House of Commons Hansard #5 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her wonderful speech. I would like to remind her of one point that has been forgotten in the government's economic action plan, in the budget, and that is the issue of seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement because they do not have enough income. Legislation provides for a guaranteed income supplement; however, the supplement given by the government is below the poverty line set for Canada. These seniors are living below the poverty line. I think that the government could have at least planned to increase the guaranteed income supplement in its budget.

What does my colleague think about this in terms of the constituents in her riding that she knows?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We have heard many accounts from seniors in our ridings. Seniors' advocacy groups and organizations in Quebec have been asking for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement for some time. I think seniors know they can count on Bloc Québécois members to demand that this injustice be rectified.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that another consensus is emerging in Quebec regarding this budget, specifically, concerning farmers. I represent an agricultural riding and I can say that the consensus is that this budget does not meet the needs expressed by farmers in Quebec.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was sharing some stories about her riding and I would like to take the opportunity to talk about my riding of Halifax.

There is a community in Halifax called Spryfield. It is a very large community, with urban sprawl and some inner city pockets. There is no licensed child care facility in the entire community of Spryfield. I met with the director of the YWCA Halifax and she asked, “How can we expect the economy to work when our women can't?”

I am wondering if the member would share with us her thoughts about child care as an economic stimulus?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, child care is a big topic of debate in Quebec. We have created a child care system that is accessible for women and that we pay for through taxes. All women, all families—men, too—deserve to have adequate, quality child care facilities for their children. I encourage my colleague to exert pressure and to bring forward a motion or bill towards that end. As long as Quebec's jurisdictions are respected and full compensation is given, she will have the Bloc Québécois on her side.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for her passionate description of the needs of the most vulnerable and how they are not met in this most recent budget. I wonder if the member can help me understand why the government would choose to add five weeks at the end of the EI period rather than eliminating the two week waiting period which would serve to get money into the hands of the needy more quickly.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for her question. I believe that this decision is a purely mathematical one. We know that 50% of unemployed workers do not qualify and are not eligible for employment insurance. Adding five weeks at the end will cost less than eliminating the two-week waiting period. Even though that is what people who have just lost their jobs really need, it would cost more. The Conservatives want everyone to think that extending the benefit period by five weeks is really great, but they are well aware that a significant percentage of unemployed workers find work before their benefits run out. The government just wants to look like a nice guy. We are happy that they have added five weeks, but what workers really need right now is the elimination of the two-week waiting period. They need a cheque so that they can buy food and pay the rent.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who, as you know, is a proud Quebecker and a worthy defender of the rights and interests of her constituents.

What happens here in the House of Commons is not always funny, given that in an economic crisis, often it is the poorest members of our society who are affected. When I say “the poorest members”, that covers a lot. I am talking about people who have lost their jobs and who, when they were working, had decent salaries and were not in need. A case in point would be forestry and manufacturing workers, who earned a very good living and paid their taxes. It is always difficult to see people fall on hard times. It saddens me that the Conservatives are oblivious to this and that the Liberals are once again supporting the Conservatives because they are too afraid of what might happen if they voted against the Conservatives. That is the reality, and in an economic crisis, with the salaries we are earning, how can we not stand up every day in this House to defend people who have lost their jobs?

I will always be proud to be a member of a party that has always stood up for Quebeckers, especially those who have lost their jobs. I will not stop, because I come from a small community in the Outaouais. My riding is in the Outaouais-Laurentides region, which has a similar economy to the ridings of many other members of this House, from other political parties. That economy is based on forestry, farming and tourism. People say that it is not the workers who are seasonal, but the work. These sectors are particularly hard hit during times of economic crisis.

I see what there is in the budget for the forest industry, despite all the members from Quebec in this House, be they Liberals, Conservatives, NDP—there are still a few from those parties—or Bloc Québécois. I tell myself that it would be unthinkable to ignore the resolution passed unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec. Only a Liberal or a Conservative would put party ideology ahead of people's interests.

The National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution. The Parti Québécois is a sovereignist party, while the others, except for Québec Solidaire, are federalist parties, yet the resolution passed unanimously. I will read part of it:

That it insist that the federal government provide financial support to sectors experiencing problems, particularly the manufacturing and forest sectors, as it is doing for the automobile industry;

That is what the National Assembly was calling for, a demand that should be fought for tooth and nail by every member of this House who is from Quebec.

This budget gives the forestry sector $170 million, although the auto industry was given over $2.7 billion. I have absolutely nothing against the auto industry. It made its claim, and all the better that it obtained results. However the fact remains that the National Assembly asked for assistance for the forestry and manufacturing sectors similar to what was given to the auto sector. That was the unanimous request of the National Assembly, yet, as we all know, only $170 million was given. I will break down how that $170 million was divided within the forestry sector: $80 million over two years for a transformative technologies program; $40 million to develop pilot-scale demonstration projects of new products; $40 million, also over two years, for the Canada wood, value to wood, and North America wood first programs; and $10 million to support large-scale demonstrations of Canadian-style use of wood.

There is nothing in this budget to help businesses, absolutely nothing.

I see some members from the Outaouais region in the House, particularly, the hon. member for Pontiac. In his riding, the Smurfit-Stone paper mill closed just before Christmas. The sawmill just next to it, the Pontiac sawmill, closed. In my riding, there is a paper mill in Thurso, Papiers Fraser. I hope it does not close, and I will do everything I can; I will fight to keep it open. I simply cannot stand by and watch that happen.

I do not understand why the member for Pontiac cannot stand up in this House against his own government, which is investing only $170 million, when the economy in his own riding has been hard hit.

What good is having a salary when one cannot even defend the interests of one's constituents? Is it because one is a minister? Is it because one is looking out for oneself and worried about keeping the limousine?

It is simply disrespectful of constituents' interests. I could point to every Quebec member in this House who is not from the Bloc Québécois, any Conservative or Liberal, because once again, these members are putting their personal interests before the interests of their constituents. It was ever thus. And this is why politicians always come last in the popularity ratings because they often put their own interests ahead of those of their constituents. It is sad, because we are in the midst of a very serious economic crisis. Things are tough, especially when we see the help this government is giving.

I cannot ignore the repeated demands from both the Quebec government and workers in Quebec, and it is the same in the rest of Canada. When it comes to employment insurance, only 45% of those who pay into it are eligible. These measures were brought in in 1992 because we were coming out of an economic crisis. The federal government was facing an enormous deficit created by the Conservatives at that time. Employment insurance rules were tightened up. Today we have the same rules as those brought in in 1992 during a mini economic crisis. Imagine. Today we are talking about an economic crisis similar to that of the Great Depression. What about our workers, those who will lose their jobs? Only 45% will receive employment insurance.

In November, the Bloc Québécois reached out and presented proposals in this House. We were thanked by the Minister of Finance and congratulated by the Prime Minister because we were the only party to submit proposals. Our requests were simple: we wanted the two-week waiting period to be eliminated and the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance to be reduced to 360. This would be covered by the $2 billion program surplus. Instead, the Conservatives decided to freeze contributions and arranged for the surplus to disappear. This was mainly to avoid making improvements to the employment insurance program and ensuring that workers who might qualify in a crisis such as the one we are experiencing—one as significant as the Great Depression—would be entitled to benefits. The Conservatives said no to that.

There is no help for older workers. The program for older worker adjustment was abolished by the Liberals in 1996. Those 55 and older, who lost their jobs during massive layoffs, could benefit from such assistance until they retired at the age of 65. But no, they want to try to send people 55 and over to a retraining program even though we are already in the midst of a recession.

People will lose their jobs and there will be fewer jobs. They will try to retrain older workers to do something else. That does not make sense. Instead, we should try to give them a decent income until they reach retirement age. After all, they contributed to creating wealth while they worked in the manufacturing, forestry or other type of industry. And yet, today, they are the ones being penalized and their right to claim some of the wealth they created is being taken away.

Once again, I find it hard to understand. As for the members from the rest of Canada, that is their problem. However, I have a great deal of difficulty with the fact that Quebec members, given their salary, do not rise in this House to defend, on a daily basis, Quebeckers who lose their jobs and that they do not rise when the time comes to vote on something as important as a budget and say, “I am against it because the heartless Conservatives do not want to help the most disadvantaged”. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

Once again, I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois. Year after year, we are the only ones able to stand up in this house on behalf of our constituents.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully, and with great pride, to my hon. colleague's speech. Like my fellow Bloc Québécois colleagues, I think we all know that a minority government is always on probation.

Can the member explain to me how the Liberal Party can denounce the budget with such vigour and passion, but at the same time, vote in favour of this budget without trying to amend or improve it?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Laval for her question.

It is very hard to understand what the Liberals have done. The member used the word “probation” , which I think was the word the Liberal leader used as well. He is talking about deadlines: March, June, December. Otherwise, the Conservatives had better watch out. The Liberals will get mean and nasty and bring down the bad old government.

We know that two months from now, in March, it will still be too early. Analysts and experts will tell the Liberals that it is not the right time and that they have to give this government time to react. The Liberals are talking about June. A report will be tabled in this House in late June, and if the Liberals are not happy with it, will there be an election on July 15?

The dates were carefully chosen. The last date is in December. The Liberals were careful not to choose October, because it might mean an election, so they decided to pick December. If the Liberals are not satisfied, will they prompt an election in mid-January? It makes no sense.

Once again, I can understand that the Liberal Party is in disarray. I see that every day as the chief organizer for the Bloc. The Liberals are in such disarray that they are willing to compromise their own ideas just to keep their seats. They are making sure they keep their nice warm seats and their $150,000 a year, while our people are losing their jobs. I have a huge problem with that. Only a Liberal would do that.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

First, would the member comment on the lack of enthusiasm for bilingualism in the budget?

The second item was brought up by another Bloc member, but I did not get a chance to ask a question. It was a good point about there being a hint at regulatory change. Two of my constituents, Brook and Dustin, are very concerned that the government may sneak in, through budget implementation legislation, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that would affect the ability we have had since Confederation to canoe on our rivers and to enjoy our rivers. It would take environmental assessments away from developments on rivers.

Would the hon. member comment on those two items?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will have enough time to answer the question.

With respect to the first part of the question, the part about women, my colleague is absolutely right, and my colleague from Laval did a good job of emphasizing the point. The only time the word “women” appeared in the budget was in the preliminary note explaining that the masculine gender included both men and women.

That is the plain truth. How representative of Conservative ideology.

Some dreamed of a vast daycare network. When they chose to support the Conservatives, the Liberals chose the wrong party because the Conservatives believe that a woman's place is in the home. That is just what they think. As for the rest of it, once again, if they wanted women to enjoy a better quality of life in this country, the Liberals should have thought of that before supporting the Conservatives. They chose to support the wrong party. That is a fact. But it will come back to haunt them. Today, they think everything is fine. We are just two days in, and they will finally be able to save their seats and their salaries. But eventually, they will realize how very hard it is to support the Conservatives. The Conservatives do politics from a certain ideological perspective, particularly when it comes to recognition of women. They are already attacking pay equity. The Liberals must be very aware of how the Conservatives intend to proceed on that front. With this government in power, women will have a very hard time achieving fairness and equity.

The Liberals should rethink this. They still have a few days left before the vote.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar for putting their faith in me to represent them as their member of Parliament. I would also like to thank all of those who volunteered last fall, as well as my family members for their ongoing support.

Canada's economic action plan, budget 2009 is the result of weeks of consultation with thousands of Canadians. In preparation for this plan the Minister of Finance not only consulted widely with Canadians but obtained advice and input from some of the leading economic and financial minds in our country. This is truly an economic action plan for all Canadians.

As the finance minister was travelling across the country consulting Canadians, I was also travelling across my constituency consulting the people of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. As an aside, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance for coming to Saskatoon and listening to the people of Saskatchewan.

I went from meeting with residents and business and community leaders from the west side of Saskatoon, to hosting community meetings in the towns scattered throughout the rural part of the riding, to door knocking in the villages and hamlets that did not have a town hall to go to. Through these consultations I met with a wide range of people.

The people of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar want this government to get on with the business of governing and they want this economic action plan to pass. Canada's economic action plan is economically stimulating, job creating and tax reducing. This plan finds the right balance.

There was a common theme in what I heard and what this government heard, namely, that investment in Canadian communities by way of roads, bridges and other projects is a good way to stimulate the economy and create prosperity for the future. This government is committed to following this advice in as quick a fashion as possible so that the stimulus provided for in this plan gets out into the Canadian economy to promote growth and job creation.

This government is stimulating the economy and creating jobs by investing in social housing. At this time of global economic uncertainty our government is committed to ensuring that the citizens who need assistance the most will receive it. This is why we are investing $1 billion over two years to renovate and retrofit existing social housing units on a fifty-fifty cost share basis with the provinces. These additional funds for social housing are another example of this government investing in the future.

This economic action plan also dedicates $400 million over two years for the construction of housing units for low-income seniors. Our seniors have worked many years to build this great country of ours, yet rising costs have made affordable housing difficult for some. We have heard their concerns and have acted prudently to address them.

These examples of this government's care and compassion for those who need a helping hand are just some of the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan.

I am also very pleased to see that this government is supporting prairie farmers and indeed all Canadian farmers by partnering with the provinces, territories and industry. It is contributing $500 million to the agricultural flexibility plan which will assist farmers in dealing with the fluctuating costs of production, promote new innovations in farming practices and equipment, ensure environmental sustainability, and provide a resource for farmers when they are faced with market challenges or opportunities.

I am also very glad to find that this economic action plan includes an additional $50 million over three years for the expansion of slaughtering capacity in Canada. The expansion of domestic slaughtering capacity will allow our producers to be less reliant on foreign slaughterhouses and will make our livestock producers less susceptible to commodity price fluctuations caused by regulations imposed by foreign governments.

This government is also supporting Canada's livestock industry by creating a market access secretariat to work towards expanding the market for Canadian products beyond the U.S. into other promising and potentially lucrative markets.

This investment and these other initiatives will not only help our cattle producers, but will create jobs, both now and in the future.

During a time of economic downturn, this government realizes that Canadians and Canadian businesses are hurting. We understand that when businesses are hurting, they cannot give their hard-working employees the raises they would like to.

Therefore, our government is giving a tax break to middle and lower income Canadians. Canada's economic action plan will increase the basic personal exemption amount by $620 to $10,320 for 2009. This action will directly benefit our most economically disadvantaged and those just entering the job market.

This action plan will again benefit lower income Canadians and, indeed, all Canadians by increasing the top of the first personal income tax bracket in 2009, as well as increasing the top of the second personal income tax bracket. Our government understands that this global downturn has been forced on Canada and should not be borne by hard-working taxpayers.

I believe that this economic action plan is right for Canada, right for Saskatchewan and right for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. It is right for men and it is right for women. It is right for upper income Canadians and it is right for lower income Canadians. It is right for employers and it is right for workers.

I encourage all hon. members of the House to pass Canada's economic action plan budget 2009 next week.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 2:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 2 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, I move that we see the clock as 2:30 p.m.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Is that agreed?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)