House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Taxation October 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the changes we are talking about date back to 1995, when the new Canadian social transfer was introduced, based on need, to be calculated as a per capita payment. That penalized Quebec first and foremost. That has been the issue since 1995.
I ask the Prime Minister, can he admit the obvious and agree to correct this fiscal imbalance once and for all by transferring the income from the GST, for example, instead of giving out small crumbs like this?
Taxation October 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the same thing. We are talking about the measures taken in 1995 by the former finance minister, now the Prime Minister. Those measures penalized Quebec.
The study by Professor Godbout of the Université de Sherbrooke clearly shows, with statistics to back it up, that Quebec has been penalized far more than any other Canadian province by the changes the current Prime Minister made in federal transfer payments.
How can the Prime Minister claim that the meeting on October 26 will deal only with equalization, when it should be discussing the entire question of transfer payments?
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act October 18th, 2004
Madam Speaker, the introduction of this bill gives me cause to wonder. Although we are prepared to support this bill to bring our practices into harmony with certain international agreements, it really makes me wonder about Canada's lack of aerospace policy.
Recent events have added concern to my reflections this weekend, in particular, the problems Bombardier is having and the kind of international prying the company is being subjected to by the Americans and the British. It worries me. In general, what the management of Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney in my hon. friend's riding of Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher are saying is that the government's approach is inconsistent. Probably the Minister of Transport, through his colleague, will be able to answer my question.
This industry is important for Quebec; the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario. The economic benefits of this sector are extraordinary. We are talking about 40,000 jobs in Quebec, not just in the big businesses, but also in the small and medium-sized ones serving the sector. I believe annual sales are around $14 billion in Quebec alone.
Are we on the verge of formulating a genuine, consistent aerospace policy, with adequate support for the aerospace industry, so that this sector can prosper? We must not forget that nearly all the parts used in making intermediate and final products come to Canada from elsewhere. Therefore, there is a huge potential for our businesses. Is the government working on that? We are ready to help.
Taxation October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister, like the government, seems to again be totally closed to any solution involving efficient use of the predicted and unpredicted surpluses of the government for the benefit of its citizens, officially at least. Their minds are equally closed to the concept of solving the problem of fiscal imbalance.
Can the minister tell us whether he has a solution somewhere or whether he just plans to continue to let the surplus grow by leaps and bounds while the people's needs are not met?
Taxation October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if we in the Bloc are capable of making forecasts with our little calculator, they should be able to do the same with their hordes of public servants.
The federal government surplus for 2003-04 is $9.1 billion. Predictably, the finance minister will be up to his usual tricks, concealing the true reality of the surplus for the current year as well.
Will the Minister of Finance be presenting a bill aimed at using a goodly portion of future surpluses, both predicted and unpredicted by the government, to benefit Quebec, the provinces and their citizens? The Auditor General has said that this can be done. Will he do it?
Taxation October 13th, 2004
How arrogant, Mr. Speaker. This is unbelievable. In a study commissioned by the federal government itself, the Conference Board said that federal surpluses will total at least $166 billion over the next 11 years, and this is a conservative estimate, while the provinces could run deficits in excess of $60 billion.
Is this not evidence of a major problem, namely that the provinces are truly suffering from a fiscal imbalance that needs to be corrected as quickly as possible, and not met with arrogance?
Taxation October 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, considering the means that the federal government has at its disposal, it is puzzling to see that its budget forecasts are so far off the mark, while at the same time the government is arrogantly dictating to the provinces how things will be run, by telling them, for instance, that, as regards equalization, it is going to be the federal government's way and no other way.
How can the government justify its arrogance toward the provinces when, year after year, it keeps demonstrating its inability to make credible budget forecasts, despite the arsenal of means at its disposal?
Taxation October 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister asked the chief economist of the Bank of Montreal to advise him on how to make budget forecasts. We have a suggestion for the minister, if he is open to it.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that we would be much better served by an independent body accountable to the Standing Committee on Finance to get informed advice, rather than relying on just one individual who will be accountable only to the Minister of Finance and whose advice will only be made public by the minister to the extent that it suits him?
Taxation October 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as has been the case every year since 1997, the Minister of Finance's surplus forecast, which stands at $1.9 billion for 2003-04, is, based on preliminary indications, well below the reality. The actual figure is more likely to be somewhere between $5 billion and $8 billion.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his little underestimation scenario is just a strategy allowing him to deny the existence of the fiscal imbalance faced by the provinces and to show up at the first ministers meeting without providing the true figures that should serve as a basis for discussions?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 7th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Gatineau and I have three messages for her.
First, when the people of Gatineau telephone her, she should pass the calls on to us so that we can tell them the truth. When it comes to problems in education or health, we will tell them the truth. Since 1995, this is the government that has made cuts in health and education transfer payments. The health problems suffered by the people of Gatineau arise from her government's decisions. Perhaps I am telling her something she does not know, or perhaps not, but I must tell the truth. Instead of answering with whatever comes to mind and ignoring the constitutional jurisdictions formally enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, which she says she wants to respect and defend in the name of her great country, she must tell it like it is.
Also, there is magical figure in her speech, namely 38. First, this is the 38th Parliament. The hon. member should think twice before making such comments, because the Liberals got 38% of the votes at the last election.
A minority government is just that. It is a government that must take into consideration the other percentage of voters, namely the 62% of who voted against this government. This means that the government must try to work with a very acute sense of democracy. It means that a minority government must try to rally the parliamentarians representing all the other political parties in the House. It means that the opposition is speaking on behalf of 62% of the voters. It also means, given that figure of 62%, that the government is not in sole possession of the truth, particularly with only 38% of the votes. It means that when we are asked to cooperate with the government, we must not necessarily give 100% support to the Liberal Party's agenda. It means that we should not have to give 100% support to the Liberal vision. That party only got 38% of the votes at the last election, and that is significant.
They say that we are engaging in childish games, but 62% of the population is speaking through Bloc Quebecois, Conservative and NDP members. So, there is a problem. Was it a childish thing to vote on June 28? This is not very respectful to the voters of Gatineau. So, it is childish to work in this Parliament to try to have—and this is the ultimate role of the opposition—a better government in a Parliament with a minority government? So, it is childish to want to improve things, to fight for the common good, to fight so that the government will make decisions regarding health, for the people whom it claims to want to represent? This is our duty. We have a duty to work seriously, to be well informed and to avoid talking through our hats as the member for Gatineau is doing. Let them transfer the calls to us, because we can answer the questions properly.
Does the hon. member realize that she is a member of a minority government? I think so, because she mentioned it several times. Does she also realize the impact of listening to the opposition, which represents the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers and Canadians who voted against the Liberal Party?