Pierre Paquette

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

I think that depends on your point of view. Because we do not consider the Senate a legitimate political instrument, I certainly do not share the member's view.

That said, I believe that the message the House is sending is respectful of the senators. In my opinion, the Senate is free to act on or ignore the message it receives from the House of Commons. I believe that the House has the right to send this sort of message to the Senate.

If the senators decide to take their sweet time, I will not be offended. In constitutional terms, the House cannot force the Senate to adopt the bill on March 31. We are making a request. If the Senate does not grant that request, we will have passed this motion for nothing.

As I said, we should not fall into the trap. This is a diversionary tactic by this government to avoid discussing real issues like the growing economic problems in Canada and Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

My reply is as follows. It is precisely so we do not fall into the trap set by the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

If this is treated as an important vote, people may be panicked into an election over a motion which, in the end, does not have a great deal of legitimacy. In fact, the Bloc does not believe that the Senate has legitimacy. Furthermore, we voted in favour of Bill C-2.

In our opinion, we should quickly deal with this motion in order to get back to what is really important. For the Bloc Québécois, the best way of neutralizing and dealing with it is to vote for it and not to create a false crisis that will distance us even further from the real debate about the economic situation, which is deteriorating with each passing day.

That is why we will vote in favour of this motion. When there are substantive issues, the Bloc Québécois will be there to force an election, if warranted. However, I remind the House that we were in favour of Bill C-2, even though we were uncomfortable, as stated just now, with reverse onus.

Therefore, in weighing the advantages and disadvantages,—which we must often do in this House—we believe that it is better to vote in favour of Bill C-2 and the motion before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the first question, I think the hon. member has fully grasped this tactic on the part of the government and the Prime Minister.

We are seeing attempts to divert our attention in order to prevent us, the opposition parties and all of civil society, from forcing a debate on the situation facing the manufacturing and forestry sectors, and on the outlook for the Canadian and Quebec economies.

No one in this House, except the Conservative government, believes that the recession in the service sector—which is not only worsening, but also extends to the United States—will have no impact on the Canadian economy. I would remind the House that 75% of our exports go to the United States.

In the January 2008 edition of Affaires Plus magazine, Stephen Jarislowsky wrote: “Canada cannot survive exclusively on the development of the oil sands project in Fort McMurray ... That is completely unrealistic.”

However, this government thinks that, through the magic of oil from that project, an entire economy as diversified as the Canadian and Quebec economy can survive. They are therefore resorting to all sorts of diversion tactics in order to prevent anyone from forcing this debate.

As for the second question, unfortunately, the Speaker is signaling that I am out of time. It will have to wait until next time, my hon. colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not say that I am pleased to take part in this debate because I believe that this is a debate that we could very well have done without.

However, it will give me an opportunity to highlight some elements, including what we expect to see in the budget. In recent days and weeks, we have had the impression that the Conservative government and the Prime Minister have been attempting to blow all issues out of proportion and, if not for the purpose of triggering elections, at least in an attempt to apply pressure on the opposition parties perhaps as an attempt to show in an artificial way, some kind of leadership.

In this regard, I believe that the Bloc Québécois has the responsibility to denounce these manoeuvres that hide the real problems by focusing attention on the motion before us early this afternoon. For those listening, I will repeat the motion:

That, given the government has declared the passage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as a matter of confidence, and, that the bill has already been at the Senate longer than all stages took in the House of Commons, and that all aspects of this bill have already been the subject of extensive committee hearings in Parliament, and that in the opinion of this House the Senate majority is not providing appropriate priority to the passage of Bill C-2, a message be sent to the Senate calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, by March 1, 2008.

I will start by saying that we will support this motion even though, once again, I believe it is merely a diversionary tactic. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of Bill C-2 when it was voted on in this House. I would remind the House that Bill C-2 was an omnibus bill of sorts, since it consisted of five bills from the previous session. We were in favour of four of the five bills, and since the House had already voted and we had lost the vote, we thought the debate was over and the vote in the House was legitimate. Thus, from the beginning, we had expressed our agreement with four of the five bills, even before the government talked about making this a confidence vote.

We were, and still are, uncomfortable with one aspect of the fifth bill, that is, the notion of reverse onus for some repeat offenders. That said, after weighing the advantages and disadvantages, our caucus decided that it would be better to vote in favour of the bill, since it contained more aspects that we were completely comfortable with and that we supported. Bill C-2 does not pose a problem for us.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois considers any institution associated with the British monarchy to be completely obsolete. In our view, the Senate, as one such mechanism left over from a time when Canada was a British colony, is completely outdated. Clearly, we kept up this British parliamentary tradition—and many among us are attached to it—but, that said, some vestiges need to be abolished. And the Bloc Québécois makes no secret of the fact that, although it is not a priority for us, the abolition of the Senate would not bother us, I can assure this House.

Since it is an institution made up of unelected parliamentarians, we would have no problem with that, since we do not see any legitimacy in that branch of the Parliament of Canada. As I said, given that we do not see any legitimate reason for the institution and that we would like to see it abolished, clearly, for us, voting on it in the House should be the end of the debate, instead of referring the bill, having it passed by a majority of the members of the House of Commons and sending it to an unelected Senate.

I will point out that there is an unelected minister, Mr. Fortier, who, I repeat, promised to run in an election at the first opportunity that came up. But since then, there have been at least three byelections in Quebec, and we would have been very happy to see him step up to the plate in order to truly have democratic legitimacy and to be in a position to make decisions affecting the day-to-day lives of Canadians and Quebeckers.

We feel that the Senate has no legitimacy and should be abolished. So we have no problem with the motion. But once again, we find it a bit childish that this is being debated in this House.

The Bloc Québécois will not prolong this debate, nor do we expect the Senate to follow up on this message by March 1, since it is a relatively short deadline. As I said, we are not about to give credibility to this institution inherited from the past.

However, I think there is something more fundamental behind this motion, and that is the government's, the Prime Minister's desire to create a diversion. I would even say that we have the exact same elements in the motion concerning Afghanistan. I do not want to say that the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan is not important, far from it, but I, and a number of observers—including all members of the Bloc and several opposition members, since I seem to recall hearing the Liberals' national defence critic mention that it should not be a confidence issue—believe that the debate on this issue should be as non-partisan as possible.

By making this a confidence motion, the government, the Prime Minister, has decided to use this debate to create a political crisis and to trigger, perhaps indirectly, an election. In any event, it is a tactic to divert attention from the real problems Canadians and Quebeckers are currently experiencing.

Among those problems, there is one that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry are being particularly silent about. I am talking about the ongoing situation in the manufacturing and forestry industries. That is what we should be debating today, not some message to the Senate on a bill we all agree on.

To me there seems to be something somewhat unhealthy about the Conservative government and the Prime Minister wanting to dramatize or show us who is boss, even though they are a minority government. They have never understood that and it is not something we should forget. In my opinion, today's debate should have been about improving the aid plan, the first small step announced by the Prime Minister. He tried to use exactly the same tactics there that he is using today and with Afghanistan.

First he tried to make the aid plan, the creation of the community development trust of $1 billion over three years—which is not very much—conditional on passing the budget, thereby blackmailing the opposition parties. We do not know what will be in the budget. It may contain other completely unacceptable items. I would not be surprised to see such items in the next budget. Making this conditional on the budget puts pressure on the opposition members. But worse yet, the people who are in need of assistance in the regions affected by this crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries, were also being held hostage by this government.

Fortunately, because of pressure from Quebec, and the consensus among Premier Charest of Quebec and all the opposition parties in the National Assembly, namely the Parti québécois and the Action démocratique du Québec, the unions, who unanimously condemned the tactic, the business community—particularly those currently under pressure in these industries in crisis—editorial writers, a number of observers and the opposition parties here in this House, the Bloc Québécois in particular, the Prime Minister saw the light.

Last Monday, as we all know, we had the opportunity to vote on the first part of this inadequate aid plan. I want to be very clear that this means Quebec will get $216 million over three years, even though most of the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in 2007 were lost in Quebec.

Nobody has taken a close look at the specific job loss numbers in some sectors in the Quebec regions. I believe that is true for Ontario too, and for some regions in the Atlantic provinces. It is clear that the Prime Minister's blackmail tactics were reprehensible and that the figures announced were just not enough.

We were hoping that the Prime Minister would take advantage of his meeting this weekend—not with Bonhomme Carnaval, but with the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest—to announce improvements to the plan. We were hoping that we would be here today to talk about a bill that would fix things. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Motion No. 3, and I have already said enough about that.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the problem with the $1 billion over three years is that it is to be distributed per capita, not on the basis of need or jobs lost. Furthermore, there is an additional basic $10 million envelope per province, regardless of whether that province is Prince Edward Island, Ontario or Quebec, which is just bizarre. I will come back to that in more detail and give some numbers. In the meantime, in case I run out of time, I want to point out that Prince Edward Island will get about $100 per resident thanks to this Conservative government initiative, while Quebec and Ontario will receive just over $25 per resident, even though 75% of the manufacturing sector is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.

Therefore, what the government announced was not an aid package but a very broad-based economic revitalization plan. As we know, Alberta will receive its share. I do not think that anyone in the House seriously believes that Alberta, at this juncture, needs a little boost to reinvigorate its economy. Its problem is an overheated economy, which the government has encouraged. In particular, there were the tax cuts in last November's economic statement. For the time being, they are benefiting very few in the manufacturing sector but many in the oil and gas sector.

I will show just how inadequate this Conservative government's first step is and that it needs to be improved. I will simply mention a few articles that I collected here and there during the past week.

For example, last Monday, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, said:

More needs to be done, among other things, with respect to taxation,...research and development as well as assistance for older workers.

He was speaking specifically of the assistance plan that needed to be bolstered.

Mr. Benoît Pelletier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, added that Ottawa is awash in surpluses and that the aid given to Quebec, almost $200 million, represents only 10% of amounts advanced by Quebec.

That is what is written but we know that it amounts to $216 million.

The Government of Quebec invested almost $2 billion to help the forestry and manufacturing sectors. I know that this is being debated in Quebec because some feel it is not enough. We are talking about 10% of this aid, approximately $216 million. Obviously, the financial situation of the Government of Quebec and the federal government are in no way alike. For the Government of Quebec, it is clearly not enough and there has to be more.

The following day, it was the CSN's turn to make its views known. I will read an excerpt from its press release entitled “The Prime Minister must act now and abandon his partisan interests”:

—the time for action is now. As it is, the support announced by the Prime Minister reflects neither the seriousness of the situation nor the means at his disposal. In the past four years, more than 15,000 jobs have been lost in the paper and forestry industry, and some 130 sawmills and pulp and paper plants are currently inactive, depriving 31 of 250 municipalities of their main economic activity. Thousands of families in Quebec are in crisis.

The CSN represents 300,000 workers. It is an extremely important labour congress in Quebec and is very well established in the regions. I know a thing or two about the CSN, because I served as its general secretary for eight years.

I am also very fond of my friends in the FTQ, who weighed in on February 6 in the form of a press release from FTQ president Michel Arsenault, a former head of the steelworkers' union for Canada.

Mr. Arsenault had this to say:

The fact that this government, which is literally awash in our money, with a surplus worth billions of dollars, has given up on tying its measure to the adoption of its next budget does not make the measure any more acceptable.

The despicable blackmail by the government and the Prime Minister had ended, but the president of the FTQ, which has 500,000 members in Quebec and a strong presence in the paper and forestry sector, added this: “Quebec is not getting its fair share. The sectors that are worst off are not getting their fair share—”. He was speaking in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and he said, “Abitibi-Témiscamingue is not getting its fair share”. I would add that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is not getting its fair share, Mauricie is not getting its fair share, Gaspé is not getting its fair share, the Lower St. Lawrence is not getting its fair share, northern Lanaudière is not getting its fair share and the Outaouais is not getting its fair share. None of the regions of Quebec is getting its fair share. I will prove this in a moment. I am not finished. Unfortunately for us, groups are still having to exert pressure on this insensitive Conservative federal government.

Last Thursday, the Forest Products Association of Canada announced that it had been very affected by the crisis. It said that there were more than 12,000 jobs lost in Canada in 2007 alone, and that more than 100 mills had shut down. The association called on the federal government to intervene and introduce measures, a number of which were proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I will give only one, otherwise I will run out of time, but this particular one calls for a refundable tax credit for research and development. When a business, such as a paper mill, is not generating a profit, it does not benefit from the generosity of the Conservative government, which cut taxes for businesses earning a profit, but there is still research and development to be done. If these companies, Tembec, Domtar, AbitibiBowater or whatever, continue to do research and development, they cannot benefit from refundable tax credits because they are not generating a profit. They cannot benefit from the tax cuts announced by the finance minister in the economic statement because they are not generating a profit. They need help to be able to keep investing in research and development, which is essential to innovation and competitiveness, so that once this crisis is over, they can compete in North America and throughout the world.

We have a consensus—in Quebec anyway—and I am sure that in Ontario it is the same thing. The billion dollars in aid announced by the Conservative government is definitely not enough. A lot more money than that is needed immediately and they could use the existing surplus and they know it. The surplus is not being used to help the industries, the regions and the workers who are dealing with the manufacturing crisis, because it is being put toward the federal debt. Some might think that is a good idea, but I would remind them that the Government of Canada's federal debt is the lowest of the G-7 countries. It has not been this low since 1984. Why would anyone insist on paying off their mortgage when they have just lost their job and their children are starving? That is precisely what is happening. Not only is that not enough money, but the allocation of this money defies logic and is completely unfair. Earlier I gave the example of Prince Edward Island, but I could go on.

Take Alberta for example, which represents 7.8% of manufacturing jobs. It will receive 10.4% of the aid, while Quebec, which represents 27.6% of the jobs in the manufacturing industry, will receive just 21.8%. It is essential that this be corrected and the aid allocated according to need.

I will close by reiterating the measures the Bloc Québécois is proposing. We propose investing at least $500 million in a new Technology Partnerships Canada program, with $1.5 billion as a repayable contribution for new manufacturing equipment, a forestry economy diversification fund that could very well be the $1 million from the community development trust, and $1.5 million for improving employment insurance and the older workers program. To stimulate economic activity in the municipalities—that could be saved for the budget—there could be a $1 billion increase in the excise tax transfer to the municipalities. What we are asking for right now is $3.5 billion from the $10.6 billion surplus projected for March 31. The government can do it and if it does not, it will pay the price in the next election.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of figures, in the past five years, 145,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in Quebec. Most of these jobs have been lost under the Conservatives. Last year, 45,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Quebec. That is how the Conservatives have performed.

Will the Prime Minister take advantage of his meeting with Jean Charest in Quebec City this weekend to do as he did with Mario Dumont in Rivière-du-Loup and announce this time that he will immediately improve the aid package for the manufacturing and forestry industries in Quebec, which are suffering? You need to open your eyes.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, since activity resumed in the House, the Conservatives have been desperately trying to divert our attention. There were many examples this week. They are trying to divert attention away from their disastrous performance with respect to the crisis presently rocking the manufacturing and forestry industries.

Instead of engaging in these diversionary tactics or hiding its head in the sand, will the government put aside its laissez-faire and do-nothing ideology and move immediately to improve the aid package for the manufacturing and forestry industries, as urged by everyone in Quebec?

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just gave a very good illustration of the inequity this type of distribution can create when it is based on an approach that totally ignores real needs. Quebec is ending up with $216 million, or 21.7% of the total $1 billion announced. As I was saying, Alberta is getting a lot more money than Quebec is. While we represent 32.8% of the forestry industry, we are receiving 21.7% of the money. The same is true for the manufacturing industry. I think the government needs to take another long hard look at this issue.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which is very relevant.

We have a duty as parliamentarians to make sure our constituents have the support they need to lead fulfilling lives. For example, if workers want to stay in their community, it is our job to find ways to help them do just that, but if they want to move, we must also be able to help them with various tax programs or even changes to the employment insurance system. A number of unions in the construction industry have suggested such changes. Every year, they come here to Ottawa to talk to us about that. We would therefore be addressing a problem.

The government is hiding behind the fact that some regions or sectors are experiencing labour shortages. This is true, admittedly. But a worker in Abitibi who loses his forestry job cannot necessarily become a miner overnight. These people need income support so that they can get the retraining they need.

As well, regions sometimes have very temporary labour needs. People will be reluctant to leave their area to go to Alberta, for example, for fear they will be sent back again six weeks later. We have to find a way to minimize the costs to individuals and distribute labour in the way that makes the most sense economically. The measures described by the member are consistent with this approach.

I will close by saying that the Bloc Québécois is looking at introducing a sort of improved employment insurance for workers who agree to train for a period of two years, for example. As I mentioned, employment insurance provides coverage for a maximum of 42 weeks, if memory serves. Yet training to move from one specialty to another rarely takes less than two years. Consequently, it seems to me that in light of the new realities in the manufacturing sector, we need to review—

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about an issue that I really care about.

As the member for the riding of Joliette, I have to deal with two plant closures, in the town of Saint-Michel-des-Saints. Indeed, Louisiana Pacific decided to shut down its two plants, in August 2006. These closures occurred some time ago, and about 250 workers lost their jobs. We are talking here about a sawmill and a waferboard plant.

Many of the workers who were laid off had worked for these plants for 30 years, and they cannot easily retrain, because they have basic training and not enough education. Moreover, even if these people are willing to leave the area and move, for example, to the south of the Lanaudière region, or to the greater Montreal region, employers will give priority to young people, rather than to older workers who are near the end of their working years, in order to have some continuity.

However, these workers have a right to be able to remain in the community to which they brought a contribution for several decades.

There was a program prior to 1998, but it was abolished by the Liberals. At the time, they announced that they would set up another program. Yet, 10 years later, we are still waiting. The program would help workers who cannot be retrained to finish up their professional career with dignity and receive income from public or private pension plans. I believe that this measure would not only mitigate personal economic insecurity—these people face hardships—and family problems, but it would also help retain communities capable of moving towards other niches.

Take Saint-Michel-des-Saints, for example. A large number of recreation and tourism projects are being studied. Let us give these projects the time needed to develop so that more young people will find employment. We must not have any illusions. It will take several years for northern Lanaudière to become an international recreation and tourism centre.

These workers should be able to finish up their career with dignity with the implementation of an income support program for older workers, better known as the older worker adjustment program. That is the best solution in economic, financial and human terms.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for moving concurrence in this committee report. His timing could not be any better since the government asked the unanimous consent of the House this morning to pass a bill aimed at creating a trust that will be available to the provinces—and to Quebec—whose manufacturing and forestry industries are in trouble.

All the opposition parties gave their consent because this is a small step toward a real strategy to help the manufacturing and forestry industries. No one in this House, except for the Conservatives, and that includes the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance, can imagine that this will be enough. Let us not be mistaken about that.

This motion brought forward by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup will allow us today, in the minutes following the adoption, by unanimous consent, of the bill creating the trust, to set things straight for those who may not have a good grasp of the situation.

The report in which my colleague moved concurrence clearly shows the willingness of opposition parties—and hopefully the government will adopt the same attitude—to be extremely precise with regard to a number of solutions and proposals that would really help the manufacturing and forestry industries.

The motion passed on November 28 by the Standing Committee on Finance states, and I quote:

—the Standing Committee on Finance recommends that the government promptly introduce the tax measures in the unanimous report of February 2007 entitled Manufacturing: Moving Forward — Rising to the Challenge, and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Today seems to me to be the first and the perfect opportunity to do so since Parliament has reconvened. I will say again that it puts into context the bill passed this morning to establish a trust which will provide $1 billion over three years to all the provinces, including Quebec.

Let me also repeat that the Conservative plan had three flaws, and by “plan” I mean the beginnings of one made public in January. The first flaw is the Prime Minister's attempt to blackmail the sectors, regions, communities and workers affected by the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, and parliamentarians as well, for partisan purposes.

Aggressively pounding his fist on the table, the Prime Minister declared that, if the opposition parties wanted the plan, as rudimentary as it was, they would first have to swallow the bitter pill of the upcoming Conservative budget. Given that Conservative budgets may contain all sorts of things that are difficult to digest and which can sometimes be extremely harmful to the economic and social health of Canada and Quebec, no one gave in to his blackmail. None of the opposition parties in this House has given the Conservative government, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance a blank cheque by agreeing to support the budget because it represents the beginnings of an aid package for the manufacturing sector. This kind of blackmail was in fact denounced in all the regions of Quebec, as I assume it was in all regions of Canada as well.

In view of the consensus in Quebec and under pressure from the Bloc Québécois and labour, the Prime Minister backtracked. Even the Ontario government was behind us on that. Premier McGuinty described the blackmail as nonsense, saying that it was inappropriate at a time when tens of thousands of individuals and their families are going through extremely tough times.

There are two other problems with the Conservative plan that have yet to be solved. The government must be very aware of the fact that even though there was unanimous consent of the House to pass the bill that creates the trust, we will remain vigilant and we will not stop applying pressure. The motion brought forward by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup today is totally in this spirit, as was the one from the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord that was debated yesterday during private members business. That motion proposed a strong, detailed, effective and realistic assistance plan for the forestry industry.

The finance committee report before us today mirrors some of the proposals made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. A number of solutions are available to the government. Motions are currently being considered in five parliamentary committees and all of these motions offer solutions to the problem.

The government must understand that now that this trust that will provide $1 billion over three years has been created, it must immediately announce further measures, which it can afford to do. I will remind the House that, in his budget statement, the Minister of Finance announced surpluses for March 31. We are not talking months or years here, but a few weeks.

These projections will be achieved, or close to it. In the budget statement, the Minister of Finance announced surpluses totalling $11.6 billion. The government is now putting $1 billion in the trust for community assistance—I do not remember the exact name of that trust. This leaves $10.6 billion that could be used to make the plan a whole lot better.

As members know, we proposed to use these $4.5 billion for various initiatives. I will get back to this later on in my speech. So, there will still be money left to pay off the debt, to help the elderly, and to make necessary investments for the environment. That money is available and we do not want it to be fully applied against the debt.

Let us not forget that, as we are speaking, Canada has the lowest debt load among G-7 countries. Some huge efforts were made over the past 10 years. It is now time to look after those to whom the Quebec society, the Canadian society, the federal government and all politicians are indebted, namely the people and the communities—often one industry towns—whose jobs and future are threatened by business closures. We must help the unemployed, who were hit extremely hard by the budget cuts made in the nineties.

As a society, whether it is the Canadian or Quebec society, we are indebted to these people, and the time has come to use the government's anticipated $10.6 billion surpluses to pay off that debt. We know full well that, in the end, there will still be about $3 billion left to put against the debt. It would be totally illogical from an economic point of view, irresponsible from a financial point of view, and inhuman from a social point of view to use all of these $10.6 billion to pay off the debt.

As I mentioned, the motion before us proposes measures that can be implemented immediately. There is no need to wait for the budget. The money is there and we know that it will be available. Over the next few days, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister are going to announce new measures to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors. So, we must not wait, because everyone, in every region of Quebec and, I suppose, of Canada, feels that what the Conservative government and the Prime Minister announced in January is insufficient.

So we do not need to wait and see whether it actually will be insufficient, as the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said yesterday. Everyone can see that it is. He himself opened the door to the fact that this first step, this draft plan for aid to the manufacturing and forestry sectors, was insufficient and that more money was needed in the budget. We cannot wait for the budget. First, we do not know when the budget will happen. There has been no indication in that regard from the Minister of Finance or the government. Every day, every week that goes by brings new human tragedies, new closings and new layoffs. So if we do not want to find ourselves in an even more catastrophic situation, we have to act now.

As I said, the second flaw in the Conservative plan, after the government engaged in this political blackmail, is the fact, and this is still true, that the amounts announced are plainly not enough. It should be at least as much as $4.5 billion from this year’s surplus. As I said, $1 billion has been allocated to create this trust and that leaves at least $3.5 billion to be invested. As I said, that leaves money for other priorities, such as retroactive payment of the guaranteed income supplement for people who failed to apply because they were not informed, and also investments for the environment.

Obviously, we want to see new announcements by the government in the budget to supplement what will be done. We are very aware of the fact that in the next fiscal year the surplus could be a little lower than $11.6 billion and that it will probably be more like $8 billion. It would therefore be wise, in fiscal terms, to use the latitude there is now to invest in the recovery of the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

There is still a third flaw in the Conservative plan: the per capita allocation formula we have been told about. This makes no sense. When we had the mad cow crisis, there was no per capita fund announced. Instead, there was a response to the particular needs of western Canada and Alberta, regions that were more affected than others or than Quebec. Quebec would obviously have liked to have more for its producers, but preference was given to the regions and provinces where the problem was concentrated.

In this case, although manufacturing is essentially located in Quebec and Ontario, it has been announced that funding will be on a per capita basis and not according to needs. That means that Alberta will receive more money per person than Quebec. And yet we know that the manufacturing sector is three times larger in Quebec than in Alberta. This makes no sense. Prince Edward Island will receive three times more than Quebec. This is completely unfair and illogical on the part of the Conservatives. The situation must be remedied.

As I said, in Quebec, the manufacturing sector accounts for about 17% of jobs and 21% of income from employment, and that is nearly three times higher than in Alberta. This sector is currently in trouble. They know, as I do, that a majority of the job losses that have occurred in the last two years in the manufacturing sector were in Quebec. They know, as I do, that 93% of the job losses throughout the entire Canadian manufacturing industry occurred in Ontario and Quebec. However, those two provinces would receive aid on a per capita basis.

Obviously, since Ontario has a somewhat higher population than the other provinces and Quebec, it will receive a considerable amount of money that will still be insufficient. We must not forget that there is a major crisis in the automobile industry, and it will only get worse. But proportionately, Quebec is currently experiencing more serious difficulties. A number of our sectors, such as the forestry sector, are vulnerable because of trade disputes and decisions over which they have no control bequeathed to us by American protectionist lobbies.

So, this allocation formula is completely unfair. I am happy to see that there is perhaps a glimmer of intelligence and foresight. Are the Conservatives seeing the light at the end of the tunnel? Perhaps they were on the road to Damascus like St. Paul. Who knows. But in the bill creating the trust, there is no mention of how the money will be allocated, which, I hope, gives the government an opportunity to put things right after the Prime Minister's disastrous and unfair announcements. The $1 billion should be allocated based on need. Since Quebec is experiencing more difficulties, it should receive at least half of the money. As I said, half of the job losses have been in Quebec.

In addition to the $3.5 billion that we would like to see added to the aid package, we would like the distribution of those funds to be based on need so that we do not end up in a bizarre situation that sees Alberta, with its overheated economy, receive money to deal with the economic crisis. That would make no sense at all. That has to change, just as things had to change when the Prime Minister made the act to create the trust and distribute the $1 billion that was allocated over three years conditional on support for the budget.

We hope that the Conservative Prime Minister will change his mind about this unfair distribution, just as he did in that particular case of political blackmail. I am pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois' pressure has produced results. I would like to quote the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the member for Jonquière—Alma, who said the following in Le Quotidien this morning:

It seems that nothing can be done about the Bloc Québécois' refusal to support the next budget. We had to find another solution to help workers who need help right now to get through the forestry crisis. The Prime Minister's proposed notice of motion would give $217 million to Quebec.

I would like to point out that $217 million over three years is about $70 million per year and about $35 million for each sector, forestry and manufacturing. As the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said, nobody is going to be sitting down to a steak dinner. Instead, people will be handed a bowl of stale peanuts to snack on. Even so, in the remarks I just quoted, theMinister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec recognizes that the Bloc Québécois' firm stance persuaded the government to think things over and realize that there would be a price to pay politically and electorally. Thank goodness this is a minority government. To avoid paying the price, they realized that they had to separate the aid program, the creation of the trust, from the budget. As the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said, the only reason the government decided to act was that the Bloc Québécois refused to back down.

In today's edition of Le Devoir, February 5, 2008, the same minister said:

I asked the Bloc Québécois if they were going to support the budget or not and their silence clearly demonstrated that they had no intention of supporting the budget. Thus, under the circumstances, we must act responsibly. That is why we are going to introduce the bill, just to be sure.

That said, once again, we see the determination of the Bloc Québécois at the root of this particular matter. We cannot take all the credit, but this is a perfect example of how the Bloc Québécois serves the people of Quebec.

I must say that the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is entirely mistaken. Our decision to support or oppose the upcoming budget will be determined by what is in the budget. We have no ideological prejudices, unlike the Conservatives. We asked for a number of things, including measures to help the manufacturing sector.

If they appear in the budget, our party has no problem voting in favour of the budget, as we did last year hon. members will recall. I was the Bloc Québécois finance critic at the time. I had made it clear that we wanted to see a financial solution to the fiscal imbalance. This did not resolve the fiscal imbalance and the members opposite should not, as usual, make the mistake of thinking that it did. We were looking for a financial solution of $3.9 billion for the third year. In the budget, there was $3.3 billion for the third year. The Bloc Québécois felt very comfortable voting in favour of the budget, as a first step toward a final settlement of the fiscal imbalance. This would require a withdrawal of the federal spending power in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and would also require negotiations for the transfer of tax room used by the federal government to Quebec and the provinces that want it, for instance.

As proposed by the Séguin commission, our proposal involves transferring the GST to Quebec. That transfer should be orderly, coordinated and disciplined, unlike the government's approach of reducing the GST by one percentage point a year and telling the provinces to move into the room created. That is not what we are talking about. We mean a real, coordinated transfer of the GST.

Naturally, it is going to take some income tax points to ensure that Quebec will have the tax room required to assume its responsibilities. In exchange, Quebec is prepared to relinquish funding from the federal government for health, post-secondary education and social programs. Equalization payments will not be touched. That is in the Constitution and is another matter. They represent an unconditional transfer, which is what Quebec wants.

Although the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was right when he said that the Bloc Québécois forced the government to take action, he is wrong to believe that we will vote against the budget. If the budget contained measures affecting, for example, refundable tax credits to help companies that do research and development but that do not turn a profit, or if it announced that the accelerated capital cost allowance, which is now over two years, was extended to five years, we would support these measures. All these measures are found in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, which accepted the recommendations already made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

As we can see, the solutions are known and the money is there given forecast surpluses. We will be able to include other measures in the budget. The only missing component is the political will of the Conservatives and of the Prime Minister. Let us hope that pressure from Quebec society, the consensus in Quebec, will force this government to take action in the interests of Quebec, the manufacturing and forestry industries and the workers in those industries.