Jean-Yves Roy

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 11th, 2007]

With regard to grants and contributions awarded by Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions since 2005-2006, for each grant and contribution: (a) what were (i) the names of the recipient organizations, (ii) the addresses of the recipient organizations, (iii) the dates the grants or the contributions were made, (iv) the amounts, (v) the names of the programs, (vi) the federal ridings in which each recipient organization was located; (b) what are the details and descriptions; and (c) was the Government of Quebec involved in the project?

[Income Trusts, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak to the member for Scarborough Centre's motion M-321. I will not read the motion because it is nearly half a page long, which is extremely long.

At the outset, I must say that for at least three reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion. First, I think that bringing back income trusts would endanger the productivity of our economy. Second, income trusts cause a great deal of lost revenue for the federal government and all other levels of government. Third, I think that passing this motion would have the same effect as the government's decision to eliminate income trusts. It would send another shock wave through the financial markets.

From the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois has supported the notice of ways and means and the federal budget, which modified the tax regime so that after a four-year transition period, existing income trusts would be taxed like corporations. It also cancelled the creation of any new income trusts. I think that is an important part of it. Existing income trusts will be given a four-year transition period, and no new income trusts will be allowed.

Not long ago, the Department of Finance estimated that the income trust structure was responsible for annual losses to all levels of government averaging $400 million. Before the Minister of Finance intervened, two big corporations, Bell and Telus, had announced their intention to convert to income trusts. These two corporations alone would have increased governments' loss of revenue significantly to $1 million per year. We felt that we had to put a stop to this measure, which would have enabled companies to keep huge sums of money out of government coffers.

Of course, government revenue losses are a very serious matter. Regarding income trusts, what was even more worrisome and objectionable, however, was that the income trust structure meant that companies were practically forced to pay 100% of their profits to shareholders at the end of the year. Indeed, if the company retained part of the profits for an investment project, for instance, it had to pay the maximum amount of taxes on that non-distributed revenue. As a result, most companies that converted to income trusts were investing less and less, especially in the development of new technologies and so on. This structure did not allow companies to invest where and when they needed to invest.

In addition to the tax losses associated with the conversion of a growing number of income trusts for strictly tax-motivated reasons, we must also look at the potential loss of productivity in our businesses, in the context of a serious productivity crisis in the manufacturing sector of Quebec and Canada. It is important to remember that, in order to remain productive, more money must be invested in research and development, especially in the manufacturing sector. In recent years, that sector has suffered considerable losses: job losses, company closures and plant relocations.

To remain competitive, businesses in this sector must continue to invest in research and development. The creation of income trusts no longer allowed businesses to invest more in R and D. I would remind the House that, according to a report published earlier this year, in terms of global competitiveness, Canada ranked seventh in the world in 2005—since the analysis was retroactive. Only a year later, in 2006, Canada dropped to tenth place. Our businesses are increasingly less competitive and increasingly less productive, and that means they must invest more in productivity, especially in research and development.

Had the government not stepped in—this is one of the reasons the Bloc Québécois was in favour of government measures, even if we did not completely agree with the way things were done and with the four-year transition period provided by the government—a company such as Bell, for example, would have been forced to distribute all profits to its shareholders or be subject to substantial financial penalties.

This means that the company would have had to turn over almost all of its profits to its shareholders, leaving little leeway to invest in research and development.

It makes no sense for this structure to be applied to a company such as Bell. Bell would have been forced to cancel its investments in order to ensure its growth and would have been condemned to die a slow death. We will remember that Bell and Telus are very large companies that must be constantly investing. They are in a sector—telecommunications and communications—where research, development and the application of new technologies are extremely important. So these companies must continue to invest in order to remain competitive globally.

Shareholders' desire to maximize profits in the short term could have forced segments of our industrial sector to convert to income trusts strictly for tax reasons, thereby sacrificing the long-term growth of the entire sector.

It is also important to remember that, when the Liberals are calling on the government to reverse its surprise decision to raise the tax rate on income trusts, arguing that this measure has cost taxpayers huge sums of money and that returning to the old structure will restore the value of investments to previous levels, they are forgetting an extremely important point.

Since the Conservatives had promised during the most recent election campaign that they would not touch income trusts, investors put their faith in the government. We agree with the Liberals on this: because the Conservatives had promised that they would not touch income trusts, taxpayers kept on investing in income trusts. Unfortunately, the government did not keep its promise. It is therefore true that many investors were duped by the government, which suddenly announced a change in the tax treatment of income trusts.

In promising what they did during the election campaign, the Conservatives eliminated a risk factor associated with these investments, making them more attractive and artificially inflating their price.

As soon as the government—I am referring to the “government” but the Conservatives had not yet formed the government—announced its intention during the election campaign, income trust prices became artificially inflated. When the government announced that it had changed its mind, the stock market dropped dramatically.

I see that I have only a minute left, so in closing, I want to say that if we adopted the measure the Liberals are proposing, the result would be largely the same. There would be another dramatic drop in the stock market. And what might be the impact of the government's proposed transition period, which I believe is too short? We would likely find ourselves in the same situation, with the same problem.

There is one main reason why we are obviously opposed to this measure: maintaining income trusts is making our economy less and less competitive.

[Telecommunications, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the regional conference of elected officials in the Bas-St-Laurent area is opposed to the deregulation of local telephone service, which penalizes all rural inhabitants. What is absurd is that price increases will only affect rural and not urban areas.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that his decision to deregulate the telephone services sector will slow down or even compromise regional development rather than foster it?

[Adéodat Saint-Pierre, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we were very saddened to learn recently of the passing of Adéodat Saint-Pierre, at the age of 72. Mr. Saint-Pierre was a major contributor to the forestry industry and rural communities in Quebec.

For over 50 years, he led many important struggles to improve the outlook for lumber producers throughout Quebec, and to ensure the survival of villages and rural communities. Mr. Saint-Pierre served as the president of the Syndicat des producteurs forestiers du Bas-Saint-Laurent and the Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec. He also founded, in 1990, the Coalition Urgence rurale du Bas-Saint-Laurent. In May 2001, Mr. Saint-Pierre was honoured by the National Assembly with the Hommage bénévolat-Québec award.

Deeply committed to his community, Mr. Saint-Pierre cared about the economic development of his region and of Quebec as a whole. He was a born leader and unifier.

I would like to pay tribute to this staunch defender of the regions, a role model to follow in building the Quebec of tomorrow.

[Ministerial Expenses, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that all the rules were followed but admits he wanted to increase his employee’s salary, not hesitating thereby to endorse double dipping.

After the travel expenses and contracts to raise a friend’s salary, how can a minister in a government that preaches transparency defend the kind of double dipping he denounced in the Liberals?

[Ministerial Expenses, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after he tried to conceal his travel expenditures, we learn today that the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec awarded a contract to a permanent employee in his riding office. In keeping with his usual style, he insists once again that all the rules were followed.

If the minister maintains that all the rules were followed, how can he explain forgetting the House rule that permanent employees of a member cannot get departmental contracts at the same time?

[Telecommunications, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 30, the CRTC announced a 5% increase in regional telephone charges. The decision by the Minister of Industry to deregulate the telephone services sector is directly responsible for that increase. The Bloc Québécois had predicted that the rural regions would get it in the neck if there were deregulation. And so they have.

Does the minister realize that there is no other solution, if he wants to avoid penalizing the regions still further, than to backtrack on his decision?

[Ministerial Expenses, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will not stop repeating that the travel expenses of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities fully respect all points of the administrative regulations and that everything is in order.

We would like to believe the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but let him stop covering up and tell us how much money each minister has spent. Let him make that public, on a sheet of paper. Then we can judge for ourselves.

Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons do that?

[Agriculture and Agri-food, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the government dared to eliminate supply management, this would have an impact on many regions of Quebec. After the devastation felt in the manufacturing sector, the regions do not need another hard blow.

When we see Preston Manning, who is close to the Prime Minister, when we see the Minister of Industry, who is from the Montreal Economic Institute, and when we bear in mind that the Minister of International Trade has already questioned supply management, we have good reason to ask more than once if the government really intends to defend supply management?

[Income Tax Act, January 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the speech the parliamentary secretary gave earlier. I had the feeling I was in another world or on another planet.

It was the sort of speech I would expect from someone who had no idea what the regions are going through or what has been happening in this country for the past 50 or 60 years. I am talking not just about Quebec, but about the whole country. It was the sort of speech I would expect from someone who had not visited the regions across the country and did not understand that the populations of these regions are dwindling.

Earlier, the member mentioned Newfoundland. If there is one place that has a problem with depopulation and the loss of its young people, it is Newfoundland. Across the province, the population—especially the youth population—is declining at an alarming rate. This points to what I would call the old myths about the regions. As these myths would have it, larger centres support the so-called outlying, remote or resource regions—they have been called by so many names over the years that it is confusing. This is absolutely false. The opposite is true. These regions are called resource regions because they provide products and natural resources that allow industry and commerce in larger centres to prosper. We talk about resource regions, but we could also talk about the human resources the regions have provided for larger centres. This assistance is extremely important. Often, the regions lose their most skilled, best trained young people, who leave to train in larger centres and are working there today. They are the lifeblood of the larger centres. There is a myth about the regions.

There is another myth. I regularly hear that there is less entrepreneurship in the regions. This is also absolutely false. That is why my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord introduced this bill. It is absolutely not true that there is less entrepreneurship in the regions. The opposite is true, relatively speaking. All the studies that have been conducted over the years by the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec prove it.

I would just like to invite the parliamentary secretary, if she ever has the time, to read a Senate report released in December 2006, entitled “Understanding Freefall: The Challenge of the Rural Poor”. It talks about the entire country.

The report shows what is happening right now. It is an excellent snapshot, published in December 2006, and I read it during the holiday break. I was very happy to have read it, because it confirmed exactly what I already knew. It confirms exactly what is happening in the regions of this country. In fact, the regions are becoming less populated. The population is aging. The population decline is both increasing and accelerating in the regions. For a country, as much for Quebec as for Canada, this is extremely dangerous, because our territory must be populated. It must be populated wisely. It must be populated while supporting rural communities and all communities of the regions.

But how do we support them? Of course, the bill introduced by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is step in the right direction. It has been quite successful in Quebec. Quebec is not only area to experiment with such a measure. It was also tried internationally, in some European countries. And it has produced results. In fact, to suggest that there is no evidence of a lack of qualified labourers in the regions is to ignore the facts at all cost.

Consider this example concerning health care. At present, there is a desperate shortage of qualified personnel in the regions, to the point that it is becoming nearly impossible to offer all services in all regions. This is happening not only in Gaspésie and the Bas-Saint-Laurent, but also in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and all rural regions of the country.

There is more. The declining population of the regions and the departure of young people mean that, as the population ages, there is constantly growing pressure to increase services.

Another phenomenon has to do with the services that should be offered by all governments. Sometimes the cost of these services increase and then the services are dropped. Rural roads and transportation services are being dropped. That is what is happening where I come from.

This afternoon, during question period, I asked a question. I had a good example and I asked a question about the Mont-Joli airport. This is a very concrete example of a region that is being penalized because the transportation system has been abandoned. The transportation system has been privatized and now the government is washing its hands of it.

My region has a major company that is well known by everyone. I do not want to advertise, but I am talking about the Telus head office. The head office of this company is currently threatening to leave Rimouski, which is right next to Mont-Joli, because the plane that arrives from Vancouver—carrying the big bosses—can no longer land in Mont-Joli. It is as simple as this: the airport no longer has the necessary instruments. If there is bad weather, they land in Quebec City. People are currently threatening to leave the region. This head office is extremely important. I am not talking about a head office that employs 20 or 30 people. I am talking about an very large head office. That is an example of what the federal government can do, and an example of what the federal government did not do.

I can give another example cited by my colleague for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine recently, and that is rail transportation. Establishing companies in an area where there is no longer any rail transportation and where roads are inadequate is a challenge. Yet that is what regions are asked to do. Today, regions are asked to make that effort. They are asked to be even more creative than major centres, and to get by with the little they are given. If we wish to build a country such as Quebec, people must live in the regions, our land must be populated, there must be quality of life, people must have services. For example, a young pregnant woman from Sainte-Anne-des-Monts must have access to a gynecologist. This is a good example of specialized employment in the health field. If the individual has to travel 200 km because her pregnancy is high risk, I do not think that she will stay in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts for long. We must help her, we must help these young people return to the regions. Jobs are available. It is not a waste of time for the regions. It is not a waste of time provided that measures such as those presented by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord are implemented. We must realize that the federal government must assume a role like the one presently taken by the Government of Quebec. That is not the case. We must realize that the federal government must support regional development measures proposed by the Government of Quebec and by other provincial governments. It is extremely important because if the federal government does not support these measures, that means that we are paying taxes for absolutely no reason, and I am more and more convinced of that.

You know to which party I belong. I hope that Quebec will become sovereign so that we can truly go ahead with regional development in our area, so that young people can return and so that we can build a country throughout the territory, for the well-being of all those living in Quebec.