an economic development plan. That is the issue for which the Conservative government has received the harshest condemnation. The government decided that it alone was on the right track, while all the other member countries of the G7 and G20 put forward, ideas, projects and concrete investments. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. Here, the Conservative government is hiding behind the fact that it had already done what was required in the past. But the economic crisis is not a thing of the past; it is happening now and will carry forward into the future. Therefore, we need measures to deal with the situation and there are none.

As for the proposals made by the Bloc Québécois to the Minister of Finance, and that he applauded as being constructive, we would have expected to see some of them in the economic statement. We were not asking that all of these proposals be implemented. We could accept the fact that some of them would not be put forward, but we would have liked the government to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. However, it did not do that. What we have is this Reform Conservative—not Progressive Conservative—approach, which says that the government must do as little as possible regarding the economy, because ultimately that approach will produce good results.

I also wondered if this was not a way for the government to hide, to some degree, the current state of public finances. What is the true magnitude of what we will end up with at the end of the year? After all, the budget officer said that the decisions made by the Conservatives were responsible for the deficit that is anticipated this year, namely the GST cuts of one and then two points. Indeed, these measures deprive this government of a lot of leverage.

Lowering the GST may have helped sell more products made in China, but it also resulted in our manufacturing industries having fewer tools to compete and to provide competitive products. We can see why the opposition finds the economic statement unacceptable. This government was judged very harshly, particularly in Quebec.

I thank Quebeckers for listening to the Bloc's message and for not letting the Conservatives form a majority government. One can imagine what it would be like if we had had a Conservative majority government. The economic statement would have included even fewer initiatives to help the economy, but more measures to restrict freedoms.

In my opinion, Quebeckers did a service not only to Quebec, but to all of Canada by refusing to give that majority to the Conservatives. Today, if the government were not in a minority position, the opposition would be out in the streets. Women and workers would have had to take to the streets to protect their rights. Now, in this House, the opposition has stood up and said that it will not give its support to the government regarding its economic update. Canadians do not want an election tomorrow, but they want a government that will manage our finances and that will move forward with economic changes. This is what we are proposing, and this is in compliance with the parliamentary procedure.

I will conclude with this point: whether we are defending the interests of Quebeckers or promoting Quebec sovereignty, the Bloc Québécois honours its commitments. We have always said that when a bill or measure is good for Quebec, we will vote in favour of it. And if a measure is bad for Quebec, we will vote against it. That is still our policy in the current situation. We will not be part of the government, because we do not think that is the best solution. However, we decided to sign the agreement because we think that is the best solution for Quebec and for Canada as a whole. This notion is shared by the two other parties, which would form the government.

We have shown respect for Canada as a whole by not demanding that we be part of the government. The agreement bears this out. I hope we will be able to move forward as soon as possible with a government agenda that includes a plan for real change, a plan for development and economic intervention. The Conservative government will never be capable of producing such a plan as long as the current Prime Minister is in charge, since he does not believe in intervention, and not only because that it his belief, but also because of ideology and stubbornness. Quebeckers are fed up with that stubbornness. And so is the rest of Canada. This will never stop the Bloc Québécois from continuing to promote sovereignty.

We believe that the best solution for Quebec would be to have a sovereign state, a country where Quebeckers can make their own decisions in a parliament over which we have complete control, a parliament in Quebec City. Placing control in the hands of Quebeckers would eliminate the need for the measures we are forced to take here to ensure that Quebec's voice is heard in the federal Parliament and throughout Canada. That is why we maintain that the Bloc Québécois provides the best representation for Quebeckers in the federal Parliament. We are not, in any way, hindered by Canada-wide dynamics. We respect those who want to pursue that, but when it comes to protecting Quebec's interests, we forge ahead. We know that we are on the right path, and we respect the mandate we received from Quebeckers.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of Bloc members a couple of times today, and I want to get this member’s take on it.

As we know, in the new coalition 100% of confidence measures would need support from the Bloc. That includes the Speech from the Throne, which is a vision for Canada. One would expect that the Speech from the Throne would include a strongly articulated support for a united Canada, including Quebec.

When such a strong statement for a united Canada, including Quebec, comes out, what will the member’s position be on it?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our position will be the same as the one we took with the Conservatives. We allowed their first two budgets to pass because they included money for the fiscal imbalance. The Conservatives hung on to power then because of the Bloc Québécois' support, because of Quebec sovereignists. We felt that the budgets gave Quebec enough money to move forward.

We had the same approach to previous throne speeches. I would suggest that the member review everything that has happened over the past few years. Everything happening now has happened with the Conservatives since 2006. This is the same situation. We are capable of taking on our responsibilities. We have done it in the past, and we will continue to do it. Every time there is an election, we seek a mandate from the people by telling them that if they vote for the Bloc Québécois, they are voting for an opposition party, but they can be sure that we will defend Quebec's interests and promote Quebec sovereignty. That has always been clear.

The Conservatives agreed to work with us when it suited them. That is what we were hoping for with this minority government, if only it had agreed to act on the people's desire for a new economic plan.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked when I heard that the current Prime Minister signed a letter on September 9, 2004, along with the leaders of the PQ and the NDP, asking the then Governor General to allow the replacement of the then government of Paul Martin.

Why was it okay to try to replace the Paul Martin government and now it is an evil idea to do basically the same? Could the member sort out the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I saw that the Chair was not very happy with the word “hypocrisy”, even though I know that it is acceptable parliamentary language. The Conservatives have used the word in the past, and it must still be acceptable. But it is not up to me to say, it is up to the Chair.

It is important to tone down the debate. Everything that is happening now, with the opposition proposal, is in accordance with parliamentary procedure and tradition, so much so, in fact, that the Prime Minister did the very same thing a few years ago, as my colleague said.

I will not say that this is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is acting as though he did not do that two years ago. It is not what he did two years ago that is hypocritical, it is the fact that he is acting as though he did not do it. In fact, that is exactly what he did.

Personally, I have complete confidence in the people. I always find that the people are right and are able to sort everything out, no matter how complicated things get. In the end, the people knew what they were doing when they elected a minority government. They elected a minority government because they did not believe they should give this government, this party, full latitude—even though that is what the party would have liked—because they were not sure what the party would do with all that power.

Today, we have learned an amazing lesson. The people of Quebec were the wisest of all. They decided to elect fewer Conservative members than last time, with a smaller percentage of votes, because they could not have confidence in anyone, least of all the Prime Minister, under the circumstances. He was announcing cuts to culture and taking an unacceptable punitive attitude toward young offenders. He was reopening the abortion debate with a bill that his minister is still supposed to reintroduce. There was never any suggestion that the bill would not be reintroduced. For all these reasons, Quebeckers stood up and said no to the Conservative Party.

Today, Quebeckers are still dissatisfied, this time with the economic statement.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underscore the attitude of respect and cooperation that now exists in this House of Commons. The Conservative government promised a new era of cooperation and respect, and failed in that regard.

We witnessed a historic moment when a coalition was formed. The Bloc Québécois agreed, in the interest of the economy and in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians, to set aside the issue of sovereignty to take care of the economy, just as we, the Liberals and the NDP, will set aside the national question to some extent to focus on the economy. That is what is important. It is a historic agreement.

The agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, which is supported by the Bloc, puts aside the questions of national unity to focus on the unity of the economy and the strength of the economy. This is a large, important day of respect and co-operation here of which we can all be proud. I congratulate the members of the Bloc for being part of that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member thinks his wishes are horses. With respect to nationhood, the Bloc has in no way given up its desire to help create a sovereign Quebec. We will continue to work toward that goal. We will continue to stand up for sovereignty because that is the best possible scenario for Quebeckers. We did not surrender that right in the agreement we signed.

In my opinion, Quebec is a society that deserves a country of its own, that deserves to have 100% of the decision-making power, that deserves to have 100% of the right to make its own laws and sign treaties. I consider these things to be essential.

However, in the short term, in the context of this agreement, we are ready at the economic level. If a new government does take power, the coalition will introduce measures that are in the best interest of Quebeckers, measures that the Conservatives rejected. We think that these measures are the best way to deal with the reality we have to face right now.

Nevertheless, in no way does this mean that the Bloc Québécois cannot ask questions in the future about any subject it wishes to address, including the future of the nation and the perception of whichever government is in power. That is how the Bloc Québécois will carry out the two mandates it was given by the people.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we caught a glimpse of the Conservative Party's Reform roots. Earlier today, we heard comments that were downright offensive about the Quebec nation's legitimate, democratically elected representatives. Among others, we heard the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke read rather unimpressive, even despicable emails and letters from Reform activists and supporters, missives that were hostile toward Quebec. It is distressing to see this kind of Quebec bashing rear its head in the House of Commons once again. This proves that the Conservatives are ready to do whatever it takes to cling to power, and that includes attacking the Quebec nation's legitimate, democratically elected representatives.

Does my colleague feel our pain when people call us baboons?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is the most obvious is that the Conservative Party is dominated by the Reform approach at all levels. In the Prime Minister's economic statement, that is absolutely the approach that they used. They may have put some Conservative icing on it, but the cake is Reform. We can see that on all levels—whether principles or technique—it is the same thing. Today I had a flashback to days gone by. That was how things were done from 1993 to 1997—