House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 27% of the vote.
Finance March 23rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec should not have to beg for this $6 billion. That money belongs to Quebeckers and is sitting idle in Ottawa. That money is not a gift; it is owed to Quebec. Like so many other nations, Quebec is struggling to balance its budget.
In this time of economic crisis, can the government promise here today that it will transfer the money owing to Quebec, thereby helping to stimulate its economy?
Finance March 23rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in addition to $1 billion in equalization, the Conservative government has been stalling the settlement of various files worth an additional $5 billion for the Quebec government: Hydro-Québec's revenues for equalization, infrastructure programs, health care, post-secondary education, social programs and the ice storm, just to name a few.
When will the Conservative government stop ignoring Quebec and transfer the $6 billion it owes to Quebec?
Millennium Summit March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, to achieve tangible development results, countries must allocate 0.7% of their GDP to international aid by 2015. Canada allocates only 0.34% of its GDP, which is nowhere near the target.
Is it not true that the government is not anxious to attend the summit because of its pitiful record?
Millennium Summit March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the federal government will not attend the third Millennium Summit, which will take place in Montreal. With the recent cuts to its bilateral aid to Africa, its record continues to lose lustre. Despite all the promises that were made in 2000 to eradicate hunger and poverty, they are still very much present in the world today.
Should we see the government's failure to attend this summit as a reflection of its complete lack of interest in achieving the millennium development goals and another example of its recent pulling away from Africa?
Securities February 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is using the economic crisis—whose existence he was still denying a mere three months ago in his economic update—to justify establishing a Canada-wide securities commission.The minister's excuse does not hold water. Budget 2006 already contained plans for a common securities regulator.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that he is using the current crisis as an excuse to invade Quebec's jurisdictions?
National Battlefields Commission February 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, in light of the National Battlefield Commission's lack of judgment, would it not be advisable for the minister to remind him that its mandate does not include using children to re-enact wars and the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, as proposed on its website?
National Battlefields Commission February 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, on its website, the National Battlefields Commission offers the opportunity, under the guise of an educational activity, for primary school students to enlist as a member of the militia, play war and participate in thrilling military manoeuvres.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages tell us why the National Battlefields Commission is conducting educational activities in schools, activities which clearly fall under Quebec's jurisdiction?
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are learning the hard way, from one event to the next, from one government to the next, that they should expect nothing from the Canadian federal government when it comes to Quebec. Each time there is a conflict between the interests of Quebec and those of English Canada, the final decision is never in Quebec's favour. There is not even the most elementary respect.
For example, three years ago, a minister in a Liberal government, a federalist minister, wrote to the current Conservative government to ask for the reconveyance of land adjacent to the National Assembly. Three years later, he has not received even an acknowledgment. The solution is sovereignty, independence for Quebec.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an extremely ideological government, but, above all, with a government that has decided to abandon all hope of electoral success in Quebec. We see the disastrous poll results for the Conservative government in Quebec. At one time, the Conservatives thought that they had some hope of eventually reaching a majority there. Now, we know that they are trying instead to increase their representation in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. So, they have given up completely on Quebec and that explains why they do not hesitate to put forward a measure that is completely absurd, given what they are doing in Ontario, a measure that is absolutely absurd in terms of Quebec and that is detrimental to Quebec.
Once again, we see the proof that the fine speeches about the Quebec nation do not get us anywhere and, in fact, we may ask them once more, where is the beef?
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain is asking the government to drop the idea of unilaterally amending the equalization formula, and I fully support his motion.
Indeed, in the 2007 budget, the Conservative government boasted about restoring fiscal balance by, among other measures, reaching an agreement on the equalization formula. That is confirmed in this excerpt taken from an annex to the budget:
Budget 2007 puts in place a renewed and strengthened Equalization program, legislated through 2013-14 to provide long-term predictability for provinces.
Let me repeat it again: “...to provide long-term predictability for provinces.”
In its 2009 budget, in the midst of a global economic crisis that is also affecting Quebec, the federal government is going back on its word and imposes a limit on transfers, thus depriving Quebec of about $1 billion, compared to what was anticipated.
At the same time, the Conservative government is providing $1 billion for the establishment of a new southern Ontario development agency. This is in addition to the $2.7 billion given to the auto industry, which is primarily based in Ontario, while Quebec's manufacturing and forestry sectors are only getting a few million dollars.
Yet, Quebec is hard hit by the economic crisis. The federal government's laisser-faire attitude in recent years regarding the needs of the manufacturing sector only adds to the problems generated by the crisis.
Then there is the unilateral amendment to the equalization formula. This change is a step backwards. Quebec and the provinces will lose hard won gains that had been made regarding the fiscal imbalance.
Moreover, in the middle of the holiday period, the government published in the Canada Gazette changes affecting the status of Hydro One revenues, Ontario's hydro company, in the equalization calculations, thus favouring Ontario. Indeed, from now on, the federal government will consider Hydro One's revenues as business revenues rather than natural resource revenues.
Why is Hydro-Québec not being treated like Hydro One? Two thirds of Hydro-Québec's revenues come from its transportation and distribution activities, while one third comes from electricity production.
By refusing to give Hydro-Québec's distribution and transportation revenues the same treatment that it granted to Hydro One, the Conservative government is cheating Quebec out of an additional $250 million in annual revenues. The Conservative government is once again using a double standard when dealing with Quebec and Ontario.
We are in a time of crisis, and it is the government's duty to act. Two weeks ago, Pratt & Whitney, which is headquartered in my riding, announced that it would be forced to lay off a thousand workers at plants around the world. It goes without saying that several hundred Quebec workers will be affected by these job losses.
Over half of those who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance. Those who are eligible have to suffer through a two-week waiting period before they can collect benefits. The Conservative government has abandoned Quebec and those of its workers affected by the crisis.
The Conservative government has thumbed its nose at Kyoto, has refused to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets, and has set 2006 as the base year instead of 1990, despite the demands of environmental groups. In so doing, it has deprived Quebec of the tools it needs to renew its economy. Kyoto would be lucrative for Quebec.
According to Canada's greenhouse gas inventory, Canada's emissions rose by 21.8% between 1990 and 2006. That pathetic record would be even worse without Quebec's 1.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over that period, during which Alberta raised its emissions by 36%, and Saskatchewan by 63%.
Quebec's manufacturing sector alone reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 24% between 1990 and 2006. That is four times the target set by the Kyoto protocol, achieved six years before the deadline.
Just imagine if Quebec could participate in an emissions credits exchange, a carbon exchange located in Montreal. Companies exploiting the oil sands in Alberta could buy emissions credits from Quebec manufacturing companies, thereby doing their part in the fight against climate change undertaken by industrialized nations in 1997 when the Kyoto protocol was signed.
The Conservatives must not use the economic crisis as an excuse for their laissez-faire approach to the environment. Instead, we should see the crisis as an opportunity to make the green shift that will renew our economy. The federal government should get to work and take a more serious look at the proposals the Bloc Québécois submitted last fall.
This government claims to have recognized the Quebec nation, but the truth is that it has chosen to stifle our economy and shamelessly encroach on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.
That takes me to another part of my colleague’s motion and the creation of a single securities commission. The establishment of a Canada-wide securities commission would create a regulatory monopoly and a dangerous situation in view of the elevated concentration of the industry in question. Canada would lose the advantages of the competitive regulatory system we have now.
There are not many arguments in favour of this new commission being able to reduce the direct costs. The Australian example even seems to show the opposite. On the other hand, a system based on harmonization and mutual recognition by the various commissions of what is called the passport has advantages that led the European community to opt for this method of regulating securities.
The passport system works very well. It provides for a coordinated approach to the enforcement of the legislation and uniform protection of investors. In addition, the current system has enabled each securities commission to develop its own particular approach and areas of expertise, allowing for differing but complementary views on how the rules are being complied with.
The system could be made more effective, however, if Ontario decided to stop trying to go it alone and joined the harmonization efforts of Quebec and the provinces. This system of differing but complementary standpoints helps us to detect and prevent scandals like the ones in the United States, which has had a central authority for the last few years. These scandals have resulted in social costs that are much more serious than anything we have experienced.
The Quebec National Assembly expressed its unanimous opposition to the federal government’s plans to create a Canada-wide commission. The National Assembly passed a unanimous motion to this effect on October 16, 2007: “That the National Assembly ask the federal government to renounce its plans for a Canada-wide securities commission”.
Authority over securities was conferred on the provinces by virtue of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights under section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Conservatives are prepared to infringe on Quebec’s jurisdictions in order to advance their plans for a single Canada-wide securities commission. The federal Liberals are in favour of this commission. That is unacceptable to Quebec. The government prides itself on its open federalism and claims to have recognized the Quebec nation, but everything it does weakens Quebec, with the help of the Liberals. The creation of a single securities commission and the levelling out of equalization to the detriment of Quebec are only two new examples of this, even though Quebec has been hard hit.
Recognizing the Quebec nation means showing respect for its economic and social jurisdictions and its language, culture, history and institutions, as well as the unanimous demands of its National Assembly. The federalist parties are on their knees in Ottawa and only the Bloc Québécois stands up for Quebec.