This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me make two quick comments. I agree with much of what the hon. member said, although he does in a sense typify the Conservative attitude that corporate tax cuts are enough in and of themselves to do everything.

Corporate tax cuts played a significant role in the Irish miracle. He should also understand that there was a long term investment in post-secondary education which was critical. Also, the existence of the European Union which provided a huge market plus the subsidies the European Union gave to Ireland played a role.

Yes, the corporate tax cuts were a very significant element, but they were not in and of themselves sufficient to do the job.

As for the equal sharing of misery, if the federal NDP ever became the Government of Canada, I agree it would be the equal sharing of misery, given its Neanderthal understanding of the economy.

Once we get to progressive social democratic parties, such as in Sweden, Norway and the U.K., then I think they could do very well. In fact, one reason why the NDP will never come to power is that the Canadian Liberal Party is not unlike the new Labour Party in Britain.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly say that if corporate tax cuts were the panacea to all the problems to help Canadians in this country, I would like the hon. member to explain to me why in my province, since I moved there in 1988, we now have an increase in the number of food banks.

We now have fuel banks to help people stay in their homes. We have obscene lineups now for medicare. Many children cannot get proper education. Seniors cannot get the help they need. Pharmacare prices are out of control and this from the panacea of corporate tax cuts of $100 billion in 2000 which are continuing. Every single time we hear that we are told that it is going to make Canadians prosper.

I would like the hon. member to tell my constituents, with increases in the number of food banks, fuel banks, school supplies we have to buy for kids now because their parents cannot afford it, pharmacare and medical waiting times, why have all these things increased under the Liberals' leadership and now the Conservatives?

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not have heard what I said. My point was explicitly that according to our side of the House corporate tax cuts are not a panacea. He just said we thought they were a panacea.

My point is that corporate tax cuts are a panacea, they will solve everything if one is a Conservative. If someone is a Liberal, corporate tax cuts are a very important part of wealth creation, so we favour them, but we are equally concerned about social justice and the environment.

That is why we favour major social programs like child care, like Kelowna, like our 30-50 poverty plan. Our leaders announced a hugely aggressive poverty plan to reduce total poverty by 30% and child poverty by 50% in five years. But to do all those things, we also need to create the wealth and that is the part of the equation the NDP never--

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague from Markham—Unionville for giving me the chance to participate in this debate. This is my first intervention in a debate in the House of Commons since 1982, so you will appreciate that in these 10 minutes I am not going to give a long, nostalgic commentary on the last period of time.

I know that is going to disappoint many here, but I want to say it is great to be back in the House and it is great to be welcomed in a very open spirit by my colleagues.

To have been accused by the member for Outremont of having sold out to the bosses and to being a traitor to the working class is a pleasure, if I may say so. I feel honoured to be considered in that particular pantheon by the member for Outremont.

But like me, the member for Outremont has a problem and that is that most of his thoughts are in print. I have this problem and so does he.

I know that members opposite are going to be culling. In fact, when the guy was fired as the Tory candidate in my riding, he had three binders and those binders somehow found their way to my office, so I have the binders the members have and I go to tab three and tab five. So, I know all the quotes the members are bring up.

The member for Outremont in 2002 in the National Assembly of Quebec had this to say about private enterprise. He said:

We are already taxed more than anyone else in North America. And that is because the people in our government insist on pretending to be businesspeople, but they do not let the free market determine which companies survive and which ones fail.

On April 16, 2002, the member for Outremont also said:

A government exists to create conditions so that private companies, the real ones, can have conditions where they can invest and create something.

That is what the member for Outremont said, although he seems to have forgotten. I do not know exactly what happened. All I know is that, when he was a member of the National Assembly and a minister in Quebec, he knew full well, just as everyone who has been in power knows, that people must be able to create something, to invest, as he said, and to create wealth. Without wealth and prosperity, a government cannot create social justice and help people.

I do not have time at this moment to give a full reflection on what I feel about the motion that has been put forward, except to say that I rise with a certain sense of sadness because I have come through an election campaign that was very interesting. The Green Party put forward positive proposals. I did not agree with all of them but they were there, substantive, thoughtful and creative.

My colleagues from the Conservative Party ran, basically, on a platform of anti-crime, anti the candidate, of course, and anti our leader, and that was the campaign.

The New Democratic Party ran on a threefold campaign. It had three elements. The first element was pure gimmickry. The second element was class warfare, of which we have heard more today. When was the last time someone stood in the House and used the language of saying “another member has sold out to the bosses?” What has happened?

My colleague from Markham—Unionville talks about going back to the class warfare of the 1960s. This is not going back to the class warfare of the 1960s. This is going back to the class warfare of the 1930s. This is going back to the class warfare of the 19th century. This is a truly sad commentary. Then we add the third element of the campaign, which is character assassination.

There is nothing that anybody in the House can say about me that I have not heard 1,000 times. It does not bother me, except that it saddens me when a party, which alleges to be in favour of creating greater prosperity and social justice, has a mentality that says that if we create business conditions, which in fact allow businesses to make money, that is a terrible thing. I do not get it. It is a sad commentary.

Then the member brought forward his devastating facts, presumably from the NDP research, which are all subsidized, which say that we were wrong yesterday when we pointed out that there are a great many social democratic countries that have recognized that they can actually lower business taxes and it helps the overall prosperity of their economies. Then he stood up and said that was not true, that we had the facts wrong. He recited all the information but forgot one simple fact: Canada is a federal country. It is a reality of our country.

Therefore, when we look at the taxes that are businesses are facing, we cannot just compare the federal tax rate to the Swedish unitary tax rate. We need to look at the overall tax rate. My colleague from Markham—Unionville gave those statistics very clearly.

It is quite pathetic to have all the rhetoric, all the overblown stuff, all the language, the gimmicks, the class warfare and the character assassination. That party, which at one time was leading the way on social policy and was setting the mark with respect to where Canada should go, has now been reduced to this really sad state of affairs.

The member for Outremont made a point of saying, in very flowery language, that he was looking forward to seeing how the member for Toronto Centre would possibly escape from this trap, which had been so effectively set by the New Democratic Party, how he would be able to live with himself, wake up in the morning and face the mirror because he sold out to the bosses and has now totally fallen in with a capitalist class.

How would he be able to live with himself? The answer is very easily because, like most social democrats around the world, I recognize that business success is not the enemy of social justice. It is quite simply that.

I had the great honour of leading a province through a very difficult recession. I know my friends opposite have said a lot and will say a lot about that, but I want to say this to my friends. If companies are unsuccessful, it hurts everyone. If companies are unsuccessful, it hurts the poorest of the poor. If companies are unsuccessful, it hurts the weakest of the weak. If companies are unsuccessful, it hurts every Canadian.

I want companies to be successful in this country because I want to create a climate for social justice and I want to create a climate for sustainability. That is the kind of Canada that the Liberal Party and my leader, Stéphane Dion, want to lead and that is the kind of country we want to have.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I was not standing to cut the hon. member's speech short. I was just standing to remind the hon. member for Toronto Centre, as it has been a while since he has been in this place, that we do not refer to our colleagues by proper name. We use ridings or titles.

However, it seems like he has finished his speech, so we will move on to questions and comments. The hon. the President of the Treasury Board.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member for Toronto Centre here to the House of Commons. I was quite taken with his comments. Although he has moved part of the way, he could have come a little further and sat on this side of the House because the comments I heard from him today were very much in keeping with the philosophy of our government, which is that the success of corporations will provide the financial basis to create better social conditions here in Canada.

I hope the member continues in that vein and I wish him a lot of success but not too much success in this House.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the President of the Treasury Board and I take them in the spirit in which they were offered. I am perfectly well aware that on the first few days one is here very nice things are said and, from my experience in two other times, the only other time we hear similar comments are on the day we are actually leaving the chamber. I will take these comments in the spirit with which they were offered.

It was a very famous Conservative, Edmund Burke, who once said “there is nothing more dangerous than governing in the name of a theory”, and I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, will be familiar with that comment. I think I can mention Edmund Burke's name because he is dead. Although he was a member of the House of Commons but not this one.

However, what troubles me about the Conservative Party is that it has, in my view, slipped over into the error almost on the other side of where the NDP has gone. In a sense, we have three ideological parties in the chamber. We have the Bloc, which is committed to the breakup of the country and is committed to a very old ideology of nationalism which is quickly becoming more and more irrelevant. We have the Conservative Party on the opposite side, the government side, that is intentionally ideological. We have a New Democratic Party that, as I have described, has somehow failed to turn and failed to move. We have a Liberal Party that is a pragmatic, practical and progressive party and one that I am very proud to be a member of.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to my colleague for Toronto Centre that he obviously had difficulty understanding the quote he read earlier, and therefore I will explain it. I was speaking against subsidies to corporations. In his day, they were called corporate welfare bums. There was nothing inconsistent about it.

For the record, he stated earlier that Canada is a federal country. He is right. If he takes a look at the OECD data, he will realize that Canada, as a federal country, already had a combined tax rate lower than that of other comparable federal countries, notably the United States and Germany. And that was before the proposed 6% reduction.

Contrary to what his colleague, the former Minister of Revenue, stated earlier, my figures are correct. If we do a nation-to-nation comparison, Canada is already well under the tax rate of other countries.

My question for the new member for Toronto Centre is simply as follows. He talked about personal attacks, but he is the only one engaging in them. I will stick to the facts. Does he support, yes or no, the decision to increase personal income tax by 12% and to lower corporate income taxes by 14% as proposed by the Conservatives? Yes or no?

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Outremont is changing what he said. If he goes back and looks at the blues he will see that he actually said that we were wrong. He mentioned a number of Scandinavian countries and he is wrong.

With respect to whether our tax rates will be lower than the United States, I think they need to be lower.

On the corporate side, as my colleague from Markham—Unionville has said, these are tough decisions that governments need to make. We need to look at our competitive advantage, how we will attract investment and how we will keep investment. We are a smaller country. We have many competitive issues to deal with and that is a simple fact.

As for what the relative share of income tax and business tax should be, the answer to that is that we need to recognize that as we go into a downturn, as we go into a deeper problem with respect to what is happening in the United States and elsewhere, corporations will make less money and therefore will be paying less tax. From hard experience, this puts an increasing burden on everybody.

I would tell the members of the New Democratic Party that they are making a false choice and that they are doing it in all the rhetoric that is there. They ask whether we have social housing or whether we have bank profits. They want to know whether we have this or that. The answer is that we need both. We need to have successful companies and we need to have investment in housing. We need to look practically as a country--

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on the NDP motion. I think the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of the motion because, in general, it condemns the economic policy of the federal government. The policy is not sufficiently tailored or relevant to the current economic framework, to our economic reality.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Conservative government's massive corporate tax cuts are destroying any balance between taxes for large profitable corporations and ordinary Canadians; they are stripping the fiscal capacity of the federal government; they are disproportionately benefiting the financial, oil and gas sectors, while leaving others behind, including manufacturing and forestry;—

Basically the Conservative government has chosen to take a completely and purely ideological approach by saying that it was uniformly cutting corporate taxes in order to stimulate the economy. But we see that many businesses, particularly in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, are not currently making any profit. They will not derive any benefit from the return on investment associated with this policy of general tax cuts. At the same time, the Conservative government has deprived itself of a source of revenue available to boost the economy. Instead it has chosen to put $10 billion of this year's surplus towards the debt.

And this is happening at a time when the very well run companies in the forestry industry are in serious difficulty because of the crisis in that sector. In my riding for example, Maibec, a very solid company, is in trouble, as is Bois Daaquam, where workers are having to reach a compromise with the employer to peg their wages to the price of wood. Companies and workers are making real efforts, but the Conservative government is not showing the same flexibility. It is sad.

As early as last fall, when it released its economic statement, the government should have proposed not only widespread tax cuts, but also an action plan to help the forestry and manufacturing industries and give them the tools to compete and create competitive products.

The Conservatives take a “survival of the fittest” approach: let the strongest survive and if the others disappear, too bad. The government is acting as though it were a company, but it is not. To run the country, the government has to consider the labour situation, the effects on workers, the impact of the economy on the entire population. The Conservative government has abdicated that responsibility.

In that sense, the NDP motion is completely justified. In my opinion, this House should have lost confidence in this Conservative government. We said this when the budget was brought down. If the official opposition had stood firm, if the Liberals had seen things through to their logical conclusion, we would be in an election campaign today and we could pass judgment on the actions of this government, which decided to give priority to big, profitable companies, to multinational corporations, instead of helping the companies in the forestry and manufacturing industries that are in trouble.

The Conservative government has also decided not to help workers aged 55, 56 or 58, with 25 or 30 years' experience. The Conservative approach is to let them find another job. Then, if they cannot find a job, they can apply for social assistance, because, in any event, it is their fault if they no longer have a job.

This practice, this philosophy imported directly from the American right, is unacceptable. It is not in line with the values of Quebeckers and Canadians. It is the government's responsibility to help build prosperity. Prosperity does not happen by itself. It is not created just by market forces, but by the choices the government makes. And the government has abdicated its responsibility to help to create prosperity.

The motion says that quite clearly. We would have perhaps taken a slightly different position than that of the NDP about whether or not tax cuts were necessary for all businesses, but certainly not about the current percentage, or about the non-existent assistance for businesses that are not generating profits. This is unacceptable.

Since last fall, the Bloc Québécois has been making constructive proposals. This week, the House passed a Bloc motion calling for an action plan in the forestry industry. The House approved the motion tabled by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, which contained seven measures to help the forestry industry.

Thus, the House sent a message to the government, telling it that such measures were needed. But the government is still not moving.

The purpose of the NDP motion today is simply to ensure that the public will be able to evaluate the situation. We have a minority government. We would have expected the Conservatives to listen in order to find methods that correspond to what most Quebeckers and Canadians want. But they continue to take an approach that pushes us straight into the wall.

The United States is in a recession, and Quebec and Canada are experiencing a major economic slowdown that will, unfortunately, get worse over the next few months. Since 85% of our exports go to the United States, we should consider that if there is a reduction in American buying power, we will be the first victims. The Conservatives' approach, to continue to cut spending, is the same one taken by the Republicans in 1928-29, just before the great depression. And if there had not been changes, if Roosevelt had not become president and implemented the New Deal, the depression never would have ended.

A government has to be pragmatic and implement measures that are in line with the new economic reality. The current economic reality is not the same as it was two or three years ago. It has changed a lot and is still changing. The government did not adapt to this new reality in its economic statement last fall and even less so in this year's budget.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology proposed an action plan a year and a half ago with 22 recommendations that were unanimously adopted by all the political parties. The government has adopted just one half-measure out of all those recommendations.

We have pressed on. The Standing Committee on Finance has adopted a motion whereby the fiscal measures adopted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology would be implemented by the government, but the government once again is remaining silent. The federal government has shirked its responsibility.

We know that the hon. members in this House are in regular contact with the people in their ridings. We also know that ideology has had greater power than the wishes of the people. I challenge the Conservative members from Quebec to tell us that people would prefer to see $10 billion go toward the debt rather than investing some of that money to help the economy.

I challenge the Conservative members to deny, when it comes to the older workers issue, that Quebec and Canada want to adopt a measure of compassion to provide these people—who have worked for 20, 25 or 30 years—with an income to see them through to their pensions.

We are not saying that all older workers must benefit from an income security program. We believe we should help those who have done everything they can, in other words, tried to find employment, have taken training courses and have joined adjustment committees, but to no avail. They have to be given a tool to bridge the gap to their pension. It is important. It is in society's best interest on a financial and human level to allow this type of thing.

The situation facing the forestry sector will only become completely absurd later on. Younger workers are being laid off, based on seniority. Older workers are keeping their jobs while younger workers are leaving. In a few years, when the older workers have left their employment, there will be no younger workers around to revive the industry.

We should have been able to develop more flexible ways to deal with the inevitable layoffs, such as offering incentives to older workers, for instance, a supplement or possible income support until they receive their pension so they can leave the labour market, thereby allowing younger people to keep their jobs and meet labour needs later on. Yet this Conservative government did not show the necessary flexibility. That is not the Conservative way, which is too bad.

And yet this is not the first time we have talked about it or called for action. For months and months now, the Bloc Québécois and other parties of this House have been calling on the government to do something.

If the official opposition had not run into all those problems with their leadership and esprit de corps, we would currently be in an election campaign and we would know who, according to the public, are the best people to represent them at this time.

I am convinced that Quebeckers do not agree with the Conservatives' current approach to the economy. It is not at all consistent with our way of doing things or with our economic culture.

In the past, having suffered some hard blows, Quebec developed all kinds of tools to deal with such economic downturns.

They were put in place and that allowed us to evolve.

In the current pan-Canadian context, with the Conservatives' approach, we have experienced something that I have not seen for a long time: the Quebec Minister of Finance, a federalist, spoke up and said that the federal budget was unacceptable to Quebec. Imagine. The finance minister is not a member of the PQ or of a sovereigntist party. The day after the budget, the finance minister of the Liberal Party of Quebec told the federal government that, in terms of assistance to the manufacturing and forestry sectors, its budget was not satisfactory.

In Quebec, the initial reflex of citizens is to turn to the Government of Quebec. In fact, it is the only parliament that they have complete control over. They exert pressure on the government so that it will put things in place and it has an obligation to listen. The Government of Quebec took action, although it is not perfect.

Imagine the momentum if a similar effort had been made by the federal government. A decision could have been made to transfer significant amounts enabling Quebec to strengthen programs it established, for example putting in place a comprehensive program for older workers. The current program has a retraining component, which is a good thing for them. However, it does not have a training component for those workers who cannot find a new job.

The same can be said for research and development. Regional companies would have benefited had the federal government re-introduced Technology Partnerships Canada. Premier Tech in Rivière-du-Loup, for example, received significant amounts from this federal program on two occasions. We supported that program; we did not condemn it. It led to the creation of new jobs for young people. In my opinion, the economic prosperity in Rivière-du-Loup is due in part to the success of this company.

Technology partnerships Canada may have been abused in some cases. However, they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they decided not to bring the program back. That kind of program would have been very useful considering the current problems in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Industry Canada could have maintained partnerships. Partnerships are not subsidies. The government and the company each invested money in developing new products, and if a new product worked out, parts of the royalties flowed back to the government. That worked for Premier Tech. The government should be more open to programs like that and allow for a certain number of failures before achieving success.

With respect to this recommendation, after the 2006 election, there was a transition period during which people thought the Conservatives would take a pragmatic approach to assessing programs. Unfortunately, the ideological approach prevailed, and the program was not renewed, except for the aeronautics sector. As a result, we were deprived of an important tool for development.

Today, the Bloc Québécois supports this motion of non-confidence in the government because of the Conservatives' endless parade of negative answers and their unwillingness to consider certain suggestions.

All one has to do is look at the oil and gas sectors. Take a look. Our society can afford sustainable development. We could have made major investments in renewable energy. Instead, we have to explain to people that the government is giving tax credits to companies to extract oil from the tar sands and create pollution. Moreover, they will be allowed to continue polluting until 2012, because polluters will not be forced to pay the price until then.

That approach is completely unacceptable. That is not the kind of society that Quebeckers and Canadians want. People want their government to take changing realities into account; they want their government to do everything it can to encourage sustainable development; and they want a carbon exchange.

The repercussions for the environment are enormous. For years, people thought of environmentalists as people with high standards that were nonetheless economically unfeasible. Now, we know that economy and environment can work together. Economic development can happen within a sustainable development context. To make it happen, people need the right tools.

The carbon exchange is a remarkable tool, because it relies on market rules. It is the same as a stock exchange, with shares and exchanges. It creates a market and a competitive spirit. It spurs the desire to do something concrete, in my riding for example, to introduce environmentally friendly products.

Representatives from a business came to see me in the spring of 2006 to ask if the carbon exchange was going to be implemented, because they had a project. The carbon exchange would have allowed them to develop such a project and its profitability would have been justified by the carbon exchange return. It was not implemented, however, and their project did not proceed. This is true in a number of sectors. Many businesses in North America would have carried out projects and would have created long term jobs.

In a sustainable development context, we are lagging behind Europe, which has taken the lead in this area and is making progress much faster than we are. There is even now an American law that states that petroleum products produced from oil sands will no longer be accepted in the United States in a few years' time. It is in the American Energy Act. They have already realized that this aspect must be taken into account in order to find a solution to ensure that petroleum products produced from oil sands are produced in a way that is acceptable. We did not take any such action.

The Conservative government is no longer a new government. It is a government with two and a half years of experience. It has had the chance to adjust to the proposals that have been made. Some have been made by the Bloc, and there could have been some from the Liberals, the NDP or the Conservatives. Unanimous proposals have been made by various parliamentarians and have been ignored by the Conservatives. We get the impression that the Conservative government put on rose coloured glasses last year and thinks it will get through the economic downturn without having to do what it takes to help the economy. No one in North America believes that any more.

President Bush, whom we cannot accuse of being left leaning, has taken measures to help his economy. Across Quebec and Canada we have the necessary tools to work together to create and share prosperity. The Conservative government has not done what it takes. If there had been an election, this would have been plain once again. Often the only tool citizens have left to express themselves is democracy.

There is one thing I absolutely do not understand and that is how elected members of this House can say that other members of this House are useless. That shows disrespect for democracy. When a Conservative member tells a Bloc member that he is useless, he is telling all the voters of that riding that the member is useless.

Look at Quebec as a whole, at its economy. We have received the majority of the vote in the past five elections. Take a look at the ridings represented by Bloc members. As far as the Rivière-du-Loup riding is concerned, I am not embarrassed to compare it at any time with any other riding in Quebec. It is a riding that has been represented by a Bloc member for 15 years and by an opposition member in Quebec City. There is full employment in the Rivière-du-Loup area.

The government has to stop blackmailing with power and start taking action. If the federal government continues doing nothing, then we simply must vote in favour of a non-confidence motion. It is all the Conservatives deserve.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Corporate Tax CutsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #79

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion.

Half-masting of Peace Tower FlagPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 310.

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

Vote #80