Paul Crête

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, Quebec exports by 25 sectors of activity increased in 5 sectors and decreased in 20 over the past three months compared to the same period in 2007.

I will use the example given by the minister. There can be no better example than the forestry sector. The Canadian Forestry Association told the committee that refundable tax credits are necessary. Band-aid solutions or subsidies are not the answer. There should be refundable tax credits for businesses. Furthermore, the Technology Partnerships Canada program should be reinstated as it facilitates the development of new products in the regions of Quebec and Canada.

That was a unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was chaired by the member for Edmonton—Leduc. All members of this House supported this recommendation.

The Conservative government hid behind its ideology. It did not want to provide this opportunity to manufacturers that do not make a profit. The Conservative government will have to bear the responsibility for the loss of thousands of jobs. Looking further down the road, those who have devoted their lives to their families will find themselves on social assistance in their final years because of this government.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Trahan of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters of Quebec appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance this week. He is not a separatist or a Bloc member, but rather someone who represents small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in Quebec. He gave the federal budget a failing grade when it comes to the manufacturing sector. He fully understands that tax cuts do nothing to help businesses that are not making any profit and are struggling to survive.

What is needed—and this was repeated and indicated in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology—are refundable tax credits to allow those businesses to be productive. That is what the people of Beauce and Chaudière-Appalaches wanted. A number of members here represent those ridings. There was a minister from Beauce, although he is once again a backbencher. There are members from Chaudière-Appalaches and other parts of Quebec. How is it that they could not convince the government to do something and implement such measures?

We never said we were against tax cuts, but other measures were needed to help businesses that are going through a rough period at this time. How is it that the minister, who read the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology last fall, did not see that he had the financial means to act and that it was important to do so? Is that not why Quebeckers are judging this Conservative budget so harshly? This budget does not meet the needs of Quebec.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I would like to add that we did not cooperate with the government this afternoon because we were against the time limits and against what they wanted to do with Bill C-50 regarding employment insurance. However, the theft and diversion of $54 billion by the Conservative government and the Liberal government before it has been confirmed.

All that aside, I have a question. The Conservative government, which had a $10 billion surplus at the end of last year, saw the Government of Quebec introduce a program for the manufacturing sector. How could the Conservative government then turn around and allocate just $1 billion for a trust for all of Canada but put $10 billion toward the debt, thereby abandoning Quebec, Ontario and the provinces that are having a lot more difficulty making ends meet? They do not have the financial means since the fiscal imbalance has not been completely resolved.

Why did the Conservative government make such an egotistical decision, as though it were a corporation rather than a government, to allocate 100% of the surplus to the debt, while leaving manufacturing businesses in their difficult situations? Thousands of jobs and many communities have disappeared, families can no longer make ends meet, and tonight, he is telling us that the only way to help older workers is to retrain them so that they can find new jobs even though many of them cannot find new jobs.

Are the Conservative government and the Minister of Finance ready to make a commitment, to change their attitude and to move forward with more appropriate measures to support the manufacturing sector and help older workers? Are they ready to find a way to make Conservative members from Quebec contribute and help solve the financial situation? Could that be why he does not understand Quebec? I do not know.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I let the member speak. I call this a point of order.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I listened to my Conservative colleague speaking about the work the Conservative members have done in committee. That has helped me answer a question. I always wondered why there were no Conservative members from Quebec on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I discovered the reason this afternoon when the budgets were crammed down our throats for the creation of a Canada-wide securities commission. The Conservatives' desire to centralize, with the support of the Liberals, led to the voting of supply.

Obviously, if there had been Conservative members from Quebec on the committee, they would have been so uncomfortable that they would have been unable—I hope—to vote with the Conservatives, and would have contradicted their own regime.

I remind members that if a Conservative member from Quebec ever wants to join the Standing Committee on Finance, he or she will be very welcome. For the time being, we do not have one. They felt it was not important enough. I will take note of this result.

The second thing I want to say to the parliamentary secretary is that we worked together on the Standing Committee on Finance when—

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair it is not all of the Conservative members who are lacking in judgment, but just the member for Louis-Hébert. He is the one to reprimand.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, this is no laughing matter. When a 57 year old worker who spent 30 years working in the forestry industry or the manufacturing sector loses his job, there is no retirement fund available to him today and no security other than employment insurance. Could we not at least, in all fairness, use the federal government's surplus to ensure that these people have an income supplement to allow them a decent life while waiting for their pensions?

Will the Conservative government finally keep its promise and show these former workers a bit of respect?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, my predecessor and I have always said that an income security program was needed. One of the minister's colleagues said he is 58 years old and he does not have such a problem. But he has a pension fund waiting for him, and so do I. The minister is leaving these people with nothing to look forward to.

I would like to come back to another promise the minister did not keep. In December 2005, the Prime Minister promised to introduce a bill on the federal spending power. Will he introduce such a bill in this House before the summer recess? That is an official promise made by the Prime Minister in December 2005.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, this is the heart of the matter. Will the Minister of Finance admit that older workers cannot be retrained to work in other areas? They are unemployed and, at 57 years old, after working for a company for 30 years, they are being abandoned with no hope of receiving any income until their old age pensions.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, will the minister admit that there is no income support program for older workers? A 57 year old worker who loses his or her job and whose EI benefits run out no longer has any income security. Will the Minister of Finance admit that this Conservative Party promise was not honoured?