Core 1..140 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 10.50)

CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 143 Ï NUMBER 010 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 40th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, December 1, 2008 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 429 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, December 1, 2008 The House met at 11 a.m. of Commons were talking about cooperation and conciliation in the House? Why did they bring in such a measure, which was nothing more than a way of provoking the opposition? Prayers As for suspending the right to strike of federal public servants, GOVERNMENT ORDERS why was it important to introduce such a measure? First, they deny a basic right recognized internationally by an organization such as the Ï (1100) International Labour Organization. Furthermore, just a few days [Translation] earlier, it had been announced that an agreement in principle had been reached with the largest public service union, the Public ECONOMIC AND FISCAL STATEMENT Service Alliance of Canada. The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion. Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the economic statement, because—as we have Did they not only want to bring this union to its knees but also to seen in Quebec in particular, but also in Canada—this statement has crush it completely? That is exactly what they did and it was been unanimously condemned by political and economic commen- unacceptable to us and to the opposition parties, as well as to all tators and the general public. unions across Canada. Everyone, except perhaps the Conservatives and the Prime Minister, expected that the Minister of Finance's economic statement would contain measures to deal with the financial and economic In addition, and it is important to say it, that brings into question crisis and help the victims of this crisis. Instead, the statement is a agreements already signed. It was announced in the economic series of financial measures that either are obvious or have no major statement that wage increases would be limited to 2.3% the first year, impact on what people in the regions or in hard-hit sectors of the 1.5% the second and 1.5% the third. Yet, some unions negotiated in economy are going through. That was our first disappointment. I will good faith with this government and secured increases greater than come back to this, because the Bloc Québécois had made proposals these. to the government last week and even earlier, yet the government unfortunately ignored them, preferring to take an ideological, laissez-faire approach. Obviously, this was a major disappointment. Once again, this government has demonstrated that not only does But what shocked us the most was that the economic statement it have an ideological agenda that it will use the crisis to advance but, not only included no measures to support the economy and help furthermore, that it has nothing but contempt for the right to businesses, hard-hit sectors or victims of the economic and financial negotiate, the right to strike and finally, for the work that thousands crisis, but it contained purely ideological attacks that had absolutely of public servants do here, in Ottawa, and across Canada and nothing to do with the economic situation we are going through. Quebec. Obviously, I am referring to political party financing. Why challenge rules on which we all agreed, including in 2006, when the Conservative government amended the political party financing legislation? It eliminated corporate contributions—a One last item was extremely surprising and shocking, and once measure we supported—capped individual contributions at $1,100 again provoked the opposition and Canadian and Quebec civil and kept the provision whereby political parties received federal society: why take away the right of women to go before a court to funding pro-rated to the number of votes they received. redress wage discrimination under the right to pay equity? And why make this wholly subject to negotiation when we are talking about a Why call all that into question now, when the Prime Minister, the right? Once again not only did they provoke the opposition but they Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Government in the House violated the right of women to pay equity. 430 COMMONS DEBATES December 1, 2008 Government Orders Ï (1105) every kind of insurance requires a waiting period or deductible. But we are talking about employment insurance. We are not talking Unfortunately, it must be said that there is some method to these about private insurance, but social insurance. In this context, not three provocations, particularly with respect to the opposition only is it wrong to say that all private insurances require either a parties. The legislation on political party funding is an extremely waiting period or a deductible, but they are not even talking about important component of the democratic process. Were it not for that the same thing; it is like comparing apples and oranges. In this legislation, some parties would be unable to conduct a campaign or context, social insurance should help people who are fired, laid off or put their platform forward, as the Green Party did in the last election, otherwise lose their jobs. It should guarantee them a certain level of for example. Certainly we are not Green Party supporters, but we in income as soon as they have lost their job. That is the principle we the Bloc Québécois are supporters of democratic discourse. Theirs is were defending, and it is completely reasonable. It does not mean a vision that is entitled to expression in a democratic society and a increasing the number of weeks of benefits. Thus, eliminating the vision that the Conservative government wants to stifle and prevent waiting period would not cost a cent. from being expressed in the public arena. And so this is an attack on democracy. The same is true of the elimination of the right to strike, a right that is also a fundamental As we have said many times, we want to see employment component of a democracy. It is also true in the case of pay equity: insurance improved, which might require a longer legislative prohibiting women from going to court, for reasons that I am unable process. However, it could have been announced during the to discern, is also an attack on democratic processes, and in economic update that the waiting period was eliminated, effective particular the opportunity to apply to the courts in order to exercise immediately. one's rights. Plainly the government has stubbornly persisted in its approach of provoking the opposition, of provoking significant segments of civil society in Canada and Quebec. This is completely unacceptable to Another element that could have been announced is a moratorium the opposition. on the obligation for retirees to withdraw a certain percentage of their RRIFs. That would give them the chance to get through this As I said earlier: fundamentally, there are several measures that period of crisis, during which the market has dropped by 40%, and should have been included in this economic statement. I would note they could hope that, when they do have to withdraw their savings, that we presented a complete plan representing $23 billion over two those savings would be intact. years. I will now explain the details. In that plan, we explained how these resources could be freed up by cutting bureaucratic spending in various areas. We do not object to rationalizing some spending that Ï (1110) does not directly serve the public. However, that calls for a vision of what is useful to taxpayers, to our fellow citizens, and of what is in fact no more than a kind of self-perpetuating loop of spending by the Conservative government, by the federal government. The government would not be out much money. There is a short- We therefore prepared a study with Jacques Léonard, the former term cost, of course, but if the government just waits for our retired chair of Quebec's treasury board. Considering all budget items, we citizens to replenish the savings in their RRIFs and see the shares identified places where there had in fact been an explosion in they have in them go back up, the taxes that these retirees will pay to bureaucratic spending and where it would be possible to save about the federal government when the money is withdrawn will be $6 billion over two years, by our calculation. As well, there are some greater. Ultimately, there will not be any net cost to the federal financial assets that the government is not currently using. For government. We proposed a series of measures in this regard that example, there is about $42 billion in foreign exchange accounts, if I cost the federal government nothing or virtually nothing. recall correctly. A portion of that money could be used. We made a series of proposals to the government for freeing up the resources that are needed so that the federal government's debt We also suggested a number of measures to help companies that would not increase. That is what we are proposing in this regard. are experiencing difficulties. I remember that there was a graph on Certainly there will be a deficit, in technical terms, because there will page 28 of the finance minister’s economic statement of October be more expenditures than revenue, but financial assets will be put to 2007 showing that almost all industrial sectors—with the exception use.

Load more