Guy Côté

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to mention that I too love to work with my colleague from the NDP. While we do not always agree on various matters, we respect each others' divergent positions.

In response to my hon. colleague, I will provide relatively simple explanations.

After a corporate tax cut was announced in Bill C-43, on April 21, 2005, the Government of Quebec brought down its own budget. That government has announced a major corporate tax reform.

In light of Bill C-43, Quebec Finance Minister Audet cut the capital tax by half for the next five years and raised the tax rate slightly for large corporations. When combined, these two measures result in a tax reduction for corporations.

This corporate tax reform in Quebec is only possible, however, if the conditions on which it was predicated remain unchanged. This means that the federal government has to maintain the same course with respect to tax relief for larger corporations, so that, in turn, the Government of Quebec can move into this tax field from which the federal government has withdrawn.

That is totally in line with what we have been calling for for months and even years, that is, to correct the fiscal imbalance.

As regards federal responsibilities, the federal government taxes way too much. It does not leave any room to the governments of the provinces and Quebec. If the federal government withdraws, the Government of Quebec can then go ahead with its corporate tax reform by moving into this tax field and thus resolve at least a small part of the fiscal imbalance problem.

[Taxation, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is sad. The government now has the report of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance in Canada. Does it not realize that its recent decisions, far from correcting the fiscal imbalance, in fact exacerbate it and will create unfair situations in the future? All of this is going to distort rather than improve the Canadian equalization system.

[Taxation, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the current government has a propensity to distort equalization by increasing the number of ad hoc agreements with the governments of some provinces in order to ensure its own survival.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that the only way there can be fair and stable funding of the public expenditures of the governments of Quebec and the provinces is to consider an overhaul of the equalization system instead of reacting to events as they arise, as he is currently doing?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look back and talk about the Minister of Finance's presentation of budget 2005. You will recall that the presentation of this budget was not the seventh wonder of the world in the minister's eyes, nor was it the sixth. In his eyes, this was the greatest wonder in the world. In his opinion, nothing so extraordinary had ever been done in Canadian budgetary history. It was magnificent.

Just a few days before the Prime Minister practically appointed the leader of the New Democratic Party the de facto finance minister in some type of shadow cabinet, the actual minister had said that Bill C-43 was perfect and would not be amended in any way.

Earlier, during questions and comments, I mentioned that a similar bill had been debated in the Standing Committee on Finance and had been defeated. I want to point out that in committee, the parliamentary secretary's presentation was not very convincing, to say the least.

Earlier I mentioned that I was quite pleased that the parliamentary secretary had used his 10 minutes of speaking time. However, although he talked for 10 minutes, I must admit he was not any more convincing in the House than in committee.

As you can see, the motion we are discussing today is one that the government itself does not believe in. The parliamentary secretary was very clear that, in any event, future legislation will reintroduce the initial presentation.

That said, the Bloc Québécois was opposed to this motion in committee and we are still opposed to it today, for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that this motion effectively excludes roughly 60% of businesses from this tax cut.

It is understandable that the NDP, in its desire to improve its profile, has abandoned its main objective for a more watered down one by entering into a pact with the Liberal Party. It is understandable that the NDP has abandoned the unemployed by entering into that pact with the Liberal Party out of a desire for votes. It is understandable that the NDP has not joined us in pushing to obtain some improvements to EI by entering into that pact with the Liberal Party.

What is more, if 60% of businesses are excluded from these tax cuts, the competitive strength of those businesses is decreased. Competition now is not just within North America, or indeed all the Americas, but global. We have had reminders of that in recent months with some very sad events.

I will touch briefly on the situation in the textile sector in Huntingdon, and the more recent one with Tembec, in the forestry, pulp and paper sector. This has had a very heavy impact, in my riding among others. So excluding 60% of businesses from the tax cuts is harmful to the economy in general, and by extension to the workers. If people are to be able to earn a living they need companies to employ them. This strikes me as pure logic.

Today we have a motion the government does not even believe in, a motion inspired by the NDP budget, one which lets the unemployed down completely, in connection with both EI and conditions favourable to creating real employment for real workers.

The other dramatic thing about this situation is that, following the tabling of the 2005 budget, companies, workers and other governments—I am thinking specifically of the Government of Quebec—have taken steps in accordance with what was presented in that budget.

When Bill C-43 was introduced, all the provinces took note of this legislation and acted accordingly.

Let us take Quebec for example. Soon after the presentation of the federal budget, the Quebec government presented its own budget. Minister Audet looked at the overall situation. He noticed that the federal government was about to bring in a corporate tax cut. With the objective of making Quebec companies even more competitive on international markets, the Quebec government took advantage of this extraordinary opportunity and lowered its overall corporate taxes.

If the House adopts this motion, it will have a negative impact on all businesses in Canada, since it will exclude 60% of them. However, this negative impact would be even greater on Quebec businesses, because Quebec tried to reduce the tax on capital. While it increased the corporate tax marginally, it primarily tried to reduce taxes in general.

So, these two motions do not promote job creation and retention in Quebec. These motions do not reflect the long term management of corporate capital and taxes. They could have very serious consequences with respect to a challenge that we will soon have to face, namely, competition on international markets.

I am thinking more specifically of China, which is really hurting a large number of industries, including the textile and pulp and paper sectors. This is not to mention the competition with the United States, which is also hurting our industry very badly. Unfortunately, despite their very liberal—in the economic sense of the term—statements, the Americans often rely on protectionist measures.

In any case, we have before us a motion in which the government does not believe. This motion would impede the creation and retention of jobs. I do not see how the New Democratic Party—which likes to think of itself as a champion of the rights of citizens—can, in good conscience, support such a measure. It seems to me that this measure includes things that NDP members should really be concerned about. Again, it is critical that businesses can continue to create jobs for workers, so that the latter can earn a decent living.

It is really unfortunate—this was discussed a few minutes ago—to bring back motions considered inadmissible, on the pretext that there are extraordinary conditions. This is the case, especially, with Motions Nos. 1 and 2. At the same time, I find it rather ironic that the parliamentary secretary is saying that, in any case, the motions will be amended in future legislation. Then he tells the House, through the Chair, that it is important to reintroduce these motions for extraordinary reasons, not apparent to us at all.

I do not see what extraordinary reasons justify the reintroduction of these motions. They were debated in committee and rejected. The government does not even believe in them and plans to amend them in future legislation. I find this rather ironic. I would almost like to say that sometimes the parliamentary secretary talks out of both sides of his mouth, but I would not go that far.

Because of the parliamentary secretary's lack of enthusiasm, both here and in committee, we realize that the Liberal government does not believe in these measures. I suggest they withdraw these motions in order to be honest with the House and with their supposed allies, whom they plan to dump in any case at the first opportunity. Even more importantly, they should be honest with the public.

In recent months, there has been a lot of talk about public cynicism with respect to the public service. These are not measures that will increase public trust in elected officials. He told us himself that he knew he no longer had the confidence of the House and that he had to present measures to please the NDP and would be taking them out. That is not responsible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say how happy I am to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance used his 10 minutes well. Had he only used half that time, we would not have been almost surprised to hear him clearly say that, ultimately, the only reason this motion is before the House today is to save their skin. In any case, the Liberals have no intention of keeping their end of the bargain with the NDP, since they are going to reintroduce this measure. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for having used all his time.

That said, a very similar motion was debated in committee. This is yet another fine example of a government that does not respect the work of the House and that intends to go against the opinion of even the Standing Committee on Finance, of which the parliamentary secretary is a member. The government is introducing this measure once again, and I hope we will defeat it.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is relatively simple. How can he seriously tell us today that he will vote in favour of this motion, when it excludes 60% of all businesses and when, in any case, the Liberals intend to reintroduce the motion in different legislation in order to keep the initial wording?

[Excise Tax Act, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to speak to Bill C-259, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, more specifically to eliminate the excise tax on jewellery.

Perhaps a bit of history is in order. First, as mentioned on a number of occasions in our various debates, this tax was introduced in 1916, at which time it applied to luxury goods. Understandably, in the early part of the 20th century, clocks, watches and jewellery in general were considered luxury goods.

Members will agree with me that the situation has changed considerably over almost a century. In many instances, goods that were indeed luxuries in 1916 are now commonly used. Who does not own a watch? How many women have earrings? These are items one can find in any dollar store.

Another case in point is the fact that the tax applied to various goods, including items made in whole or in part of natural shells. Once again, if we go back 100 years or so, we can understand that jewellery made with natural shells might have been less common. Transportation has evolved so much since 1916 that it is much easier now. Such items can no longer be considered luxury goods.

Many groups have opposed this tax from the beginning and called for its removal. Over the years and the decades, there has been a steady stream of representations and testimonies to the successive finance ministers. Basically, they all asked for the same thing: the removal of this tax which was viewed as a drag on industry.

During the 36th Parliament, the member for North Vancouver introduced a very similar bill to have this tax removed. Also, as part of the prebudget consultation process, many representations were made over the years to have this tax removed. In that context, both in 1996 and in 1997, the Bloc Québécois supported legislation to remove this tax.

I am tempted to say that, this year, in a spirit of conciliation, to try to lay the groundwork so that the minister would bow to the arguments of this industry, the Standing Committee on Finance recommended that the tax be abolished over a five-year period. This recommendation was accepted, almost in a spirit of negotiation. Indeed, the numerous previous finance ministers had always ignored these recommendations.

We thought that, instead of proposing to abolish the tax immediately we could suggest doing it over five years, in the hope that the government might listen. And, indeed, the 2005 budget plan includes this recommendation to eliminate the excise tax over a period of five years. However, let us be clear. This was not what the industry and the vast majority of stakeholders were asking for. Indeed, they wanted the tax to be abolished immediately.

When the committee reviewed Bill C-259, it heard a number of witnesses. It seemed there might be some benefits to eliminating this tax over five years. In order to find out, I asked these people point blank if five years was good enough, or if they wanted the tax to be immediately abolished. They made it very clear that the industry wanted the excise eliminated immediately.

So, this was a compromise, at least in the eyes of the Bloc Québécois members sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance. This compromise, which was agreed to by the Minister of Finance for the first time, did not exactly meet the industry's demands. It only partially met them. By contrast, Bill C-259 proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North effectively meets the industry's demands by proposing the complete elimination of this excise tax.

In this regard, I want to briefly quote an excerpt from the 2005 budget plan. The budget plan may not have been worded with the immediate abolition of the excise tax in mind, but I think it provides some very good arguments in favour of such a measure.

The 2005 budget plan provides that, “Phasing out the excise tax on jewellery ensures equitable treatment of the Canadian jewellery industry and recognizes that jewellery is available at all price levels and enjoys widespread consumption among Canadian households”.

Again, I realize that this wording was prepared with a phasing out period of five-year in mind. However, the case for the immediate elimination of this excise tax remains valid. Earlier, the Liberal member talked about the importance of ensuring that all the measures be taken in the context of all the other measures.

The excise tax would bring in approximately $50 million. I will submit that, compared to last year's budget surplus of $9.1 billion, the amount of $50 million is—all things being relative—a rather small amount. As far as the administration of this tax is concerned, the various stakeholders do not completely agree on that.

According to the Minister of Finance, it will cost about $1.5 million to administer, whereas several others have given figures of up to $14 million to administer revenues of $50 million. Based on that, I say that the cost to the government is no longer $50 million but $36 billion.

There are other reasons to be in favour of this bill. Now there is a variety of jewellery available at a broad range of prices, and the very large majority of people in Canada and Quebec buy it. There is a serious problem: the federal excise tax at present favours imports over jewellery made in Canada and Quebec.

Reference was made earlier to the importance of supporting various businesses and industries. It seems to me that maintaining this measure, even if for only five years, is not likely to encourage the growth of this type of industry.

We have also heard it said that the excise tax hindered job creation and the development of the Canadian jewellery market, and sometimes forced the industry to carry out some operations under the table or off-shore. If these situations can be put en end to as quickly as possible, I encourage my colleagues to move now and not wait five years. It seems to me that we need to find a way of putting an end to any measure that would in any way encourage the underground economy. I think that immediate elimination would do away with that problem.

My colleague from North Vancouver said that the growth of the Canadian diamond industry made it urgent to abolish a tax that he termed—and I totally agree with him on this—an anachronism, when Canada is the third-ranking producer of diamonds and might well, judging by various forecasts, jump to first by 2012.

I see I have but a minute left. I will therefore close by saying that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance were made in a spirit of compromise, somewhat to our surprise. I must, however, thank the Minister of Finance for having retained those recommendations. The industry, however, is for the most part calling for the immediate abolition of the excise tax. We will be supporting this bill.

[National Defence, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, things are not getting any clearer as far as the contamination of water by pollutants at Valcartier base and the neighbouring municipality of Shannon is concerned. In fact, they are getting murkier. DND is refusing to make a preliminary report public, and Environment Canada is doing the same with a report on the Jacques-Cartier fish habitat, which may be at risk.

What is the government waiting for before releasing these two reports in order to reassure the public? They are entitled to know where they stand.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is always sad to hear such speeches which briefly but so eloquently summarize 10 years of federal government withdrawal from such areas, meaning 10 years of mismanagement.

I want to clarify something. Even without legislation such as Bill C-363, could the government have used available funds equal to the CMHC surpluses to meet the greatest needs in social housing, among other things, and in related areas?

[The Budget, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the budget was presented in February, the Prime Minister missed a good opportunity to respond to the urgent needs of Quebec, which is no longer able to balance its budget, while the federal government is literally swimming in money.

In addition to being denied categorically in the budget, the fiscal imbalance has become a political imbalance, where the Liberals use billions of dollars to meddle with impunity in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

With $47 billion snatched from the EI fund, there is still no independent fund. As for implementation of the Kyoto protocol, the Liberal government preferred to give the major polluters a blank cheque rather than promote the polluter-pays principle.

The Bloc Québécois will submit amendments in committee that are serious and important for the people of Quebec. Let us hope that the Liberal members from Quebec will see reason and vote for them.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, an information brief on the website of Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec states the following:

The bill does not make any changes to the agency’s role... Whether it is a government department or an agency, the minister faces the same obligations, responsibilities, powers and duties... The existing programs will remain in place. The act will have no impact on the agency’s present programs or clientele in the immediate future.

Based on what is written on department's own site, it is impossible to identify the purpose of this entity, unless it is once again to give someone keys to a limousine and subject the regions to propaganda, through departmental announcements. Since this bill does not change the agency's mission or clientele in any way, why is it before us at this time?