Pauline Picard

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for St. Hyacinthe--Bagot for his speech. My colleague has been described by Canadian economic analysts as one of the top economists ever in the history of this House. He is known for his accurate and credible predictions.

Since the events of September 11, the economy on the world scale has been seriously shaken. Most experts believe that nothing is the same as before. At a time when our future was already uncertain in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and with obvious signs of economic downturn on the horizon, the Bloc Quebec has acted in a responsible manner by suggesting a number of measures to the Minister of Finance to boost the economy.

Just recently the minister was still issuing the challenge to us to make some targeted and highly detailed suggestions in advance of his December budget. So the Bloc responded with alacrity, and presented its $5 billion economic stabilization plan. Our objective is clear: to attenuate the economic downturn and the loss of thousands of jobs resulting from the events of September 11.

As the minister delights in repeating in this House, and according to the witnesses heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Bloc's plan is without a deficit. I repeat, if that is what worries the government, we are anti-deficit.

Application of this plan relies on the principles of economic stimulation, increased aid to the provinces by handing tax points back over to them, paying back the debt and a zero deficit.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention the work being done by the Quebec minister of finance, Pauline Marois, who will be presenting her budget this afternoon. She will do so with courage, despite the limited openness of her federal counterpart, and the cool reception the federal finance minister afforded her this past weekend.

As the minister is well aware, he has in his coffers a surplus of several billion dollars. Even if he intends to make national security his priority, the battle against terrorism represents an expenditure of somewhere around one billionn dollars. These expenditures moreover, in large part, will not take place before the start of the next fiscal year. He therefore most certainly appears to have sufficient reserves to cope with unexpected expenditures and to sustain the economy.

It is all very fine for the minister to argue that his objective is to balance his budget and pay the heavy bill for national security, for he still has plenty of money left in his sock.

Let us take a closer look at the situation. Despite the economic downturns anticipated in the third and fourth quarters, this year the average growth for 2001 is expected to be 1.5%. At the same time, inflation is going down while unemployment is on the rise. And the Minister of Finance, true to himself, is underestimating budget surpluses. He began the year with an anticipated surplus of about $8.3 billion. An informed person would expect a $12 billion surplus and would not be far off the actual figure.

The surplus stood at $10.7 billion after the first four months of the year and at $11.1 billion after five months. When he talks about having limited leeway, the Minister of Finance is undermining his own credibility.

He really should seriously consider the plan that we presented to him to stabilize the economy. It is a serious and responsible proposal that would not put the country back into a deficit. It is so effective that the minister would have all the necessary leeway to fund security costs, support the economy and even pay off part of the debt. How? The minister challenged us and we met his challenge.

Under the Bloc Quebecois' plan, a mere $5 billion would be used for the following: $1.85 billion to support small and medium size businesses; $1.15 billion for employment insurance; $1 billion for various sectoral initiatives; and $1 billion for security and defence.

This plan is not a public relations exercise to reassure the public. It is a proactive and targeted measure.

I feel the duty to remind Canadians and, more importantly, the Minister of Finance, that history has proven that he is incapable of predicting his deficits because he inflates them artificially and he continually underestimates his budget surpluses.

Quebecers and Canadians should know that according to figures published by Canada's Department of Finance subsequent to the budget years, the federal government has accumulated more than $30 billion in budget surpluses since 1996.

Unlike the government forecasts, the Bloc Quebecois' forecasts were accurate on several occasions. With his misleading forecasts, the Minister of Finance is skewing the true picture of Canadian public finances. Accounting standards being what they are, the minister ends up allocating the entire unexpected surplus to pay off the debt. We understand that repaying the debt is a priority but it is one priority among many others.

Need I remind members that this past year's federal surplus was taken in large part from the pockets of workers? We are talking about $7.5 billion taken from the employment insurance fund surplus. In August 2001 the fund's surplus reached $39 billion.

With respect to forecasting, the Bloc Quebecois believes that, despite negative growth over the next months, the government will have a generous surplus: $15.4 billion with zero growth, and $13.6 billion with a negative growth of 2%.

Being prudent, responsible and realistic, the Bloc Quebecois has decided to go with the most conservative hypothesis: that the surplus will be $13.6 billion.

We are suggesting that the minister go ahead with specific, temporary measures to accelerate investments in order to give momentum to small and medium sized businesses. As requested by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which never got a reply from the government, instalment payments for SMBs could be deferred. The government of Quebec has already done this, giving SMBs some breathing space, some liquidity. All the government has to do is pay the interest, which would have a minor impact on the budget. It could also at least reduce EI premiums. We suggest that the minister give businesses a contribution holiday for the next two months.

The effects of these combined measures would be appreciable. They would put $1.8 billion back into the economy; $750 million for workers and even more for businesses.

The Bloc Quebecois is proposing active and passive measures to help unemployed workers. Active measures, such as investing the maximum in active job measures, or 0.8% of the payroll, or $640 million Canada wide, would encourage entrepreneurship and training.

The Bloc Quebecois is also proposing that help be given to those who will bear the brunt of the economic downturn. The minister must immediately implement the recommendations contained in the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development in May and adopted unanimously. To that end, he will have to convince his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, of the wisdom of these recommendations, which deal with older workers, low income workers, young workers, and support to the regions, and which propose increasing benefit periods from 45 to 50 weeks.

Since my time is quickly running ou, I will wrap up my remarks. I also wish to put forward an amendment to the amendment.

It must be clear to members that the minister can do more than merely protect transfers already budgeted. There is room for investment in health, in infrastructures and elsewhere. His budget should tackle the issue of health care.

It would be quite simply immoral of the minister to pour all these surpluses into paying down the debt when the provinces are grappling with health care costs which will not be going down.

In closing, I would like to move as follows:

That the amendment be amended by adding, between the words “tax reductions” and “restore confidence”, the following: “while improving the employment insurance plan”.

[Finance, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the finance minister has said, I find it hard to believe that he does not have any figures to give us.

If the minister cannot give us any figures, could he at least identify the assumptions on which he has based his work?

[Finance, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the economy were to keep growing at the same rate as it did in the first five months of the year, the surplus would be close to $20 billion.

Given the downturn, which cannot fail to have an impact on the economy, we are heading toward a surplus that will likely come in around $13 billion.

If our figures do not add up, then the Minister of Finance should tell us why, but in the meantime, will he finally stop trying to duck the issue, answer our questions and confirm the figures that we have submitted to him?

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say, is that it is also a question of money. I am not saying that it is only a question of money, but it is also a question of money, of distribution of wealth.

I am somewhat surprised to hear the member say that I criticized the IMF and the World Bank. I mostly wanted to question their current role and to warn the G-7 countries that are meeting to discuss world organizations. That was what I intended.

Yes, wealth needs to be distributed if we want to avoid situations like the one in Afghanistan right now.

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment and for his question.

I agree with him completely that it is vital that foreign policy be reviewed and that there must be a greater focus on human rights. Everything would seem to be inter dependant.

We see this in CIDA's new reform. With all due respect for the minister, who is making a great effort, CIDA's policy must not be strictly trade oriented.

This opening across borders must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the large multinationals, which is what seems to be happening right now. We see this in the G-7 countries. In addition, there are non-government bodies infiltrating the policies of these countries. These are huge multinationals, which are taking over and having a very destructive effect on all the people of the world.

Some direction is vital. We must pay more attention to the gap between the rich and the poor and not neglect developing countries, which can be used by the large multinationals in trading activities which ignore human rights.

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to add my voice to those of my colleagues calling upon the government to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available for Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7% of GDP, as recommended by the United Nations.

There are at least two reasons for increasing the assistance to developing countries.

The first one is essentially ethical in nature. Canada is a rich country enjoying a certain measure of comfort and economic security which make developing countries envious. We in the western world are considered as privileged, rich people. The tragic events of September 11 have severely affected our economy and are forcing us to review our forecasts. But that is nothing compared to the situation that poor countries are faced with.

Does that mean that Canada must review the part of its budget concerning international assistance in order to increase it? Most agencies working in this area agree with us that Canada must do so.

We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that Canada has not lived up to its humanitarian responsibilities. It appears this government is not responding adequately to expressed needs.

Proportionally Canada ranks 18 out of 22 donor countries for international aid. We are among the least generous countries in the world. That was enough for the head of Rights and Democracy, Mr. Allmand, to urge the Canadian government to increase its foreign aid budget.

Let us take a closer look. Recently the United Nations asked for $900 million Canadian to help some 7 million Afghans whose survival depends on international aid. So far just over 11% has been collected. Since September 11, Canada's share has reached $16 million. We must do more.

Over the last decade, Canada has contributed $150 million in aid to Afghan refugees and Afghanistan. In view of the prosperity Canada has known over the past eight years, this is not enough, not to mention unacceptable.

In the meantime, other countries are showing us the way. In 1995, Canada ranked sixth in terms of international aid. However, last year the British government increased its aid by 35%. This increase was 22% in Belgium and Sweden, and 10% in the Netherlands.

According to media reports, even if our 2001-02 humanitarian aid budget were increased by $45 million over last year to $2.6 billion, we would still be investing 20% less than 10 years ago when the Liberals came to power. This is unacceptable.

Our participation has greatly deteriorated. We are lagging far behind, especially in view of the many years of prosperity we have experienced. The government might want to argue that since 1990 its efforts have been hampered by the need to make substantial budget cuts. However the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that Canada should do better in the future, but nothing concrete has been announced yet in this regard.

Of course the Minister for International Cooperation is reviewing Canada's processes with a view to providing more effective international assistance. But that does not change the facts. The government is miles away from the target set by the UN, which is a contribution of 0.7% of the GDP. By increasing the budget by $1.6 billion over the next four years, we will increase our contribution to 0.35% only, or half our commitment as a signatory to the UN convention.

Concerning the events of September 11, Canada wishes to maintain its influence in the international arena. The Minister of External Affairs himself came to this conclusion. So, what is the government waiting for?

This minister admitted that Canada has a good reputation but that it cannot live up to its reputation. We all know that. Within the context of any realistic foreign policy, it is crucial to look at the gap that is growing between rich and poor in the world.

Let us not forget the facts: in 1993, the Liberals promised to contribute no less that 0.7% of Canada's GDP to international assistance. Seven years later, this same Liberal government is devoting only one-quarter of one per cent of the GDP to international assistance.

The need to increase this assistance is very real and urgent. In a few weeks, Ottawa will host an important meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The events of September 11 and their impact, particularly on the poor, will be at the heart of the discussions. The reduction of the debt of disadvantaged countries will surely be a focus of attention.

It is high time that the government re-evaluated the situation. It has enough flexibility to increase its aid program. We have the necessary resources, since the surplus forecast for the end of the year is over $10 billion.

But most of all, we have to increase international aid because many people are condemning the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We have to send a clear message. When we talk about fighting poverty, we can walk the talk.

It is important to act right now. Afghan women and children have been suffering the horrors of war for much too long and the bombing their country has faced since the beginning of the allied retaliation is putting them into a very difficult situation.

Allow me to come back for a moment to the reform of the Canadian International Development Agency. The planned reform is well accepted by the non- governmental organizations specializing in international co-operation but there are still some reservations.

The Canadian Council for International Cooperation, which represents more than a 100 non-governmental organizations, does not support the action recommended by CIDA, which would rather fully subscribe to the World Bank global approach. In fact, the council is concerned that this could lead to a reduction in the level of aid given to the most disadvantaged populations, thus diminishing the importance of Canada as a donor.

Canadian international co-operation organizations have expressed some reservations and are concerned about some major issues in the proposed reform:

CIDA would redefine its mission to include Canada's strategic interests...by extrapolating trade interests.

History tends to show that trade interests and human rights do not go together well.

Furthermore, the marginalization of civil society organizations, which have largely contributed to democratic development and the solidarity—

These organizations would simply implement policies set by governments.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund see the integration of poor countries into the market system as the remedy for the planet's ills. By contrast, many stakeholders in international solidarity do not share this vision. The Women's Network, among others, claims that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are responsible for the continuing poverty and its increase in the world.

In closing, the effect of increasing poverty is that the production of wealth is up against its opposite, the factors of destruction. Among these factors is terrorism driven by revolutionary ambitions of changing the system. What can we do? Fight at all costs the profitability of terrorism, which would have the effect of relegating world security and peace to a position of secondary importance.

We must thoroughly re-examine the contemporary world order and, thus, seek world justice. We must prevent the use of terrorism as a weapon for political purposes and, of course, eliminate poverty in the world.

[Finance, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, not only does everyone agree that health and education are total priorities, but there is even more agreement on the significant multiplier effect additional investment would have in this area.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that, if he were to comply with the request of the provincial ministers of finance, he would manage to kill two birds with one stone, that is sustaining the economy, while at the same time meeting the needs of citizens?

[Finance, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at their meeting this past weekend, all of the provincial ministers of finance were in agreement that they should call upon the federal government for more funding for health and education to enable them to fulfill their responsibilities properly.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that a fair assessment of the surplus would enable him not only to meet his objectives of a balanced budget and to foot the bill for security and defence, but also to meet the demands of the provinces as far as health and education are concerned?

[Charitable Organizations, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, L'Action nationale , which has been publishing for 85 years, is at risk of losing its right to issue tax receipts for donations.

According to Revenue Canada, “this publication does not meet the criteria for charity status”. It has had that status since 1967, and now Revenue Canada is withdrawing it.

Can the minister explain to us why L'Action nationale should have to lose its charity status, while he has not taken the same attitude toward the Council for Canadian Unity, which benefits from such a privilege?

[Canadian Economy, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, like many Quebecers, I am wondering what the Minister of Finance is waiting for to make his action plan public, when whole sectors of our economy have been affected by the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States and by the economic downturn prior to September 11.

On numerous occasions, we asked the Minister of Finance about his plans to boost the economy. While the problems are real and tangible, the minister's comments have been sketchy and inconsistent.

It is not as though he lacks the means to restore economic growth and create jobs, because in a worst case scenario, he has at his disposal a surplus of $13 billion between now and March 31, 2002.

The Bloc Quebecois is only asking him to use 5 of the $13 billion that he has to provide oxygen to the economy. It is imperative that the Liberal government end its silence and reveal to parliamentarians its strategic plan to put an end to the economic downturn.