House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been chastised in this House before for not staying on the debate topic. So perhaps with your indulgence, I will stay on the debate topic. However, the hon. member did raise an issue about this government's support for provinces, this government's support for Canadians. The forestry workers that he is referring to have received the most incredible tax cuts that Canadians have received in years. We continue to do that. I referred to that in my speech.

It is not easy to do when every time we put forward a program that will support Canadians, that will help Canadian families, that will put forward programs where low-income families can actually continue to receive social benefits while working part time, whether it is in a budget or whether it is in a bill tabled in this House, consistently we see the NDP voting against it. We see the NDP standing in our way when we are trying to help Canadians, continually opposing the benefits we want to put forward for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very eloquent intervention on this issue and for explaining to us essentially what GST and PST harmonization involves.

I think, generally, Quebeckers simply want to be treated fairly and consistently.

My question for the member is, could he provide us with an assurance that our Conservative government will actually treat Quebec consistently and fairly, as it has some of the other provinces that have harmonized their GST and PST?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize enough, and I have said this in answering questions in question period, the most important fact that Canadians need to remember is that we treat Quebec just like we treat every other province in Canada, just like we treat Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, the home of that hon. member. It is important to us to ensure that transfer payments continue to increase, as they have, to ensure that even though the Bloc will be in perpetual opposition in this House those constituents it represents share equally in the benefits that this country has. That is our role as a federal government, to protect Canadians, to provide them opportunities so they can prosper, to provide them with EI benefits should their jobs disappear. That is what we are doing in these difficult economic times. It is not easy. We are facing challenges, and Canadians understand that.

They have looked at this economic action plan, which is the best plan. In fact, it is the only plan. Nobody else in this House, as a party, came forward with a plan that was as broad and as substantive as this government has put forward and implemented. We see the money flowing. Every time we walk into a home renovation store, we see Canadians spending money. They will not see those dollars until they ask for a tax credit next spring, but the dollars are flowing. The money is flowing. Canadians are beginning to see recovery.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

The Liberals will vote for this motion. The main reason is that we think it is very important for the government to negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec. That is the main point of the motion. There are some differences of opinion between Quebec and the federal government. These differences do not seem too great, though, if we want to have a flexible federation in which we cooperate. We should obviously negotiate with any province, including Quebec, over matters that are good for the federation.

It is as simple as that, and for this reason we will vote in favour of the motion.

One thing I will say as a small aside is that it will be interesting to see how the NDP decides to vote on this motion. On the one hand we have NDP members who have ranted and raved against the harmonized tax. On the other hand we have the member for Outremont who said:

How are we supposed to live harmoniously in this country if harmonization gives other provinces billions of dollars while Quebec gets nothing?

So it seems that whichever way they decide to vote on this motion there will be NDPers pitted against NDPers, which will be an interesting prospect for non-NDPers to view.

In any case, to return more to the substance of the matter at hand, I think the first point to make is that on economic grounds there is a good case for the GST and a good case for harmonization. It should be noted that every OECD country except the United States has a value-added tax, which is like the GST. A value-added tax is generally thought to be an efficient tax because businesses get credit on the inputs that have already had tax paid on them, so that at the end of the day, all the goods purchased by consumers are taxed only once.

Currently, then, the move by Ontario in the direction of harmonization will result in a reduction in the marginal effect of tax rates, which will be of particular assistance to the manufacturing sector. Therefore, this move is a positive one on two grounds: first, on grounds of efficiency; and second, on grounds of competitiveness.

It is more efficient to have one tax than two taxes. Small businesses and other businesses will then only have one tax to administer rather than two.

This is reminiscent of a move that the Liberal government made, I believe in 2005, to have a single tax collector for corporate income tax in the province of Ontario. This was an agreement between the federal government and Ontario. It was very well received by businesses. It reduced their compliance costs to have only one tax rather than two taxes, and this move in Ontario and potentially in Quebec is of a similar nature.

It is also good for the competiveness of the country because by reducing the effective tax rate on business investment at a time when jobs are disappearing, particularly in Ontario in the manufacturing sector, which is very much in difficulty, this move by the Government of Ontario will be positive for the Ontario economy over the medium term.

If we turn to Quebec, I can count perhaps five areas in which there is incomplete harmonization. First of all, at the moment, Quebec has two taxes rather than one tax. Second, there are some goods on which the provincial tax applies but not the federal tax, but that is the same as will be the case in Ontario. Third, the tax credits, which are part of a GST or value-added tax, are not claimable by larger companies. In the Ontario case, large companies will transition over time to be allowed to claim those tax credits. Fourth, there is a difference in terms of who collects the tax, whether it is the Government of Quebec, as it has been since the time of Brian Mulroney, or whether, as the government wishes to be the case, it is the CRA. The fifth and final point is that, currently, the Quebec sales tax is applied on top of the federal GST.

We are the opposition, not the government. It is the government that should negotiate. I submit that those five differences are not huge. I do not know exactly what the outcome of those differences would be, but certainly they leave scope for the two governments to bargain in good faith.

We in the Liberal Party welcome the Quebec government's indication that is prepared to move to a greater degree of harmonization under certain conditions. We see absolutely no reason the federal government should not enter into negotiations with the Government of Quebec on this subject and in good faith. It is for that reason the Liberal Party will be voting in favour of this motion.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention but I want to call him on something that he mentioned in his comments.

First, he justified the harmonization based on the fact that it is a more efficient use of taxation and the processing of tax dollars and, second, that harmonizing the GST and the VAT or PST would make it more effective in terms of reducing the overall tax rate, yet it is the position of his party and his leader that taxes should be raised.

As members know, it is his party that suggested that the GST should be increased again from the reductions that we as a Conservative government have implemented. It is also his party that came forward and suggested a carbon tax. It is also his leader who very recently suggested that taxes in Canada are supposed to go up, not down.

How does the member justify that patent hypocrisy to, on the one hand, say that it is more efficient to harmonize the GST and PST because it will lower the overall tax rate and yet, at the same time, suggest that taxes in Canada should be increased, whether it is carbon taxes or the GST?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, all of that is such patent nonsense that it does not deserve any answer at all.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member has helped the House understand that notwithstanding that Quebec has already harmonized or entered into an arrangement back in, I believe, 1992, there still are five outstanding matters, as he laid out. The important point is that these are negotiable and we can work with this.

The other key issue, which the member may be able to assist the House and Canadians to better understand, is conceptually the benefits of harmonization, not just to a specific province but to the country as a whole in terms of its support for businesses and the efficiencies that it brings.

There is also a very important argument about the benefits of shifting our tax burden in Canada from income taxation to the value added or consumption tax basis. Those have been long-standing arguments but it is becoming very clear that the consumption tax internationally has been the preferred route.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent remarks. Unlike the previous comments, they clearly do deserve an answer.

In particular, I agree with his points. The five points that I made are significant but not huge, and a government that cannot effectively negotiate in good faith on the basis of differences as limited as these is not a government that is a competent government.

With respect to the second part of my colleague's question, study after study around the world shows that if there is money with which to cut taxes, it is far fairer and more efficient to cut income taxes rather than to the GST or sales taxes.

When we were in government, we had cut the lowest income tax rate from 16% to 15%. The Conservatives came in and did things in the opposite direction to what every economist on the planet would have recommended. They raised the income tax rate from 15% to 15.5% and cut the GST, the opposite direction of what the rest of the world thinks is appropriate policy.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. As he indicated, there are some very positive elements in this particular motion that will lead to more effectiveness and more efficiency, such as the tax collector, the tax on tax.

A number of issues need to be negotiated and I hope that going forward they will be able to come to some conclusion.

My question for the member concerns the whole issue of a tax on consumption versus income tax. Is there any economist in Canada who does support the income tax approach of lowering taxes rather than taxes on consumption?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the only economist in Canada that I am aware of who supports lower GST rather than lower income tax, or least is a person who purports to be an economist, is the Prime Minister himself.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part today in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to resolve the dispute dating back over ten years regarding the harmonization of the QST with the GST in the early 1990s and agree to provide $2.6 billion in compensation to Quebec for this harmonization, and that Quebec continue to administer these harmonized taxes.

Our party is certainly in favour of harmonizing the two sales taxes. However, it is difficult to understand why the Bloc is giving this issue priority when the country is in the middle of an economic crisis. Market declines caused by the global financial crisis have left the solvency of Canadian defined benefit pension plans at historical lows and defined contribution plan members with shrinking retirement savings. We saw over 210,000 jobs disappear in three months, we have the forestry crisis, the closing down of plants and retail businesses, personal bankruptcies, the collapse of the auto industry, and the list goes on.

The list never stops growing. There is no shortage of subjects for a motion to make the Conservative government aware of this crisis. The Bloc’s decision to make this matter of harmonization of taxes a priority appears to have pushed into second place the numerous issues that could be submitted to this Conservative government, which continues to stumble over adopting solutions that would at least lessen the effects of this harsh recession on Canadians.

Having said that, it is still true that Quebec is the only Canadian province to have harmonized its sales tax with the GST without having received compensation, and negotiations in good faith between the two levels of government should be taking place.

It is obvious that the Liberal Party of Canada is delighted that the Government of Quebec is ready to consider eliminating the last obstacles to the full harmonization of the two taxes, including charging the Quebec sales tax on the GST. Given this opening by the Government of Quebec on harmonization of the sales tax, the federal government must also make an effort of its own.

Our party supports without reservation the principle that the federal government and the provincial governments should negotiate in good faith to settle the question of compensation for Quebec. This March, the Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation of $2.6 billion for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. Quebec only wants to be treated in the same way as Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, which have all received compensation for harmonizing their sales taxes with the GST.

Quebec was the first province to harmonize its tax, to a large extent, with the federal government during the 1990s. It did not receive any compensation from the federal government. At the beginning of April, Monique Jérôme-Forget, who was then the Quebec Minister of Finance, promised to fully harmonize federal and provincial taxes in order to receive this compensation. Her successor, Raymond Bachand, has maintained this as the Charest government's position, while categorically rejecting that the Canada Revenue Agency should be responsible for collecting the two taxes. For it must be said that the unified management of the two taxes by Revenue Quebec is working very well.

Since the start of this imbroglio, the Minister of Finance, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, has continued to refuse to consider the Government of Quebec's request. As usual, the Conservative government has turned a deaf ear to any issues that could embarrass it. Meanwhile, the government of Stephen Harper, by granting compensation of $4.3 billion to the province Ontario for having harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax—

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I remind the hon. member that she should not refer to other members by name, but by the name of their riding or their title.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

But when the Conservative government granted a $4.3 billion compensation to the province of Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the federal tax, it ought to have expected it would have to negotiate with Quebec, the first province that harmonized its sales tax with the GST without any compensation at the time.

The maritime provinces also received a $1 billion compensation when they harmonized their own taxes. This turmoil in Quebec over the compensation that was handed to the province of Ontario should not come as a surprise. Negotiations conducted in good faith should necessarily lead to a fair settlement with Quebec, and that is what we are asking for. Complete harmonization of both taxes should normally entitle Quebec to compensation from the federal government.

The official opposition would like to support this motion by the Bloc. But it is always obvious for our party that in negotiations in good faith between the federal government and the Quebec government, compromises must be made. Quebec will perhaps have to go a little further in its harmonization process in order to get compensation similar to that given to Ontario. But it could also suggest that the new sales tax in Ontario is very similar to the Quebec sales tax. For instance, certain goods, like books, will not be taxed and reimbursement of the tax on goods and services used in commercial activities in Ontario will be identical to Quebec's.

Ottawa and Quebec should negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement on the way to harmonize the sales taxes, the GST and the QST, as I said earlier, in this new chapter of negotiations to standardize taxes. Quebec and Ottawa will have to make concessions to reach a deal that will satisfy the public.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank my colleague for the fine speech she just made. I would also like to remind her of something before asking my questions.

She asked why the Bloc Québécois is making a priority of this issue today, in the House, while we are in the midst of an economic crisis. We are talking about an amount of $2.6 billion that is owed to Quebec and that we are asking for. It is our money. This 2.6 billion dollars or 2,600 million dollars is owed to us, and it is because we are facing an economic crisis that we are asking urgently for that money.

As for my question, I would like to remind my colleague that campaign promises do not always go very far. The present government, before being elected as a government for the last time—since it will not be elected the next time—promised to use an open federalism approach and to respect the provinces. We are discussing an amount that is owed to us and that has been left unpaid. As we can see, words have a profound meaning in politics.

My colleague told us, in her speech, that the administration of the two taxes is going very well right now in Quebec, and she is perfectly right. She told us that Quebec should expect to have to make some concessions. Could she say exactly what concessions?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did mention that some concessions would have to be made, but these concessions will become known in the course of negotiations. I could not describe them in detail since they will take shape during negotiations.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can understand my distinguished colleague's answer. However, the Liberal group should have already found a middle ground. For example, they should say they are ready to take that step if Quebec makes some concessions.

My colleague said earlier that words and actions are two very different things in this place. Like those people who were in the opposition and who, as soon as their party takes power, suddenly have no memory of anything that went before.

So I ask the same question again: What do the Liberal Party and the Province of Quebec have to negotiate in order to agree to harmonize the QST and the GST?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

At the end of the day, the Liberal Party agrees with the request. It is undoubtedly fair and reasonable that this money be paid. When I talk about negotiations, I mean that the Conservative government should learn what fair means. That seems to be a problem. We expect the Conservative government to make that concession and to be fair with all the provinces.

As for the Quebec government, we expect it to negotiate in good faith and to be open. That said, the request is certainly fair and proper.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for her support of the motion, which is important for Quebec.

I would like to ask the member a question concerning the history of the Liberal Party. The Quebec sales tax and the GST were harmonized in the early 90s, when the Liberals were in power. In 1997, the Liberal government offered $1 billion to the maritime provinces for the losses incurred when they harmonized the taxes. After that, the Quebec government asked the Liberal government for compensation but that government refused, saying that the harmonization did not reduced the revenues produced by the tax by more than 5%.

What has changed since then? Eventually, if one day you get to power, would the Liberal Party be ready to review its position and consult Quebec to reach an agreement with it—as the member said in her speech—to give it compensation of $2.7 billion or $4 billion ?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is true that in 1993, an agreement was reached with the four Atlantic provinces and they received $1 billion. The reasons mentioned are true. What has changed is the fact that there were negotiations with Ontario. In fact, all Quebec asks is to be treated like Ontario has been.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the name of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to say right away that we will support the motion of the Bloc Québécois, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to resolve the dispute dating back over ten years regarding the harmonization of the QST with the GST in the early 1990s and agree to provide $2.6 billion in compensation to Quebec for this harmonization, and that Quebec continue to administer these harmonized taxes.

Just a moment ago, I could not help smiling a little bit as I heard the comments of my colleague, the finance critic from the Liberal Party, when he tried to blame us for some our past declarations. I simply want to tell him that I know firsthand what it is like. I know by experience what it is like to try to get a fair share for Quebec in any given file with the federal government.

For example, in May 2005, the McGuinty government put information online about receiving $550 million from the federal government. The title was “For Climate Change”. Thus, we asked for an equivalent amount for Quebec, which would have been about $327 million at the time. The answer was a straight no, which led to an interesting exchange with the PQ opposition critic in the National Assembly. She asked me how things were going with the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who was the Liberal environment minister at the time. I had to tell her—as I have always tried, in my political life, to understand the motivations of the other side, even when I did not agree—that, the longer I dealt with the ex-leader of the Liberal Party, the easier it was for me to understand how you became a sovereignist, even if I was not one. Indeed, this legendary stubbornness from the Liberals was the cause of much friction between the federal government and Quebec in recent decades.

While we are delighted to hear them say that they are now in favour of this motion, truth should still be key in all of our deliberations. I have to say that when Quebec asked to be compensated in 1996-97, I was a member of the National Assembly. Bernard Landry who was Minister of Finance made a terrible fuss, as he often did, because he wanted Quebec to get the same compensation as the Maritimes. However, let's not forget that the maritime provinces received more than $1 billion as compensation for their losses in harmonizing sales taxes.

At the first ministers conference held in Jasper in August 1996, the provincial premiers said that all provinces should get compensation. As he often did, then federal Minister of Finance Paul Martin presented a very skilful calculation based on an objective formula establishing that the maritime provinces were entitled to compensation, but not Quebec. Faced with the same formula in the last few weeks, the other side had to acknowledge that although Ontario was about to receive billions of dollars, it did not meet the conditions that Paul Martin prescribed in his famous formula.

How can we determine what objective criteria are being used as a basis to deprive Quebec of its share of these billions of dollars? I have to note that when the money was approved for the Maritimes, it was election time on the federal scene, which was, of course, sheer coincidence. It is so good to be able to buy people with their own money.

We now have a government that has a lot of seats at stake in Ontario. So it is worth finding some money to get Ontario on side. The problem is that Quebec has awakened. The Quebec government is saying, “Wait a minute! Apparently, in 1996-97, we did not meet the criteria established in that famous formula for the Maritimes but are you saying that the formula does not apply anymore because this time it is Ontario?” I would be very happy if Quebec were fairly treated in this case.

Harmonization is a word that must be used wisely. It does not mean that the feds can do everything on their own terms. I think there is some confusion among Conservatives on this issue and we will see if, on the Liberal side, they finally understand what it is all about.

In the quotations that my colleague, the Liberal Party finance critic, gave at the outset, he tried to show a contradiction between what certain people had said, but there is none.

In Quebec, for example, at present, there is no sales tax on diapers or books. That is a good thing, but it does not mean that if the taxes were harmonized Quebec would have to agree to tax books. If we were to tax ignorance we would have to send the bills over to the Conservatives, and that would be fine, but let us not start taxing knowledge and the ability to gain knowledge.

Quebec has always decided, since the Quebec sales tax began, that there would be no tax on books. As a result, when this is negotiated, the federal government must not start lecturing Quebec on morality and preaching to it about what the tax should apply to. Harmonizing means harmonizing, it does not mean that one side tells the other what to do.

There is another subtle factor in Quebec’s case, and that was resolved in the early 1990s under the Bourassa government. A very simple rule was developed. The tax was harmonized—as the federal government said and has spelled out for years, Quebec was the first province to harmonize its tax—but Quebec was responsible for collecting the taxes.

Once again, I find it hard to see how the Minister of Finance can justify this kind of administrative upheaval, calling for federal government employees to be responsible for doing this from now on. You do not fiddle with things; you do not fix something that is not broken. The system exists, it is in place, and Quebec collects the taxes. This is not a problem with the harmonization of the GST and the QST. Let us not hear that excuse for not giving Quebec what is owing to it. That would be unacceptable.

So today the Bloc is taking the bull by the horns with a clearly written, finely crafted motion that explains exactly what it is about. The entire motion is very clear, and I am delighted to see the Liberals joining us, on this rare occasion, in a matter that concerns Quebec, and calling for Quebec to receive the $2.6 billion owing to it. I say it is a pleasure, for once, to see the Liberals supporting a motion that could help Quebec, because we are used to seeing examples of the opposite happening.

The exception does prove the rule. What is the rule? The Liberals voted against the consensus in Quebec, supported by a unanimous motion of the National Assembly, objecting to the federal government's desire to centralize everything having to do with securities regulation in Canada. The Liberals would have liked to centralize securities here in Ottawa. There is no question of that happening, for us, because the Autorité des marchés financiers is doing its job quite well.

The Bloc has also put forward a motion that appeals to us: we should see which parts of the protection of the right to work in French can be transferred into the federal legislation in sectors under federal jurisdiction. Is it normal, for example, that an employer can require a knowledge of English just because one of the bosses just arrived from another province and speaks only English and they are in the telecommunications sector, or in a bank, or in inter-provincial transportation? These are all areas under federal jurisdiction. For example, if a person in Rimouski works in a telecommunications company and a new boss arrives from Vancouver and speaks only English, that person in Rimouski has to know English in order to get a promotion. We are going back 50 years. We are going back to the 1950s with this approach.

Since August 26, 1977, the adoption of the Charter of the French Language has meant that employees and workers in Quebec are entitled to receive all documents from their employer in French. It is rights of this kind that we are looking at here. Twice the Liberals have refused not just to pass bills but merely to study them, once under the previous government and then now. There are surely a lot of things to study here. We do not want to take anyone’s rights away; we want to add rights. The Liberals are voting, therefore, against even studying these bills.

I find it incomprehensible. If we live in a country with two official languages and one of them is in the minority in Canada as a whole, we have an ethical and moral obligation as a society to do everything we can to strengthen that language in the only province where it is in the majority. We need to ensure that it is a living, appreciated, respected language and that rights attach to its use.

Simply put, why would a woman who works in a charter bank, which is therefore under federal jurisdiction, have fewer workplace rights—because fewer linguistic rights attach to her job—than a woman who works in a caisse populaire?

To ask the question is to answer it for anyone who believes it is important to keep our two languages alive. The Liberals would obviously rather cling to symbols than look at the reality of working people.

It is different for us in the NDP because we have always understood that linguistic rights are labour rights. That is why we in the NDP are on the same wavelength as many people in Quebec. The Liberals are always out of step with this reality. They know how to talk about recognizing the Quebec nation, but whenever they are asked to do something specific, they are nowhere to be found.

In regard to the harmonization issue we are discussing today, I think the background just described shows how badly Quebec has been treated by federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative.

The Bloc motion today distils all this and puts things into proper perspective when it says that the least the government can do is negotiate correctly and in good faith with Quebec. We should be able to assume good faith.

I saw the letter that the Minister of Finance signed. He was talking about it even yesterday. He signed a letter—evidently one that was hastily written —and quickly had it published in the newspaper La Presse. It was an outright refusal to have an open, objective, appropriate discussion in good faith with Quebec. The good old centralizing Conservatives are dictating conditions to Quebec and remind me of a little old lady wagging her finger. These conditions will not be tolerated, nor will any others.

I find it interesting that, since the outburst by the Minister of Finance was published in La Presse, his theme song closely resembles the “beep-beep” of a truck backing up. It is becoming increasingly apparent in Parliament that, of the 10 Conservatives elected in Quebec, there will be none left if the Conservatives continue to behave in this manner and allow someone like the Minister of Finance to make decisions affecting Quebec.

I would also like to add that it is nevertheless an indication that someone in the federal government is doing some thinking and that someone is noticing what is happening, even if he still puts on a brave front when he rises in this Parliament and says that he makes the decisions and no one else, that those are the conditions, that harmonization is harmonization and that that means the federal government will dictate everything. That is the opposite of negotiating in good faith. When you negotiate in good faith, you put everything on the table and indicate what you want to achieve and what is good for the economy, because there is some good for the economy in this approach.

For its part, Quebec believes that there are a certain number of exceptions and that it will not impose more taxes on families or knowledge by taxing books, etc. Everyone can benefit from it. Finally, after more than a decade of effort, Quebec will be given what it is entitled to. Unfortunately, it is only after it was given to Ontario, once again, but better late than never.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for his presentation.

More often than not, he forgets he is no longer a member of the Liberal Party. I know he was formerly a provincial Liberal minister and, as a matter of fact, he likes to talk about the Liberal Party and its position.

I would like to know whether his party will support this motion. We are just not sure because this morning, some of his colleagues said yes and others said no. I would like to know the NDP position on this.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of substance my colleague has been using, but in the very first sentence of my speech, I said clearly, directly and unambiguously that the NDP is supporting the Bloc motion. It could hardly be clearer.

As concerns his musings about contradictions between me and other NDP members who spoke to the motion, I have to say, even if it might be slightly embarrassing for him, that I am the only member of my party who took part in this debate today.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for supporting this motion by the Bloc. I have a question for him.

In his remarks, the hon. member explained clearly why the sovereignist movement is so strong in Quebec. We sometimes get beaten by the federal government, and sometimes we are charmed. The Conservatives recognized Quebec as a nation. They started with seduction tactics in Quebec, but it all ended up in a great disappointment and a policy of deception.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservative Party and the Liberals, who could later on form a government, will change their position on harmonization of the GST and QST, and grant real compensation to Quebeckers? Or is this just another way to win over Quebeckers, as the Conservatives did in the past, by telling them they are now ready to be more receptive to Quebec and offer the $2.4 billion in compensation that is being requested?

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a test for the Conservative government. The Conservatives have no more excuses, no more pretexts to hide behind. They now have to face facts. If the recognition of the Quebec nation truly is more than just words, it has to be followed by a number of actions.

About the nation, I remind hon. members that the government's first action was to reduce the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons. That was one of the first Conservative proposals. Then, just like the Liberals, they refuse to discuss the realities of recognizing the Quebec nation as regards its linguistic rights and its legislative rights in certain areas like securities.

My colleague from the Bloc who asked the question seemed to believe in an alternation between Conservatives and Liberals. Let me tell him this. The NDP has about 40 members from British Columbia to Nova Scotia and has a strong, credible and progressive voice that garnered close to 20% of the votes in the last election. The Liberals mistakenly elected a right-wing leader, thinking that the problem with their last leader was that he was too much of a leftist. That was not the problem. The problem was that they did not represent anything. Considering the leader the Liberals just chose, many Canadians will be looking for a progressive voice for the future, and that voice is the New Democratic Party.

Opposition Motion—Harmonization of QST with GSTBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my colleague. In his experience, are our country's first nations taken into account in any discussion on harmonizing the GST or coordinating the rates?

My riding is home to nearly 30 first nations peoples, and the federal government does not take that into consideration when setting the general rate. That idea comes only after all the discussions with the provinces have taken place.

I would like to know if such a consideration exists, because it is not mentioned in the motion. That is clear. I do not have a problem with that. I just want to know if first nations are generally taken into account in discussions between Ottawa and the provinces.