Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the purpose of Bill S-9 is to ratify a protocol to the Canada-United States Tax Convention.
This convention regulates most tax provisions, as the hon. member explained earlier. This means it regulates most tax provisions between Canada and the United States. Canada has similar conventions with many other countries throughout the world. The purpose of these conventions is primarily to avoid double taxation. It would be unfair for a Canadian or a Quebecer who works a few months in the United States to be taxed first in the United States and again in Canada or Quebec when he files his income tax return at the end of the year.
So considering the extent of our trade relations and the proximity of the United States, the Canada-United States Tax Convention should be as harmonized as possible, although it is still detailed and very complex.
The bill before the House today will make it possible for both governments to help each other collect taxes from their taxpayers. It is often said that one good deed deserves another. The United States will help Canada collect taxes owed by Canadian taxpayers abroad and in turn, Canada will help the United States collect taxes from Americans when they are on foreign soil.
Following the free trade agreement with the United States, both countries decided to operate even more closely to simplify fiscal exchanges between the two countries. This enhanced co-operation and harmonization are all part of the trend towards free trade that is now sweeping the international community and is forcing governments to become more efficient in the way they tax companies and citizens of the two countries that are signatories to this convention.
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the trend towards free trade, as we have done since the negotiations began and as Quebec did as soon as the issue of international free trade was broached, since the Province of Quebec, unlike the federal Liberal government at the time, had come out in favour of free trade. Since we support the free exchange of goods in the greatest possible harmony and on the most equitable terms for Canadians and Americans, we have not
changed the position we took at the time and today, we want the government to know that we will support this bill.
We know that without the firm support of Quebec and all major players in the province, the free trade agreement with the United States would probably never have materialized.
As I said earlier, Jean Chrétien's Liberals and even the Province of Ontario were strongly opposed to the agreement. Quebec was not only in favour of this agreement between the United States and Canada but also supported expanding the agreement to include Mexico and still supports this grand design for a free trade zone. With President Clinton of the United States, we would like to see this free trade zone extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
We could draw a parallel between this situation and the situation we see now in the political context involving Canada and Quebec. I must say that our support for the bill before the House today is entirely consistent with the position we would take on agreements with the rest of Canada.
Millions of dollars are at stake in Bill S-9. Millions and even billions of dollars will be at stake tomorrow morning before a partnership between Quebec and Canada.
For instance, some businesspeople told me that they could not decide on the matter because they needed both supporters and opponents of the bill to earn a living.
Both before and after October 30, we will need clients from both sides in order to ensure a climate of harmony, of beneficial exchanges between the two parties. If we have no need for both, as we are doing in this bill, why would businesspeople want to stop dealing with those clients who voted with the other side after October 30?
Businesspeople and companies who need both Yes and No clients before October 30 will continue to need them after October 30. That is why we say that they can only hope for a partnership between both countries, just as the Bloc Quebecois is now supporting the partnership advocated by Bill S-9 to harmonize taxes, estate tax rates.
Yet, with this bill, if Canada refused to sign a protocol with the U.S., it would not claim to be weakened, that this would be an obvious way to avoid co-operating with the U.S., or that the U.S. would be the only one at a disadvantage. Canada understands that it is in both parties' interest.
In the same way, when people from the no side tell us that tomorrow morning, we will have Canada and a separated Quebec, I think that what we have here is a new definition of separation. Where I come from, when a couple separates, it is not just one party who is separated; both the woman and the man say they are separated.
After October 30, once Quebec has proclaimed its sovereignty, we will not have a separated Quebec and a complete Canada. We will have a separated Quebec and a separated Canada. Both parties will likely be weakened in their positions if people in Quebec and the rest of Canada refuse to conclude harmonious free trade agreements between them so that their economic and trade positions would be strengthened by new links. There can be accommodations. An economic and trade partnership could therefore be arranged not only for taxation but also for international trade and the free flow of goods and services in general, in the interest of this country's two founding nations.
The bill does not specify how many millions and billions of dollars are at stake in this protocol. We do not know which country-Canada or the U.S.-will benefit the most from this tax liberalization protocol. We do not know, and the bill does not say. Perhaps the party in power has done studies on this? We simply do not know.
But we nonetheless agree because this is a principle of justice that can only benefit Canadians and Quebecers. It would not be normal for a Quebecer working in Florida for three or four months a year, for example, to pay more taxes for these three or four months than he would pay in Quebec if he had worked only in Quebec.
Bill S-9 will ensure that Quebec or Canada, as the case may be, will be able to claim from the U.S. the share of withholding tax on this person's compensation, under conditions that will be similar or identical in both countries. Hence the advisability of supporting this agreement.
Especially if trade and trade opportunities between two countries are involved, considering that $1.3 billion is invested every year in manufacturing in Ontario cars, trucks and automotive parts for sale in Quebec, it would be sheer folly for the Ontario automotive industry to miss out on this market. Is Ontario going to refuse to come to an agreement with Quebec, claiming that it can no longer sell cars and trucks in Quebec because we have decided to achieve autonomy? That would be silly.
Also, Alberta sells us oil and natural gas worth more than $850 million. Would our Albertan suppliers decide overnight to stop selling us oil and natural gas worth $850 million because we have chosen to make our own decisions from now on?
For Bay Street, the heart of Toronto's financial district, Quebec represents a $2.8 billion market for financial and insurance services. How can one believe that these people would not find it in their best interest to maintain harmonious business relations with us?
Integration of businesses in Quebec and Canada as well as the need to integrate businesses in Quebec and Canada with American businesses make it imperative that we maintain harmonious relations among ourselves. In turn, maintaining harmonious relations forces us to maintain the existing economic union, but under new terms, whereby each partner has a say in problem solving.
Where the shoe pinches right now is that one country is divided, with one partner claiming to have all the answers and be in a better position to manage the other one's taxes and imposes its will by force of numbers. That is why we were never able to find a solution: we realize that we are so terribly different.
When I was in college, we had a professor who used to say: "My friends, always remember that, when confronted with a problem, unless you hold the solution or are part of the solution, you are part of the problem".
That is the kind of situation we are in at present in Canada and Quebec. Over the past few decades, we have come to realize that we were facing certain problems. We told Canada: "Here is a possible solution: If you agree to a redistribution of powers between our two peoples, so as to allow greater fairness, greater autonomy and greater respect for our two peoples, we could find a solution for this great united Canada".
Unfortunately, Quebec, particularly over the last 30 years, has constantly clashed with the federal government and the rest of Canada, which want to keep control over the province's tax system, over its decisions and, in fact, over any major decision that a nation has to make regarding its future.
We feel that Canada was more part of the problem than part of the solution. This is why we initiated a referendum process, a democratic process which will allow Quebecers to freely express themselves and tell Canadians: "Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow morning we wish to offer you a new sharing of responsibilities; we wish to offer you a new partnership whereby we will decide together, on an equal footing, what should be done to ensure the best possible future for us".
Let us not forget that soon, when Quebec becomes sovereign, the rest of Canada will no longer be in as strong a position, relative to other foreign countries. It is wrong and it is misleading to suggest that the rest of Canada will still be a strong country, while Quebec will have become a weak nation. A Canada without Quebec is a weaker Canada and a Quebec without Canada also takes on a different dimension. This is why we will have to find a way to pool our skills and strengths to maintain as best as we can our trade relations with other countries.
Should this not happen, Canada will not immediately go bankrupt, nor will Quebec: our two new countries will have to face international conditions different from those which currently prevail, something which might be harder to do. Clearly, it is easier to enter into a partnership to solve issues, rather than try to find solutions to the same problems separately. This is obvious. But we cannot do it right now. We are told: you are already in a partnership, why do you want to leave? This is an illusion. We want out because we feel that we are not in a true partnership arrangement. We are in a minority position in a country where our province accounts for about 25 per cent of the population, and where half of the taxes paid by Quebecers are controlled by the majority.
We want more than that for Quebecers. We mentioned commercial reasons regarding free trade agreements. We could also provide reasons related to the number of jobs. We are not talking about the loss of one million jobs. We are not even talking about a loss, because we know that our partners of tomorrow will not let 250,000 jobs in Ontario disappear. Indeed, there are 250,000 jobs in that province that are directly related to goods sold in Quebec, particularly in the automotive industry.
In western Canada, 75,000 jobs are directly related to trade between those provinces and Quebec. We buy 50 per cent of the beef produced in the west. Tomorrow, Quebecers will not want to stop eating western beef, nor will western producers want to stop selling us their beef, because 75,000 jobs are at stake. In Atlantic Canada, we are talking about 26,000 jobs. Maritime provinces will not risk losing 26,000 jobs by eliminating economic and trade activity with Quebec.
In Canada, a total of 352,000 jobs depend directly on the trade between the rest of Canada and Quebec. I imagine that on October 31, businessmen will start calling their Premiers and ministers to tell them: Gentlemen, let us be serious. Let us get down to business. Let us get back to basics and sound business practices. Keep protecting our markets and our jobs. Sit down and talk to each other and stop being so obsessed with your own policies.
I did not make up these examples. They exist today. This is the reality of trade, whether we like it or not.
The same goes for NAFTA. They want to scare us. They say that the next day we could no longer enter into an agreement, be part of NAFTA. However, tomorrow morning, for instance, we can enter into an agreement with the United States on estate taxes.
Americans who own securities or property or factories in Quebec or who come and work here a few months every year, tomorrow morning, these Americans will want to adopt the same bill, either with Quebec or a united Canada. Why is this bill before the House today? Because we realize that some Americans are penalized by differences in legislation, just as some Canadians and Quebecers are penalized by the law as we know it today.
If Canada is prepared to acknowledge that harmonization of the legislation of our two countries is mutually beneficial, why should we be more reasonable with the Americans than with a sovereign Quebec, if it benefits our citizens? Personally, I think that the day after a declaration of sovereignty, the United States and the rest of Canada will sit down at the same table and will want to negotiate.
Quebec's production figures are four times those of Chile, which is expected to be the next country to sign NAFTA. Four times. Quebec's trade with the United States is eight times what it is with Brazil, Argentina and Chile combined. Canada tells us: "We are willing to let Chile become a member tomorrow morning", but they are not prepared to do the same for Quebec. Yet Quebec has eight times the trade exchanges with these three countries combined.
The American president has already stated, as I have already said, that he wanted to create a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, which I imagine includes Quebec. He did not say "a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego excluding Quebec". That is not what he said. What he did say is that it is to everyone's advantage in this great economic space in which we live to liberalize trade. Some governors of northeastern states have already announced their firm intention to continue trade relations with a sovereign Quebec. Laurent Beaudoin is not the only one who has made a statement.
The government of Canada strongly supports Chile's application, as I have said already, and yet Chile has 148 times less trade with English Canada than Quebec has with English Canada. This is a key point. Another country like Chile would be accepted yet Quebec, with 148 times more trade links than Chile, would be rejected. That makes absolutely no sense. Nothing but bogey man scare tactics. We will not stand for such a thing.
During a trade visit to South America, the Prime Minister of Canada made a strong and convincing plea in favour of broadening NAFTA to include all of the Americas. There is, however, a lack of logic in the no side which they are not prepared to acknowledge. Again this week, Mr. Martin has made himself the spokesman for the no side with respect to NAFTA. Yesterday in a speech to the Association professionnelle en développement économique du Québec he raised three key points preventing Quebec from joining NAFTA quickly.
First, membership in the World Trade Association. With respect to this point, I must tell Mr. Martin that he is wrong, although I cannot tell whether or not his error is deliberate. I do not believe so, I think he might be acting in good faith, but it is obvious that he is in error. True, it could take several years for a country to conform to the World Trade Organization's rules before being accepted for membership. But he must acknowledge at the same time that Quebec already meets all of the World Trade Organization's membership requirements. WTO rules contain provisions for accelerating the process for countries that are already in compliance with the rules.
Quebec would certainly have access to this fast track, which takes about two to three months. In the past five years, the latest countries to declare sovereignty or independence were all recognized immediately by the WTO. Perhaps one or two countries have still not yet been accepted, because they do not meet the basic requirements, because they were not part of a free market economy. That is why the delay. However, a sovereign Quebec, which already satisfies all the conditions, could join the organization quickly-within two or three months, and not two or three years, as Mr. Martin suggests. Even the Czechs and the Slovaks have had the advantage-
