Jean-Yves Laforest

[Status of Women, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when we know that the Conservative budget dedicated only six lines out of 400-plus pages to women and that their election campaign mentioned the word “women” only twice, we quickly see that women are of little importance to that party.

While no new investments were made for women and while this pittance, this $20 million for projects, was announced by the Conservatives with great fanfare, but actually came from the cuts in the Status of Women budget, how can the Conservatives claim to be promoting women's causes?

[Income Tax Act, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-253, which amends the Income Tax Act with respect to registered education savings plan contributions. The Bloc Québécois firmly supports this bill. We believe that it will make education more accessible to more young people. This is especially true in Quebec, given the cost of education.

In Quebec, there are great distances between regions and between educational institutions. Given that these institutions are located in areas that are often very far from students' homes, it is important to improve access to education for a great many students in Quebec.

Obviously, higher education is expensive for families. Often, young families will take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to have another child, because they know that education is extremely costly. The more we improve funding for students and the easier we make it for them to take advantage of such a system, the more we will promote not only population growth, but access to education by students in Quebec.

This bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, where members of the Bloc Québécois expressed several concerns about it. One concern stands out: this must not become a tax loophole. Rich families and people with very high incomes must not be allowed to use this tax deduction as a shelter. That would turn it into a regressive measure for middle-class families and middle-income earners.

The amendments proposed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East seek to address this problem by setting a lifetime contribution limit, but they do not set a yearly limit.

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who proposed a subamendment to the Liberal member's proposal, gave an example that I will repeat to illustrate the potential downside of this proposal.

This is a concrete example based on the situation that would arise from the existing Liberal amendments. For example, a taxpayer earning $150,000 in a single year can contribute $50,000 to a registered education savings plan in that same year. The taxpayer would get a tax refund of $14,500. Then over the next five years, the taxpayer's child could withdraw up to $10,000 per year from the plan, tax-free. In the end, the government would be giving $14,500 to people with a lot of money to begin with, people who earn a lot.

That is the kind of situation the Standing Committee on Finance discussed, the kind of situation the Bloc Québécois does not want to see. My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber moved a subamendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East because the Bloc Québécois supports the bill in general but is against creating a situation that takes advantage of middle-income individuals and families. My colleague's proposed amendment would set an annual deductible contribution limit of $5,000. If the subamendment is passed, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill as amended by the Liberal member.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question of the parliamentary secretary, I would say that we know that the $90 million he has mentioned is allocated to extending the TIOW program, which is a training program. He is using my riding as an example. Among the workers in my riding who are losing their jobs, many are traditional forestry workers, people who have worked in mills for many years.

The TIOW program will allow some of them to be retrained, but not all. There are many. A pulp and paper mill closed last fall and 550 workers lost their jobs. These individuals will not find new jobs. Many are 50, 54 or 55 years old. It makes no sense to train them in computer technology or to ask them to work in the tar sands. They have families, they are established in a region where they have lived for years. They only needed some money, some help like the former POWA, to survive and to reach retirement. That did not happen. They were told to go get some training and work in another field. That makes no sense for many of these workers.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Yukon for asking this question.

With respect to aboriginals, a federal government responsibility, we know that they absolutely need additional assistance. There is no indication in this budget that the Kelowna accord will be honoured.

Aboriginal peoples are citizens living in very unique and difficult situations in Quebec and the rest of Canada. These people are grappling with extremely difficult problems and living conditions that are unacceptable for the vast majority of people. Once again, the Conservative government decided to use most, if not all, of the surplus to pay down the debt even though there are such pressing needs—as I mentioned—with respect to seniors, various sectors such as the forestry industry, the manufacturing industry as well as communities affected by these problems. There are also the aboriginal peoples, the group most ignored in this budget.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I was listening to the Conservative colleague who spoke just before me and he said that the budget, presented by the Minister of Finance, will help Canadians. I would like to finish his sentence by saying that it might help Canadians, but it will not help Quebeckers. This budget completely ignores Quebec's traditional demands, which have been expressed by a number of stakeholders in Quebec.

In reaction to this budget, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois said that it does not provide any significant gains for Quebec. That is why I am saying it gives absolutely nothing to Quebeckers. There is no reason for the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of this budget. Through its budget, the Conservative government is truly showing its right-wing ideology, which does not reflect the interests and values of Quebec. We really see that in this budget.

Yesterday morning, a number of newspapers in Quebec reported on the general sentiment about this budget in Quebec. Alain Dubuc, from La Presse, summed up this sentiment quite well:

This lack of vision can be explained by the conservative philosophy of the [name of prime minister]government, which does not believe in the role of the state and avoids economic intervention like the plague. It is an outdated conservatism that is not found anywhere else in the west.

We feel that it is Quebeckers who will foot the bill for this ideology. This budget utterly lacks vision. The crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries is getting worse and thousands of workers are paying the price. I know all about it because if there is a riding that has depended on the forestry industry for years, where the economy for the most part is centred on forestry and manufacturing, it is my riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

For years now we have felt like the Conservative government is completely absent from any sort of “aid” process. We can feel it. People expected this government, which had a $10.3 billion surplus at its disposal, to allocate that money to help companies and workers, but it did not. People are dismayed and desperate.

This budget utterly lacks vision. It will not help families. Entire regions are in crisis, families are in crisis, and elderly people living below the poverty line feel that the federal government has abandoned them, even deceived them. During the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised to grant full retroactivity to those who had been cheated out of their fair share of the guaranteed income supplement, or who did not have access to it for various reasons. The Conservatives promised fully retroactive reimbursement, but they did not keep that promise even though they had $10 billion at their disposal. That is incomprehensible.

Things are happening. Education should be public priority number one, because we know there will be a shortage of skilled labour. Institutions are also chronically underfunded. There is nothing in this budget to suggest that the government is planning to increase transfers for post-secondary education. It looks as though the Conservative government missed the boat on this issue.

When it comes to the environment, humanity is struggling with one of the greatest environmental challenges in history. Everyone knows this. Increased greenhouse gases are having a negative impact on all human beings. Canada produces a lot of greenhouse gases, especially in the west and Alberta. Those emissions raise our national average. Quebec produces far less greenhouse gas emissions.

Quebec loses out on that score.

And now, to culture. The Quebec nation is a francophone nation that accounts for less than 2% of the population of North America. The government is well aware that the survival of the Quebec nation depends on cultural development, but there is nothing in the budget to improve the cultural system despite the benefits to be had from promoting francophone and Quebec culture more energetically.

It is clear that the challenges are great and the needs desperate. Yet we have a government full of dinosaurs that wants to use $10 billion to pay off the debt. Nobody in Quebec agrees with that. It is a crazy thing to do. This must be some kind of budget fanaticism. Whether the Liberals admit it or not, this kind of fanaticism is very bad for Quebec and for Canada, I am sure. Many Quebec commentators agree. Here is what Messrs. Dupuis and St-Maurice of the Desjardins group said:

Considering the massive needs in terms of urban infrastructure, environment, health and education, and the difficulties many provinces have balancing their budgets, we suggested that the government use any surplus beyond that objective to improve our competitiveness, help the provinces struggling to balance their budgets or help municipalities address their growing infrastructure needs.

The Conservative government listened to no one, blinded by its own ideology. It turned a deaf ear to Quebec.

I would also like to share some remarks made by Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget. She said that the Conservative government makes choices that do not reflect Quebec's priorities. She went on to say:

I am disappointed because there was a $20 billion margin in the context of an economic slowdown. We were hoping the government would do more for older workers and for the manufacturing and forestry industries in Quebec.

The leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, a friend of the Conservatives, also said that the aid for the manufacturing and forestry industries was not enough. As well, he mentioned the $1 billion shortfall in post-secondary education transfers. He was of course alluding to the issue of the fiscal imbalance, which is nowhere near resolved, if only because of this major oversight by the Conservative government in its budget.

The day after the budget was tabled, the president and CEO of the Quebec Forest Industry Council said:

I have no doubt that the Harper government has just thrown in the towel and wants market forces to clean up the forestry industry, instead of providing support that could have prevented some of the problems.

That is the reality. Soon, there will be more problems, and more businesses in Quebec's manufacturing and forestry industries will shut down. Once again, there will be more completely senseless human tragedies, when the government could have intervened.

All things considered, the worst injustice of all is being committed against our seniors. When he was in opposition, the Prime Minister had promised to pay back seniors who had been cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement, as I mentioned earlier. The Prime Minister broke that promise. He turned his back on our seniors and the most vulnerable among them. Those who receive the guaranteed income supplement are indeed vulnerable people. The only thing they are being promised is that they can go to work to earn $3,500 instead of $500. These people, at 68, 69 or 70 years old, who have very little in the way of a support network and are often physically unwell, are being told that, if they need more money, they can work for a pittance at Wal-Mart or some other such place. That is the only way the government wants to help them. It is absolutely unbelievable.

I have talked about culture, the environment and our seniors.

Everyone knows how often the Bloc Québécois has repeated that the government also abandoned the Kyoto protocol and that it absolutely must reinvest to ensure that we can one day do our share. Quebec is doing its share. We expect the same thing from the Conservative government, so it can help us continue.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, La Presse columnist Alain Dubuc described the Conservative government's ideology as dinosaur-age conservatism because it has refused to take action to address the crisis. Instead of investing to save jobs, the minister claims that the provinces should do as he has done and lower corporate taxes. The only ones who have benefited from that solution are the oil companies.

When will the minister pay attention to what most Quebeckers think and use the surplus to resolve the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries?

[Government Contracts, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a study of recent procurement shows that Treasury Board, the Privy Council, the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works and Government Services award a disproportionate share of contracts that, strangely enough, are just under the $25,000 mark, the point at which it becomes obligatory to call for tenders.

Even worse, how can the President of Treasury Board explain the fact that, on at least five occasions, Treasury Board awarded to a sole supplier two contracts of the same value for the same work on the same day, unless this was a strategy for circumventing the rule—

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is an insult to the hundreds of workers who are waiting for their paycheques.

How can the minister responsible for the agency claim to be offering a better service when casual employees are forced to wait 10 to 12 weeks for their pay as a direct result of this decision?

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, by closing its employee payroll service at the Shawinigan Tax Centre, Canada Revenue Agency has eliminated 28 permanent positions that represent high quality jobs in a region already harshly affected by a number of plant closures. Despite all that, the minister responsible is saying that the agency has improved the efficiency of its service by concentrating these jobs.

Does the minister realize that this centralization is detrimental to the Mauricie region and that cutting positions in Quebec and sending them to Ontario and Manitoba is unfair to the workers in Shawinigan?

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the very effective member for Trois-Rivières.

On the occasion of this debate on the prebudget consultations, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois position is the result of consultation. The Bloc Québécois consulted people in the various ridings it represents. Since most of the ridings in Quebec are represented by Bloc members, we believe we represent the opinion of most Quebeckers. We consulted businesses as well as socio-economic and community groups.

People were unanimous in saying that the government must put money into helping companies and individuals by using the portion of the surplus that is available to invest. However, the government will have to invest heavily in Quebec's priorities in the upcoming budget.

We announced certain conditions pertaining to certain key sectors. It is important that the budget respond to calls from Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois by providing $1 billion in aid for the forestry industry and not aid shared by the forestry and manufacturing industries. The budget must provide $1.5 billion to help manufacturers purchase more productive and efficient equipment, which will boost productivity.

Another important area is transfers to municipalities. Municipalities have an urgent need for assistance to renovate municipal infrastructure.

Creation of an independent employment insurance fund is another priority. The Bloc Québécois has been suggesting this for quite some time. Successive governments have paid down Canada's debt out of funds generated by workers, whose contributions make up the bulk of the fund. When the government takes this money, which belongs to workers, and uses it to pay down the debt, these workers are entitled to expect much better and much more respect from their government.

The government also needs to set up an income support program for older workers. The Conservative Party made this promise during the last election campaign. To date, there has been no indication that the Conservatives intend to keep their promise. Yet they made a very firm commitment. Once again, workers and seniors are being shortchanged by the government.

There is also the issue of funding for social housing. Each year, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation generates a surplus of several billion dollars. It is important for the government to come up with a strategy for reinvesting in social housing.

I would like to talk a bit more about the sectors I mentioned. With respect to help for the manufacturing sector, the Bloc Québécois, through its participation in the Standing Committee on Finance, generally approves of the direction that the committee proposed. Several measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois were accepted by the committee, but others were rejected, even though some of them were essential. Among those accepted by the Standing Committee on Finance, which means that they were accepted by Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat and Bloc members, are some important measures worth highlighting.

The Bloc believes that the government should not stall in following up on some of the proposed measures because even Conservative members of the committee agreed to them. The committee recommended that the government allocate $1 billion to the forestry sector. I think the government should act on this measure. One billion dollars for the forestry sector alone.

Earlier, I said that the trust that was announced and voted on this week was for $1 billion to be divided between the manufacturing and forestry sectors. It is important to point out that difference. There are a lot of similarities between the two sectors.

Quebec's forestry sector is in such a state of crisis that it requires special consideration. The Standing Committee on Finance agreed to that and recommended it.

The committee also recommended that $1.5 billion be redistributed to manufacturing industries through tax refunds and tax credits so that these industries can buy new equipment and become more productive. If we want these companies to compete in the global market, we have to help them prepare for it.

All members of the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to that measure, and they also suggested that the federal excise tax transfer be raised to 5¢ to help municipalities become more competitive. The committee also recommended that this measure come into force not in 2010, but right now. This is an important element that the Standing Committee on Finance approved of and recommended to the government in its prebudget report.

With respect to the employment insurance fund surplus, the Bloc Québécois finds it unfortunate that an independent fund cannot be created to help cushion the blow for workers who lose their jobs temporarily or, sometimes, indefinitely. That money should go back to the workers who paid into the fund before it goes anywhere else.

Another important element has to do with the dignity of seniors. Earlier I mentioned the Conservatives' promise during the last election campaign to make the guaranteed income supplement for seniors fully retroactive. The government did not get it done. It did not agree and it broke its promise to seniors. The Bloc Québécois is very disappointed that the Standing Committee on Finance did not agree with this measure. This is a real shame for seniors; we owe them a lot. These people often live below the poverty line. The government and society are indebted to them, and we should respect that.

The fiscal imbalance is also important. It really must be settled. We called for $3.5 billion for post-secondary education funding, because it has been cut in recent years. It is vital that we get the funding we used to get if Quebec is to move forward and to properly educate all the students under its jurisdiction.

In terms of social housing and the status of women, the Standing Committee on Finance, once again on the Bloc's initiative, agreed to have the government use some surpluses from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to invest in social housing.

By acting on this very interesting report we can give back to a number of people, including aboriginals, so that they can once again live with much more dignity. The CMHC must dip into its surplus to provide money for social housing and to create an improved program, so there is more adequate social housing throughout Quebec.

Obviously, in its supplementary report, the Bloc Québécois was also severely critical of the ideological cuts made in recent years to status of women programs and to the court challenges program. The Bloc recommended that these measures be reinstated, but the committee did not agree. It is a terrible shame, and that is why we included this recommendation in our supplementary report.

I would like to conclude with the issue of funding for culture, where there is a huge lack of money. Over the past two years, we have not felt that the government was committed towards developing culture.