Mr. Speaker, in opening this debate, the leader of the official opposition mentioned the Olympic Games. In keeping with the spirit of the opening ceremonies of those games, we see that Quebec is absent from the budget. Quebec was not present; Quebec does not exist and this is just like the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games.
We went on a major tour, a real tour. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan and all the other Bloc Québécois colleagues and I talked to Quebeckers face to face. We did not invite them to meeting rooms or round tables here in Ottawa. We went to see them and not just at chambers of commerce, but at FADOQ, youth groups, unions, community agencies and cooperatives. They gave us their thoughts on a budget that would have helped Quebec.
For example, we realize today that Mr. Dubuc was right when he said in yesterday's La Presse that this government merely showed its lack of talent and interest in innovation, research, development and helping to improve the competitiveness of Quebec companies.
After reading the budget, we must say that Alain Dubuc was right yesterday. Today Alain Dubuc says:
This budget is not very credible at all.
And he goes on to say:
What is more, despite the financial situation, he did not resist the temptation... to distribute a catalogue full of goodies.
For two days in a row, we have agreed with Alain Dubuc. I think that is a first for the Bloc Québécois.
What did we see in social terms? Nothing. Regarding the social aspect, I met with people from FRAPRU. Just like François Saillant, these people are disappointed today that the end of the investments will leave nothing but crumbs for the poorly-housed and the homeless, whose numbers have increased as a result of the economic crisis.
Something incredible is happening with respect to cooperative housing. The end of the agreements between CMHC and cooperative housing is such that those who manage cooperative homes are being more selective in terms of their new tenants. They are saying, but not in writing, of course, that they have to be careful and try to rent to people with higher rather than lower incomes. This goes against the purpose of social housing and cooperative housing. The absence of the CMHC from these agreements will distort social housing in Quebec and elsewhere.
As we have heard, there is nothing for homelessness. As we said yesterday and we are explaining again here today, the problem of homelessness is increasing right now. It does not appear at the beginning of a recession. At first, people start losing hours of work. Then they turn to EI benefits and welfare. This drives up provincial deficits. It is not until later that people find themselves on the street or forced to spend 125% of their income for housing, because they no longer have an income or a place to live.
What did we see yesterday? Nothing. Nothing for the programs to fight homelessness.
As for employment insurance, we submitted our document to the Minister of Finance's office, not just once, but twice, three times even—first by mail, then in person, and a third time at the end of our tour—asking him to improve the EI system. Employment insurance involves a presumption of good faith; increasing the maximum insurable earnings to 60%; eliminating the waiting period; and standardizing the eligibility threshold at 360 hours. It is false to say that two unemployed workers from the same company are different because they live in two different towns. We proposed all of this to the finance minister. Yet, the budget contains nothing for employment insurance.
As for income security, for example, an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, once again there was nothing. Some people in Quebec are being left out in the cold again.
Regarding forestry, on page 259 of this magnificent volume—the government has certainly shown foresight—we see that $9.718 billion was granted to the auto sector, while just $170 million is being spent on marketing and innovation in the forestry sector.
It is shameful. This is like giving $9,718 to workers in the auto sector and $160 to forestry workers. That is how the math works. This situation is unacceptable. I say bravo to the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party, bravo to the minister from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean: they obtained 57 times less than the ministers from Ontario in this budget. Bravo to the Conservative members of Parliament.
As for tackling the deficit, on page 174, it clearly states that the deficit should shrink to $1.8 billion by 2014-15. That seems clear, but what is less clear is where the government is going to find that money.
On page 180, a table illustrates very well what employment insurance benefits will be. For last year, benefits total $18.4 billion, while on page 176, the employment insurance premium revenues indicated are $26.6 billion. This boils down to stealing $8.2 billion out of the EI account to finance a $1.8 billion expenditure. That is not made clear in the budget. One has to cross-check the information on various pages. In terms of disclosure, the Conservative government scores a big fat zero.
Regarding income tax, the tax reductions are very well illustrated. It would appear that some of last year's tax reductions for Canadians apply this year. Let us take a look at what these tax reductions represent. A family with an income between $100,000 and $150,000 will benefit from tax relief of $1.96 per day, as compared to $0.67 per day for a family with an income between $30,000 and $45,000. And this, at a cost of $3.2 billion to the public purse.
Yesterday, much was made of the universal child care benefit. A very nice table was published in La Presse today, which shows that families with an income of $150,000 or more will receive $140, or 38¢ per day, those with an income of $50,000 will receive $70, or 19¢ per day, and those whose income is less than $30,000 will receive 0¢ per day. This whole thing is a waste of $3.2 billion.
We have suggested that the Minister of Finance check his own statistics. He would see that 324,160 Canadians have a taxable income of more than $150,000. Together, they have earned $52 billion. We have asked him to collect 2% on that income. That would represent $1.56 billion.
Also, there are 189,450 Canadians with a taxable income of more than $250,000. Let the Minister of Finance collect 3% from individuals whose taxable income is greater than $250,000. That would represent $3.1 billion.
Basically, what we are suggesting is that, instead of giving $1.50 to wealthy people, more money should be collected from those who have the most money. This way, $4.2 billion in revenue could be generated, instead of wasting $3.2 billion.
That is the difference between the strategy for distributing wealth put forward by the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party's strategy, which distributes wealth among the wealthy.
Why was nothing done yesterday about the outrageous tax bills sent to seniors who had entrusted their savings to criminals? Why was nothing done about that?
The Minister of National Revenue said that he could not change the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, he was right. Only the Minister of Finance can. Yesterday, no changes were made to the tax position of those poor people who have been fleeced by the Earl Joneses of this world. They could have been allowed to deduct the fraud losses from their income, but there was nothing about that.
A small effort has been made with regard to tax havens. Yesterday, we saw that the government is capable of making small changes with regard to high-income earners who are given stock options. We know very well that someone who receives options cashes them in at some point and the capital gain realized is taxed at 50%.
In the private sector, many people are paid in cash. Therefore, there was a tax loophole and the minister filled that, which is perfect. He showed a certain flexibility but we are asking him to do more.
Corporations have $3 billion in tax havens and banks have $2.3 billion. The minister has all the information. Nothing was done about that. They are going to sign an agreement with Panama to increase the number of foreign subsidiaries and take advantage of the resulting tax haven.
That is shameful.
As for the Quebec securities commission and the Autorité des marchés financiers, why interfere with something that is within the jurisdiction of Quebec, its government and Quebeckers? It affects not only those working for the AMF but also all those professionals who have been trained and who work in lawyer's offices or in consulting offices, as well as all those working in SMEs. Quebec is a hot spot for SMEs.
If the Conservative project goes ahead, what will all those who do business with the AMF do? They will be forced to send emails in English somewhere else in Canada. And yet it is within Quebec's jurisdiction. What is the Conservative government doing? It is ignoring this jurisdiction, it does not care.
The government is going to be hearing from us about to the AMF and the securities commission.
Another example of the government's lack of respect has to do with Hydro-Québec. Hydro-Québec is a subsidiary of the Government of Quebec, and Hydro One is a subsidiary of the Government of Ontario. Why are these two companies treated differently?
In a long letter, the former Minister of Finance of Quebec explained this very clearly to the current Minister of Finance of Canada. Why is Hydro One not treated the same way as Hydro-Québec? Why does this benefit the Government of Ontario and disadvantage the Government of Quebec to the tune of $250 million a year?
Let us turn our attention now to tax harmonization. Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec was a bit embarrassed to say that he was disappointed. I understand how he feels. He is negotiating with someone who has a sledgehammer. The Finance Minister and the Premier of Quebec were being polite yesterday, because Quebec is supposed to be receiving $2.2 billion, but deep down, they are fed up because Quebec has been waiting for the money for 18 years. There is no respect for tax harmonization.
People are asking themselves for whom, how and why this budget was prepared. They should be saying against whom, against what.
We on this side of the House have had it with the government's incompetence when it comes to recognizing Quebec. We do not know where the government is coming from or where it is going, but we know where we are going.
The budget excludes Quebec and treats Quebec as if it does not exist, but Quebec does exist. Quebeckers are not fools, and that is why most of the members from Quebec are sovereignists from the Bloc Québécois. We will not deceive Quebeckers. We will not hide when it comes time to vote. We will not be absent from this side of the House on the day of the vote. We will vote against the budget. We will do that, unless—and I would like to move a motion, seconded by the member for Joliette:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:
“this House shall not support the government’s budgetary policy unless the government eliminates the tax benefits given to the oil industry, thereby enabling it to compensate Quebec for harmonizing the QST and GST, enhance the Employment Insurance Plan, strengthen the Guaranteed Income Supplement and establish a credible assistance plan for the forestry industry, and unless the government abandons the idea of establishing a national securities commission”.
