Paul Crête

[The Economy, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in its press release announcing a 1/2 percentage point reduction in its prime rate, the Bank of Canada expressed its concern that “important downside risks to Canada's economic outlook...are materializing and, in some respects, intensifying”.

Will the Minister of Finance finally remove his rose-coloured glasses and follow the bank's lead by taking action and using part of the current year's surplus to strengthen the aid package for the manufacturing and forestry sectors? It is not too late to take action.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the minister suddenly appeared after our remarks.

Many requests from the cultural sector went unanswered in this budget.

I would like the minister to tell me why, for example, there is no $50 million increase for the Canada Feature Film Fund, and no $300 million increase in the Canada Council for the Arts budget. What about creating the $10 million documentary feature film fund that the cultural community is calling for? What about reinstating full funding for the museums assistance program, or reinstating the Canada Council for the Arts grants for the theatre touring and special initiatives program? What about getting rid of the GST on books?

Clearly there are a number of subjects and sectors that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages should have convinced the Minister of Finance to include in his budget. Not one of these measures is in the budget.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us what she will do to resolve this issue? Because it is rather scary that the cultural sector, which is very important in Quebec and Canada, does not get more attention from this government.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate, before oral question period, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages was delivering a speech. She still had some five or 10 minutes remaining, and everyone hoped that she would finish her speech, or that she would at least be present, if she had nothing further to say, in order to respond to questions from the opposition and other members of this House.

At the very least, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should be present in the House to finish her presentation and, above all, to answer questions from the members of this House.

[March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, then how do we explain the position of the Canadian manufacturers and exporters, the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce and all the unions and workers? Last Friday, 150 laid-off workers went to the Minister of Labour's constituency office with signs saying, “You are a member from Quebec. Not Alberta.” People want a chance to work in their own communities. People are saying that they do not want to go to Alberta. A 55-year-old who has spent his life raising a family in his region does not want to move to that province.

Today, the government is refusing to implement an income security program for older workers. These people have done everything they can to find jobs, but have not been successful. How are these people supposed to understand that the government is putting $10 billion in surplus towards the debt, when it cannot find $50 million, for the current year for all of Canada, to help ensure these workers have sufficient funds to get them through to retirement?

Should the government not go back to the drawing board, as the Standing Committee on Finance recommended today?

[March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the issue of the manufacturing and forestry sectors is attracting so much interest and that so many members are here for these adjournment proceedings.

On February 5, 2008, I had a question for this government, for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, on the appropriateness of adding the measures announced to help the manufacturing and forestry industries. At that time, the Prime Minister had decided that the vote on the $1 billion trust would no longer be linked to the budget. We managed to get him to reverse that decision and we hoped that the government would inject some new money in order to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors deal with the crisis.

The budget has been presented since then, but we note that the Minister of Finance unfortunately did not listen to our demands, for which he is being severely judged in Quebec. The three parties of the National Assembly, including the premier and the Quebec finance minister, as well as the leader of the opposition and the leader of the third party, have all denounced the situation and called the budget inadequate for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, as well as for older workers. This budget does not meet the needs of Quebeckers.

Today, I am raising this issue again, because the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Finance now number among those who are unhappy with the budget. In fact, today, they agreed to support a motion calling on the committee to examine the issue of the manufacturing and forestry industries in the coming days and try to report by March 31, so that the government can take additional steps to help the industries.

It is scandalous that the government plans to use the $10 billion surplus to pay down the debt, when that money could be used to help our economy. Instead of spending $10 billion to reduce the debt, the government could have spent only $3 billion on that and used the remaining $7 billion to help the manufacturing and forestry industries and older workers.

I hope that the government will change its mind, because it has until March 31 to decide how it will allocate the surplus. It changed its mind about the trust fund, so why not in this case?

I am encouraged by Conservative support for the motion I introduced today. I hope that the government will act accordingly and that, as early as tomorrow, we will have news confirming that the Conservative government has recognized that allocating the $10 billion to debt reduction was unacceptable and that a significant portion of that money needs to be spent to revive the manufacturing and forestry industries.

We are going to go to bat again tomorrow, at the next meeting of the committee, and I hope that the position the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Finance took today will reflect the government's desire to provide additional funding.

Companies in the forestry sector, including paper manufacturers, and in the manufacturing sector are continuing to close their doors. In regions such as Beauce, which had an outstanding reputation in the manufacturing sector, jobs are disappearing left and right. The industry grew and developed when the dollar was worth 65¢, but now that the dollar is at par, the industry is in serious difficulty. Moreover, the same problem is occurring throughout Quebec and Ontario and across Canada.

Will the government take steps to correct the situation, and will it allocate additional money in the short term? That is my question for the government.

[Securities Industry, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Transport is supporting the Minister of Finance. How can he, as a former member of the Quebec National Assembly, endorse the finance minister, whose objective is to strip Quebec of its jurisdictions to ensure that Toronto dominates the Canadian financial sector? The Minister of Transport should be ashamed.

[Securities Industry, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's finance minister is confused and annoyed by her federal counterpart's stubbornness in wanting to create a Canada-wide securities commission, in an attempt to encroach on yet another one of Quebec's exclusive jurisdictions. She advises the minister to mind his own business and scrap his plan.

Does the Minister of Finance plan on taking his colleague's recommendations and focusing his energy on fighting economic crimes that fall under his jurisdiction, instead of interfering with Quebec's jurisdictions?

[Tax Transfers, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has rehearsed his answer quite well, but he answered the wrong question.

What the Bloc Québécois is asking for is the same thing the education network and the three parties in the National Assembly are asking for, and that is transfers for post-secondary education. In light of the rise of emerging economies, needs in training are even more pressing if we are to remain competitive.

How can the minister be so irresponsible and mortgage the future by refusing to reinvest in post-secondary education transfers simply to bring them to 1995 indexed levels?

If the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development does not know what that means, could the Minister of Finance respond?

[Tax Transfers, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, all three parties in the National Assembly are denouncing the fact that the Conservative government has the nerve to claim that the fiscal imbalance has been resolved. The proof is that in his budget, the minister does not have any provisions for improving transfers for post-secondary education and social programs to bring them to 1995 levels, indexed to the cost of living.

What is the minister waiting for to increase this transfer to the indexed levels, to allow Quebec and the provinces to face the endlessly growing financial pressures on training and education?

[The Budget, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point of view is a very interesting one. Indeed, it is quite surprising to see the Liberal Party join the government by supporting this budget. This whole charade, this dilly-dallying shows that the Liberals really think like the Conservatives regarding this budget. It is somewhat like the issue of Afghanistan. Originally, they felt that Canada had to leave by 2009; now, they are agreeing to our leaving in 2011, and they may eventually agree on an even later date.

The real solution to this issue for Quebeckers will come when we are able to make our own decisions alone, with our own taxes and with full control over our participation in international agreements or assistance projects.That is what we call sovereignty.

We will then be able to make choices that are different. Canada will also be able to make its own choices. It may decide to make war wherever it wants. As for Quebec, it will be able to make different choices, if it deems appropriate to do so. It will no longer be forced to come here to beg for money that comes from its own taxes, and that is spent based on a Canada-wide vision of the economy, a vision that is not the same as that of Quebec. We must first leave that structure, and then we will become two neighbours living side by side.

Quebec will, at last, have all the tools to make its own decisions. It will no longer have to convince the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, or any government formed by these parties, of anything. We will be able to make our own decisions, since we will have all the powers, and we will also assume full responsibility for those decisions. This will allow us to ensure the future of America's only French community.