House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Child Care November 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Quebec pays and the rest of Canada benefits. That is not normal. The federal government has provided these deductions and tax credits for child care to parents in the other provinces, but not in Quebec.
Should Quebec not be compensated in the future for the $1 billion it has saved the federal government and for paving the way for a child care system that will soon be used as a model for the other provinces, except that Ottawa will foot the bill this time?
Child Care November 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, according to the OECD and all observers, Quebec has the best child care system in Canada. Unfortunately, the negative side of this is that Quebec does not fully benefit from the tax deductions and tax credits for child care allowed by the federal Minister of Finance.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he plans to make a decision in favour of Quebec, which has been deprived of $1 billion in tax benefits for the past five years simply because Quebeckers came up with a good child care system long before the others?
Taxation October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, from those words from the mouth of the Finance Minister, we can see how familiar he is with Quebec, how he has his finger on the pulse there. We have evidence of his great knowledge in the way he handled the Desjardins case.
Will the Prime Minister admit that what makes his attitude so terrible is that he could have afforded to make a better offer to the provinces, but instead bowed to caucus pressures and sided with Ontario and against Quebec?
A fine example of openness and cooperation, that is.
Taxation October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Quebec finance minister Yves Séguin has criticized the behaviour of the Prime Minister at the last federal-provincial conference, labelling it as Quebec bashing.
How does the Prime Minister explain this angry response from Mr. Séguin, a federalist and a Liberal, when he is boasting of his desire to enter a new era of federal-provincial cooperation?
Supply October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor again. You are extremely generous today.
I am surprised, once again, by the quality of the speakers from my party. There are other ones in the other parties as well. These people are newcomers and most of them are making a great contribution to today's debate, with good arguments and with all the seriousness that an issue as important as the fiscal imbalance requires.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières and also ask her a question. She takes a keen interest in education and in the whole issue of daycare. I wonder if she could illustrate how the fiscal imbalance impacts on daycare programs or on education, and also on community groups? Perhaps she could give us examples of situations that she surely has encountered in her riding. I feel that, generally speaking, community groups are also adversely affected by the fiscal imbalance. So, I wonder if the hon. member could provide examples.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the quality of debate since this morning, not only by a number of my colleagues, but also by colleagues in other parties, is nothing short of amazing.
First, I would like to congratulate my assistant finance critic, the hon. member for Portneuf, and also the hon. member for Saint-Lambert on an excellent contribution. She takes us off the beaten path in discussions on financial and economic issues. The hon. member took us beyond the usual rhetoric.
In the House, we do not talk enough about culture and the fate of craftspersons and artists.
I would like to ask my colleague how the failure of the federal government to understand fiscal imbalance affects artists and craftspersons in the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have finally understood what our Liberal colleague has been talking about. When he speaks of the horizontal imbalance, he is talking about the federal government lying down on its surpluses. I think that is it. The government is lying down, horizontally, so he talks about a horizontal imbalance.
When he talks about a vertical imbalance, that is when the provinces topple over from the weight of their responsibilities and their lack of money to take care of them. I think that is what he meant.
I have a small piece of advice for him. Instead of talking so as to confuse people with terms such as horizontal imbalance and vertical imbalance, perhaps he should stop speed-reading diagonally when he receives documentation. I think he would serve the people better.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP for supporting the motion of the Bloc Québécois concerning the subcommittee on fiscal imbalance. We appreciate his support and are prepared to work seriously with the member representing the NDP on the Standing Committee on Finance.
I am less thrilled by the reaction of my Liberal colleague to the remarks of the leader of the NDP. As we have said repeatedly to the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and all Liberal members, it is totally irresponsible to suggest that the provinces should raise their taxes to deal with the fiscal imbalance. It is irresponsible, and it is collective blindness on the part of the Liberals. We are among the most highly taxed in the world. If $9 billion was accumulated in surplus during the previous fiscal year and another $11 billion or $12 billion will be during the current fiscal year ending on March 31, 2005, it is because there is only one taxpayer being overtaxed.
To suggest, like the Liberals, that provincial taxes be raised in Quebec and in the rest of Canada is irresponsible and incompetent. What we need to do is to restore balance. At present, the tax base is predetermined. Balance needs to be restored in favour of the provinces, which are ultimately responsible for delivering the services.
There are not that many ways to go about it. Cash transfers will not do; that time is past. Tax fields need to be transferred and provincial autonomy has to be ensured, so that the provinces can exercise their constitutional jurisdiction in health, education and income support, among others; they have to be autonomous. Predictability is also essential. We can do without having to deal every year with an uncompromising Prime Minister who laughs at people's expense, as he did with the people Newfoundland, has no respect for taxpayers and tells them any odd thing about the annual surplus. We have to move away from that and ensure that revenues are sufficient, predictable and stable. This will spare us two or three first ministers conferences a year ending in failure, like the latest one, two days ago.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative Party of Canada for his excellent speech. I, like him, share the outrage of the people of Newfoundland at their cavalier treatment in connection with the election promises made by the Prime Minister. I do not know what is going on with this government, but in recent days it has shown considerable insensitivity to the regions of Canada. We share our colleague's frustrations.
I have heard what the parliamentary secretary has had to say, listing every defect in the world that the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québecois could possibly have, and coming out with a pack of falsehoods. I do not know if that is the standard approach of that party, to try to convince the public through falsehoods, but I think this time they have gone a bit too far.
According to him, the Liberal Party in Quebec took over the finances of Quebec when they were in a lamentable deficit state. When the Quebec Liberal Party, Mr. Charest's party, came to Quebec City, the Parti Québecois had already set Quebec's finances straight, and there was a balanced budget. When the Parti Québecois came to power in 1994, after the Liberals had been in government for two mandates, the deficit was $5 billion, so that deficit was in fact a legacy of the Quebec Liberal Party.
So the situation is the exact opposite of what he says. It would be a good idea to get the facts straight before coming out with just anything, or with out and out lies.
Speaking of good management, I would like to ask a question of my Conservative colleague. The Liberal Party boasts of its good management of public funds. If we look at the figures for the last five years, there has been a 39% increase in operating expenses, the whole sponsorship business and other things. Does he share the opinion of the secretary of state and the member for Outremont? The latter has just spoken about good management, but his approach was a bit rusty. He has been out of politics a bit too long. He also took a wrong approach altogether, and that too is the standard Liberal approach.
I would like to hear what my honourable colleague has to say about this.
Supply October 28th, 2004
Madam Speaker, if the federal government was giving us our fair share of federal structural spending, research and development, civil servants and procurement, at 24%—since more often than not it is under 24%—, there would be 40,000 new jobs in Quebec. So, between equalization and federal structural spending, we would opt for
However, as my hon. colleague pointed out, Ontario gets 57% of all federal procurement contracts, compared with 18% or 19% for Quebec. By getting its fair share in all those areas, Quebec would get 40,000 new jobs. We would by far prefer that option.