Evidence of meeting #9 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Ms. Yelich.
I have Mr. Lessard on the list. If I have no one else on the list, we'll go to the vote on Ms. Sgro's motion.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
It surprises me that our colleague Ms. Yelich doesn't follow the periodic reports of the Minister of Finance on the status of the surplus. Once again we've just obtained a report from the Minister of Finance on the status of the surplus. It's in the order of $11.5 billion. It surprises that she doesn't monitor that information closely.
She also mentioned that there are forestry companies in her riding as well. And yet she supports her government's position. That's why she belongs to this government. Like us, she'll have to be accountable to her voters. That may be the choice her voters make as well, but that's not the choice our voters are making back home. They're choosing not to let our communities die because the government didn't anticipate it, didn't put measures in place to prevent this crisis from hitting so hard. We can't always prevent crises, but we can minimize them.
She also raised the point that we're just talking about money. However, this kind of crisis isn't resolved by prayers and incantations. We resolve it through financial means, because the problem is financial. That's obvious. The problem would be twice as serious if the Canadian government didn't have the money, but it has the money.
Ms. Yelich and her colleagues have to justify why they aren't using that money to assist those who have been hit by a crisis. As far as I know, the oil companies haven't been hit by a crisis. And yet they're going to receive assistance in the form of $920 million in tax deductions over the next three years.
Why this choice? It's a political choice that is up to you to make and that you will be accountable for, but it's not a political choice that we share, absolutely not. Our political choice, from the moment we have the means to do so, is to help those we have a responsibility to help. Otherwise, what are we doing here? Manufacturers are the ones that drive the economy. In this case, the forestry companies and the workers make it so these industries can make this contribution to society, with all that entails. It's as though that were abstract.
This has to be done today, not tomorrow. Why always postpone, if not to avoid shouldering our responsibilities?
We've been asked to be prudent. What type of prudence? This is incredible. We're invited to be prudent now, and prudence would mean doing nothing. On the contrary, prudence tells us that we must take action now, and we are late because the damage has been done.
I go back to Mr. Lake's argument, because it's a big one. It makes no darn sense—I didn't swear, Mr. Chair—to tell us these kinds of things. You shouldn't take people for fools. They say the government has taken measures by reducing taxes for manufacturers and workers, but the store is closed and the workers aren't working. To pay less tax, there has to be less profit. It's not a matter of personal finances doing well. That serves no purpose. Workers who don't work don't pay any taxes. That argument can't stand.
When you advance these kinds of arguments, it's because you're backed into a corner, because you have nothing more to say and because your position is unjustifiable. That's what's currently happening on the government side. When you refer to the budget, as our colleague Mr. Komarnicki did, that's another silly way of taking people for fools.
It's tantamount to saying that, if the other parties don't vote for the budget, everyone will be punished and they'll get nothing. Because those parties will have voted against it, they'll be responsible for the situation. If the money weren't available and a complete budget adjustment had to be made, that would make us think, but that's not at all the case, Mr. Chair. That money is available; it's provided for in the present budget. There is no reason to attach that to the next budget, unless we want to engage in petty reactionary politics, as in the 1940s. But people said they no longer wanted that type of politics. We have to be careful, Mr. Chair.
They say that the job market is currently operating at full capacity and that poverty has declined. Perhaps there are fewer poor people, but those who are poor are much poorer than previously. When we see that there is more child poverty, let me tell you that it's a very good indicator that it isn't just children who are poor, because when children are poor, it's because their parents are poor.
I'll close by talking about older workers. This motion contains a provision for $60 million to assist older workers. In fact, this is a supplementary expenditure of $15 million because what this will actually cost, in the worst scenario, if an income support program for older workers is reinstated, is $45 million. Why, Mr. Chair? Because 30% of that amount will be paid by the provinces.
Last February, Quebec unanimously passed a motion in the National Assembly asking the Government of Canada to reinstate the POWA. It said that it was prepared to contribute 30% of the cost of that measure immediately. Mr. Chair, every time employees are laid off at a business, at least 20% of the workers—that's roughly the average—are 55 years of age or more. Go see the forestry and manufacturing industries; they represent 20% of those people. Some of those who are laid off and who are over 55 years of age manage to find other jobs, but 30% of them wind up unemployed. That's the percentage. Once they've exhausted their employment insurance benefits, they wind up with nothing and are forced to use their savings. They know they will have to wait six, seven, eight, in some instances, even 10 years before receiving their old age pension.
From 1989 to 1997, there was a program, the POWA. In the last year, it cost only $17 million, and yet it was cut by the previous government. This is a program that produced results, that worked well and that helped the least well-off older workers. The proposed $60 million would be used to reinstate that program.
Last year, on behalf of the Bloc québécois, I sent the Prime Minister all the parameters for putting that program in place, and at his request. On June 4 last, in response to a question asked by the Bloc québécois leader as to whether the Prime Minister intended to reinstate the POWA, the latter answered that the government was interested in adopting a similar measure and asked the Bloc québécois leader to give him his perception of the program. We did that, Mr. Chair. No, nothing since then! That's what we're talking about here.
This morning—I say this with all due respect for my colleagues on this side of the table because you have taken a position on your side—you said no to my proposal. You're counting on an announced measure. I find that unfortunate, but you'll have to explain that to your voters: that's up to you; that's your choice, not ours. We want to take measures. I don't think it's a good idea to postpone those measures by linking the decision to that of the Finance Committee. If the committee decides to do it—I've always respected democratic decisions—we'll rally to it. However, I would invite my colleagues, if ever that were their decision, not to wait any later than next Tuesday.
Postponing the question for two weeks would make it possible for a number of tricks to be used to prevent those measures from being implemented. The Standing Committee on Finance will be sitting next Monday; we'll see what its members decide. If ever the committee decided by a majority to postpone the matter, I don't think that should go beyond Tuesday, so that a final decision can be made. I'll repeat myself once again, but I think it's worth the trouble to do so: postponing the matter from one day to the next would be tantamount to shirking our responsibilities.
Conservative
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Unlike my colleague, I've had the chance to visit a number of Quebec regions in the past six months. I'm sure he didn't have an opportunity to go see the workers in the forestry regions. First, people 55 years of age—
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I met some. They told me about their troubles and difficulties.
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm in favour of him making a speech, but I'd like him to avoid attributing to me actions that don't correspond to what I've done.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chair, we're talking about older workers; those I saw who were between 55 and 60 years of age didn't consider themselves old. These people also want to work. They've done it all their lives. These are very proud people—and I'm talking here about Quebeckers in the regions. They still have a number of years ahead of them in which they can contribute to the development of Quebec and Canada. What they're asking us is that we help them. They want jobs and know that the forestry sector is changing and evolving. They want us to help them through programs that will enable them to continue working in their regions. That's what we're currently doing.
Last week, I went to Abitibi-Témiscamingue to make a contribution to the Cyclofor company from Regional Economic Development Canada. That company has developed equipment that can gather forestry biomass following cutting. That biomass goes back to the plant and its bark is stripped once again; white woods are separated from the biomass. A host of other products can be made from that. One million tonnes a year is equal to another 150 jobs for these people. This is a good example of leadership among workers in the forestry regions. The workers we saw were all people 55 years of age.
So these people don't necessarily want programs that will enable them to stay home until they're 65. They're in good shape, want to work and are happy to do so. That's why our government is making available a host of programs that will help establish a new economy in the regions. Developing new products is the future of the forest economy in Quebec and Canada. You yourselves are aware of that, and you agree with me.
The money that we invest in the program that is implemented soon will improve matters. In fact, existing programs have not been used to their full potential. We're open to all requests from workers and we're in all Quebec regions, whether it be Abitibi, Lac-Saint-Jean or the Gaspé Peninsula, and in all the forest regions most affected. Since we've been in power, Economic Development Canada has contributed to 1,300 projects. We're talking about more than two projects a day designed to help manufacturers and workers find new products. That's made it possible to create a lot of jobs. It's also having a snowball effect.
So, Mr. Lessard, I don't understand why you're asking for money so that 55-year-old individuals can sit around waiting to retire. These people want to work. I'm aware of that; that's the message I'm getting from all Quebec regions. These people say that Bloc québécois members want them to stop working. They say they want to work and that they're going to vote for the Conservatives in the next election because it's with them that they're going to be able to develop their country.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I have Mr. Lake and Mr. Lessard, and then I'm hopeful that maybe we can get to that motion.
Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Who knows, the way this is going?
I don't even know where to start. I am going to have to measure my words carefully here.
One billion dollars for a community development trust, $72.5 million for targeted initiatives for older workers, $127.5 million for the forestry industry long-term competitiveness initiative, several projects having to do with seasonal workers and unemployment--these steps that we have taken as a government are a very tough sell in my riding; they are a very tough sell in my province. Yet unlike yours, my vision for the country expands beyond the borders of my province.
Honestly, it is ridiculous. You talk about the Canadian government's money. The Canadian government doesn't have any money; it's taxpayers' money. Your motion has $5 billion in it, and it is a motion that you didn't write. Your leadership wrote the motion, because it has been presented at five different committees. I am sure you didn't present the motion to all five committees.
You talk about political will. I would ask you to show some political will and stand up within your caucus and support a budget that has all of these measures to help the very people you are talking about. Don't come in here and lecture us on political will. I am sick and tired of that.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I would ask that he not come in here and lecture us on political will.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay.
He talks about manufacturers going out of business, but the manufacturers who are creating jobs are manufacturers who are successful and expanding. That is where the jobs are created. The corporate tax measures we have put in place—the accelerated capital cost allowance that manufacturers have asked for, which the industry committee, including his own members, supported unanimously—are things that are going to help manufacturers who are creating jobs. They are going to create jobs. Those are the very jobs we are trying to create.
You say those who are poor aren't doing any better than before, and I agree with you that we need to help those who are poor. Absolutely, I am onside with that. But many of those who aren't poor any more aren't poor because they have jobs now that they didn't have before. Our employment rate is stronger than it has ever been.
In conclusion, I would encourage the honourable member to suck it up and show some political will, and let's get on with it. Instead of proposing five obstructionary measures in committees to clog up the entire parliamentary system, show some leadership. Let's agree to table the motion. Let's get on with the business we're supposed to do in this committee.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
We go from surprise to surprise, Mr. Chair.
They make a big deal because we're proposing measures that represent approximately $5 billion for this year. Indeed, our measures represent $15 billion and are allocated over three years. The surpluses are in the order of $28 billion for the next three years, I believe. A portion will be used to reduce the debt. They're obsessed by the debt. We agree that a portion should be used to reduce the debt; that's planned.
I want to remind my eminent colleague that we're introducing measures so that they are debated in the House. That's very democratic and highly realistic. Our colleagues are trying to give us a lesson about accountability. Last year, a week after the House adjourned, this government announced $17.5 billion worth of investments in military equipment. There were investments of $23 billion over two years without any debate in the House of Commons. We don't need any lessons from them on democracy—that's the first thing—on judgment or on accountability to the public and our citizens.
We from Quebec can talk about that. First, we're going to talk about what we know. We don't want to speak for the other provinces, except where it's obvious, as in the case of the manufacturing and forestry companies. We know that Ontario is experiencing the same dynamic and the same problem as Quebec. We can raise that. The Premier of Ontario is raising it. We don't want to speak on his behalf, but we're saying that the people there are experiencing the same situation.
However, we do know one thing about the war: the people of Quebec don't want us to be in Afghanistan, but they'll support their soldiers, even though they didn't make the decision to go there. They have made a personal commitment, and others determine the situations in which we have to go into combat. If we in the House of Commons make that decision, they go, and we support our soldiers, even though that was not the political choice of the population of Quebec. In the past two years, the Conservative government has allocated $23 billion to military equipment without any debate in the House of Commons. That also has to be said. That's what we're talking about when we talk about poverty. We want to intervene in this matter through concrete measures.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
On a point of order, I think we were all trying to limit things so that we could get on to the employability study, which relates right back to the issue that we all care about. I think we need to move on and call a vote on this subject.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I will just ask Mr. Lessard, have you concluded, or did you have a few more comments? Have you wrapped up?
Bloc
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I'd like us to reread it because perhaps we could agree on the measures.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay. Go ahead.
Do you want to re-read the motion, or do you want to hear Mr. Savage's?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I'm asking that we reread it. If I need to amend it, I'll do that afterwards. I'll announce an amendment immediately so that they don't announce something else.