Debates of Nov. 28th, 2008

Economic and Fiscal Statement

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in debate today on the fall economic fiscal update. My comments will be fairly narrowly focused. I think some of my other colleagues have addressed and will address the broader issue of the economic stimulus that our government has taken in the past year and also address red herrings that members of the opposition have raised in respect to the sale of assets.

The finance minister has been very clear that there will not be any fire sale of the assets belonging to the Canadian public. However, as we know, the opposition today is more concerned about protecting their own privileges in respect of their financing of political parties rather than engaging in any meaningful debate, so they are bringing up these various red herrings.

Millions of Canadians are aware that we are entering difficult times. There is a deep sense of concern across the country about the economy and as a result, Canadians are making hard decisions to ensure they are ready for the future.

Yesterday we heard the Minister of Finance tell Canadians that we would take concrete action to ensure responsible fiscal management and effective government. As part of our commitment to employees and to taxpayers, I look forward to legislation that will ensure equitable compensation in the public service. This will bring long overdue reform to our complaint-based pay equity regime, which has proven to be a lengthy, costly and adversarial process, a process that does not serve employees or the employer well.

We are fortunate in our country. We have one of the most dedicated and professional public services in the world. The federal public service is one of the best places to work for men and for women, with competitive salaries and a full range of family-friendly benefits. It is worth noting that in 1983 fewer than 5% of women were in senior management positions. Today women make up 41% of the senior and executive ranks of the federal public service.

Our government is proud to be leading the way when it comes to recruitment and compensation of employees. The time is right to put in place a more modern approach to ensuring fair wages for all employees.

We need to take action to put an end to the long and drawn out court cases of the past. Many Canadians would be surprised to know that the last court ruling on pay equity was in 1999, at a cost of $3.2 billion to taxpayers, a settlement that took a gruelling 15 years to achieve.

Before I continue any further, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague.

Public service employees deserve better. Taxpayers deserve better. Next week our government will put a better, more modern system into place to ensure equitable compensation.

First, our approach will be proactive. Employers will be required to proactively ensure wages are fair and equitable.

Second, it will be timely. Issues will be resolved as they arise within the collective bargaining process instead of through lengthy legal proceedings. I should point out that this is a natural extension of the employer's duty to bargain in good faith and the union's duty of fair representation to all of its members. It will be fair. All employees will have full recourse to address any complaints.

Last, it will be collaborative. Employers and bargaining agents will be jointly accountable for ensuring equitable compensation. This will now become an integral part of collective bargaining.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized recently collective bargaining as a fundamental human right. The government remains committed to that right. Given this decision, the collective bargaining process is the right mechanism to protect another fundamental right, the right of equal pay for work of equal value.

Pay equity legislation has been continually evolving since the first proactive legislation was introduced by my home province of Manitoba. It was followed by Ontario and Quebec. For interest sake, I note that the Ontario legislation was introduced by a Liberal government.

Our new federal model would improve upon these existing models while incorporating provisions that have worked well in those statutes.

This legislation is important and I encourage every member of the House to support it.

As I said a few moments ago, we need to replace the existing complaint-based regime with a process that responds to the needs of both employees and employers and which takes into account the realities of the Canadian labour market.

In fact, in 2004 a Liberal appointed task force concluded that proactive legislation, such as we are bringing in, as opposed to the complaints-driven legislation is more effective than the current complaint-based model. The task force recommended that Parliament enact new stand-alone, proactive pay equity legislation. Let me quote from the report of the task force:

Proactive, comprehensive pay equity legislation will create a level playing field. The current legislation has resulted in protracted and costly litigation for employers who are subject to a complaint.

We should all be encouraged by developments in the past two weeks. The Public Service Alliance of Canada, the country's biggest federal public sector union, has resolved two pay equity complaints through a negotiated settlement with our government. This was an outstanding complaint that arose over the last number of years before our government came into office.

The fact that we were able to come up with a negotiated settlement is another strong sign that it makes real sense to move forward with a more modern approach to equitable compensation.

Moving to an approach that is based on collaboration with bargaining agents rather than the current adversarial process would ensure pay equity issues are addressed as they arise and that problems are resolved quickly. Pay equity concerns would no longer be placed on the back burner.

Through the collective bargaining process, employers and unions would both be responsible for ensuring that wages are fair and pay equity compliant.

The legislation this government will table would give us a more modern and collaborative approach. It would replace the current system which is archaic, onerous and unfair to employees with a system that is modern, fair and responsive.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice for his support for this, knowing him as I do to be a fair and equitable man.

Supporting this legislation is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians expect. More important, it would continue to protect the legal principle of equal pay for work of equal value. It would ensure that women and men continue to benefit from quality working conditions in Canada's public service. Not only would it preserve the pay equity principle, but it would also create a more streamlined process so that women who were entitled to pay equity through the legislation would realize those gains in a timely fashion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board president closed down negotiations with the public service unions and took the wage discussions off the table and then proceeded to conclude contracts with the majority of those unions.

Given that there are long-term contracts in place now, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could explain so that my grandmother would understand why it would be necessary to suspend the right to strike which is part of the collective bargaining process which this place respects.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

As the member knows, when a collective agreement is achieved, as we have achieved with PSAC in this case for the four year period, that eliminates the right to strike and the right to arbitration. It is no longer necessary. That is a voluntarily achieved collective bargaining situation.

When a collective agreement is imposed, however, for those unions that decide that the 2.3%, 1.5%, 1.5%, and 1.5% is not reasonable, that settlement would be imposed. When it is imposed, at the same time it also has to have the corresponding action taken that no one can strike. It is that kind of circumstance that we need to specifically spell out for legislative purposes.

Obviously, this does not affect the PSAC agreement where PSAC has already voluntarily agreed to a collective agreement and the issue of strike or arbitration is no longer relevant.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the President of the Treasury Board explain the government's rationale for bringing in this draconian measure.

I listened carefully to the President of the Treasury Board. He used language such as “public servants deserve better”, “proactive”, “good faith” and “fairness”. What Canadians were looking for yesterday was the bringing together of people to deal with the economic crisis.

A perfect example of what we got instead is the elimination of the right to strike until 2011. It is incredible and incredulous that the government would bring this in at the same time as saying that it wanted to be fair.

I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board, if he is so concerned about fairness and equity, why bring in these draconian measures on the one hand while saying the government is trying to work together with public servants on the other? Does he not get that that is contradictory, that it is divide and rule?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find incredulous is that the member would look at a one day snapshot rather than look at a year of actions this government has taken in terms of stimulating this economy. We have brought in tax incentives that in fact increase our GDP by an effective 2%.

Now I notice that other socialist countries, for example Great Britain, are bringing in similar measures. They recognize that what the Canadian government did to stimulate the economy is working and they are now following suit.

In respect of the wage restraint that our government has been asking the unions to comply with and which we think members of Parliament should also comply with, we think that 2.3% is a reasonable wage settlement. At a time when there is so much economic uncertainty, where other workers are losing their jobs, I think that offer is fair. When public sector workers look at that offer, they will see that we have been reasonable. I believe the unions have recognized that as well.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that the throne speech passed Parliament last night, and today there was a unanimous motion for that result to be returned to the Governor General expressing confidence in the House.

Is the member aware that the House did in fact express confidence after the economic and fiscal update was presented by the government yesterday?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of that. I want to thank all members of the House, including the opposition, for expressing confidence in this government. It is very important as we go forward that we continue to work together with members of the opposition.

I note that there may be some technical concerns about the legislation that I am bringing forward. That is something we can discuss on a co-operative ongoing basis.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to debate the economic and fiscal update.

Canadians understand that there are certain sectors of the Canadian economy that have been more severely impacted than others by the global credit crisis, including the manufacturing sector in this country that has deep roots in the U.S. economic system.

The manufacturing sector is of great importance to our Canadian economy. Faced with global economic uncertainties, many industries are undergoing considerable transition as they respond to global pressures. The tightening of international credit, a slowing U.S. economy, volatility of energy prices, and the dollar: these are serious challenges with which industry is faced in this current economic climate.

Unlike the opposition which ignored the problem for the last three years, our government acted quickly to provide effective assistance to this sector. From the moment Canadians voted for change, we stepped up to the plate and demonstrated leadership to ensure that this country has the right business climate so that our industries can be more productive, more innovative and secure jobs for Canadians.

Everyone agrees the manufacturing sector has to become more modern, more efficient and more productive. Some of these adjustments will be difficult, but they are necessary for the long-term competitiveness of this sector and of Canada's economy.

The success of manufacturing in Canada will increasingly be determined by the ability of our industries to make adjustments in their production capabilities, to respond to and capitalize on new global realities, including the need to innovate, be more competitive and participate in global value chains. Today this message becomes ever more important.

This government has taken action to help. We are working to ensure that Canadian businesses affected by current circumstances have access to capital to help support their success.

We developed a plan to purchase $75 billion in insured mortgage pools by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, therefore freeing up much needed credit to help these manufacturers have access to finance.

Furthermore, we have increased the borrowing authority limit for the Business Development Bank of Canada from $9.7 billion to $11.5 billion, ensuring that the BDC has the necessary flexibility to assist small and medium size business in Canada.

By approving a $2 billion increase in Export Development Canada's borrowing authority, our government is ensuring that companies have access to the financing they need to continue to grow, innovate and take advantage of business opportunities in Canada and abroad.

I am very proud that the Minister of Finance announced yesterday in the economic and fiscal update that our government is providing EDC with an additional $350 million in capital to support up to about $1.5 billion in increased credit capacity for those most affected by the current financial crisis. EDC will now be able to add nearly $80 billion in exports and investments it helps to make possible for Canadian enterprises, including $4 billion for the auto sector alone.

We are also providing BDC with an additional $350 million in capital so that it can increase its credit capacity by about $1.5 billion for term lending activities, and a new time limited facility providing guarantees to financial institutions for their lines of credit for viable small and medium size businesses.

These are concrete and effective measures that will make a real impact on the manufacturing sector. They were applauded yesterday by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters which stated that the economic update “gave Canada's manufacturing and exporting sectors much needed oxygen and short-term breathing room”.

I am very disappointed that the opposition wants to vote against these important measures supported by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. It is typical of the opposition to put its own self-interests ahead of the interests of Canadian families, workers and business, but I cannot understand how it is that the opposition can disapprove of these measures which are so vital to our manufacturing sector.

It is important to note that these actions are part of a much larger series of measures that this government has taken since 2006, important measures that the opposition has consistently voted against. We acted much earlier, and for those industries and workers affected by the changing economic circumstances, we introduced the $1 billion community development trust to support our communities affected by economic difficulties.

We are assisting older workers in vulnerable communities through the targeted initiative for older workers, TIOW. For the TIOW, we have extended funding to a total of $160 million over five years.

We are working to provide over $9 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors. I repeat, that is $9 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors. I did not say banks and energy; I said $9 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors.

This includes broad-based tax reductions and increasing for three additional years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance on the investments in machinery and equipment. We have improved the scientific research and experimental development tax credit program.

Let me put this in context and emphasize the impact these measures are having on stimulating the Canadian economy. Actions taken by this government mean that in 2009 Canadians and Canadian businesses will pay $31 billion less in taxes as a result of the tax cuts we have introduced since 2006. That is just in 2009. Canadians will pay $31 billion less in taxes. That is equivalent to about 2% of Canada's GDP and it is permanent structural relief. It is not some flash in the pan, throw some money at it, see if it sticks, we do not know if it will work. That is what the opposition proposes. We propose permanent structural stimulus for the Canadian economy.

We have shown that working on sound economic management, tax relief and strategic investments will help the Canadian industry weather current economic uncertainties and remain competitive.

What the government will never do is write a blank cheque, as the opposition advocates. Canadians have grown tired of short-term and ineffective policies of the Liberals and others. Our government is working with the manufacturing sector to ensure the plan is in place that will ensure the innovation and long-term sustainability of the sector and at the same time provide value for money for hard earned taxpayers' dollars.

Our government continues to take action to create the conditions necessary for business success. Through the measures introduced in recent budgets, combined with the government's long-term economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, the government will deliver on its commitment to help companies in the communities in which they reside to both innovate and succeed.

Our actions will help all sectors of the economy, including manufacturing, the automotive and the forestry sectors. We will indeed take specific steps to respond to specific challenges in specific industries. By providing this long-term foundation, we will provide a stronger economy for all Canadians.

We must keep our eye on the future. Canada will weather this economic storm and we will come out stronger, more innovative, more competitive, and sooner than any other G-7 nation.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that despite all the bravado that was quite an entertaining piece of fiction nonetheless.

I want to say to the hon. member for Peterborough that I do not know how he can imagine to be strolling down the middle of Peterborough and talk to the people at the cafés, and try to justify what has been said about his particular speech. As far as I am concerned, the economy will recover but it will despite the Conservatives as opposed to with them.

I have a question for the member and it is very specific. I want him to answer specifically because we have yet to hear it. It is about the community trust fund which in my opinion does absolutely nothing for the workers of Grand Falls-Windsor whose mill is about to shut.

I do not expect him to answer that, but what I do expect him to answer is this. How is this fund going to help someone who has been laid off in the forestry? Do not stand in the House and start talking about something about the program itself and the older workers. Once again, specifically, if I am working in the forestry and I am laid off, how is this going to help me? As a matter of fact, with a mill that is about to close, how is it going to help the forestry industry because it does not? Can the member--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member parliamentary secretary.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I accept the challenge, Mr. Speaker. I would love to answer that question.

As a matter of fact, the community development trust fund, of course, as the member knows established agreements signed with all the provinces including Premier Danny Williams in Newfoundland. I hope that he looks at the community of Grand Falls-Windsor and determines that it deserves some portion of that community development trust fund which is very important money.

When it comes to forestry, our government stood four square behind forestry. We signed a new deal with the Americans and returned $5 billion to the forestry sector here in Canada.

I will tell the House what else we have done. We have brought in accelerated capital cost allowances to allow the forestry sector to innovate, so that they can get its technology up to speed so that it can compete. These were specific recommendations brought forward by the forestry sector. I note they were part of a unanimous recommendation by the industry committee chaired by the member for Edmonton—Leduc. We were proud to bring it in. Big measures for forestry. We did it.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that extremely funny, because for once, opinion about the Conservative government is unanimous, but not in a good way. Even the National Post, a conservative newspaper, says that the statement is completely absurd and that cutting political party funding is ridiculous. That is the National Post talking.

Ideology is one thing; idiocy is quite another. What is funny is that the government is accusing the opposition of partisanship, while it is being meanspirited. Cutting $27 million from the political parties is clearly an idea taken from the Reform Party. The problem is that the opposition and the people are unanimous: they are against the government. Everyone sees through the Conservative Party's tactic. I am even surprised the government actually believed everyone would buy this. How can a minority government think it can muzzle the opposition just like that?

Eliminating the $1.95 subsidy would take us back to the days of brown envelopes. Quebec understood this and acted accordingly. The proof is that the Prime Minister was guided by Quebec's Act to govern the financing of political parties, which he—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has one minute to respond.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty excited to get this question. I note that this is the only thing the opposition parties can possibly unite on, which is their entitlement to Canadian taxpayers’ dollars for their own political gain. There are--

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the hon. member call time just a moment ago. With all due respect, I did not realize we had another Speaker in the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are now calling time on debate instead of the Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the assistance from many members of the House. The questioner’s time had expired and it was time to go to a response. I made that decision myself.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I am not as senior as you, Mr. Speaker, in the House, but I would suggest that might have been debate.

Nonetheless, the only thing on which these parties can unite on is their entitlement to taxpayers’ dollars. I ask them to look into their hearts. Barack Obama specifically refused public dollars to his campaign. I ask all of them to look into their hearts and say whether they deserve that money or whether seniors, children, people on reduced income and people looking for affordable housing deserve it.

Who deserves the money? The opposition parties because they are entitled to their entitlement? They are entitled to that money? I do not think so. We do not give charities as much money as we give to political parties in this country. There are great incentives for people to donate to political parties. Go out and ask people for help. They will.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

As this is the first time I am giving a speech in this 40th Parliament, I want to thank all of the constituents of Mississauga South for electing me. This is the eighth general election that I have participated in. I have almost got it down. Elections are not my favourite. Campaigning is not my favourite. Serving the people is what most interests me. I think that there is a difference between being a politician and an elected representative, and I certainly prefer the latter.

I also would be remiss if I did not specifically thank my dear wife, Linda, and my family members who have over the past 15 years given me an extraordinary opportunity to pursue a career which I love very dearly.

It is a great honour to be a member of Parliament. I have a great deal of respect for this place and I have a great deal of respect for all the members here who were successful, and those who also ran but were not sufficiently appreciated. Our democracy is worth protecting. This is our system. This is the way it should work.

In the election, I made the promise to my constituents, and I want to share it with the House, to continue to work hard and to use my best judgment in a professional and responsible manner. That is the only promise that I made to my constituents, because if we conducted ourselves in this place in a professional and responsible manner, the public perception of our profession would increase enormously. We would be held in higher esteem. We need to work harder on this. I know it seems to have been lost, this idea of bringing more order and decorum, more professionalism, more responsibility, more maturity to this place, but we do have to work harder, even in the light of severe challenges that are facing our country.

Earlier this day, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance confirmed that thePrime Minister, during his year-end address last year, cautioned Canadians about the impending financial crisis. It has been known for a long time. Most of us would have received newsletters from investment houses reminding us about what happens when there are corrections in the market.

I thought it was interesting that the Prime Minister, despite the clear evidence, continued to say during the election that our banks are strong, that everything is going to be fine. Well, I understand politics and I understand that is what one says. But that same denial continues even today.

In the economic statement yesterday, there were budget forecasts which were looking at .3% growth in GDP in 2009-10, when virtually every private sector economic forecaster, the OECD, all had more pessimistic projections for that period. Why? Because it would allow them, by having more generous projections for the GDP growth rates, to show a minuscule surplus in the fiscal year in which we are currently in that ends next March, and a small deficit in the following year.

It is deceiving Canadians and I know it is because in the last Parliament we set up, under the accountability act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. That Parliamentary Budget Officer has access to all of the information from the finance department, everything that the finance minister has.

So, when I looked at the releases, et cetera, it was clear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said, sorry, but all of the fiscal problems that Canada is experiencing right now have nothing to do with the global economic crisis; they have to do with, and are solely as a consequence of, the actions of the Conservative government.

The erosion of the tax base, irresponsible spending and the raising of some $50 billion more in spending makes it the biggest spending government in the history of Canada.

That is how it has squandered a $12 billion surplus. It is also reflective of the fact that the Liberal government had a contingency reserve. It basically meant that once we got down to a $3 billion surplus, there was no more money to spend and it needed to be saved in the event that serious unanticipated issues beyond our control came up, such as SARS or BSE. That is why it was there. Otherwise it was going to pay down debt. If we do not pay down debt in the good times, we are not going to pay down debt when we are in an economic crisis.

It was clear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “My goodness, I do not know what the Prime Minister is talking about. We have the same numbers but I know that the economic projections are not as rosy as presented to the Canadian people” and indeed in the economic statement.

I have a copy of the ways and means motion to implement the provisions of the economic and fiscal statement tabled in Parliament. What is not in the motion? There is nothing on the provisions about dealing with the funding of political parties. They have taken it out.

[An hon. member]

It was never in there.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was never in this printed copy which is the first copy. The member says it was never in there. The fact is, it was in the speech yesterday. It is in the book. It was written about by all of the editorialists.

It is fascinating that the Conservatives put it in and now it has been taken out. Why has it been taken out? Because it has nothing to do with addressing the economic challenges that our country is facing. It was a political stunt.

We did not even talk about that yesterday. When we were in this place, when we asked questions and gave speeches, we were talking about the principal issue and that is that the economic statement and the commitments of the government basically said, “Do not even consider it. We are not having any economic stimulus until, at the earliest, the budget next year”. Why? Because the government wants to wait and see if people really need help.

Do we wait until people lose their jobs before providing an economic stimulus to save them? Is that the way it works? I am sorry. Every major industrialized country in the world facing the same challenges has brought forward immediately a significant economic stimulus package to protect jobs, to protect pensions, to protect the savings of its citizens and to give them hope. The government gave Canadians no hope yesterday. The government gave them no prospects of any relief whatsoever. They were told to fend for themselves, keep what they have and not to depend on the government, that the government has no role to play in the lives of people.

We know what is going to happen. We have been through economic downturns before. We know what happens when people lose their jobs and when interest rates skyrocket. We know what happens when inflation gets out of control. People lose jobs. There is a ripple effect on businesses, individuals, families, crime rates, health care costs and social program costs. Pick the subject matter. It is impacted by an economic downturn, by a crisis.

We have a crisis. The government is in denial. The government is delaying. It is deceiving Canadians. It is time to stand up and call it what it is. It is misleading, it is misinforming and it is doing a disservice to Canadians and to the country. Regardless of whether the Conservatives have wording on political funding in the economic statement, that was never the issue. We need to put the interests of the people ahead of political interests.

Mr. Speaker, we will oppose this economic statement.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the main themes that the Liberal Party keeps saying and that is that we have squandered the surplus that was there when we took office. I want the member of the Liberal Party to stand up and challenge any of the spending initiatives or any of the tax cuts that we have actually made, specifically the spending on infrastructure, the spending on research and development, the spending on post-secondary education in the last budget, the increased transfers to the provinces for health care and education, the taxes for small businesses, for all businesses, the child care plan. With respect to any spending initiatives that we put in place or any tax cuts we made for businesses, families or individuals across the country, what have we done that the Liberals would have opposed or would have reversed if they were on the government side of the House?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 15 years I have seen the cycles come and go. I also was part of a government that was called upon to provide peace, order, and good government. We were also called upon to provide responsible government, which meant that when we could afford to give tax cuts, we would give them, but not before.

There are a number of examples. The member asked for examples. Let me give him one, because I have time to give only one.

One was called pension income splitting for seniors. This was going to be a wonderful benefit for seniors. I understand that income splitting is important, but when we have limited dollars, they should be targeted to those most in need. However, if we take out all the seniors who do not have a partner and all the senior couples who are in the same tax bracket anyway, only 12% to 14% of seniors will benefit, and they will be those earning the highest incomes as seniors in Canada. They are not the ones who are most in need.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question quickly, in case the Conservative Party decides to close the House as well.

Today, the Conservatives are sacrificing democracy on the altar of partisanship. This is unacceptable. I would like the members opposite to explain why they thought they could trick everyone about the $1.95.