Paul Crête

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that he would eliminate the federal spending power in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and that is what all Quebeckers understood. That is what he said during the campaign.

But the minister was not there during the campaign. We have the statement word for word, and I understand that it may surprise her. The Prime Minister says some things when he is in English Canada and other things when he is in Quebec.

That is why we have to be here in this House. We were elected to contradict these kinds of statements from the government.

When the Prime Minister said that during the campaign, Quebeckers understood that this contentious issue that has been around for 50 or 75 years or even since Quebec has been part of Confederation could finally be resolved.

We are talking here about areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, about our constitutional responsibilities, but we are still expected to get down on our knees to tell the federal government that it can spend in our province but that if it does so, maybe it would want to give us full compensation provided that we put in place an equivalent program. It makes no sense at all.

This is not how Quebec wants to assume its responsibility with regard to areas under its jurisdiction. Quebec wants the elimination of the federal spending power and wants the federal government to stop infringing upon areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. It is asking Conservative members from Quebec in particular to have the courage to stand up and vote in favour of Quebec rather than vote in favour of Canadian federalism against Quebec.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed deliver half of my speech before oral question period. Therefore, I should remind the House that the motion is basically asking the federal government to recognize that Quebec should have the right to opt out with no strings attached and with full financial compensation from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

This wording seems clear. Yet, in this Parliament there are parties which, as the NDP announced this morning, will vote against this motion, whose scope we really wanted to restrict to Quebec, so that, as seems to be the NDP's wish, the federal government can continue to get involved in the jurisdictions of the other Canadian provinces. Such interference goes against the Quebec tradition, regardless of the provincial party in office. Back in 1970, Robert Bourassa, who was a federalist Quebec premier, said:

Quebec continues to believe that ... this ... spending power in areas that come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction ought quite simply not to exist, and the federal government would do well to quite simply renounce it totally.

Therefore, I am quite surprised today to hear the NDP tell us that it voted and presented a motion to allow Quebec to have its own child care program. It is fine that we managed to get it, but why not move forward in the same fashion for all of Quebec's jurisdictions, since this has to be done? We are not talking about federal jurisdictions. We are not asking the federal government to stop getting involved in its own jurisdictions at Quebec's request. We are simply asking that the Quebec government be given the assurance that the federal government will not interfere in its jurisdictions, and that if it does get involved in other provinces' jurisdictions, then that Quebec be fully compensated.

This is not only a matter of principle. What the federal government does in actual practice is often contrary to what Quebec wants to do. It adds something or does things a different way. This can be seen very well in the general approach taken by the Conservative Party. If its approach to young offender issues is compared with the approach that Quebec has been taking, there is clearly a fundamental difference. When the federal government’s intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction are at odds with the objectives that Quebec is pursuing, we are left with a totally ridiculous situation. That is why we introduced this motion today, although we would have preferred not being forced to do so.

If the Canadian Prime Minister had kept his commitment to eliminate the spending power, which he made during the election campaign and mentioned again in the Speech from the Throne, we would not have been compelled to debate this issue. He did it for supply management. That was the only one of the conditions set by the Bloc and desired by Quebec that the federal government met. It has failed to meet Quebec’s demands on the spending power. It is not only sovereignists and independentists who want this but all of Quebec. It is all the parties in Quebec and Quebeckers in general. We are a nation. If the federal government wants to intrude into our jurisdictions, into matters for which Quebec is responsible, it should promise to give Quebec the money with no strings attached.

I call upon all the hon. members from Quebec in this House and especially the Conservatives who said during the election campaign that things would be different with them, that they would make progress and recognize Quebec. Today is the time for some practical action, and that is to support this motion. Tomorrow we will be voting in favour of it. Then we will see where the Conservative members really stand.

I think, unfortunately, that in actual fact they have already become Ottawa’s advocates in their ridings rather than the other way around. They should be defending Quebec’s interests in Ottawa, but instead they defend Ottawa in their ridings. The people will judge them harshly if they continue to conform to the position taken by the Conservative government, which is the traditional approach of federal interference in Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his clear presentation. I would like to examine the reason for today's Bloc motion. Let us reread it.

That, in the opinion of the House, given that the Prime Minister has promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance and that this imbalance cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the bill on federal spending power that the government will introduce should, at a minimum, provide for Quebec to have the right to opt out with no strings attached and with full financial compensation from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

The first sentence of the motion clearly answers the NDP member's question as to why we are tabling such a motion today. The Conservative Prime Minister promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance and this is not at all addressed in the Speech from the Throne. The government has done very little. It had promised to eliminate its spending power and that is what Quebeckers were expecting. In 1970, Mr. Robert Bourassa, then the premier of Quebec, said:

Quebec continues to believe that, ideally, this federal spending power in areas that come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction ought quite simply not to exist, and the federal government would do well to quite simply renounce it totally.

That was the position, in 1970, of the Quebec premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa, who has been called an excellent premier by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who was a cabinet member in Quebec City and was of the same mind. Now that he is in Ottawa, he has changed masters and his position. As a result, today, in this House, he has denounced the Bloc Québécois' position by stating that the desire to cooperate was lacking.

The desire to cooperate is expressed in the final words of the motion, which states:

—right to opt out with no strings attached and with full financial compensation from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

For a long time, people said that this could not be done, but also that Quebec should have this right because it was a distinct society. People even said in this House that Quebec was a nation. Today, we are asking the members to support a motion recognizing that Quebec has the right to opt out with full compensation so that it is not required to introduce a similar program. We do not want to annoy the rest of Canada with this motion. We are not asking the members to practise the same type of federalism in the rest of the country. We are asking them to give Quebec this one thing.

Unfortunately, the same thing always happens when it comes to these issues. Often, on social issues, we see eye to eye with another party in this House. Today we are asking for the historical rights Quebec has been demanding for years. I quoted Robert Bourassa, and before him was Maurice Duplessis. The people of Quebec also had that problem.

In 1970 I was 17. Today, my daughter is 17 and the situation still has not changed. That proves how stagnant the federal system is. There is a huge difference between what the federalist leaders like the Prime Minister say on the campaign trail and what they say in the House of Commons. People seem to go back on their word, and that is what is causing the problem.

In the past, we fought hard for the manpower agreement and the agreement on parental leave. We thought that the current government was offering us an interesting opportunity. What we found in the throne speech, though, was not this opportunity, but the same old drive to centralize.

I will continue my speech after oral question period.

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood my colleague correctly, he was naming an editorial writer with La Presse and not a member when you asked him not to use proper names. What I understood from the speech was that he was speaking of Mr. Pratte of La Presse and not about a member.

[Securities, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government can pat itself on the back about its open federalism and say that every level of government must be respected, but it is doing just the opposite. The World Bank and the OECD say that the current system works well.

Will the political lieutenant for Quebec, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, defend Quebec instead of Ontario and demand that the Minister of Finance drop this idea? Will he accept his responsibilities as the minister responsible for Quebec?

[Securities, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne provides for the creation of a single body to regulate securities. The Minister of Finance may say the current system does not work, but he is wrong. The truth is that he wants to give something back to his friends on Bay Street. Everyone in Quebec is against his proposed centralized regulatory body.

Will the political lieutenant for Quebec, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, promise to protect the interests of Quebec in cabinet and convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to give up on his plan?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the presentation by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, with whom I have been fortunate to work in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I also worked on drafting this unanimous report, which received support from the representatives from every party and was received favourably by the manufacturing coalitions in Quebec and Canada, and by labour unions such as the FTQ.

This report included 22 recommendations that allowed our manufacturing industries to cope with global competition, to structure themselves with tax support, tax credits for research and development, and refunds for companies that do not make huge profits. All the hon. members of this House who are members of the committee ratified this report. However, today, almost a year later, only one of the 22 recommendations has been implemented.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether it is because of ideology that the Conservatives do not want to carry out these recommendations. Do they not understand the message from the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce, that there is currently a major problem with manufacturing jobs in Quebec's economy? Jobs are disappearing by the thousands and are being replaced with other jobs that, unfortunately, pay far less.

Would it not be important for the Conservative government to implement the 22 recommendations in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on the manufacturing sector?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his question.

In fact, the spokesperson for Commonwealth Plywood, Joël Quévillon, explained that the current economic conditions, the market and the rising Canadian dollar are the main reasons they have suspended operations.

We believe the federal government should have been proactive and implemented the action plan unanimously proposed by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to help the manufacturing industry. It can still do so, using the action plan for the forestry industry that was put forward by the Bloc Québécois. The plan contains concrete measures which would give our companies the necessary fiscal tools to be competitive. Then our companies could compete on the world stage.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wishes for the next 14 years but I would have preferred that he wished that Ms. Marois would become Premier of Quebec within the next year and that within a few years Quebec would become a sovereign country, while continuing to be good neighbours with Canada. Nevertheless, I thank him for his good wishes.

To deal with his question, there are important choices to be made in Canada. If we decide only to reduce income taxes significantly, we run the risk of increasing consumption of goods from China or other emerging countries. I am not against that. However, if the direct effect of that is to transfer the Canadian surplus to China, perhaps we would be better to develop a more flexible structure, to help our companies to obtain tax credits through investments and other types of services of that kind.

As far as child care is concerned, my colleague himself gave an example. In Quebec, we have developed a quality child care service that is the envy of all the provinces in Canada. We, and our colleagues from all other parties, would like to see this kind of child care in the rest of Canada. Nevertheless, if that were to happen, Quebec must be able to receive its share of the funding, full compensation, with no accountability.

However, what we find in the Speech from the Throne is the opposite. According to that document, in terms of shared cost programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is entitled to give direction and Quebec must re-invest in the same sector.

In the area of children’s services, we already have a program that is well funded, and if we received funding from the federal government that would enable the program to work even better.

Unfortunately, neither the Liberal motion tabled today, nor the attitude of the Conservatives, nor, indeed that of the NDP—who continue to believe that the federal government has the cure for all ills—will enable us to reach an agreement. On that score, there is work to be done. If Canada's federalists are people of good faith, they must understand that the best solution is to put the money in the right place and that Quebec must have the funds necessary for meeting its responsibilities. We want the sovereignty of Quebec to come quickly, but while we are waiting, since it remains part of Canada, it must receive its fair share.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It will allow me to shed light on the situation.

It is true that many jobs have been created in Canada, Quebec and Ontario. Nonetheless, one of the major problems is the disparity between the need for workers and the workers available.

The government would like workers who are 57, 58, or 60, who were laid off after working in a plant for 25 years, to start working as computer technicians overnight. A few of them may manage that transition, but most will never be able to.

In a society where a federal government posts a $14 billion surplus at the end of the year, it is unacceptable to put all that money toward the debt. Some of that surplus should have been used to share the wealth with these workers.

There is also the matter of the right number of available jobs. As far as immigration is concerned, we have to make sure there is a significant enough supply of workers moving here to meet the needs. I think a greater effort needs to be made in that area. There has to be a balance between the number of people we welcome and the needs that have to be met. More effort needs to be made on that.

Another very difficult aspect of employment is that an employee might come from a job where he was earning $15, $16, $18, or $20 an hour only to start a new job where he is earning $8.50 or $9 an hour. To lose an $18-an-hour job to start another one at $9 an hour is not good for the employee or the economy of Quebec. Furthermore, this was criticized yesterday not by the Bloc Québécois, the Parti Québécois or the sovereignists in Quebec, but by Quebec's chambers of commerce. According to them, this is having a devastating impact.

We expect the Conservative government to introduce programs to give our businesses the tax framework they need to compete globally.

Finally, the hon. member said he thinks it is unfortunate that I am a separatist. Indeed, I wish there were two countries next to one another that could continue to live together. That would solve a whole host of problems and we could focus in the future on really allowing our society to create wealth and share it in a much better way than the federal Canadian system allows.