Robert Carrier

[The Budget, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a pity to cut a presentation into two parts. However, I will recap for the benefit of my colleagues here this morning what I said yesterday. I pointed out that, given the spirit of openness shown by the current government in this economic context, and in particular given the fact that the government had recognized Quebec as a nation just two years ago, I had expectations of considerable openness from this government with respect to recognizing the demands of the Government of Quebec.

The main demands related to the equalization formula. The Government of Quebec is opposed to the changes to this formula, because it stands to lose $1 billion as a result. It is also opposed to the formation of a single pan-Canadian securities regulator, because Quebec wishes to retain its own securities commission, Since Quebec sees this as a cultural issue as much as one of economic control, it would be important for the government to recognize these demands by the Government of Quebec.

I will now move on to the rest of my speech in greater detail. Following on what I said yesterday, I wish to state that we regret that the bulk of workers who lose their jobs will continue to have no access to employment insurance, according to what was presented in the budget this week. Older workers are again marginalized, because there are no measures for them.

As for the fiscal imbalance—to which I have already referred—Quebec stands to lose $1 billion, up to $2 billion next year, according to the forecast. Quebec will therefore sustain losses with respect to health, education and family policy, all under provincial jurisdiction in our parliamentary system, as we know. In addition, the Conservative government is making a gift to Ontario with its calculation of the dividends from Hydro One compared to those from Hydro-Québec. Quebec will therefore lose an additional $250 million in equalization.

Culture is one of the essential elements of the Quebec nation. Many Quebec cultural troupes take Quebec culture around the world and their substantial performance incomes benefit the entire Quebec economy. The Conservatives' refusal to eliminate the announced cuts to culture —a sector of such importance to the economy—will continue to mean suffering for all of the regions of Quebec, as will their refusal to backtrack on the cuts inflicted on economic development bodies. We will get back to that point, because a great deal has been said about it already recently, yet this week's budget does not touch upon it at all.

I would also like to point out that this Conservative budget is contrary to the Kyoto accord and thus contrary to the economic interests of Quebec and of the environment.

This budget contains some questionable ideological choices. Overall, the budget is clearly lacking, and it is hard to imagine what would have happened if the Conservatives had a majority, because we expected that the government would make concessions in response to demands from the different regions. Even though this is a minority government, it ignored those demands.

he tax cuts are not targeted. A family earning $150,000 will get more than a family earning $40,000. These tax cuts will help neither people who lose their jobs nor companies that do not turn a profit. By the Conservatives' own admission, in opting for corporate tax cuts, they chose the measure that would stimulate the economy the least. That amounts to putting ideology before the economy.

As for social housing, the Conservative government is injecting $2 billion into social housing, but most of that money will go to renovations, while very little will go to building new units. Quebec alone needs an additional 52,000 units, according to one social housing agency.

In July 2007, in my own riding, having received the support of the voters in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, I asked the Minister of Public Safety to take action in response to calls to revitalize the former penitentiary in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. The government owns this building and could have converted it into new social housing. But there is no mention of this project in the budget. I would remind this House that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has an $8 billion surplus, but the government is not using one cent of that money in its budget for new housing.

The government should have used the budget to adjust the guaranteed income supplement so that low-income seniors in dire need could at least reach the poverty line. Clearly, this is an oversight. If only seniors were provided with additional income to bring them up to the poverty line, they would spend money, which would be injected into our economy and not lost.

Our party will be voting against the budget, as members know, for very good reasons.

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, given the cooperation, the reaching out and the lack of dogma we have seen since the prorogation of the House of Commons by the Conservative Prime Minister, I thought we would be able to support a real budget to stimulate the economy. But yesterday, the government presented a budget that is completely unacceptable for Quebec and for the people who, in this time of economic crisis, are entitled to adequate, sufficient measures from the federal government, which, I would add, has the means.

Clearly, Quebec will lose a great deal of money as a result of this budget, particularly when it comes to equalization. On January 15, 2009, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a motion calling on Ottawa to help Quebec through this economic crisis. Through this unanimous motion, the National Assembly asked the federal government to take a series of actions, including increasing support to the manufacturing sector and forestry industry, as it did for the Ontario auto industry; improving training for those workers most affected by the crisis; maintaining the current formula to calculate equalization; and increasing federal investment in infrastructure.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said no to Quebec. He confirmed the Quebec government's worst fears with his revised equalization calculation, which will mean a significant shortfall for Quebec, and with the creation of a single, pan-Canadian securities regulator. Let us not forgot that just two years ago, the Conservative government passed a motion recognizing the Quebec nation in the spirit of what it called openness. The budget confirms that that openness has suddenly been closed.

Quebeckers gave the Bloc Québécois a mandate, and the Bloc Québécois acted responsibly to fulfill that mandate when it proposed a detailed, costed, realistic plan last fall. That plan focused on major points of consensus among Quebeckers, and our role is to promote those ideas here in Ottawa. However, the Prime Minister has chosen not to do anything about Quebec's demands. Rather than help Quebec, the federal government has decided to deny it the tools it needs to face the crisis. Instead, the Conservative leader has chosen to give in to the demands of Ontario and the west. The worst part is that, just this morning, he got the support of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For example, the government has put forward nearly $4 billion worth of measures chiefly benefiting Ontario. The auto sector—which is concentrated in Ontario—will receive $2.7 billion, a disproportionate amount compared to the assistance Quebec will be receiving. The 2009 budget has allocated over $1 billion over five years to set up a southern Ontario development agency to help workers, communities and businesses in the region. In contrast, Quebec's forestry and manufacturing sectors will be getting just a few million dollars.

Bad faith has become a Conservative mantra: once again, they are back with their community adjustment fund, which will give Quebec just a tiny fraction of the money allocated for employment—

[The Budget, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with this budget, the Conservative government has clearly decided to turn its back on Quebec by breaking its promises. In this budget, the government is once again proposing a single securities commission, and it is making the fiscal imbalance even worse by taking away $1 billion in equalization payments from the people of Quebec.

Moreover, the Conservatives have done nothing to help the thousands of unemployed people who will still not have access to employment insurance. The government has also ignored older workers, and it has failed to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

These tax cuts will not have a significant impact on economic stimulation or on the middle class. Furthermore, the Conservatives have stubbornly chosen not to reverse cuts to funding for culture and economic development organizations.

Once again, the Conservatives have dropped Quebec in favour of Ontario and the big oil companies that will continue to benefit from generous tax measures. That is why the Bloc Québécois will strongly oppose this unfair, ideological budget.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her presentation. I would like her to elaborate a little on the issue of political party financing, as proposed in the government's economic update.

As we know, the federal government has had a law governing the funding of political parties since January 1, 2004. This was a first, since, prior to that, money just fell from the sky and landed in secret slush funds. This was a big step for Canadian democracy. That law was inspired by similar legislation adopted in Quebec in 1977, under the René Lévesque government. The new legislation ensured equilibrium among the parties, so that there would be some degree of uniformity or equality in terms of political party representation.

The current proposal upsets this equilibrium in which the limitation on political party fundraising was balanced by appropriate and uniform funding provided by the government to all political parties. This would reverse existing legislation. We see this as an attack on democracy.

I would like the hon. member to add some of her personal thoughts about that very worrisome part of the government's economic update.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the wording of the Conservative member's question is a very good reflection of his party's philosophy: always be cautious, maintain a balanced budget, but all the while ignore the crisis we are currently experiencing.

But a government needs to be close to its people to realize that they are experiencing difficulties. Many of them are losing their jobs. Seniors' incomes are decreasing, because their assets, their pension plans, are consistently decreasing. They do not know how they will survive.

The government's job now is to invest in the economy, and later, when the economy has improved, the government can focus on a balanced budget.

As for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it has an existing surplus that is not being used. We are not talking about the government creating an additional expense in the current budget. We are talking about the government using the surplus instead of letting it sit there as their ideological safety net, saying that there is a huge $8 billion surplus, and it will stay there as protection, but all the while, people need housing. Building more affordable housing would stimulate the economy.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is one of the elements of our plan that I mentioned briefly. Obviously, one way to make a quick contribution to this country's economic development would be to use the surplus accumulated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, which amounts to about $8 billion.

The government should quickly implement a plan for affordable housing, which is desperately needed across the country. I have had feedback in my riding, where people have to go on a waiting list before they can get affordable housing. Since the government coffers already have a surplus, this would have no effect on the budget. This immediate action would be appropriate to respond to the economic crisis.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

I will end by saying that I believe in democracy, in workers' and women's rights, and I will stand with the Bloc Québécois to oppose this economic update.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, you were right to call me to order.

I was quoting an article written in French by André Pratte which said: “Mr. Harper is attempting another one of his dirty tricks... The opposition parties will have no choice, they will have to vote against the bill. It is a question of survival.”

Because I believe in democracy, in workers' rights and—

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

As this is my first speech in the House, I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the voters in the riding of Alfred-Pellan, who renewed their confidence in me during the most recent election. I would also like to thank those who have given their time and energy to the Bloc Québécois team to raise awareness of our ideas and our priorities. I would have been so proud to have seen their efforts result in a plan to bring some much-needed stimulus to the economy.

I believed that the Conservative government, with the support of the opposition parties, would have offered Quebeckers and Canadians solutions to help people and businesses deal with this global crisis that, some say, will be worse than anything we have seen since the Great Depression.

Every other government on the planet is taking steps to deal with the crisis by stimulating the economy, but this government has given us a partisan, ideological statement that has a lot in common with the Reform Party's far-right agenda, a right-wing ideology that has blinded the government to the importance of acting now.

Instead of breathing life into the economy, which desperately needs help, the Conservative government has chosen to stifle it. It has left businesses, regions, and by extension, the entire population, high and dry. We cannot accept that. My party and I condemn the fact that, instead of tackling the economic crisis, the Conservative government has chosen to create a crisis of democracy for strictly partisan reasons by eliminating funding for political parties.

In the current economic situation, the Prime Minister should have given workers a helping hand, but instead he decided to attack their interests by suspending their right to strike. He also continued his campaign to erode the status of women by making pay equity a right henceforth to be negotiated in the collective bargaining process but without compensating for the fact that the fundamental right to strike is being eliminated. In the hope of more readily imposing his ideology, the Prime Minister wishes to muzzle the political parties, the unions and women. In short, he wants to muzzle all opposition.

Although they said they were prepared to work with the opposition parties, the Conservatives rejected the proposals in the economic recovery plan presented this week by the Bloc Québécois. These were realistic proposals that met the needs created by the current economic crisis. The federal government has the responsibility to take action at the juncture of this economic crisis. Furthermore, Ottawa has the means to do so without increasing debt servicing or creating recurring deficits.

The Bloc Québécois put forward a recovery plan to help businesses and the general population, a three-part plan that could have made a significant contribution by injecting some $23 billion into the economy. The plan we presented this week was realistic and it could have been implemented to help Quebeckers and Canadians protect what they have and to stimulate their industries and the economy.

This plan included immediate measures that cost nothing. Some of the measures not retained were: adopting legislation on the government's preferential procurement practices; regulations requiring federal organizations to use forestry products in federal construction projects; abolishing the two-week waiting period for employment insurance benefits; reinstating funding for economic development organizations; reinstating cultural programs; the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and credits for non-polluting industries, particularly in Quebec; raising to 73 the age for converting an RRSP to a RRIF.

Our plan also includes measures for businesses. For example: a $4 billion modernization fund to stimulate investment in manufacturing companies and increase productivity; a comprehensive plan to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors; a $2 billion development fund for affordable housing using CMHC assets; and a $2 billion fund for home energy efficiency renovations, also using CHMC funds.

We have also proposed measures to help people directly, such as full compliance with the equalization formula; an additional $1.3 billion transfer for post-secondary education; an incremental increase in the guaranteed income supplement; graduated retroactivity for those eligible for the guaranteed income supplement who were swindled by the government; improved access to the employment insurance fund; an income support program for older workers; and a $4,000 rebate program for the purchase of electric, hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicles.

As I said earlier, the government has sufficient means to fund this kind of economic stimulus package. Funding can come from a strategy to reduce the use of tax havens for tax evasion. We also recommend that tax breaks for oil companies be cancelled. Ottawa's financial assets, which total $176 billion, will also be called upon.

Instead of showing Quebec and Canada its true Reform Party colours with its right-wing economic statement, the federal government could have put forward measures, some of which would not cost a penny, to help the economy.

That is what the Bloc Québécois proposed to the Minister of Finance just days ago. Our economic stimulus plan is realistic and strong, and it shows that we can act to stimulate the economy and give businesses and individuals the tools they need to deal with the crisis.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the Harper government's ideological economic statement because it attacks democracy, workers and women, while doing nothing to stimulate the economy. The Conservatives have chosen provocation over cooperation, but the people do not want an election.

In closing, I would like to quote La Presse's André Pratte, a strong federalist. This morning, in an editorial entitled “Irresponsible, Mr. Harper!”, he said—

[Equalization, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government shot wide of the mark by taking on anything and everything except the crisis. Instead of trying to put out fires, it decided to light some. First it cut funding right and left, and now it is threatening the fiscal equilibrium of Quebec and the provinces by announcing a cap on equalization payments.

Every other government on the planet is implementing measures to attenuate the effects of the crisis and stimulate the economy, so why, contrary to common sense, has this government chosen to bring in measures that are sure to intensify the negative effects of the crisis?