Thomas Mulcair

[Business of Supply, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we will have a chance to see the Liberal Party of Canada's true colours. Once again, during this afternoon's question period, we heard the Liberals get all worked up about all of the appalling ruses they detected in how the Conservatives handled the budget. The Liberals criticized the Conservatives for having included immigration provisions in the budget bill.

If we are meant to take them seriously and to accept their statements at face value, we would expect them to vote against budget bills, just as, from time to time, they have to speak out against the Conservative government's decisions because they are the official opposition.

As usual, the Conservatives know exactly what to expect from the Liberals. They know that they can do whatever they want, including burying objectionable immigration provisions in a budget bill, because the Liberals are much too weak to stand up to them.

This afternoon, we are considering a motion that takes the Conservative government to task for the choices it made in the budget. The Conservatives made a lot of decisions that brought radical change to Canada, and now we are talking about something quite specific. I will give a few examples to illustrate.

Table 5.4 of the budget just tabled by the Conservatives reveals what they really think and betrays their true intentions. Specifically, beginning today—as the new fiscal year begins—and over just two years, revenue collected from personal income tax—from my colleagues, from me, from the people listening to us now, from workers and their families—will increase by 12% in the state's budget, whereas revenue from corporate income tax will drop by 14%. That is the shameful choice the Conservatives really made in the budget. Individuals will be paying 12% more, and corporations will be paying 14% less. People can check table 5.4 of the budget and see for themselves.

We strongly object to this choice. What will the so-called official opposition do? I see that the Liberals are prepping their new star from Toronto Centre, who will undoubtedly rise to try to lecture us, as did his colleague who, yesterday, attempted to mislead the public with false figures on countries such as Sweden, Great Britain, Denmark and Norway. What tales did they tell yesterday? It was nonsense. What did his Liberal colleague say? He said that in the four above-mentioned countries, the corporate tax rate was lower than the Canadian rate. Is that so? Let us look at the facts.

Here, in Canada, with the most recent cut, the corporate tax rate is now 19.5%. It is important that we remember this figure of 19.5%. It will be further reduced by 4.5% to 15% by 2015. What is the current corporate tax rate in the other countries in question? It is 28% in Sweden; 30% in Great Britain; 30% in Denmark; and 28% in Norway. That is the reality, not the nonsense trotted out by the Liberals yesterday to try to justify the unjustifiable, that is their weakness, their softness, their lack of conviction and the fact that, once again, they will support the budget choices of the Conservatives. Conservatives or Liberals, it is all the same.

If the Liberals had the slightest amount of conviction, if they believed in anything, they would be getting up to criticize and challenge the Conservatives' budget.

Later, when the new member for Toronto Centre rises, we will see that they will no longer be content to sit on their hands.

The Minister of Finance dared to reduce corporate taxes that much only because the current and ineffective leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the so-called official opposition, told him that he could reduce corporate taxes as much as he wanted.

Indeed, the Minister of Finance rose in this House and said that he would never have dared to reduce them so much. He is a Conservative. He would have wanted to, but he did not think he could. It was the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who told him he should do so and reduce them so much. This is exactly what he is now doing and it is scandalous.

Now, to try to ease their conscience, instead of simply hiding, ducking the issue, disappearing from the House or sitting on their hands, they are trying to tell us—and I cannot wait to hear it—that the Conservatives' budget choices are completely consistent with their own. And that party has the nerve to talk about social justice, a nation-wide affordable child care system and wait times at hospitals across Canada, which receive federal funding. It can say what it wants but the Liberal Party of Canada does not believe in anything. That is the simple truth, which will be revealed a little later.

On this side of the House, we are not afraid to stand up. We are not afraid to tell Canadians what is really going on here.

We can look at table 5.4 in the new Conservative budget if we want to understand what is going on. In that one table, there is a snapshot of the difference between the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Conservatives, but the Conservatives are being helped in this by the Liberal Party.

In that one table, we see the following: starting from today, when we are at the very beginning of a new fiscal year, over the next two years the part of the budget that comes from corporate income taxes is going to go down by 14%, while individual income taxes, which is what you, Mr. Speaker, and I and the people listening to us pay, are going to go up by 12%.

That is an increase of 12% for individuals and a decrease of 14% for the corporations. That is a scandal. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for proposing it. The only reason they are doing it is because of the weakness of the Liberal Party.

Yesterday one of the minor ministers from the former Liberal government, a former revenue minister, went on the public record with something that was completely contrary to the facts. He named four countries, Sweden, Britain, Denmark and Norway, and said they had a lower rate of corporate taxation than Canada has.

Here are the facts. For somebody who was once in charge of revenue, it is surprising that he cannot count. In Canada with the most recent budget, we are now at 19.5% as our corporate tax rate. It is going to go down a further 4.5% between now and 2015, bringing it to 15%. The tax rate in Sweden is 28%. The tax rate in Britain is 30%. The tax rate in Denmark is 30%. The tax rate in Norway is 28%.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to get us back on topic, since it gets a bit emotional if we start saying which language we have trouble in and it is very off track if we start talking about the festivals the minister has subsidized.

The real point today is whether we are willing to debate an issue which deals with language requirements for Quebec workers in areas that are not yet covered by Quebec legislation.

I would like to ask my colleague, whom I have known a long time, why she considers it normal that an employee of a caisse populaire cannot be subject to language requirements that have nothing to do with his or her duties, while a person who performs identical duties across the street can be forced to know another language in order to accommodate the employer. How is it that a bus driver in Gatineau, when the bus crosses over to the Ottawa side, can be subject to language requirements that do not have to be met by bus drivers in Montreal? That is what it all comes down to. It is a motion.

The issue is whether we are willing to discuss it. As far as the bill is concerned, we do not yet have a clear idea, but we want to hear the experts and meet with workers’ representatives and social groups. We want to be able to debate the issue.

If she truly believes in the recognition of Quebec society, can my friend and colleague—

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the future former member for Lévis—Bellechasse has some nerve. He will no longer be a member of Parliament when we have done with him on the Rabaska project. He has some nerve to lecture us on centralization.

Let us not forget that the last thing the Conservatives did, just before Easter, was to shackle us with the Minister of Finance's approach to securities. I would remind the House that Vincent Lacroix is serving a jail sentence of 12 years because Quebec has a financial market management structure. The last thing that we need is more interference from the federal government. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse has voted in favour of this centralization. The New Democratic Party has voted against it.

In terms of sustainable development, my comment relating to his good friend, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, also applies to him. Once Denis L'Homme, the NDP candidate in Lévis—Bellechasse, has engaged all the region's dynamic forces against the Rabaska project, which is contrary to the public interest and to sustainable development, he will have understood that Quebeckers value their environment. They do not want to pass on to future generations the responsibility for today's bad decisions.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member really wants to help Quebec, he should take a hard look at his 2008 budget, which he just mentioned.

In the fall of last year, the Conservatives provided $14 billion in tax cuts. This is part of their plan. They think it is the way to go. But a company that does not make a profit has no income tax to pay. We agree on that. In the manufacturing industry, Quebec unfortunately won the gold medal for the largest number of lost jobs, with 70,000. A manufacturing company that did not make a profit did not get any of this money. In the forest industry, a company that did not make a profit did not get any money either. Who got the money? By a curious coincidence, most of these $14 billion went to the oil industry, right in area of the hon. member from Edmonton.

Does it bother him that I do not support him in this decision? A strong Quebec economy is good for everybody and helps keep this country united. Instead of always supporting the tar sands industry and a production that runs against sustainable development, this member could perhaps start thinking that because of an overheated oil industry, the Conservatives are gutting a Canadian economy that used to be balanced, an economy we have been building since the second world war.

Well paid jobs with pension benefits are being lost in the manufacturing industry. There is also the issue of long term sustainable development, because future generations will have to pay for the Conservatives’ foolishness. They are depleting our natural resources without thinking of the impact on future generations.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, I am here to say that the New Democratic Party of Canada will vote in favour of the motion proposed today. I want to take this opportunity to try to inform my Conservative colleague. He said earlier that his government has done more than any other government to ensure that the true nature of bilingualism is respected and reflected in Canada. I want to tell him that he should take a close look at what my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst just talked about, the court challenges program.

Had it not been for this program established under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we would have never had cases such as the case brought forward by what was called at the time the ACFO, the French Canadian association of Ontario. That case allowed the Supreme Court to determine the extent of certain obligations. People supposedly had the right to instruction in linguistic minority schools, which meant the ability to exercise some control. But it was not that clear in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These rights needed to be brought to life, otherwise these nice theories would have had no effect in the real world.

The same thing happened in Manitoba, your native province, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that, in 1890, Manitoba passed a law to deny francophones the right to have laws written in their language. The Supreme Court reinstated that right in June 1985. I know all about that since I was in charge of reviewing the French language version of the laws of Manitoba. For two years and a half, I had the great pleasure to work regularly in Winnipeg and I became well-acquainted with the Franco-Manitoban community. I still have many friends in this vibrant community.

Today, in the official languages committee, we heard witnesses from the Northwest Territories and from Saskatchewan. In that regard, I would like to quote the translation of a popular sentence since translations found here are sometimes better than original versions.

In English we sometimes say that one has to be able to walk the talk. The French version that has been dreamed up here in Canada is even better than the original English one.

The French expression is “Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines.” The Conservatives just pay lip service. They are prepared to say that they recognize the Quebec nation, but the first measure they proposed sought to proportionally reduce Quebec representation here and to eliminate access of francophones outside Quebec to the court challenges program, which enables them to establish and recognize their rights.

When the Prime Minister received the first annual report from Graham Fraser, the current Commissioner of Official Languages, he was shocked. His defence was simplistic. We know that our Prime Minister is rather grouchy, but it was surprising to see him launch an all-out attack. He defended himself by saying that he began his press conferences in French. That is fine and symbolically important but that will not build a school in Saskatchewan or allow a person from Manitoba to work in his own language and to prosper, to use his language and make it a living language. Their gestures continue to be symbolic; they recognize the nation but do not take action to make it a reality.

It is an entirely different story on the Liberal side. My colleague mentioned Justin Trudeau. This is astounding. He recently said that those who are not bilingual are lazy. It is outrageous to say to people who live anywhere in Quebec that if they have never learned English it is because they are lazy. What Mr. Trudeau should realize is that he is privileged, as I am. My mother was francophone and my father was anglophone and so I learned both languages. I was fortunate and so was he. He does not acknowledge that it is a question of luck or that he is privileged, since he finds it unusual that others are not like him. That is indicative of his attitude.

Yesterday, we learned that the Liberals have appointed Gerard Kennedy. To find out a little more about him, I suggest you read a very good article by Joey Slinger in today's Toronto Star. Gerard Kennedy was one of the Liberal leadership hopefuls. Yesterday, the current leader appointed him the critic for intergovernmental affairs.

What message did that send? Easy: the party does not recognize the Quebec nation. That was the message he sent. Today, the Liberals will show us what they think of the French language in Quebec. People are paying very close attention to this, and they are worried. Many years ago, from 1980 to 1983, I had the opportunity to work for the Conseil de la langue française, and I also worked for Alliance Québec. As I said earlier, I was responsible for legislation in Manitoba, and as commissioner for Quebec's language of instruction appeals commission, I drafted the agreement following the Supreme Court ruling that allowed Quebec to maintain its French character and permitted unilingual French billboards. That means I understand both sides and know how to work toward solutions.

What the Liberals demonstrated earlier was astonishing. The Liberals believe that it would be sacrilegious to recognize Quebec or the importance of allowing the French language to reach its full potential within the only Canadian province that has a francophone majority. That goes against everything they have been saying for the last 40 years. Why? Because the Liberal Party of Canada is known for its tendency to say that it can be trusted to keep Quebeckers in their place. It should come as no surprise that of the 75 seats in Quebec, the Liberals can count theirs on two hands.

Just before Easter, the Conservative government, acting on a whim, got involved in the securities issue, which was none of its business, and tried to bring in some nonsense about federal control that would tie the hands of the provinces , including Quebec. That issue is an important one for Quebec, and Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion about it.

I noticed with great interest that the French-speaking Liberal members from Quebec were not here for that vote. I am anxious to see what the member for Bourassa, former Liberal critic for national defence and now critic for official languages, will do this afternoon.

Today's vote on the motion only says that there is a bill proposal on the table and that we already voted to have it considered. We want some statistics, we want to hear experts and know what the situation is. We cannot simply say today that we do not even want to talk about it.

However, that is exactly the message the Liberal Party of Canada is sending. But that suits it well. Indeed, that party does not want to discuss it. That party is showing its true colours.

In order for people to understand, this is about Bill C-482, which seeks to ensure workers' rights. Once a job becomes an interprovincial undertaking and subject to federal law, the boss can ask the employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French in Quebec. We should look at that, bring in experts and find out the real effect it would have on the critical mass and strength of the French language in Quebec. It is a subject of concern for all Canadians and it certainly is a concern for us in the NDP.

It would be a contradiction to say we want to have Bill C-482 studied in committee and have those experts in and find out the real lay of the land and then turn around and vote against this motion. Today we in the NDP are sending a clear signal that we want that debate to take place. We want to hear those experts. We want to find out what this is about and come to a final decision with regard to the disposition of Bill C-482.

We will not get there with the attitude of the federal Liberals. The true signal the leader of the Liberal Party gave us was when he named Gerard Kennedy responsible for intergovernmental relations.

I personally had a debate with Gerard Kennedy. He proclaims to anyone who is willing to listen that Quebec is not a nation. That is Gerard Kennedy's position. Not long before Christmas, Justin Trudeau said that Quebec was not a nation. Not only they are both official candidates for the Liberal Party but Mr. Kennedy has just been named to a very important position even though he has not been elected yet.

There comes a time when one must go beyond symbols. There comes a time when we must abandon 40-year-old strategies that aim to divide Canadians by saying that the Liberal Party's trademark is the capacity to unite. That is untrue. We can see today that this is false. That party tries to divide us.

We believe that a strong Quebec with a well protected and dynamic French language adds a lot to Canada. That is why we are not afraid to say that we want to study Bill C-482. And we do not want to send a message to the contrary by voting against the motion. Today, we will stand up and vote for the motion by the Bloc.

[Immigration, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have once again stolen a page from the American playbook. Hiding major legislation in a budget bill is not part of Canada's parliamentary tradition.

Yesterday, on CTV, the government House leader admitted it was a trick that relied on the weakness of the Liberals to sneak in these discriminatory immigration practices. There are dozens of members of the House of Commons who were born in other countries. The next generation of leaders might well be barred at the door.

Why not deport the American tactics instead and fix the system?

[Immigration, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, cultural communities across Canada are worried. Without study or consultation, the Conservatives are sneakily trying to trample the rights of immigrants. Rather than giving more resources to our immigration offices abroad and trying to reduce the problems, they are creating a system based on arbitrary decisions. Some nationalities may be excluded outright.

Why is the government hiding such important issues as immigration in a budget bill?

[Morin Heights Tragedy, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we wish to express our most sincere condolences to the family and friends of the three women who were killed yesterday at their workplace in Morin Heights, Quebec. The victims were Barbara Morrisson Elliott, Sharon Kirkpatrick and her daughter-in-law, Marlyn Osiaza.

In this day and age, it is essential to bring all of our knowledge to bear to ensure that people are safe in their workplaces. This winter's exceptional snowfall calls for increased vigilance. That is why we are asking those responsible for workplace safety to redouble their efforts. In addition, we are asking the Minister of Public Safety to work closely with all of his provincial counterparts to ensure adequate preparation for the possibility of flooding this spring.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague, I will respond in English. I would refer him to an article that appeared in the Financial Post of October 26, 2007, which stated:

Recent evaluations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank Group have consistently ranked Canada's system as one of the best in the world—ahead of those in the United States and the United Kingdom.

That is the one that exists now.

My colleague has always been very clear, as am I today, that what we want is a result. We will continue to ensure that the best practices in the provinces and the passport system that is in place produces the best results.

Does that mean that the federal government cannot play a role? Of course not. That would be like saying that because environment is a shared field there should not be a federal environment minister, although with the one who is there now it probably would not make a difference. However, the provinces have an important role to play in the environment, as does the federal government.

The provinces have the key role to play in securities regulation, which does not stop them from working together and which would not stop the federal government to the extent that it might have a pan-Canadian vision, especially on the investigation and enforcement side, to lend a hand. There is no problem with that.

There is absolutely no contradiction between our position as announced today and what my colleague has constantly worked for, which is a better result for Canadians than protection from white collar crime and fraud.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. He is absolutely right. When the Minister of Finance gives lessons in morality, he is basically trashing the extraordinarily competent Monique Jérôme-Forget, my friend and former colleague who is a brilliant finance minister. Unfortunately, this is a stark contrast to what we have here in this House.

My colleague is right. Some members from Quebec will be reminded that one cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth. One cannot pretend to understand that Quebec is a nation, and that applies to both the Liberals and the Conservatives, and then not act accordingly. In English we say:

“You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?”

Personally, I prefer the Quebec version: “Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines.” I suspect some people will be reminded of that. We will certainly do our best to remind them.

In fact, it is an irony of this exercise. Some Bloc members, tired of seeing this type of behaviour over the last 40 years, have chosen another option. They said, “Hasta la vista, it is over, I am leaving, this cannot go on any longer.”

I am one of those who continue to fight with all their energy so that Canada remains united. I think we have a lot to gain from a Canada that understands Quebec and from a Quebec that has its place within Canada. However, it has to be more than pure rhetoric. It has to be real. I am eager to see what will come of that.

The next time the Prime Minister sets foot in Quebec, he will have to explain not his own remarks, but those of the man who describes himself as an elf—that is his word, not mine—and those remarks have really got the PM in a lot of trouble.

The same thing goes for the Liberals, except that in their case, it is self-destruction. But this is no surprise. The Liberal Party of Canada has never believed that there is a place for Quebec or the rest of the provinces. It believes that everything has to be handed down from the big brother to the little ones.

The next time the Prime Minister comes to Montreal, we will be ready for him.