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.