Maurizio Bevilacqua

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to some of the commentary that ensued after the budget speech was delivered.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, who is the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

We don't see any broad-based tax relief either for taxpayers or businesses.

The government promised in November that they were going to make Canada more competitive and control spending and I think they broke that promise today.

As well, when we examine the issue of the environment, John Bennett from the Sierra Club said that the government was basically ignoring the climate crisis.

John Williamson, who I am sure the hon. member knows, the President of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “The fellow working in the line or anyone with a salary income and no children will receive no tax relief. That's disappointing. Ottawa is running huge surpluses. This is a good time to cut the rates for all taxpayers up and down the economic ladder. The government decided to broadly target, for example, seniors, not tax relief in this document for all taxpayers”.

Andrew Coyne, the National Post columnist, said, “With this budget [the Minister of Finance] becomes officially the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada”. He went on to say, “The budget in fact has no sense of health priorities”.

I need not remind the hon. member what Danny Williams said about federal-provincial relations. He said, “Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are feeling an intense sense of betrayal by this government”. That was said after the Minister of Finance actually stated that the era of federal-provincial bickering was in fact over.

I would like the member to explain to me what in fact is going on. The government has a certain view of the budget but it seems to me that many other Canadians view this budget as a very disappointing one.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by the hon. member, who apparently is in the process of doing a tour in relationship to the challenges facing women in her province.

However, I will tell the House something that is becoming pretty evident in this budget debate. In fact, Liberals feel that the budget has failed Canadians when it comes to income tax relief, when it comes to the issue of climate change, when it comes to the issue of federal-provincial relations and when it comes to the issue of preparing this country for the 21st century. Liberals feel that the budget fails students and universities, working families, and aboriginal Canadians as well as women. This party is willing to stand with those individuals and tell the Conservative government that in fact we do not agree with the direction in which it is taking the country.

On the other hand, in what the Bloc is trying to do, always under the guise of fixing the fiscal imbalance, the Bloc is not actually standing up for the women of Quebec. It is not standing up for those individuals who need social housing. The Bloc members are going to vote with the government. They are not doing what the Liberal Party is doing. The Liberal Party is saying that we do not agree.

The hon. member would like to have it both ways. On the one hand, those members deliver nice speeches to women and nice speeches to social and housing groups, telling them that they are there to support them and that they feel their pain, but they are not willing, in a very principled way, to vote against the government.

If they truly believed in their speeches and truly believed in their words, they would vote against a government that is not acting in the best interests of women and is not acting in the best interests of those individuals who unfortunately do not have access to housing in this country. It is not acting in the best interests of the students who need student aid--

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech and was struck by some of the things he said.

He was right when he said that the Conservative government has turned its back on the forest industry and that there is really no program for older workers. He went on to say that income support for 55 year-olds and older is non-existent. He also said that many people in his own riding have lost jobs as a result of the Conservative government's economic strategy and that honest citizens who have worked throughout their whole lives are now being left behind. In fact, this Conservative government is really leaving the disadvantaged people of our society behind.

The hon. member also said that the Conservative government is showing contempt for workers, that the most disadvantaged are ignored. I am wondering if he is willing to stand up for his constituents. If he really believes what he actually said in his speech, then why is the Bloc Québécois supporting the budget?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will remember the days when we had to eliminate a $42 billion deficit. I remember you being here. It was a time when we made some serious decisions and trade-offs. The previous Liberal government eventually left surplus budgets to the Conservative government. I can say that it is unbelievable how many people the government has left behind in this budget when we consider the surpluses with which it is operating.

I want to ask the hon. member, what does he feel and what are his constituents saying about the failure of the government in relation to tax relief? The government has attacked the lowest income Canadians. The government has actually raised taxes. It did not reverse the mistake that was made in last year's budget.

There is the issue of the environment where the government cut back the Liberal commitment to renewable energy to 4,000 megawatts from 5,500 megawatts in support of clean and sustainable production. This goal is not reached either.

The government has talked a great deal about the end of provincial and federal bickering. It did not take long for the premiers of this country to criticize the manner in which the government is dealing with federal-provincial relations and now it has reneged on commitments it actually made.

I also want to ask my hon. colleague his feelings about the fact that the Conservative government has also failed in preparing Canada for the 21st century when it cut programs such as the CAN-Trade strategy and scrapped initiatives that relate to universities. The government offers absolutely no hope for students. The Conservatives have also not created one single child care space as the member correctly pointed out. How can a government with so much have done so little?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for an excellent speech and for giving an overview of the impact of the budget on Saskatchewan. I want him to expand on that particular issue.

We have seen time and time again how the government is cutting in areas such as literacy, the reneging on the Kelowna accord, the opportunities missed, the inability of many people in this country to fulfill their own promise as individuals, to achieve their full potential.

Could the hon. member comment on the reaction he has received from the people he represents, his constituents, on this budget?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have paid attention to the speech delivered by my hon. colleague. We can understand the nervousness on the other side. It is obvious. They inherited surplus budgets. When we took office, we inherited a $42 billion deficit. We were able to balance the budget. We were able to give a $100 billion tax cut. We were able to create over three million jobs. I understand.

Unfortunately the budget has not been received as well as the Conservatives thought it would be received. I want to give my hon. colleague a chance to perhaps expand on the reasons why this Conservative budget has not been well received by Canadians.

[Bank Act, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague deliver yet another speech in the House of Commons. He is known as an individual who delivers quite a few speeches and that speaks to his dedication to the things that are important to Canadians. As well, he and I have shared many days and nights in the finance committee, and I can tell everyone that very few people work as hard as he does.

I am interested in the broader issue related to an issue that I think needs to be addressed as Canadian financial institutions deal with key issues and pressures like demography, globalization and competition in the broader global context. Of course my hon. colleague would know that I am referring to the issue of the merger review process as it relates not only to banks but also to the cross pillar option.

In the 21st century economy, where financial institutions play an important role, I would think that Canada should in fact have clear guidelines that relate to merger possibilities, not only for banks, as I said, but possibly also for insurance companies as well. While there is in fact a review mechanism in place that speaks to the importance of going through the Competition Bureau and OSFI, the public interest assessment portion of the merger review process is still very unclear.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he feels that in a country like ours in this century where financial institutions are facing not only domestic competition but also competition from abroad, and as the entire financial service sector redefines itself given all these pressures, whether or not he feels that it is perhaps time for the Government of Canada to clearly outline to the financial institutions what the merger review process is.

These words I am saying should not be misinterpreted to mean that I am in favour of or against mergers, because at the end of the day they will be evaluated according to their merit, but I do want to hear from my hon. colleague what he feels about the fact that it is still not very clear what financial institutions need to do if in fact they want to engage in a merger.

[Government Programs, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance prepares his budget, the residents of Vaughan are crystal clear about their priorities. There is a consensus among my constituents. They want a balanced approach in the next budget, one that places people first.

They want the government to invest in key areas such as health care, education, environment, research and development and infrastructure, including the extension of the Spadina subway line, as well as cut taxes and reduce the national debt.

The focus should be on growing a globally competitive, productive and sustainable economy, one that will improve Canadians' standard of living and quality of life.

The residents of Vaughan have been active participants in the prebudget consultation process. They expect the Conservative government to listen and act.

[Mexico, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

There have been 15 homicides involving Canadians in Mexico since the year 2000. Many of the cases remain unsolved. Over the past year, three of my constituents, Adam DePrisco and Dominic and Nancy Ianeiro were killed while vacationing in Mexico. Canadians obviously want answers to these unsolved cases.

During his visit this week to Mexico, what specifically will the Minister of Foreign Affairs be demanding from the Mexican government to ensure the protection of Canadians?

[Equalization, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government has changed its mind on equalization. When the Prime Minister realized that the 13 different promises he made to the 13 different provincial and territorial premiers were unrealistic, he decided to stop talking about it, thinking that the matter would be dropped.

When will the Prime Minister finally announce that his promise that no province would lose out was totally false?