House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was surplus.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his fiery speech, on a subject he has been championing in the House of Commons since the Bloc Québécois first arrived here.

I have a question for the member. For a number of years now, we have been fighting the fiscal imbalance, which, in Quebec, affects health care, education and services to the most vulnerable members of our society. We have a problem with employment insurance. Workers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada pay into the employment insurance fund, then the federal government turns around and uses $50 billion of that fund's surplus while denying employment insurance to people who need it. For several years now, we have been asking for a program to help our older workers. So far, the government has only come up with very timid measures. Quebec adopted progressive measures to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but the federal government decided to cut its contribution by $238 million.

My question for the member is this: Can he explain why sovereignty is the only way to help Quebec—and perhaps even the rest of Canada—reach its full potential?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Before I answer, I would just like to say that there are budget measures we can be proud of, because we in the Bloc Québécois have worked for years to get a government to include them in its budget.

I hope that this time we will be successful The Bloc Québécois, and only the Bloc Québécois, has made 10 attempts. Year after year, we introduced the bill, and year after year, we were beaten by the Liberals, even those from Quebec. The Conservatives did not want anything to do with this measure, but we had the support of the NDP. But I think we are going to win the vote on our anti-scab bill. I hope so, and I pray every night that we will. We have been fighting for this for years. I think that when an initiative comes from the heart, if we do not give up, in the end, we will be rewarded.

My colleague is quite right. Quebec sovereignty would enable us to repatriate all our taxes and all the taxes we pay to this Parliament. The other political parties do not give any consideration to Quebec's real values and real interests or to the Quebec government's game plan for lessening the impact of international competition and resource depletion. All the resources put toward a single nation, the nation of Quebec—it is obvious.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the great alliance we have seen between the Conservatives and the Bloc. I would just like to know whether the alliance between the two parties is finally over? Will the marriage continue?

For I do not know how many years, we have seen the Bloc Québécois accomplish absolutely nothing in this country for Quebeckers as far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned. There were good negotiations with the current government to correct that. But now is the marriage over or it will continue?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member NDP member that they too supported the budget. This is somewhat strange, speaking of marriages.

Speaking of failed marriages and odd couples, I remind the hon. member that a little less than a year and a half ago, the NDP joined the corrupt Liberals. In the midst of the sponsorship scandal, they supported the Liberals and they supported their budgets, which included measures that were never fully implemented after the Conservatives won the last election.

The bill that they supported—I believe it was Bill C-48—was incredibly vague. The Liberal government did not even have to fulfill its promise. The NDP supported the corrupt government of the former Prime Minister on measures that did not include any commitment. They made a big deal about it during the last election campaign. And now, how many of them are here? Talk about credibility.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would just pick up on the last point the hon. member made. I would bring to his attention that every time the government stands up and brags about money it is putting into anything that is socially progressive, that is money that came from Bill C-48, the NDP budget.

What I want to know is why the Bloc did not take the opportunity to see if we could make further amendments that would advance the very issues the member says are the key priorities for the Bloc, rather than just playing this game that as long as they are okay, they will not worry about everything else.

If we work together, we have more votes than they do. Why did the Bloc not take the opportunity to do what the NDP did, and that is amend a bad budget and bring in good things that benefit the people of Quebec and Canada?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me why. I will tell him that it is because we do not sell our services to the highest bidder. That is why.

When that budget was adopted, we were in the midst of the biggest scandal ever seen in federalism, the sponsorship scandal. We had just learned more about the fact that all federalist parties in this House, namely the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, had participated in the plot to steal the 1995 referendum. They closed their eyes on cost overruns and they denied democracy by trampling on all the rules that Quebec had set, so that in the end the Yes and No sides were neck and neck.

Everyone got on the buses—New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives—to come to Montreal and participate in the love-in. They all participated in that denial of democracy. That is why we would not have made a pact with the devil. If the New Democrats want to do it, fine, but we have stronger convictions, more heart and we know better.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, may I ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, please?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina have the unanimous consent of the House to split her time?

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the success of a nation is judged by how we treat our children. The success of a budget is really dependent on whether we invest in children.

The hon. members opposite talked about scandals. Let me tell them that it is scandalous when we have a country as rich as Canada and we have 1.2 million children living in poverty at a time when we have a surplus of almost $20 billion. We have children living in Canada who are going to bed hungry. That is a true scandal.

It is scandalous that we have parties here that are willing to support the budget. I understand why the Conservative government would support its own budget, but I do not understand why any other party in the House would support this kind of scandalous behaviour in a budget that treats our children in such a way.

It is a deliberate choice when we have a surplus but we do not invest in child care. It is a deliberate choice when we do not invest in affordable housing. It is a deliberate choice when we do not put more money into the child tax benefit so families will get more money and parents will not have to worry about having to pay the rent or feed their kids.

Today is child care appreciation day. The people who take care of our children earn very low incomes. They spend all day making sure that our kids are raised in a way that is healthy and productive. While we appreciate them, these workers are underpaid because we do not invest in child care.

This is a time when the government actually subsidizes the oil and gas industry to the tune of $1.5 billion. How could the government make such a choice? It is scandalous. Those dollars, whether it is $1.5 billion or the $20 billion surplus, really should be used to train young people so they can learn a skill, so that they will have employment, so that they could retrofit homes. By retrofitting homes and making them green, Canadians would save on their energy bills. By making them green, Canadians would have renovated houses and we would actually get less greenhouse gas pollution.

Because we have money, we can also increase the guaranteed income supplement so that the poorest seniors can live in dignity. The guaranteed income supplement, which supplements pensions and old age security, had not been increased for at least 12 years until last year, when there was a very small increase.

Unfortunately, a lot of seniors are isolated in their homes. They do not have the money to buy a transit pass to visit their friends or go to the library. I know that some of them do not even have enough money to pay the electricity bill because it is so expensive. These seniors live in our midst when Canada is awash with money, yet we subsidize and have more corporate tax cuts.

A few minutes ago I stood outside Parliament Hill, joining many refugees who are suffering in this country. Many poor and cold young children and their families were outside. These refugees have escaped persecution and seek refuge here. Many of these women have faced persecution and, in many cases, domestic violence.

They are all refugees. They have a heavy burden. They are poor. They have no resources. They are seeking the opportunity for a better life in Canada, yet they face the ultimate indignity. They are punished and penalized with refugee fees. That is a terrible burden. I believe the Liberals introduced these fees with the excuse that they were trying to balance the budget. It was a lame excuse for a terrible burden which amounts to a modern-day head tax.

Now the Conservatives are blindly continuing that with these fees. These fees are causing great suffering. They are causing despair because some families just cannot afford to pay them. The fees are driving some of the families underground. They are driving them to hunger. They are keeping people from making a contribution and building better lives. Really, these fees are a head tax, a tax on the most vulnerable and on those who cannot afford to pay them.

The government has a pattern of giving the most to those who need the least. It also has a habit of giving the least to those who need the most. We have seen it as--

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 19, 2006, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #48

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

The question is on the amendment.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the amendment presently before the House, with Conservative members present voting in favour.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the amendment.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote against this motion.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote in favour of the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #49

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?