Debates of Feb. 27th, 2008

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can all find selective quotations, I suppose, but I read out a battery of quotes from people, including the president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, who is very angry with regard to this budget.

I was more positive toward this budget than he was, because I said that at least the Conservatives did something in principle. They did a flip-flop on direct support for manufacturing, but the amount was so small that the manufacturers and the industrialists feel they have been totally abandoned by this government. That is the truth of the matter, whatever few selective quotes the hon. member might be able to find.

Clément Gignac, a well-known economist from the Banque Nationale in Montreal, noted that this is just one further shock away from deficit, so there is a well-known economist from Quebec who certainly backed up my statement that this budget brings us one SARS crisis away from going back into the red.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have come up with an interesting but really flaky amendment. I say flaky because “there is no there there”. It is hard for the Liberals right now, as I guess most of us appreciated Rick Mercer's video, which encapsulated where the Liberals are right now. They stood up, looked around and ran away.

This amendment shows that not only are they going to run away, but they are going to do it in a flaky way. They are going to say “if only the world was according to us, which by the way we have no opinion on”. By way of saying that, they are saying that this budget is really good but not good and they are going to stand up for it but run away from it.

The Liberals have come up with an amendment that has absolutely no substance other than finger pointing. We have to ask the Liberals and the member for Markham—Unionville why, if they are so concerned about the fiscal framework of this country, they would not put an amendment forward that actually had substance.

Finally, if the Liberals are going to continue to do this kind of flaky thing, will they please just tell Canadians that they are not interested in being in opposition and get on with the job of getting out of the way?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are not interested in opposition except for the very short term. We are interested in forming the government. It is the NDP that at best is confined to permanent third party status in the opposition.

There are a couple of reasons why nobody in his right mind would take the NDP seriously on anything to do with budgets. First, thanks to the NDP vote on the budget some time ago, those members managed to kill child care, kill Kelowna and elect a Conservative government.

The second reason why NDP members do not deserve any notice whatsoever on matters budgetary is that they do not understand anything about economics. They criticize us for wanting lower corporate taxes. However, let me tell members that if there were ever an NDP government in Canada, which there never will be, corporate taxes would be lower than anywhere else in the world because all the corporations would leave. They would pay no taxes in Canada.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for an excellent presentation and analysis on the budget.

I would like the hon. member to explain to us why it is that the Conservatives have been attacking the Liberals on debt. The fact is that Mulroney was in power in good economic times, but during those good economic times the Conservatives quadrupled the debt and could not balance the budget. Why could they not balance the budget in good economic times?

We have seen history repeat itself with the current finance minister. In 2006 he had a visionless budget and huge spending. Despite the fact that there was a surplus of $17 billion, he saw a necessity to cut social spending by $1 billion. It was a meanspirited and overtly ideological budget. Budget 2007 was an inflationary budget.

As for the NDP, I am sure my colleague's amendment irks the NDP because, as he rightly stated, the NDP members put the Conservatives in power by killing the Kelowna accord, Kyoto, et cetera.

Why do you think the Conservatives are so concerned about blaming us for deficits?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I want to remind the hon. member for Don Valley East to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Markham--Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. How can a party pretend that it is the party of surpluses when history shows so convincingly that that is incorrect? Some of my friends on the other side do not care about history, but history is important because it tends to repeat itself.

In addition to the points made in my speech, I would just respond to my hon. friend by reminding the House that this tendency for Tory times to be tough times and for Tory times to be deficit times did not begin with Brian Mulroney.

Let us ask the question. Before the current Prime Minister was the lucky inheritor of large Liberal surpluses, how far back in Canadian history do we have to go to find a Conservative government and prime minister that actually managed to balance the books, even for one year? We have to go back to the year the Titanic sank, 1912, to Sir Robert Borden. All of those post-1912 Conservative prime ministers ran nothing but deficits until the current incumbent inherited Liberal surpluses.

Those members seem to be unacquainted with our history. I consider it an honour or a privilege or perhaps at least a useful function to acquaint them with the fiscal history of our country.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may have only enough time for a comment.

I have been listening to my colleagues opposite, and it seems that they have forgotten entire eras, particularly the era of the Mulroney government and his minister of finance, Mr. Wilson. When they came to power, they had to borrow money to pay for the bare necessities because of the Liberals.

Fortunately for us, the Conservatives implemented two measures: the GST and free trade. Those two measures enabled Canada to eliminate the deficit. Unfortunately, the Liberals accumulated their surpluses by cutting health and education transfers. A hospital in Armagh is still closed because of the federal government's vicious cuts to provincial transfer payments. I am also thinking of sudden retirements. The former Liberal government's unpredictable cuts caught the provinces off guard.

Now, we have a responsible government that has resumed transfer payments to eliminate the fiscal imbalance and has also given tax breaks. My question for my colleague is this: why not support such a well-balanced budget?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville has 30 seconds.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds is not enough time to correct that account of the Mulroney period. Mulroney presided over two majority governments. He had no excuse for ending his two majority terms in office with a $42 billion deficit. When the Liberals took over from Mr. Mulroney, who was in power for eight years, they had to take care of the deficit they inherited. He had no excuse for accumulating such a huge deficit in his eight years in office.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in responding to the budget speech, I would have liked to be able to say that the government had listened to what we said. The Bloc members held consultations that took us to all parts of Quebec, where we met with unions, employers, municipal groups, individuals and community representatives. What we called for in the budget represented the consensus in Quebec.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not listen to that consensus, especially on the issue of using the current surplus for the budget. The government decided to continue taking a purely ideological approach and use more than $10 billion to pay down the debt, even though money was urgently needed for the manufacturing and forestry industries and to deal with issues such as equity for seniors, social housing and many other short-term emergencies. The Conservatives decided not to act on these issues.

The Bloc Québécois has therefore decided not to vote in favour of this budget. The leader of the Bloc Québécois was clear about this yesterday. However, our consolation is that our position reflects the consensus in Quebec.

This morning, in La Presse, Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, had this to say about the Conservatives and the Minister of Finance:

The choices he made do not reflect Quebec's priorities.

...

I am disappointed, because he had a $20 billion margin at a time when we are in the midst of an economic slowdown. We would have expected a greater effort to help older workers and the forestry and manufacturing industries in Quebec.

For his part, the leader of the ADQ, Mr. Dumont, who recently referred to himself as a friend of the current Prime Minister, had this to say:

The aid for economic sectors like forestry and manufacturing is not enough. I expected more.

He also said:

Post-secondary education still has not been dealt with. On the issue of the fiscal imbalance, there is a fly in the ointment, despite what Jean Charest thinks. Quebec needs another $1 billion for education.

The leader of the Parti québécois, the sovereignist party in Quebec, has also taken a position. Sovereignists have long understood that the two-government system was not a system for the future for Quebec. We have to go and get the money that we would otherwise have had if we collected all the taxes we were responsible for. So sovereignty would be the best solution for Quebec. Ms. Marois said that the federal budget neglects Quebec. She said that the document presented by Ottawa on Tuesday contained measures that primarily favoured the energy sector in western Canada, where the highest economic growth rates have been seen. She criticized the failure to provide measures for workers, for the forestry and manufacturing sectors and for post-secondary education.

So when the Bloc members rise in this House to say that the budget the Conservatives have introduced in no way meets the expectations of Quebeckers, that is not just the position of the Bloc members, it is not just the position of our sympathizers and people who support us, it is the position of all parties in the National Assembly of Quebec. The three parties represented in the National Assembly of Quebec—the party in government, the official opposition and the third party—are all saying the same thing: this is a budget that was written for Ontario and the West, that was written to allow for nuclear power production to be started back up. Unbelievable!

The decision was made to target economic development efforts to the auto industry, which is located almost exclusively in Ontario, and none of the same benefits were given to other manufacturing industries and the forestry industry, which has been hard hit by the crisis.

Very recently, in my riding, in Saint-Pamphile, the Maibec company closed down. It was a very well managed business, which cut American lumber and had good market penetration. Now it is just about finished, because this government has not been persuaded to put positive measures in place to assist Quebec.

One of the things that the Bloc Québécois has called for, all of which are just as relevant today, is a fund to establish Technology Partnerships Canada. What has the answer been? A fund for the auto industry in Ontario, but no identical fund for Quebec. The decision to eliminate that fund has been maintained, and the initiative and innovation we had hoped to see for our regions have been killed.

There were also calls for refundable contributions to businesses for buying new equipment totalling $1.5 billion, money that could have been taken out of the $10 billion surplus. Instead, we are going to pay down the debt. The ratio between Canada’s debt and its gross domestic product is already one of the best among the G-7 members. But in spite of that, no investment is being made where funds are needed to give our businesses a chance to be competitive.

I will say it and keep saying it: this is not a question of subsidizing business, it is a question of giving them a chance to get the equipment that they need in order to be competitive, to get contracts and to provide products that will find buyers and that will get market share. These kinds of measures have not been proposed. Instead, they have decided to put that money into paying down the debt. They have decided to reduce Canada’s debt, and therefore thousands of jobs will continue to disappear. Already, 150,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector have been lost in the last five years.

Already at the time of the Economic Statement last fall, we were telling the minister about the reality out there. However he already had his rose-coloured glasses firmly in place and was saying that things were going very well and growth would be over 3%. Yesterday, he was forced to say that the growth rate would fall to 1.8%, and he was not even sure about that. While growth declines, he goes on behaving a bit like the government in power before the great depression.

Not many people in the House will remember personally, but history tells us that, before 1930, the government in power in the United States tried to spend as little as possible and limit its outlays in order to pay off the debt as soon as possible. The country sank deeper and deeper into the depression at a time when they should have been taking measures like those introduced later by Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was his New Deal that turned the economy around.

We should learn from history. We should be able to understand things like that. There is a $10 billion surplus this year. Even if another $3 billion were spent on paying down the debt, enough would be left to provide the necessary assistance and still have a balanced budget. We would not have this artificial situation the government is creating. It is paying down the debt this year while not entirely sure that there will be a surplus at all next year. If it decided instead to invest this year, it would have a lot more revenues in the years to come.

The Bloc’s position is also Quebec’s position. It is Quebec’s position in regard not only to the manufacturing and forestry sectors but also to how we treat the most disadvantaged people in society.

As we know, a terrible injustice was done in regard to the guaranteed income supplement. For years, the federal government deliberately saw to it that as few older people as possible got the guaranteed income supplement because those who were eligible were not automatically registered. There were 280,000 older people in Canada who were not registered, including 70,000 in Quebec. A huge amount of pressure was applied, especially by a former Bloc member, Mr. Gagnon. He worked tremendously hard to reduce this number.

The legislation is designed in such a way that when money is owed to older people under the guaranteed income supplement program, the maximum retroactive period is 11 months, but when a taxpayer has problems, the tax authorities can go back forever and collect money that was owing from the last four, five or ten years. When money is owed to older people, there is no full retroactivity. In our view, the Conservative government should have fixed this injustice.

These are the kinds of choices that figure among Quebec’s values. We clearly want to share the wealth. Instead, we are treated to what seems a rather squalid gesture on the part of the Conservative government.

In yesterday's budget, older people, people aged 66 or 70 or 72 or 74, were told that if they wanted a bit more money so they could make ends meet, they could go to work and earn up to $3,500 a year, and the money would not be applied against their guaranteed income supplement. Think about it a minute: in a village in my riding, or in a neighbourhood in Montreal, having to tell people who are 68 or 70 or 72 years old and who have worked all their lives, or a retired senior couple, that they are going to have to go out and earn extra money. Obviously, these people will not be earning high wages and they could be taken advantage of. They will have to go out and try to get jobs. This is a completely unrealistic approach.

And yet the federal government had ample resources to fix this injustice, by paying the guaranteed income supplement retroactively and increasing the amounts so that these people could get just above the poverty line. That would have provided them with the minimum income to be able to meet their basic needs.

In Quebec, in Canada and in our society, one of the richest societies on the planet, it is absolutely unacceptable that we do not give our seniors this kind of treatment.

That is what the Bloc Québécois would have hoped for, and what it will continue to stand up for until it wins and these seniors can get respect in this society. They have certainly earned it: they have worked all their lives. And this is something we will have to win, at the end of the day.

The Bloc made its positions very clear in advance. We said that if the government did not listen to us, we were prepared to vote against the budget and go to the polls. We are still ready; there is no problem.

We hope that justice will be done for our industries, our older workers and our senior citizens, as quickly as possible.

Let us talk about older workers, for example. Do you know how much it cost so that these workers, who are 56 or 58 years old and who cannot find jobs despite their best efforts, could have some support while waiting for their old age pension? It cost $60 million a year. During that time, this year, $10 billion is being put toward the debt. But we are unable to provide fair treatment for people who have worked 25 or 30 or 35 years in a company, and who have paid taxes and employment insurance premiums.

The Conservatives are following the same reasoning when it comes to both older workers and senior citizens, in terms of the guaranteed income supplement: they are trying as hard as they can to create a cheap labour pool, people who will work for nothing. Because if you are 58 years old and you have found nothing, and ultimately you are receiving social assistance, then you are going to be tempted to work under the table to make ends meet.

This is the government’s responsibility. If a society is capable of creating wealth and handing out very large tax cuts to business, tax cuts that will total huge amounts of money in the next few years, that is fine. If we are able to do that, we should be able to make sure that we are treating these people fairly.

The Bloc Québécois takes a responsible approach to this issue. It recommended partial payment of the debt and measures to use this year’s surplus, and it made proposals that would still have provided for a balanced budget next year. The federal government did not honour that wish.

There are reasons why, unfortunately, we are faced with the current situation. One of those reasons is that the Liberal Party has been unable to define its position, the position of the official opposition, and to make demands to force the government to act. On the contrary, today, the Liberals introduced some kind of an amendment. So, even though they claim that the budget is uninspiring, they will not take their responsibilities and they are going to let the government continue to do as it pleases.

Today, a federal Liberal or Conservative candidate in Quebec must feel very much alone and terribly lonely. The position of the Liberal Party of Canada and that of the Conservative Party are identical, in that they are irresponsible in light of Quebec's needs. Quebeckers will remember that, and they will make those parties pay the price at the next general election. Indeed, we absolutely cannot accept that elected members, who said they would look after Quebec's interests, come in this House and suddenly agree to support a budget that does not meet Quebec's needs in any way.

If Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec will not listen to Bloc members, then they should listen to what the Quebec Liberal Party's minister of Finance said in Quebec City, or to what the leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, Mario Dumont, who is a friend of the Conservatives, also said yesterday. They should listen to all the opinions that have been voiced. The Quebec federation of chambers of commerce said that, as regards the manufacturing sector, this budget makes no sense, that it is unacceptable. The whole union movement, which is a significant force in Quebec, also said that it is imperative the federal government realize that it has the means to take action, and that, in this budget, it has really made its economic decisions with only the energy sector in mind.

Take a look at the budget papers. There is a nice table showing the link between the increase in the value of the dollar, and the increase in the value of oil. Next to it, another table shows the impact on the manufacturing sector. It is quite clear. This is what we are confronted with: On the one hand, the dollar is going up, because oil prices are increasing, while on the other hand the manufacturing sector is slowing down, because we are not as competitive. We have nothing against the economy being in good shape, against energy prices that are acceptable, but we must ensure that there is a redistribution to help spread and generate wealth.

It is the government’s responsibility. This is a Quebec value that the Conservatives, unfortunately, do not seem to share and are not capable of supporting.

Our responsible position on the budget is based on broad consultations. We announced it very clearly yesterday and reiterated it today in question period.

To conclude, I want to make one last point before introducing an amendment to the amendment. The government still has time to change course. It has until March 31, 2008 to do what it did with the $1 billion trust.

We all remember the Prime Minister saying that the billion dollars would only be available if the budget was passed in full. There was such an outcry in Quebec because this did not make any sense that we succeeded in forcing the Prime Minister to change course. He agreed to separate the billion dollars from the passage of the budget. The billion dollars are therefore available.

This shows that it is quite possible to do things without tying them to the passage of the budget. It was possible before the budget was tabled and will still be possible for this year’s surpluses until March 31.

I hope the Prime Minister will listen to the consensus in Quebec. There is still a consensus on the family trust issue. All three parties in the National Assembly agree. The labour unions and employers associations in Quebec all agree, as do the various social strata. There is a consensus in all parts of Quebec, where people want senior citizens treated fairly again, a decent future for our regions, and all parts of Quebec occupied through our forestry and manufacturing sectors. This is the consensus that the Bloc members champion in the House. It is why we will vote against the budget and introduce an amendment to the amendment.

With the support of the hon. member for Montcalm, I move the following amendment to the amendment:

That all the words after the word “contains” be replaced by the following:

“initiatives that do not meet the expectations of Quebeckers who have asked that the current year’s surpluses be used to help workers and industries in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are facing a serious crisis in Quebec, to help seniors living below the poverty line and help individuals improve the energy efficiency of their homes, calls on the government to implement these measures before the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2008, and deplores that this Budget ignores the fiscal imbalance by not transferring $3.5 billion to Quebec and the provinces for post-secondary education and by not eliminating federal spending power.”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The amendment to the amendment is in order. The debate is now on the amendment to the amendment.

The hon. member for Lévis-Bellechasse has the floor, for questions or comments.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the arguments presented by the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, and I also listened to him when he quoted the Prime Ministerand the leader of the official opposition from Quebec. I wish to remind him that these two leaders also said that the Bloc Québécois had yet to produce any concrete result in the House of Commons.

In his arguments, the member used the term “ignoble” in French, or despicable. Could he tell me what he finds despicable?

For example, we on this side of the House proposed a tax relief of $140 billion for families and seniors. In fact, 70% of the tax breaks provided by the Conservative government are for families and seniors.

So, what is despicable? It is to vote against this measure, or to support it, as we, on this side of the House, are doing?

The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup also talked at length about the manufacturing sector. It goes without saying that the manufacturing sector plays a key role in my riding, and some companies are leaders. Everyone is very proud of that and, indeed, these companies make Quebeckers proud. However, now they need to invest, and they need a government that is going to create an environment that will allow them to become world class businesses.

So, what is despicable? Is it to remain sitting on one's hands when the time comes to lower taxes, when the time comes to provide an accelerated capital cost allowance to help these companies invest in their equipment? Let us take a look at what we, on this side of the House, are doing with the measures that were proposed yesterday. There is still time for the hon. member to change his mind. We are investing $1 billion to allow companies to benefit from the accelerated capital cost allowance, in addition to earmarking $440 million for innovation.

I could go on and on, but I think there is one initiative that will be of particular interest to the hon. member. I am asking him to reconsider his position. There is still time for him to change his mind. We are creating an independent body to oversee the employment insurance account. Does the hon. member support the establishment of an independent body to manage workers' money—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, because it really is a question about employment insurance. It is the Bloc Québécois that put the issue of an independent fund on the agenda. We asked for such a fund for many years, but what we did not ask for, and what the Conservatives are currently doing, is to make it legal to steal $54 billion that has been paid by unemployed people, employers and workers. The $54 billion that—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You did nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague while he asked his question and I would ask him to listen to my response.

The government has decided to keep the $54 billion for itself and use it to pay down Canada's deficit, use that money to pay down the deficit. The only people who saw no return on their investment were the unemployed workers, the seasonal workers in your riding, people from Bellechasse, from my riding and from across Canada, who earn modest salaries and who have never been given their fair share.

It is as if the government had taken $500 from them and was asking them now if they are happy to be getting $25 back. No, they are not happy. They will stand their ground and, eventually, the money will successfully be returned to the workers, those who paid into the fund and the unemployed who sacrificed to have insurance.

I will wrap up quickly. Speaking of despicable things, it is despicable that the Conservative government requires people who are 68, 70 or 72 years old and who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement to earn an income of $3,000, instead of giving them the monthly $100 they deserve after having been on the labour market for 30 years of their lives. That is what is despicable.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party recognize that the budget follows the mini-budget in November. That is when the real errors of the government took place in making such extreme cuts to the tax regime on which the government operates. Now we are faced with a future of fiscal uncertainty in the country.

Does my hon. colleague not agree with me that there really is no way to fix this other than to move on to an election and replace the government? We could possibly get some changes in the House of Commons and we could restore the required tax regime to run the country in a proper fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wished we did not have to go to the polls to convince people of the need to apply the current year surplus to revitalizing the economy and ensure there is enough money left next year for wealth to be distributed. That is the mistake the Conservatives are making in this year's budget. They are obsessed with debt reduction. They are like the homeowner bent on paying off his mortgage within five years who is failing in the meantime to ensure that his kids get a proper education.

To allow people to compete and our children to get a good education, we would have liked money to be put back into post-secondary education. There has been a fiscal imbalance in that area since 1994-95, which was never fixed. We have to invest in the future and in innovation instead of putting $10 billion toward the debt, which we are already reducing at a very acceptable rate.

This kind of ideological choice does not meet in any way the needs of Quebec, nor those of Canada for that matter. Society has to be sufficiently productive and our fellow citizens have to be well trained in order to support their families in the future.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the budget was analysed by everyone—the various political parties, analysts and journalists. This morning I was reading an article by a journalist who stated that the budget document confirms the philosophical, if not ideological, shift imposed on the federal administration by the Conservatives since last October's economic statement. That is also the case with this budget.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague who, as the critic, is well acquainted with this file and has demonstrated much more insight in his analysis of the budget. Why is it that for years certain segments of the population were left out in the cold by the Liberals? They made cuts in all areas—in the social safety net and in Canadian social transfers. This is being repeated, although they are going about it in a slightly more subtle way.

Why was this budget not well received by the various political leaders in Quebec? I would like my colleague to explain to those listening today why certain groups have been completely ignored by this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point of view is a very interesting one. Indeed, it is quite surprising to see the Liberal Party join the government by supporting this budget. This whole charade, this dilly-dallying shows that the Liberals really think like the Conservatives regarding this budget. It is somewhat like the issue of Afghanistan. Originally, they felt that Canada had to leave by 2009; now, they are agreeing to our leaving in 2011, and they may eventually agree on an even later date.

The real solution to this issue for Quebeckers will come when we are able to make our own decisions alone, with our own taxes and with full control over our participation in international agreements or assistance projects.That is what we call sovereignty.

We will then be able to make choices that are different. Canada will also be able to make its own choices. It may decide to make war wherever it wants. As for Quebec, it will be able to make different choices, if it deems appropriate to do so. It will no longer be forced to come here to beg for money that comes from its own taxes, and that is spent based on a Canada-wide vision of the economy, a vision that is not the same as that of Quebec. We must first leave that structure, and then we will become two neighbours living side by side.

Quebec will, at last, have all the tools to make its own decisions. It will no longer have to convince the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, or any government formed by these parties, of anything. We will be able to make our own decisions, since we will have all the powers, and we will also assume full responsibility for those decisions. This will allow us to ensure the future of America's only French community.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Election financing.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I intend to share my time with my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park.

It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to illustrating a point. For the people listening to us today, I would say that they are going to find a picture that is worth a thousand words, when it comes to the intentions of the extreme right-wing Conservative Party government, when they read Table 5.4 in the budget. It is on page 217 of the French version, and is accessible on line. For people who prefer, the same table appears on page 201 of the English version. It is worth taking a look at. It offers a perfect illustration of the gulf that separates the New Democratic Party from the ideology-driven government we see in the present Conservative government.

Let us look at what is in front of us. Here we are in February 2008. So next month, at the end of March, we will be finishing what is called the 2007-08 fiscal year. We are presented with all sources of revenue, of budgetary revenues. For personal income tax—tax paid by people, by individuals—the figure for 2007-08 is $112 billion. Two years from now, for the 2009-10 fiscal year, it will be up to $125 billion, which is a 12% increase. On the next line, we see corporate income tax—tax paid by corporations, by companies, here in Canada. For the same period, we see $42 billion today, but that goes down to $36 billion for 2009-10—a 14% reduction.

That shows, and how well it shows, the difference between the Conservatives and our party, because this little present that the Conservatives are handing to the most profitable corporations will be paid for by families in Quebec and Canada. That is the simple reality of it.

A budget is a reflection of a series of choices. The choices the Conservatives have made are summed up extraordinarily well in what I have just quoted.

What has happened in the last year for us to get to this point? It is not complicated. This fall, the Conservatives, with their usual fanfare, announced that they had found the solution to the hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. They were going to give out $14 billion in tax cuts. Well, there is one little problem for our Conservative friends, who make themselves out to be big experts on the economy. Most of these corporations did not make a profit last year, for the simple, good reason that after the government put all its eggs in the oil sands basket, the loonie soared to heights never before seen, making it increasingly difficult to export forestry products and manufactured products. The more the Canadian dollar is worth, the harder it obviously is to export.

So where have these so-called tax reductions to help the manufacturing sector and forestry industry companies gone? They have all gone to the most profitable sector: the big oil companies, the most polluting companies—the biggest polluters—and the banks, which are already making stupendous profits.

Indeed, the Conservative government is completely unable to stand up to the banks and to demand reasonable interest rates for credit cards or the end of customer abuse with automatic teller machines. The poor unfortunate Minister of Finance was seen begging the banks for a little relief in automatic teller machine fees. He was greeted with a sharp no and just left. He does not get it that he is the one giving the orders, not the banks. But if you are a Conservative government, receiving orders from the banks is something you accept.

This is also the matter of equity between generations. The 350,000 jobs—yes, you heard me right—the 350,000 well-paid jobs which vanished from the manufacturing sector in the past five years often had conditions of employment which were sufficient for a family to live a decent life. Those employees often had a pension plan with their jobs.

If you want an image—which people in Quebec will immediately understand—to better understand the change, just drive along the autoroute des Laurentides and take a look where, a while ago, there was a huge GM plant. Today, all you see there are shopping centres. You cannot raise a family selling clothing for $10 an hour. The problem is even more acute for future generations, for which a solution will have to be found sooner or later, since they obviously do not have any pension plan nor any other fringe benefit worthy of the name.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse holding forth a little while ago against what the Bloc had to say. I would like to take the unusual step of giving a colleague a bit of advice: he should update his CV. Speaking about sustainable development, there is a project that is very dear to him and that he supports and proposes: the Rabaska project for a methane terminal in Lévis. What is also very interesting is that his colleague from the Beauce thinks it is too dangerous to have methane tankers crossing between New Brunswick and Maine. He came out with some criticism of it during the summer. A study has been done on the safety of this, but no serious, in-depth studies have ever been done on the safety of the Rabaska project, a methane terminal located very close to the population centres of Lévis and Quebec City.

Last Saturday, the NDP introduced Denis L’Homme, a former associate deputy energy minister in Quebec at the Ministère des Ressources naturelles, who is highly respected in his field and among his peers. He could tell the temporary Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse a thing or two about sustainable development and what it means to think about the effect on future generations when decisions are made involving environmental, economic and social factors—something that the Conservatives seem singularly incapable of doing.

The headline in today’s Toronto Star was very telling.

It is worth drawing people's attention to a title in today's Toronto Star, that it is a show about nothing, “Devoid of big ideas beyond a tax-free savings account, [the minister's] low-key plan looks likely to keep the Tories in office”. The only reason it is going to keep the Tories in office is because the Liberals are going to keep them in office.

This is the supposed official opposition. It loves calling itself the government-in-waiting. It is going to wait a long time and it is going to wait to be replaced as the official opposition in the next election, and I will the House why. It is because it is the weakest opposition party ever to have sat in the House of Commons. It is an embarrassment. Many of the members who are going to be told to sit on their hands do not want to do it. This was once a party that had ideas. It no longer has.

Today, we are going to be looking at some amendments. One of the amendments has been put in place by the Liberals, which is obviously not something that seeks to gain a great deal of support. They do not want to bring the government down. They are terrified of an election.

I should say as well that the Bloc’s amendment to the amendment surprised me a little because there are several things on which they could have achieved a consensus if they had only wanted. It would have been easy to find things on which everyone could agree.

For them to finish by saying they want simply to eliminate the federal spending power without specifying the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction was a transparent attempt, in our view, to ensure that the consensus of the three opposition parties needed to defeat the government could never be achieved.

We in the NDP are not afraid of our ideas or of defending them. The New Democratic Party has proudly introduced ideas as important as free universal health insurance for all Canadians. We will continue to champion ideas like this. But when we see a budget that has nothing on health, housing and families and gives everything to big corporations, we know exactly what to do: we will stand and vote against it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Outremont. I would like to thank him for his interest in the wonderful riding of Lévis—Bellechasse which, to me, has to be the most beautiful in Canada.

With respect to the methane terminals, I would like to remind him that the largest organization of environment professionals in the country, namely RÉSEAU environnement, has recognized that establishing a methane terminal was consistent with a sustainable development strategy. That is something that can certainly be argued. At any rate, ideas need to be tossed around and a diversity of views is a good thing if we want to move forward and see our country become a leader in sustainable development.

I would like to come back to the budget. I have an interesting question for the member. This budget is providing for nearly $140 billion in tax relief for families and seniors. The member purports to stand for the working masses. How is it then that he does not support a budget designed to create a climate in which wealth can be better distributed? Indeed, we are allowing our manufacturers to expand by investing in equipment and basically fostering the emergence of companies across the country.

I would really like to hear him on that because, in Quebec, the economy is not doing too poorly. There have been 150,000 net new jobs created since our government took office. I would be curious to hear his views on the matter and I would like him to comment.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite something to hear the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse defend the methane port project as sustainable development. The proposal is absurd. The risks of this project are known. If the hon. member is interested, he should go to Boston and talk to the coast guard, as I have had the opportunity to do.

Let us come back to the second part of his intervention when he talked about sharing the wealth. I invite him to consult what I was referring to earlier to convince him. On page 201 of the budget plan, table 5.4, the distribution of wealth he is talking about consists of taking money out of the pockets of individuals and giving it to corporations that are making the highest profits in Canada. The biggest polluters will receive money from individuals. In the meantime, for affordable housing in Lévis and elsewhere, there is nothing. To hire new doctors to help provinces in their jurisdiction of health, there is nothing. There is nothing interesting in this budget for the people.

There is indeed something in the budget for the existing infrastructure plan, but much more is needed. The deficit is in the order of $123 billion. It has come to that because successive Conservative and Liberal governments ran such high deficits here that in order to get back on track they had to offload expenses to the provinces. Nonetheless, there is nothing magical about this. Infrastructure that is crumbling needs to be maintained in the long term. Even if responsibility is shifted from one party to another, in the final analysis the only thing that accomplishes is passing the buck from the federal to the provincial level, then to the municipal level and then to the property tax bill for individual homes and real estate.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 the New Democratic Party stopped the last corporate tax cut that was proposed by the Liberals at the time. Since then, corporations have done fairly well in Canada.

In that period, following the failure to cut corporate taxes, did we see a downturn in the economy? Did we see any corporations that were particularly hurting, or did we see many of them having record profits at that time?