House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was finance.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.

I am happy to have the chance to take part in the debate on the prebudget consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance, especially since the Bloc Québécois held its own prebudget consultations in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and elsewhere in Quebec, to find out what Quebeckers' concerns are.

The Bloc Québécois supports the general thrust of the report. We issued a supplementary opinion indicating the initiatives the Bloc supports. The Bloc Québécois outlined its six budget conditions, which are only partially reflected in the Standing Committee on Finance report on the prebudget consultations.

I would like to use my time to talk about a number of concerns that were raised by organizations in my riding but ignored in the Standing Committee on Finance report and to describe the six conditions that must be met for the Bloc Québécois to support budget 2008.

In December, representatives of students, social and community groups, unions, self-employed workers and tourism associations met with my colleague, the finance critic and member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, to share the expectations of people in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and my riding, Chicoutimi-Le Fjord. One after another, the participants expressed their concerns and talked about what they wanted to see in the next federal budget.

The Bloc Québécois has conducted this exercise every year, organizing a tour of Quebec to consult with various groups and individuals with an interest in the budget. Participants indicate the measures they would like to see in the budget to improve the distribution of wealth and address Quebeckers' priorities.

The Standing Committee on Finance did not agree to recommend improvements to the employment insurance system in its report. At the meeting, participants raised problems with employment insurance several times. Many feel that the lack of improvements in the employment insurance program is completely unacceptable. The most pressing problems raised were the “black hole” or “spring gap” between the end of benefits and the start of work, the lack of assistance for small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed workers' eligibility for employment insurance.

The committee report ignores another issue raised at the meeting: post-secondary education. Representatives of the student associations at the Collège de Chicoutimi and the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi called for massive reinvestment in education. They condemn the underfunding of post-secondary institutions and suggest that the government invest a portion of the surplus in education.

My party deplores the fact that the committee rejected the Bloc Québécois' request to reinstate transfers to 1994–95 levels, indexed to inflation. The Bloc Québécois is calling for $3.5 billion for all of Canada to reinstate education funding levels. Unfortunately, the committee brushed this recommendation aside.

Another issue that came up during the consultation in Chicoutimi was the state of social programs. People talked about the rigidity of the federal bureaucracy, the short life of programs to subsidize organizations, and their precarious financial situation. Organizations deplored the fact that they are constantly involved in the search for funding, which prevents them from providing services on the ground to their clients.

The Bloc Québécois deplores the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance refused to recommend that the government increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits so that people over 65 who receive GIS benefits in addition to old age security pensions do not have to live below the poverty line.

During the meeting, representatives of the cultural sector decried the situation facing people who are self-employed. They also want the federal government to give more money to the Canada Council for the Arts and to help the arts, culture and museum sectors.

The Bloc Québécois deplores that no funding for culture was included in the report on pre-budget consultations. The federal government is disturbingly indifferent about this matter. The many cuts to the museums assistance program; the elimination of the public diplomacy program, which funded international cultural tours; and insufficient funding for film and television bring home this point. The Bloc Québécois urges the Conservative government to change course and reinstate programs for arts, culture and museum programs, as well as film and television production, for a total of $398 million.

Finally, representatives of the manufacturing and forestry sectors talked about what they wanted to see in the federal budget. The forestry sector wants more help from Ottawa. The government could do much more with its huge surplus. People raised the issue of redistribution of wealth and said that part of the surplus should be reinvested to help programs and small businesses.

Everyone agrees that more assistance is needed from Ottawa to revive the forestry industry. The Bloc Québécois suggests $1 billion for the forestry industry alone, and a fair share of the money for Quebec. It wants the money to be allocated based on Quebec's industrial weight in Canada, and not on population.

We must realize that close to 21,000 jobs have been lost in the forestry sector in Quebec since April 1, 2005, including nearly 4,000 jobs in my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. We know that in Quebec, the forestry industry is the primary employer in 230 communities and that in 130 of those, it represents 100% of the jobs. So it is important to ensure the viability of this industry.

I took a few minutes today to talk about the situation in my region. I mentioned some concerns raised by stakeholders during prebudget consultations held by the Bloc Québécois in Saguenay on December 11. The report of the Standing Committee on Finance is one step that we need to improve on. The Bloc Québécois came up with several recommendations after the consultations, but they were left out of the report by the Standing Committee on Finance.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of our six conditions for approving the 2008 budget. These conditions have to do with the forestry industry, the guaranteed income supplement, post-secondary education, social housing and the reinstatement of various programs involving the status of women, volunteering, the environment and culture.

We will support the Conservative government's 2008 budget provided that it meets these six conditions.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his excellent presentation. The Bloc Québécois member is very active in his region. It is unfortunate that there are not more Bloc Québécois members in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region.

There have been former Liberal and Conservative members, including Mr. Harvey, who toed the party line and did little for their region. A new member was just elected in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region to replace former MP Michel Gauthier. There is also the member for Jonquière—Alma, who is responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. They represent Quebec in this region.

In view of the $11 billion to $12 billion surplus and another surplus forecast for next year, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is unfortunately quite right when he says that the guaranteed income supplement for seniors is money that belongs to them.

In the matter of employment insurance reform, even though some workers—seasonal workers; those employed in the forestry, tourism, and fishing industries; all those who work in unstable, temporary, and on-call jobs such as replacing workers on vacation; as well as students who hold down jobs—are not eligible for benefits, the federal government makes them pay premiums pursuant to the Employment Insurance Act.

The employment insurance fund has a surplus. A POWA, or older worker adjustment program, should be established with the employment insurance fund surplus in order to help all workers over 50 who have lost their jobs, particularly in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

My question is for the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. The government does not have to wait for the next budget. In view of the budget surplus, and if there is the will to return the money belonging to Quebec, could it not take concrete action immediately and demonstrate its good faith?

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Indeed, when we have a surplus as large as that in the last budget, we can invest in various programs like the guaranteed income supplement and POWA.

In his speech, he mentioned two members from my region, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean: the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, the forestry critic, and the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma.

What surprises me about those two members is their statement to the public. They said that when one is a member of a federal party like the Conservative Party, one must often go against the needs of one's region and take more of a Canada-wide approach. There is a problem with this.

In my opinion, when the citizens of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Jonquière—Alma elected those two Conservative representatives, they lost their voices here in the House.

Furthermore, they clearly have representatives that are forced to go home and explain the decisions made in Ottawa. They have to go to their ridings to explain their decisions, rather than the other way around. There is a problem when Conservative members come to a region like mine to fight against the region's needs.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate, especially as it affects my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, in particular. Since 2005, some 2,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. We are talking about almost 1,000 jobs at Goodyear Valleyfield.

What is more, recently, the last steer slaughterhouse in Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague—in fact, the only one of its kind in Quebec—went bankrupt. That means 220 specialized, skilled workers are now unemployed. This is a loss for the town of Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, its workers and also for all of Quebec, which now has to send its steers to the United States and Ontario to be slaughtered.

Yesterday we learned that the Montupet plant, in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges riding, announced that it is laying off 110 workers. I mention this because that riding is next to mine and the majority of people who work at that plant—which, by the way, is one the biggest employers in the Soulanges area—come from Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, a major industrial city in my riding.

Michael Brisson, the plant manager, told us yesterday that the stronger Canadian dollar has unfortunately made Chrysler decide to end its contract and award it to a U.S. company instead. In the same breath, GM announced it will not be renewing its contract beyond 2010 for the same reason. So now we have an efficient plant with good skilled workers who are facing hard times. The employees who are still working at the plant are very worried about the plant's future.

When people talk about the numbers, they say everything is going well in Canada, that the unemployment rate is at an all time low. We must not hide behind those numbers. There are some harsh realities in some ridings in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere. When we hide behind employment statistics, this prevents us from seeing the real distress some workers are feeling and the repercussions these closures and the manufacturing crisis can have on the communities.

Consider, for example, Huntingdon, a one-industry town in the textile sector that has lost more than 800 jobs since 2005. When a small municipality loses 800 jobs, that disrupts the entire community, especially since the town is located in a rural setting. Nevertheless, they managed to attract 12 new businesses and create 350 jobs. This took considerable effort and mobilization, after presenting sensible projects and often struggling against the machinery of government to achieve greater flexibility.

However, as we speak, more than half the workers are currently looking for work. Among them are older workers who are, on average, 55 years old. One such worker called me yesterday in fact and asked, “Do you think that with the $1 billion the Conservatives just announced, they will finally keep their promises and we will finally see a real program to help older workers?” I told him that was out of the question, since the matter has not even been debated in the House. I also told him that the Bloc Québécois was making a point of demanding just that, and that we are the only party that is expressing the demands of workers and their need for respect and dignity. It is rather distressing to have to respond to such questions, since the Conservative Party likes to boast that it is keeping its promises, but, in this case, that is not really the reality. Some of these workers are even having to sell their homes.

Often, when people lose their jobs, they go through a stressful time. They might go through a divorce or have to sell their house. Many human tragedies are hidden behind these job loses. Perhaps I am insisting on this point because, since the debate on the prebudget consultations and the finance committee report began, we have been focusing on numbers and statistics.

I would rather we talk about the human beings caught up in these events, who are expressing their needs through their MPs.

Today, I feel very comfortable stating that the Bloc Québécois' priorities truly reflect those of voters, those living in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry and all the ridings represented by the Bloc Québécois. In addition, there is a consensus about these priorities in the National Assembly and among major unions such as the CSN and FTQ.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois supported the general thrust of the report prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance. Conversely, the committee supported the conditions that are important to the Bloc Québécois. Our viewers would probably appreciate a summary of these conditions.

The Bloc has stated that it is in favour of the following measures: $1 billion for the hard-hit forestry sector; $1.5 billion for the manufacturing sector in reimbursable contributions for the purchase of production equipment; increase to 5¢ per litre, effective 2008-09, the portion of the excise tax on gas transferred to municipalities and make it permanent; establish an independent employment insurance fund and set up an income support program for older workers; grant full retroactivity of the guaranteed income supplement to seniors who were shortchanged; and fund $1 billion in social housing through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

I would like to remind the members that these are the conditions set by the Bloc Québécois that received the support of the Standing Committee on Finance. However, the full report does not shed light on all concerns of the Bloc Québécois, which had proposed solutions to resolve various crises and help all citizens. Nevertheless, the Bloc wanted to establish six important priorities that will be linked to passage of the budget.

And so it is clear, I would like to mention these conditions: a real assistance plan to help workers and businesses affected by the forestry and manufacturing crisis; measures to restore dignity to seniors, meaning full retroactivity and an increase to the guaranteed income supplement; the return of the education and social programs transfer to 1994-95 indexed levels; increased funding for social housing and a reversal of the Conservative government's ideological cuts; increased funding for culture; and a 180-degree turn on the environment.

We are far from pleased with the report, which the Bloc Québécois believes has some unacceptable weaknesses. All of the members in this House should know that the Bloc also made a series of proposals, some of which were included in the 22 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I think it would be important to show people that we propose viable, realistic solutions that we believe could foster economic development and offset the crisis.

In closing, I would like to thank one of my constituents, Gérald Côté, who recently wrote in to a weekly paper to say that elected members should pay more attention to people and their living conditions, and that they should listen to what people have to say. I think he is right.

Sometimes we hide—especially the Conservative government—behind numbers that completely ignore the distress and living conditions of workers who are facing job losses and unemployment.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Québécois stands firm and will support the budget if the Conservative government respects these six very important priorities.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, a member I hope you will get to know better, a very active member here in Ottawa. She is our natural resources critic. She is very devoted to working for her party here in Ottawa, and to working for her fellow citizens in her riding. She is concerned about all kinds of issues, such as natural resources and agriculture. She is doing a great job here in the House of Commons, representing the people who live in the huge riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry.

During the prebudget consultations, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry contributed her thoughts about all of the concerns related to the areas in her critic portfolio. She talked about the concerns of each and every one of her fellow citizens, as well as the organizations in her community. The Bloc Québécois' six recommendations were drafted following broad consultations held all across Quebec.

Since the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry ended her speech by talking about employment insurance, let us discuss that further. We must not forget that the federal government does not contribute a penny; it simply administers the fund. Money paid out from the employment insurance fund to those who lose their jobs or are laid off comes from employees and employers, from contributions made by those who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs. Six out of ten people who contribute are not entitled to employment insurance. Unfortunately, most of who those who are not eligible are young people and women.

The employment insurance fund generates a surplus of $3 billion to $4 billion per year. The government takes that money, adds it to the budget surplus, and comes out looking like a fantastic administrator because it has a yearly surplus of $11 billion. However, $3 billion or $4 billion of that money is from the employment insurance fund. This means that the funds collected at the expense of seasonal workers are simply a hidden tax.

My question is for the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. Does she agree that the government does not need a special law and that all we need is a government that governs in good faith, that fulfills its commitments and keeps its election promises right away? Would she agree that a government like that does not need a budget to change the employment insurance regime and give back the money that people contributed as “unemployment insurance” in case they ever lose their jobs?

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He is absolutely right. As I said, I represent a manufacturing region. There is also a lot of market gardening in my region, and many of the seasonal workers in that industry are penalized because they do not qualify for benefits even though they pay into employment insurance.

I would like to draw to your attention one of the Bloc Québécois' recommendations retained by the committee: increasing government funding for broadband connectivity in rural and remote regions so that people can have easier access to high-speed Internet. People who live in urban regions take high-speed Internet for granted, but take a place like Elgin, for example. Elgin, population 400, is one of Quebec's smallest municipalities, and the people there are asking their mayor, Jean-Pierre Proulx, for high-speed Internet because they need it to promote economic development.

It looks as if I have some time left, so I would like to close with what the Elgin municipal council has said about this. According to council members, high-speed Internet is nothing less than an essential tool for the social and economic development of the regions. Mr. Proulx believes that if people have access to the network, they will also benefit from new technologies, such as VoIP.

This is why we are encouraging the government to accept the committee's recommendations and boost its funding for broadband connectivity.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to rise on behalf of the people of Nipissing-Timiskaming and participate in the ongoing debate on what should be included in the upcoming federal budget.

I have been listening very carefully to the comments that my colleagues from all parties have been making throughout this debate, which highlight the priorities that they would like to see dealt with in the next federal budget.

Like most Canadians, I am hopeful that the current government, including the Prime Minister and the finance minister, will take each of these priorities into account while crafting the budget. Although recent history would suggest that the current Conservative government is rarely open to input from hard-working Canadians, I am cautiously optimistic that our voices will be heard and incorporated this time around.

With that in mind, there are several key priorities that I would like to see addressed in the upcoming budget, including health care, research and development, and education. I also want to see a firm commitment to infrastructure programs for our cities and communities, as well as regional development programs such as FedNor.

My Liberal colleagues and I are also calling on the Conservative government to take greater action on climate change, to take steps necessary to ensure that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009, to fight poverty in Canada, and to bring forth proposals that will build a stronger economy.

It has been said before, and in this case it is certainly worth repeating, that when the Conservatives took office in January 2006 they acquired the strongest economy in Canadian history and campaigned on a platform of fiscal discipline. Since that day, the Conservative government has raised federal spending by over $25 billion and yet the average Canadian has yet to see any benefit from any of those expenditures.

And while Canada faces the impact of instability in international markets, Conservative fiscal policies have done little to stimulate the Canadian economy, notably our ailing manufacturing, forestry, livestock and tourism sectors.

The manufacturing industry has been facing significant challenges in recent years as a result of the rapid, unexpected rise of the Canadian dollar, increased competition from emerging economies, and higher energy prices. Over 130,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the last year. In the month of December alone, over 33,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs, just in time for the holidays.

For months now, my Liberal colleagues and I have been calling on the government to do something about the challenges facing our economy, particularly in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister finally reversed his plan to tie community development trust aid money for ailing sectors of the Canadian economy to the budget.

Sadly, however, this money was merely a drop in the bucket compared to the crisis we are facing and helps Canadians only after they lose their jobs. The workers themselves have expressed the point that focusing aid programs on retraining is useless for many single industry towns.

Retraining workers in a town where there is no work available does not really solve the problem. What we are doing is retraining people but retraining them for something they cannot find. There is nothing there for them once they have retrained.

This aid package is another slap in the face to an industry already straining under the terms of the Conservative government's flawed softwood lumber agreement. The Conservatives are offering less money to Canadian forestry workers than they left on the table for the American forestry industry.

Granted, the Prime Minister's fund will provide some help for those who have lost their jobs, but it will not reopen a single mill or manufacturing plant or prevent others from closing in an economic downturn. Instead, the focus should be on helping our industries become viable again.

The upcoming budget should include measures like those contained in the 2005 Liberal $1.5 billion forestry strategy that was killed by the Conservative government two years ago, which would have helped the industry make the transition to competitive strength and sustainability and was widely lauded by both industry and workers alike.

The aid should also be geared towards providing long-term solutions to industries affected by the rapid value increase of the Canadian dollar. Otherwise, taxpayer dollars will only amount to an artificial respirator for businesses that are no longer able to compete on world markets.

At a time when the economy is facing serious challenges and needs government support, the Prime Minister and finance minister have told Canadians that they can expect very little from the federal government. What they said was that Canadians need to buckle up, that it is going to be a bumpy ride. Thanks very much, Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. Finance Minister, but that is not what we need to hear. We need help.

In response to this, my Liberal colleagues and I are calling on the Conservative government to introduce specific measures that will benefit the Canadian economy, especially in sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and that will lessen the impact of the government's mistakes on income trusts and interest deductibility.

Another way of ensuring that our economy remains strong and that Canadians have a prosperous future is to invest in infrastructure for our cities and our communities.

By simply rebranding existing infrastructure programs, the government has failed to invest additional resources needed to meet the challenges facing Canadian cities and communities. Clearly, the budget surpluses of recent years demonstrate that the government has the resources to provide tax relief to Canadians and invest in our cities and communities, yet the government has chosen to forgo this opportunity.

Constituents in my riding and throughout northern Ontario are looking for substantial investment in infrastructure and are urging the government to finally do the right thing and reinvest in Canada's cities and communities.

The Conservative government would like us to believe that the $33 billion infrastructure investment announcement in 2007 is the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. In fact, the Conservative government actually cut infrastructure programs, and cities are far worse off under the present government than they were before.

As a former municipal councillor, I understand what crumbling infrastructure is all about. We have it in most of our communities. The average age of our infrastructure is anywhere between 85 and 100 years, maybe even more, right across the country.

Without help for our cities and communities, we will see more and more of this happening, to the point where the basic building blocks for our communities will be destroyed and we will have to live with what we have. That is no way to have building blocks toward a strong country when our cities and communities are not strong at all. This is something that we have to look at.

In November, municipal leaders met with the finance minister. The response that came from the finance minister turned my stomach. Basically, it was “stop whining”. That is no way to treat our cities' mayors in this country. It reminds me of 1793, when there was a revolt going on. The people were about to overthrow the monarchy and Marie Antoinette said to let them eat cake. To say “stop whining” is not the way we should treat Canadians.

Not only has the Conservative government cut $7.5 billion from infrastructure programs launched by the previous Liberal government to address the growing infrastructure deficit, but cities will now have to compete against each other and against large-scale highway projects for funding under the Building Canada Fund.

Furthermore, if large-scale projects are approved under the Conservative funding plan, huge amounts of funding for Canada’s smaller municipalities will be wiped out. This is not an acceptable outcome by any means, and I am therefore calling upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to make substantive infrastructure investment in the upcoming budget.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has jeopardized the Canadian economy by cutting the wrong taxes and spending more money than any government in Canadian history. My Liberal colleagues and I understand that for the Canadian economy to succeed we must continue the tradition of balanced budgets, debt reduction and competitive taxation.

A closer look at the Conservative government's decision to forge ahead with an additional cut to the GST reveals that the Conservatives' tax plan is largely benefiting higher income families over those who need it most: low income and middle income families.

The GST cut was made despite the fact that every serious economist in the country agrees that it is poor public policy and a misuse of about $4.5 billion in federal fiscal flexibility every year. To improve disposable income and help build greater productivity, the first target for tax reduction should be income taxes, not consumption taxes, but the Prime Minister has chosen instead to raise taxes for low income and middle income Canadians to help pay for his regressive and expensive GST cut.

Tax cuts like these set the stage for more pressure for spending cuts. The obvious concern for most Canadians is that the Conservative government will continue to make cuts to programs that have been proven to be effective and necessary tools in helping individuals and communities.

Simply put, the Conservative government cannot be trusted to implement substantial and long-lasting solutions to critical problems. Its “politics first and policy second” approach to governance is evidence in many ways.

Take the issue of child care for instance; during the last election the Conservatives pledged to make up for the shortfall through a plan to use tax incentives to create 125,000 new child care spaces. Last fall, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development admitted that the Conservatives cannot deliver on this commitment.

Since coming to power, the Conservative government has made the biggest child care cut in Canadian history, slashing $1 billion in funding for child care services in 2007. The Conservative government’s policy of handing over small amounts of money to individual parents instead of investing in a child care system is simply not delivering the support that young Canadian families need.

This piecemeal approach to government has been a trademark of the current Conservative government. Canadians simply cannot trust the Prime Minister to produce comprehensive and effective solutions to priority issues. Further evidence of this exists with the Conservative environmental plan.

The Conservatives have an obligation to reduce their weak approach to combating the climate change crisis with real action. Canada will not meet Kyoto targets because the Prime Minister scrapped all climate change programs upon coming into office and then implemented weak substitutes that ignore our obligations.

The Conservatives have admitted that their so-called plan will result in absolutely no reductions in Canada's total greenhouse gas pollution during the first phase of Kyoto and will not even be in place until 2010. Under two consecutive Conservative environment ministers, there has been no attempt to move forward seriously, and I emphasize seriously, and not even an honest and full effort to curb greenhouse gas pollution.

In fact, one of the Prime Minister's first acts in office was to scrap a fully funded plan to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations and to then do nothing. This is simply unacceptable to Canadians who are looking for action and leadership in the fight against climate change, but are being presented instead with a Prime Minister and a government that would much rather deny climate change even exists. The time has come to invest in Canada's environmental future.

The Conservative government also owes it to Canadians to end nearly two years of inaction in the fight against poverty in Canada by building on the good work of the Liberal government in funding such initiatives as the child tax benefit, affordable housing, literacy, the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, SCPI, and the working income tax benefit.

In the upcoming budget, the Conservative government can take meaningful action to reduce poverty by improving the Canada child tax benefit and by supporting working families in making the non-refundable child tax credit into a refundable credit so that even people with the lowest incomes will receive a benefit.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister can do his part to help lift vulnerable seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement payments for the lowest income seniors, thus ensuring that the loss of a partner does not drive the surviving spouse below the income threshold, and encouraging and rewarding those seniors who choose to participate in the workforce.

In addition to these supports, the Conservative government should commit to working with all levels of government to provide better access to services that are essential in the fight against poverty such as affordable housing, universal child care and public transit.

In today’s speech I have listed just some of the main priorities that Canadians from coast to coast believe should figure prominently in the upcoming budget. Now the responsibility lies with the Conservative government to take on the challenge of addressing these concerns, and providing effective long-term solutions to problems that have been all but ignored since they first took office two years ago.

On behalf of the people of Nipissing-Timiskaming I will be working very hard to ensure that the gaps in the Conservative agenda are replaced by policies that have a positive and long-lasting effect on Canadians. Furthermore, my Liberal colleagues and I will remain committed to building a richer, fairer, greener Canada together.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in relation to the budget to deal with and off the top I would say that as a member of the House of Commons finance committee it was my honour to talk with many Canadians who appeared before the committee and submitted written briefs. Their voices are being heard, if not by the government, certainly by the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal members on the committee.

I listened to some of my committee members earlier today speaking about how they interpreted what Canadians had said to the committee and their conclusions based on that as reflected in recommendations of the report tabled by the House of Commons finance committee. I would like to make it clear to the House and to Canadians watching this that we went through the prebudget consultative process. The hard-working, conscientious staff of the committee wrote a report. We went through it and tried to find those areas where all of us as committee members agreed. There were a number of recommendations that actually we came to consensus on.

However, there were many areas of the report and of budget performance so far by this government that we could not agree upon and that is why the Liberal members on the committee issued a minority report.

In the minority report, we made a couple of fundamental points that the government truly needs to be reminded of these.

First, we believe the government erred seriously by increasing government spending by double the rate of inflation, actually 8.6% over the past couple of years. That is almost without precedent in the history of the federal government, that federal spending would increase at double the rate of inflation. That compares with spending under Liberals governments over the past decade or so which was less than 3% per year.

It is ironic that the government, which preaches prudent restraint and the credo of smaller government, actually has created the largest government purse in Canadian history. There have been consequences of governments that spend a great deal of money.

Government spending accounts for roughly 13% of the Canadian economy. It is a very significant amount. When government spending increases by double the rate of inflation, it puts inflationary pressures on the entire country, on the budget and on the monetary supply. It affects a lot of things right down to the Bank of Canada's own fiscal and monetary policy. It also does something else. It sends a signal out to the world that the Government of Canada is profligate, that it is spending a lot of money, and that, in turn, tends to attract currency traders to put more value on the Canadian dollar, which is one reason that we have seen the value of the Canadian dollar rise over the past couple of years, particularly in the past 12 months when the dollar rose in value by 28% in a single year.

What are the consequences? We have manufacturers going out of business. We have people in the resource sector who cannot compete any longer. Our tourist operators are no longer able to see a steady and predictable flow of customers coming to this country. We are priced right out of the global marketplace by our own currency. What is worse is that the Minister of Finance, during this period of time of rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar, did not say anything that would stem that or halt it. I do not even think he understood the guaranteed results of a higher Canadian dollar.

The Minister of Finance stood time and again in the House and talked about the strong Canadian dollar, which, in turn, sent a signal to the currency traders around the world that the government wanted a strong currency. Given that, more money came in and our dollar rose above par, actually up to a $1.10 U.S.

The Minister of Finance also made it clear that he would not even support our own Canadian retailing sector. It was not enough to destroy manufacturing, to hurt people in the resource sector and to destroy the tourist industry, he had to go after the service sector which today accounts for 70% of the jobs in our entire economy.

The Minister of Finance actually held a press conference in the foyer of that big white building down there on O'Connor Street, which houses the Department of Finance. He held the press conference after meeting with all of the retailers, the Retail Council of Canada and others who appeared before our finance committee and who afterward were appalled at what the minister had to say. The minister held up a Harry Potter book in one hand, which he bought in Washington, and in the other hand he held up another Harry Potter book that he had bought in Ottawa and asked Canadians why they were paying more for the book in Ottawa than the one he had bought in Washington.

What a ridiculous thing for a Canadian Minister of Finance to say. The American market is 10 times bigger than our market, the distances to ship goods are proportionately far less and the value of manufacturing any item, per unit, is less than it is in this market. Yet the Canadian Minister of Finance was telling Canadian retailers that they were ripping off Canadian citizens.

This shows, to me, an absolute lack of fundamental understanding on the part of the Minister of Finance of the consequences of his actions. Those consequences started with high spending by the Canadian government, equalling inflationary pressures, equalling a higher currency and, finally, equalling job loss on the part of Canadian workers, many of them in my riding. I represent an area in southern Ontario that has a high degree of industry that is related to the automotive sector and the automotive sector has been hit pretty hard by the American economy.

The second major factor that the minority report of the Liberal members came to the conclusion on is the fact that the Minister of Finance has absolutely no idea how severe the American economic downturn is at the moment, nor did he prepare our country adequately to deal with it.

Let us remember what he did in the last economic statement in November. He spent the cupboard bare. He accelerated the GST cut that the Conservatives had promised by three full years. That means a $60 billion hit to federal revenues. How does that help us withstand any kind of downturn in the American economy?

I have auto workers in my riding who are out of work because their pickup trucks are not being bought by American contractors because the American housing market has been destroyed by the bad economic policies of Washington, policies which, I might say, in large part, have been aped here in Canada.

The Minister of Finance failed in that regard.

We made a third point in our minority report and we hope the government listens but, sadly, I do not think it will. The third point has to do with the impact that the government's decision of October 31, 2006, had upon senior investors in this country.

On that fateful day, that Halloween massacre day, the Minister of Finance decided that he would tax income trusts. By doing so, he imposed, in essence, a $25 billion penalty on roughly two million seniors in this country. Not only did he destroy the hopes and dreams of many people who, because of their age--and this is tragic--do not have time to recover and make those funds back.

They are not like the Minister of Finance who, because of being a politician in two levels of government, has a couple of government pensions rolling in. They are just helpless Canadians who worked their whole lives trying to get a bit of money together and who invested in the economy.

I, who stood a few feet behind him as a Conservative candidate during the last election, and everyone else believed the Prime Minister of Canada, when he was a candidate for the job, when he stood during the campaign and promised people in my area that he would never ever tax the income trusts. Ten months later, he broke that promise and $25 billion were lost.

The Prime Minister, of course, not only destroyed the hopes and dreams of a lot of individual Canadians but he also destroyed an entire income trust sector, and that has had very severe consequences.

My friends across the way say that they have done some other things to help seniors, and that is true. I will give them credit. They have done some things. One of the best things is pension splitting. Pension splitting is a good idea and I am really glad I brought it to the Conservative caucus when I was a member over there. I am very pleased that I did that.

When I was part of the Conservative caucus, I clearly remember the Minister of Finance arguing with me that he was not sure pension splitting was a good idea at all. In fact, the Minister of Finance was quite irritated with me when I sat over there because I kept pestering him by saying that we needed pension splitting. The only time he actually admitted that we needed it was when he was looking for something to sugar-coat a tremendously bitter and destructive pill called income trust taxation. It was not brought in with the spirit they are trying to portray right now.

We have some very serious concerns about where the budget is heading right now. As we go into the next few months of a continued deterioration of the American economy, we need to be very mindful of the ability and the desire of the government to protect my constituents and other people across Canada from the dangers that lie ahead, which could be severe.

We have seen a housing meltdown in the United States of monumental consequences. If that comes here, we truly will have a disaster because Canadians today have 90% of their family net worth sitting in one asset, on one street and in one town, and that is their home. I am very concerned that we will see a potential deterioration of the environment in which Canadians today invest in homes.

Canadians do not have the family income to participate in an ever-spiralling real estate market. It is in my neck of the woods, outside Toronto where the cost of living is extremely high, where I think we will see a lot of problems down the road.

There is another thing the government has failed to do, which has had an impact on the family finances of people in my area. In fact, 10 days from now I have three town hall meetings in my riding dealing with the issue of child care. This is a big financial issue with people in my area.

For a family to look after one child through institutional child care, it costs, in general, $11,000 to $13,000 a year in after tax income. That is massive. What has the government done to help those families? It is doing something. It is sending $100 a month per child, per household. Of course, those $100 cheques are taxable. At the end of the year it amounts to $1,100 in an instance that costs $11,000 to $13,000.

Those are bread and butter issues that are bothering my constituents a great deal.

The issue is coming down to two things now, jobs and economic opportunity. Employment numbers go up and they go down and every 30 days we get new ones. The ones that came out today were not too bad, and I hope the trend will keep things going up, but the numbers last month were disastrous.

What really bothers me are the manufacturing jobs in the heartland of Canada, which is in the industrial heartland of Ontario. When plants close and when the equipment is unbolted, the jobs are gone forever.

I wandered around an aeronautical manufacturing facility in my riding three weeks ago where I saw a number of concrete pads that were empty. I asked why there were empty spaces in that facility. I was told that there had been equipment in the facility but that the plant had lost manufacturing contracts because it was no longer competitive due the high value of the Canadian dollar. This company used to manufacturer rotor assemblies for American military helicopters and it has now lost the advantage it had because of the Canadian dollar being at parity. The work is now going to factories in the United States.

When I asked the company what happened to those pads and why they were empty in the plant, I was told that the equipment had been unbolted, taken up and sold. I asked where it was sold and I was told that it was sold to China. China has bought all this manufacturing equipment, very sophisticated CAD/CAM equipment, that is being shipped across to China and set up.

Those same machines, worked by Chinese workers, then compete with our people and sadly put them out of work, unless we come up with a strategy. I have not heard one at all. I know we have one and I know it is going to work. We need to have an industrial strategy in this country to protect jobs and make sure those machines are not unbolted and not sent out of this country.

Until the government understands that a currency needs to be stable and predictable, that we need to have an interest-created environment homeowners can depend upon, we need to have some economic prospects, we need to have government spending under control, we need to stop our own government from causing inflationary pressures, until all of those fundamentals are in place, my constituents will continue to do what they do every day and ask me to stand at every opportunity, the earliest opportunity, and vote for the defeat of this government.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised while listening to the interminable speech by my honourable colleague. I heard him get lost in his foggy macroeconomic analyses and apocalyptic forecasts. Yet, I can reassure him because, on this side of the House, we have confidence in the Canadian economy and in the ability of Canadians to take up challenges.

I have a simple question for my colleague. He ended his speech by stating that he was prepared to stand up for his fellow citizens. I would like him to explain why he remained seated when we announced measures totalling $80 billion for families, seniors, and manufacturers? Why did he remain seated when it was time to act and to help our companies? And why is he rising now that it is time to talk?

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when the government should be defeated and when it should not. Certainly, we felt that last fall was not the particular moment when the government should be defeated.

I do not think that at that particular time we felt that the conditions were right. The economy was starting to deteriorate. I said the same thing actually in January of this year when asked, after our Liberal winter caucus, whether this was the time to defeat the government.

I said we should get back into the House of Commons, roll our sleeves up and try to work with other members, try to find if there is some way that we can come up with a package that is actually going to help Canadians, help workers, and help keep these factories open.

We come back and we are here two days, and we start screaming at each other with partisan slogans. I stand up to ask a question and am told to resign, and everyone at home goes, “We have heard that 18 times”.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

That is exactly my point. Those members know what I am talking about. This does not get us anywhere at all.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

It was the 18th time that put you over the edge.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

Nobody watching this is going to think we are anything but a bunch of buffoons with the kinds of insults and rhetoric we throw at each other.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK

They have thought that about you for a long time. Keep your word and resign.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

It is meaningless. It is pointless. Get over it. People expect more from us and more from this place, and until you guys learn that, we are going to continue to be held in the disdain you particular so richly deserve.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Halton is an experienced privy councillor in this House and he knows that the best way to depersonalize debate is not to use the second person but rather the third.

The hon. member for Malpeque is rising to ask a question.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, it was indeed a pleasure to listen to the member for Halton giving an accurate analysis of the financial disaster and the poor fiscal management by the current government and the current Minister of Finance.

We should not be surprised though. It is the same minister who, when he was minister of finance provincially, drove his province into a huge deficit.

I am worried about Canada's future. I am worried about where this country is going to be for our children and our grandchildren. The previous government balanced the books, drove down the deficit and invested in R and D for the future, and put this country on a sound financial footing so our country could move ahead for future generations. There was prudent fiscal management there which allowed a cushion, so future governments could partner with industry in times of trouble.

I would like to ask the member for Halton for his comments about the need for governments to have a cushion, to have a strong central government to be there for the country as a whole in times of need, as we were on SARS and BSE.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Garth Turner Liberal Halton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque strikes an important cord in this whole debate and that is that government should be prepared. It should be prepared for economies that go up or down, for all kinds of eventualities.

The reality is when the last government left office, there was an annual surplus of around $12 billion a year. That has continued for a while, but now under the current government's spending plans and its estimates going forward, that surplus will actually fall to zero.

A couple of very prominent economists have said that in a scenario of a moderately weakening Canadian economy, that remaining surplus will actually become a deficit of $600 million within the next year. That is not where we need to go.

If the government goes from a surplus to a balanced budget to a deficit, Canadians can kiss goodbye any tax measures for the next 10 years because they are not going to happen. An opportunity is being squandered.

I never thought that the Conservative government that believes in less government being more effective, being more a government which is its credo, would ever do this to the treasury of Canada.

Prebudget ConsultationsGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The time provided for government orders has expired. It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Controlled Drugs and Substances ActPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations between the parties of the House and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the report stage motion on the Notice Paper for Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine) be deemed adopted and the report stage of Bill C-428 be deemed concurred in with a further amendment.