Debates of March 16th, 2010

Opposition Motion—Throne Speech and Budget

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that the amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion or, if the sponsor is not present, the House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or deny consent on the sponsor's behalf.

Since the hon. member for Joliette is present, I will ask him if he consents to this amendment.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could accept the amendment if we could introduce an amendment to the amendment saying “federalism as practised by the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP”.

I therefore reject the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the speech given by my colleague from the NDP because he was speaking out of turn. I believe it is important to re-establish some of the facts.

First, he is giving Quebeckers the impression that the Bloc Québécois supports the promotion of nuclear energy. That is totally false. Just this week, Quebeckers even received a publication explaining that we are against the promotion of nuclear energy for three reasons: first, because the federal government uses it to increase its production from the oil sands; second, because there is a danger that it will increase the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons; third, because the federal government would very probably want the waste to be buried in Quebec although we produce only 4% of that waste.

In addition, this member is also suggesting that the Bloc Québécois supports the Rabaska project. That is totally false. We even wrote a public letter asking that a number of studies be conducted to assess the impact of this project on the maritime regions of Quebec.

I feel the member is completely wrong. He is trying to make the public in Quebec believe that the Bloc Québécois does not support environmental regulations when exactly the opposite is true. The member for Outremont gives fine speeches—he knows how to make great speeches—but when the time comes to protect the interests of Quebec, he is nowhere to be found.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member who just spoke to show me a single text. He showed us his document. He talked about three subjects, but oddly, he never said he was opposed to rebuilding the Gentilly-2 nuclear plant.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No, because it comes under provincial jurisdiction.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It comes under provincial jurisdiction. Those are his words. They are in favour of nuclear power.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is just like health and education.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What doublespeak. On one hand, he brandishes a document saying they are against this because it supports the oil sands. It is nothing but blah, blah, blah. Have the oil sands suddenly come under provincial jurisdiction?

They say they are in favour of rebuilding Gentilly-2 because it comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is precisely what I just said. I challenge the hon. member to produce a clear position against Rabaska, without the convoluted nonsense he just shared when he said they had requested impact studies. No blah, blah, blah. Period.

The NDP is the only federal political party that has appeared before the BAPE to oppose this, for reasons of energy security for future generations. As usual, the Bloc Québécois members are contradicting themselves.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed an excellent example of the NDP vision of Canada. Throughout the party's history, its vision has been of a federal government playing big brother and watching over the provinces, specifically Quebec.

Quebec takes responsibility for its own affairs. The Bloc is willing to get involved in all debates on subjects under federal jurisdiction, but it wants Quebec and its National Assembly to be responsible for managing the province's affairs.

Here are a few examples of why interference is a problem. That was the problem with their last motion dealing with, among other things, GST harmonization and the Quebec Pension Plan. If the provinces want to harmonize their own sales tax with the GST, they are free to do so. Quebec did it in the early 1990s. Now, it wants compensation for that. Here again, the government interfered in jurisdiction belonging to Ontario and B.C. People talked about keeping a close eye on the Canada Pension Plan. No problem there, since it is under federal jurisdiction. But they wanted to have a say in the Quebec Pension Plan.

In conclusion, when it comes to important issues like enforcing the Charter of the French Language on businesses under federal jurisdiction, or like the securities commission, the hon. member’s party has always been divided. We cannot trust a party that does not defend Quebec's interests unequivocally.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that the member who just spoke has given us another shining example of Bloc members talking out of both sides of their mouths. In December, at the Standing Committee on Finance, harmonized sales taxes were on the agenda. The NDP stood up because there was nothing in the bill to compensate Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax. And you know what? The Bloc supported that bill anyway. It is right there, printed in House documents, for all to see. It is the truth, pure and simple.

However, truth is the last thing Bloc members wants to hear. They prefer drawn-out speeches and strong views. But when we highlight the fact that they have not spoken against Gentilly-2, they change the subject. When we prove through simple logic that the Bloc has never taken a stand against Rabaska, they change the subject. That is the truth about the Bloc Québécois and that is why people are looking for a progressive, Canada-wide alternative.

We in the NDP can act on the tar sands file. I have a colleague in Alberta and ten in British Columbia, including you, Madam Speaker. We can take our vision of an included Quebec to the whole country. We are looking for winning conditions for Quebec, within Canada, because Canada needs Quebec. Those members are always looking for the same old thing. Any reason is a good reason to promote their ultimate goal of dismantling Canada. Instead of working with us to bring a progressive vision to the entire country, they want to tear it apart. That is the truth about the Bloc.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I only have two points to mention and then I will ask my question. On one hand, the hon. member compared us to children. I hope that he does not consider it a bad thing to have the heart and mind of a child. On the other hand, one issue worries me a lot, just as it worries many people in Quebec and even in Canada: the firearms registry.

The member accused us of speaking out of both sides of our mouths, but right now, that is what I am hearing from him too. I do not mean him personally, but rather his party. We still do not know what the NDP will do about the registry. I asked the NDP leader, but he did not answer me. Will the NDP take a clear position on the issue so we can all vote against Bill C-391 and any other government initiative to dismantle the firearms registry? I would remind the member that the National Assembly adopted a unanimous position on the issue. The Premier of Quebec asked the government to maintain the registry.

So, can the NDP stop its double speak and tell us if it will support the Bloc? They are not alone; I hope that the Liberals will do the same. Will they defeat this Conservative bill?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my friend and colleague that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is a member of this parliamentary committee precisely to make sure that the gun registry is maintained. I agree with her on that. My office overlooks a small park where there are 14 monuments to the victims of the Polytechnique tragedy. There is no need for her to convince me that we must fight for that.

However, if my colleague is sincere, I would like her to consider one thing. If she really wants results, what good is it to always blame the federal government or the system? A system is in place. The member mentioned the Premier of Quebec, but I would remind her that Quebec's Minister of Public Safety has proposed another solution. He said that it would be an option to delegate the power to maintain a registry to the provinces. The police want the registry to be maintained, and so do we.

However, the member knows as well as I do that there is a deep rural/urban divide on this issue. We are always trying to build bridges over such divides, but they are always trying to destroy bridges and create divisions. That is the difference between our parties.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to tell the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

Now that the Don Quixote of the NDP has spoken, let us get back to important matters. Our motion contains a number of elements, some of which I would like to speak to.

It says that the budget does not meet Quebec's needs or rather those of the Quebec government. I have been a part of that government before, and I know that the current situation of Quebec's finance minister must be unbearable, especially when a large chunk of his revenue comes from a sort of black box over which he has no control.

On December 24, 2008, the equalization formula was unilaterally capped, although it was a contract. At that time, the Government of Canada was coming out of an election campaign, and the Quebec government was in the midst of one. On December 24, a formula was unilaterally sent out whereby the contract had been amended. All that happened on December 24, proving that Santa Claus can sometimes be a real jerk.

In the fall of 2008, we said, just as the opposition did, that there would be a $1 billion loss. Ms. Jérôme-Forget, who was one of my colleagues at the National Assembly and the finance minister, said she was not told that $1 billion was being cut. She was on the campaign trail and, as a result, had limited information from her department.

What did she have to do? She had to admit that there had been a $1 billion loss for the Quebec government. That may have been what turned her off and ended her political career. The finance minister realized that Hydro-Québec, wholly owned by the Quebec government, and that Hydro One, wholly owned by the Ontario government, were not being treated equally. However, both companies produce, transport and distribute electricity. But because Hydro One transports and distributes under the guise of a corporation and pays dividends to its shareholder—the Ontario government— it does not fall into the same category. They say that Hydro One does not produce electricity. Where does it get it from? Surely not the sky. So, Ontario does indeed produce electricity.

The mere fact that Hydro One pays dividends as a company and Hydro-Québec pays them as a natural resources Crown corporation deprives the Government of Quebec of $250 million in income. This explains why we were recently told that the Government of Quebec was thinking of increasing hydro rates. But we realized that adding one dollar to the hydro rate meant approximately $0.50 less in equalization, while Hydro Ontario could do the same thing without any equalization penalties. This is a double standard. On January 21, 2009, 419 days ago, Ms. Jérôme-Forget said that she wanted the federal government to treat Quebec fairly and equitably and to rectify the accounting process for Hydro-Québec's revenues. On January 21, 2009, a letter was sent to the Minister of Finance. We have not received an answer since then.

My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, talked a lot about harmonization.

The National Assembly adopted a motion. The first equalization issue was the Government of Quebec. The second issue was the GST/QST harmonization. The motion was passed unanimously by the National Assembly.

At the time, it was $2.6 billion. What is Quebec's Minister of Finance doing now? He is looking at that and telling himself that $2.2 billion would maybe do the job. Meanwhile, $2.2 billion over 18 years, at 5% interest, would amount to $5.3 billion today if we had received the $2.2 billion in 1992. That is exactly, or close to, what British Columbia and Ontario will be getting because they harmonized their taxes last year. It is approximately the same amount, $2 billion, if we consider the $1 billion paid to the Maritimes 13 years ago. The Maritimes received $1 billion 13 years ago. That amount, invested at 5%, would be the equivalent of what Quebec is asking for today. If I were Quebec's Minister of Finance, I would not be claiming just $2.2 billion. I would be claiming $2.2 billion plus interest because this is the Government of Canada's debt to the Government of Quebec.

This is not for lack of negotiators. There have been five premiers and eight ministers of Finance in Quebec since then. The federal government has just always been stubborn.

A motion was unanimously passed in the National Assembly on March 31, 2009, but they could not care less.

The third point I would like to raise is the Canadian securities commission. There was another unanimous motion. Three issues, three unanimous motions in our legislature, the National Assembly of Quebec. One unanimous motion on January 15, 2009, called for the National Assembly to reiterate its firm opposition to the proposed Canada-wide securities commission.

What is the Government of Canada doing? It is talking about $150 million this year for a securities commission for which the bill has yet to be tabled in the House, and $11 million for transition costs. That is $161 million to create another structure on top of the Commission des valeurs du Québec, the Autorité des marchés financiers, and securities commissions across Quebec and Canada.

When the budget speech was given, I said that the government wanted to spend $8 million to create a commission to examine the commissions, to make sure there were not too many of them. Now they want to create a Canada-wide securities commission on top of the other securities commissions. We are talking about an expenditure of $161 million.

And yet we have jurisdiction. Why do they want this? Constitutional competence lies with the provinces and, what is more, the people are competent. What does a securities commission do? It regulates a business, the securities business. That means there are investors. Quebec investors, privately or collectively, apply in French to the Autorité des marchés financiers in Montreal. With this sort of change, where will they apply, and in what language? Who will respond to them? I assume it will probably be a call centre outside Canada, to cut costs. Who will respond to the investors, the issuers, the small, medium, large and very large companies that do business with the Autorité des marchés financiers? I have worked in this area, where business was done on almost a daily basis with the Autorité des marchés financiers. Who will do it? The third parties people use now, the law firms, notaries, accountants, the people being educated in the universities, where will they go to work? And in what language? Why?

The Autorité des marchés financiers works. Yes, there have been problems, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That much is clear.

That is why we are moving this motion. We have given a number of examples. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas will speak for the rest of the 20 minutes we have been allotted.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the former minister talk about the present finance minister who is facing a difficult situation in Quebec. Last week, I had the opportunity to remind the member opposite that a $19.3 billion transfer was unheard of. In the whole history of the Canadian federation, such a massive transfer from the federal government to a provincial government, in one lump sum, is a record amount of money. This is a way for my colleague from Hochelaga to support the Quebec government's efforts.

We know that the fiscal imbalance in Quebec started when the Bloc was first sent to Ottawa. That is no surprise. As Mario Dumont so ably put it in January 2006, how can Quebec come out ahead when a political party systematically uses Quebec's political weight to condemn the province to an opposition role forever? The answer is simple. Quebec is losing.

It is true that Quebec is losing with the Bloc, but fortunately, something happened in 2006. Quebeckers elected a good number of my Conservative colleagues, and we succeeded in correcting the fiscal imbalance in 406 days. Even the Bloc had to recognize that. Even the leader of the Bloc recognized it.

My question is this. Why refuse to transfer the billions of dollars that Quebec—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, a wise old man once said that a smart person can act like a fool, but the reverse is not true.

Why did the fiscal imbalance come to the fore after Bloc members came to Ottawa? Simply because it was the Bloc that identified the fiscal imbalance with the help of the Quebec government. Ever since the Bloc has been here, its members have fought the fiscal imbalance fiercely on a daily basis. It still has not been settled. Some people acted as if they had dealt with it, but it has not been corrected.

In our opinion, the only way to deal with the fiscal imbalance between Canada and Quebec is to give Quebec full control over its powers, its taxes and its revenues. The only way to settle the fiscal imbalance is through sovereignty for Quebec.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga for clarifying these budget matters and for the motion that we have before us.

This motion forces us to recognize some facts. The Liberals will join with the other two federalist parties in order to defeat this motion. This highlights flaws in the Canadian federation and emphasizes how relevant Quebec sovereignty is.

My question concerns an issue my colleague from Hochelaga just touched on. It is about the economic choices made in terms of the recovery: the huge investment in the defence industry compared to cuts to the social safety net. I would like him to comment on this.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, during the tour of Quebec that we did to prepare for the budget, we told Quebeckers, who did not believe us, that Canada’s military spending, amounting to $20 to $25 billion per year, not counting equipment purchases, was the equivalent of one Olympic stadium per MP and per senator. Everyone in Quebec remembers the outrageous costs of the Olympic stadium, which is in Hochelaga riding, incidentally. Each of them would have one.

That is this government’s military spending, it is a government that has no idea where it is going with this kind of military operation. Social services, social and community housing and the homeless, need that kind of spending a lot more than the military follies of the present government.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, I would like to remind all members to be a little more careful in their comments about other members. We must be more respectful in referring to our colleagues.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has the floor.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is sometimes difficult to find the right word to describe a behaviour. The dictionary provides guidance in that regard. When we use a word, it is recognized by the dictionary.

I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion. My colleagues from Joliette and Hochelaga were able to set the debate in context. I would point out, broadly, that this motion stresses how little room the budget gives in relation to a federalist approach to things, how little room it allows for Quebec. It does the same thing in relation to the other regions of Canada, more specifically where the social safety net is concerned.

These are the issues addressed in the motion. Quebec is owed $2.2 billion for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. As well, no support is being offered for the forestry industry in Quebec equivalent to what is being done in Ontario for the auto industry. We all agree with the support provided for auto industry workers, but where the rub lies is that there is discrimination in the choices made, and that should not be the case.

The aerospace industry in Quebec is also completely ignored in the economic choices made by Canada. I will not talk about environmental issues, because other colleagues have already done that. I am going to focus on the needs of the disadvantaged, who have been completely ignored by the Conservative government and the government that preceded it.

My colleague from Joliette talked about contempt and indifference. In fact, what we are seeing is contempt and indifference toward the most disadvantaged people in our society.

I will give an example. After hearing the Speech from the Throne, we also see that the budget contains nothing for veterans, even though it had been announced that they would receive a monthly pension instead of a lump sum. The budget also contains no provision for the community sector and for seniors.

But the Speech from the Throne announces the creation of days to celebrate having nothing: a holiday from the Prime Minister for veterans; a day to celebrate community organizations, which have suffered unprecedented cuts in the last three years; and a day for seniors, who have had $3.2 billion taken from them. The most disadvantaged, and the ones who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, are ignored.

The last two governments hoped to eliminate this debt by attrition. In the budget, the government will recover $228 million because these people die. While the government knows to whom it owes this money, it relies on the fact that these people do not know their rights and keeps the money that belongs to them.

I will talk about the economic crimes committed against seniors and the unemployed.

We have to tell it like it is. We talk about white collar criminals who help themselves to the money their clients have entrusted to them. The present situation is similar. The government helps itself to the money that belongs to seniors and the unemployed. In the last 14 years, the government has siphoned $57 billion from a fund put in place for workers who have lost their jobs. Some say that what is done is done, that the money was used for other things, and that we should forget about it. I say that we should not forget about it and trivialize such repressive measures foisted on the unemployed. What is worse, the Conservative government is preparing to siphon another $19 billion over the next five years. Only employers and workers pay into the employment insurance fund. What the government has done is absolutely revolting, yet every party that has been in power seems to have considered this practice perfectly normal.

I call here for two minutes' reflection. When you give your money to an individual to administer, through investment, insurance or business management and when you need it for your own purposes and the people who administer it tell you they have used it for other purposes, what do you do? You take them to court, because this is misappropriation. Well obviously seniors and the unemployed cannot take the government to court, but the action remains just as reprehensible and unacceptable. Why do we accept the unacceptable? Because the behaviour has become commonplace. It has become commonplace to steal from society's have-nots to fatten the haves, the banks, the oil barons, those who divert money to tax havens, for example. There are tax credits, there are even subsidies for these people paid out of the money collected from ordinary citizens, even from workers who pay money into the EI fund and cannot get it out afterwards. How is it we make it commonplace to steal from the poor to give to the rich? I am choosing my words carefully, because that is just what is going on here.

Of course, some people would remind me that the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, which said that, once it is in the consolidated fund, it becomes a sort of tax. Here again there is a lot of money. We have reached a crossroad where the situation has to be remedied. Steps must be taken. The Bloc has proposed measures to make EI once again available to those entitled to it, including setting eligibility at 360 hours and increasing the benefits to 60% of income. There are measures as well to permanently increase benefit duration to 50 weeks and to remove the stupid measure under which individuals applying for EI benefits are immediately suspected of committing fraud. They must be assumed to be acting in good faith. These are the measures that must be passed here, under Bill C-308 and Bill C-241, among others.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member on his excellent speech.

I have a question for him about public safety. For four years, the Conservative government has put forward a slew of tough on crime measures, which, in many cases unfortunately, do nothing, or very little. In fact, I call them “measures for show” because they are used to put on a good show. For instance, there is absolutely nothing in terms of prevention, which is an essential part of tackling all types of crime.

The government also holds pretty press conferences, where they announce prevention measures, but when we look at the budgets, there is absolutely no increase in prevention funding. Even the National Crime Prevention Centre, or NCPC, got absolutely nothing. And, by the way, I would say to the member that, when meeting with the NCPC, I was told that it could not make any program requests until 2012 because funding was so scarce.

Does the member believe that we can tackle crime by disregarding prevention? What does he think about that?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, as far as crime goes, I think we need to apply the same prevention measures as in health care. They say the best way to prevent an illness is to follow sanitary practices so as not to get sick. The same goes for crime. Prevention measures are needed.

Quebec has young offenders legislation, for example, whereby youth who engage in reprehensible behaviour are given support. They are not just given sentences, they receive supportive and remedial measures. And that also requires money.

I commend the member for Ahuntsic for fighting this battle so tenaciously for the Bloc. It is a constant reminder that we need prevention measures for youth first, but also for adults. Often, someone who is not an inherent criminal and who can once again make a valuable contribution to society should not be punished for life.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my learned colleague thinks. There is absolutely nothing for women in this budget. I think Canadian women were only mentioned once. The Conservatives chose not to reinstate the court challenges program. They closed 10 of the 12 Status of Women Canada offices.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for her very important question regarding the Conservatives' choices and, I should say, their very nature.

I am relatively new to politics, but not to life. I have seen a few governments, but rarely have I seen one attack women's rights so brutally. Any time we talk about women's rights, they react as they are right now. They have no tolerance for women's rights. We saw that in the budget and in last fall's economic statement. They even stripped women of the right to go to court to protect their equality rights in the Canadian public service.

The Conservatives forbade the union to represent women; if it does, the union can be fined $50,000 per day or part thereof. And the Liberals supported that. This is an unthinkable, mind-boggling and opportunistic decision on the part of the Liberals, and an ideological one on the part of the Conservatives. Put all that together, and you get an explosive situation that is not in women's best interest.