Paul Crête

[February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, please excuse me.

The Secretary of State (Agriculture) was hoping that I was beginning to convince my leader to support the next federal budget so that the community development trust would see the light of day. The secretary of state was a week late because the Prime Minister sided with us the week before. He told us that the trust money would be separate from the budget. The Secretary of State for Agriculture likes to boast that the Bloc Québécois does not have any power; however, the Bloc won this one. The secretary is not up to date. A week after the fact, he was still going on about it.

Having said that, one important issue remains. On the weekend, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, again raised it with the Prime Minister of Canada. He told him that it was a good idea to separate the money, that he himself had asked for that and that it agreed with the Quebec consensus that the votes should be separate. He also told him one more thing: that more money is needed. One billion dollars is not enough. More money is needed.

Last fall, the Bloc Québécois presented a $3.5 billion action plan, with $2 billion for the manufacturing industry, $1 billion for the forestry industry and $1.5 billion for employment insurance. That is a total of $4 billion. $1 billion has been put into the trust and the remaining $3.5 billion remains to be disbursed.

Will the government go ahead and respond to the second requirement of the Quebec consensus and agree to allocate the money, from this year's $10 billion surplus, as follows: $3 billion to the debt, $3.5 billion to recovery and $3 billion to help seniors? Is this not the right decision, which the government should make public as soon as possible?

[February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I rose in the House during question period to ask the Prime Minister to separate the budget vote from the vote on the trust for regional economic diversification. Members will recall that when he made his announcement in New Brunswick, the Prime Minister said that it absolutely had to be passed together with the budget.

That was on January 29. The Bloc brought up the issue every day thereafter, and finally achieved satisfaction. The government decided to separate the vote on the trust from the budget. That was a good decision. We asked for it over and over.

Therefore, I was stunned to read in the weekend papers that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is the Secretary of State for Agriculture, had criticized me for asking for this. On February 9, he said, “If Mr. Crête wants to make himself useful, he should start by convincing his leader to”—

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when Alberta was hit with the mad cow disease crisis, logically, that is where the bulk of the assistance went. However, when a crisis hits Quebec primarily, the Conservatives opt for a distribution that will give rich Alberta more than Quebec, where the majority of manufacturing jobs have been lost.

How can the government explain that it is so difficult to help Quebec when it needs assistance and so easy to help Alberta, whether it needs help or not?

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of Quebec and Ontario denounced not only the inadequacy of the federal assistance, but also its distribution. Indeed, the distribution of assistance based on population rather than based on the number of jobs affected, and $10 million in base funding for all the provinces regardless of needs—this all means that Prince Edward Island will received $99 per resident, while Quebec, which is bearing the brunt of the crisis, will receive only $28 per resident, barely a quarter of that amount.

How can the Prime Minister or the government justify this distribution, which is so unfair and illogical for Quebec?

[Tackling Violent Crime Legislation, February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment.

This morning, we have a rather glaring example of an archaic system. We see a Senate that is no longer relevant. The House of Commons, whose members are elected, is now required to hold a debate today to tell the non-elected members of the Senate to hurry up and study a bill because it urgently needs to be passed. The Bloc Québécois has clearly said that it is in favour of the motion presented by the government this morning.

We voted in favour of the bill and, furthermore, we believe that the Senate should not have any such responsibility. We believe the Senate should no longer even exist.

That said, I do find it somewhat worrisome to see the government take such a stand, as though it were trying to convince the House to pass the bill.

Let us get things straight. The debate was already held in this House. The bill has been in the Senate for months now and the government has suddenly decided it is an urgent matter. I believe this has more to do with an election strategy than reality. However, to avoid playing into the minister's hand, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion. We were in favour of the bill and we think the Senate should deal with it as soon as possible.

Can the minister tell us whether this motion is more of an electoral diversion than an attempt at getting the bill through the Senate, where it has been dormant?

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities may have “zero” to say but, as the zero expert, he has annually handed out over $900 million to oil companies. The minister gets a zero for that.

Can this minister, who has sold out to the oil companies, tell us what he has done for the workers in Maniwaki and the Haute-Gatineau region, for example, where plants are closing? That is a big, fat zero.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance himself acknowledged yesterday that the economy is slowing down. However, he prefers to adopt a laissez-faire approach rather than being proactive and countering the effects of this downturn. In addition, he has announced in advance that there will be nothing in the budget to deal with the crisis.

Now that the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that the economy is slowing, is it not his duty to use some of the current $10.6 billion surplus for additional measures which will immediately improve the assistance plan for the manufacturing and forestry sectors?

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the speech given by my hon. colleague, the committee chair, who masterfully guided the deliberations that led to this kind of report. Naturally, this does not mean that we agree on every point.

However, one thing seems crucial to me: some sort of improvement. A year ago, when the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology was making recommendations for the manufacturing sector, there was unanimity. Several months passed before anyone would even consider implementing those recommendations. Only one of them was retained: a two-year accelerated capital cost allowance. It became clear, especially in the case of pharmaceutical companies and other sectors that have to seek foreign investments, that a five-year guarantee was needed. We hope the minister will follow our recommendation. In fact, I met with the minister yesterday.

The recommendations we all agreed on concerning the manufacturing and forestry sectors advocate some $1 billion for the forestry sector, $1.5 billion for the manufacturing sector and $1 billion for infrastructure. I would like to know if my hon. colleague wants the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill as soon as possible to ensure that this year's surplus is used to make this money available.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I do not know if it is because of that, but there is a serious shortcoming in this government's behaviour, namely, the fact that in the fall economic statement we should have seen many of the recommendations being proposed right now. They should have been part of the Minister of Finance's economic statement last fall. Thus, we would have been in a better position to deal with the economic slowdown in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Perhaps if we had not prorogued and our report had been adopted sooner, the government could have paid attention to it.

Personally, I would still like to give the government a chance. I think the government still has time to accept the committee's recommendations. As a parliamentarian, I cannot say that I am playing an imaginary game.

I held very democratic consultations in my riding and then throughout Quebec. The committee made a number of important recommendations. We have an advantage right now: we have a minority government. A majority government can start up its steamroller and do as it wants with any bills, arguing that people will have time to forget. A budget will be presented in a few weeks and if the government has not heeded the recommendations regarding what our citizens want, it will pay the political price. We, as MPs, are here to represent the population and express their opinions. The Bloc Québécois has announced its proposals in advance for what it wants to see in the budget, in terms of how the surplus is used this year and next year. It has also come up with some very concrete, realistic recommendations. We hope the government will listen to us.

If it adopts the same attitude that it has in a number of other matters, it will not listen. Let us recall Afghanistan and the urgent adoption of a recommendation, two years ago, to extend the mission. According to the government, it was urgent and it was the only thing to do even though they could not answer a single question that the then Minister of Defence had asked when he was in opposition with regard to the pertinence of this mission. Had the government taken another position, we would not be in the current situation of not knowing where we are going with Afghanistan.

I hope that the government has learned some lessons from this experience. It has been in a minority position for two years. If the Conservatives wish to remain in government, they have to accept what Canadians want, as expressed through their members of Parliament. That is the democratic game as we have played it. We have presented proposals to the House and made recommendations, some of which have been retained by the Standing Committee on Finance. We will continue to debate them. I believe that our fellow citizens want us to have this influence. I believe we will if we continue to act together. When collective recommendations are made on issues, common interests are found.

For example, this week, the government party voted against our recommendation to provide tax measures for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We can see that progress has been made because the Conservative position and what the report contains are not the same. The government will have to consider this. Either the MPs on the Standing Committee on Finance did not represent the government's opinion or the government made a mistake last week and may change its position, just as it reversed its position on the trust.

In the end, it is important that the budget contain elements that will make it a good budget for Quebeckers and for all of Canada. If that is not the case, every one of us must have the courage to rise in this House and vote against the budget if it does not represent what our fellow citizens want in the current situation.

What they truly want—their basic message—is that the government must be proactive. Standing on the sidelines is not acceptable—

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The response will be quite clear.

For example, out of the $10 billion surplus we will have on March 31, the Bloc thinks that $3 billion should go toward the debt, or roughly 30% of the surplus. The remaining 70% should be allocated to urgent matters. Our country is behaving like a homeowner obsessed with paying down the mortgage as soon as possible, but whose back deck is falling apart. Even Mr. Vaillancourt, the mayor of Laval and spokesperson for the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec, used that analogy, but he said it is not the back deck that is in disrepair, but the foundation of the house.

The ratio of Canada's debt to its gross domestic product has decreased significantly over the past 10 years, to such an extent that we are now the best G-8 country on that score. There is no point in emphasizing that any further when there are urgent needs to address.

The Bloc thinks that it would be reasonable to put $3 billion toward the debt this year. That would leave an $8 billion margin for next year. With our proposals, if there is no major economic slowdown, there could be an $8 billion surplus at the end of the year.

Therefore, we are being very responsible. We agree that a portion of it should be invested in paying down the debt. However, in Quebec like everywhere else, problems of fairness need to be resolved, as in the case of the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. For years now, many seniors have not been entitled to their money, to the minimum they need to survive. The government must assume its responsibilities before paying down the debt, especially considering that the plan is doing pretty well. Indeed, our ratio is quickly becoming one of the best.

I will conclude on this point. A portion of it must be allocated to the debt, but a large portion must also be used to meet these glaring needs in our society. We hope the upcoming budget will reflect these choices.