André Bellavance

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to our amendments to Bill C-60.

I figured the members would be interested in talking more about this during questions and comments, so I had to hurry. Still, I will use my time to talk about why the Bloc Québécois's amendments to Bill C-60 are so important.

Once again, the government has tabled a budget implementation bill that makes many changes that are not strictly financial. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have gotten used to seeing measures like these in mammoth bills. Several different committees have had to look at measures that originated with the Standing Committee on Finance and end up going back there.

It is very difficult for both MPs and Canadians to follow exactly what is going on. I think that was the government's plan when it decided to bury so many other measures in the budget implementation bill.

Today, I would like to focus on how some of our amendments relate to the Canada health transfer for Quebec. Other provinces have also expressed disapproval regarding the federal government's cuts to health transfers. The Conservatives say that they have not cut anything. They say that the budget remains the same, that it is stable. However, we are not seeing the 6% increase that was supposed to happen.

Instead of growing by 6% per year, the Canada health transfer will increase in step with economic growth, though it will never rise by less than 3%. Over time, the federal government will reduce funding for health care to a fraction of the 50% it was originally. By 2024, it will probably shrink to 18.6%.

Why do we want to get rid of that clause? We want the health transfer to continue increasing by 6%. We all know that health costs are skyrocketing in Quebec and the other provinces. The Government of Quebec reacted strongly to this decision.

When the federal government announced its plan, Quebec's finance minister reacted. A message on the Government of Quebec's website reads as follows:

While the federal budget confirms technical changes to the equalization program, Mr. Marceau pointed out that Quebec had asked that the caps that were imposed on the program in 2009 be removed. “Because of these caps, Quebec has suffered significant financial losses totalling $7.6 billion since 2009-10. Combined with budget shortfalls resulting from the federal government's unilateral decisions in 2011 regarding health care, Quebec will lose out on $8.6 billion between 2014-15 and 2024-25. Together, these unilateral changes are having a very serious negative impact on Quebec's public finances. The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reverse these unfair decisions,” Minister Marceau stated.

This shows what a serious impact these decisions are having. That is why I am confident that at least the members in the House from Quebec will support our call to delete this amendment on health transfers.

Of course there are other issues related to crown corporations, credit unions and securities, and I would be remiss if I did not address them. Once again, we proposed amendments to make this budget implementation bill more equitable.

In the case of credit unions, this measure was introduced in 1972 in order to allow Canadian credit unions to build capital faster. From our perspective, of course, we are particularly concerned about the Caisses Desjardins.

Most credit unions are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of about 11%, and the additional deduction for credit unions means they can enjoy a lower tax rate, since they are not otherwise eligible for the small business deduction, up to a maximum cumulative amount, which is directly related to the total amounts the credit unions owe their members.

This budget announces plans to phase out this additional deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. It will be completely eliminated by 2017.

On top of the impact on the caisses populaires members, some fear that certain branches will close if this deduction is cancelled.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing to maintain the current deduction formula. I would remind hon. members that budget 2013 is a frontal attack on several aspects of Quebec society. Eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds that help vulnerable Quebec businesses, such as Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN, is just another one of the obstacles the Conservative government is putting in the way of small businesses and investors in Quebec.

Clause 15, which deals with this measure affecting credit unions and caisses populaires, should also be eliminated.

As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois has made securities their issue for a very long time, for ages, or certainly since the current Minister of Finance got it in his head—in a pigheaded way, in fact—to create a Canada-wide securities commission. He wants to impose it on Quebec and the provinces.

Quebec is not the only province that is against this decision. However, this issue got a lot of ink, in Quebec in particular, and it will get even more. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling whereby the provinces, Quebec, have all the latitude they want to take care of their securities commissions themselves.

I have in hand a press release from the Government of Quebec, which slammed this decision when the Conservative Minister of Finance brought down his budget. Mr. Marceau says he does not understand why the federal government is insisting on setting up a Canada-wide securities commission when the rulings handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are clear. Minister Marceau also said he is surprised that the federal government extended the mandate of the Canadian securities transition office. This is what Minister Marceau said:

Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.

It is rather surprising. Well, it is and it is not, since the government's stubbornness is not surprising. However, when the Supreme Court has given a ruling, it is time to give up. The Supreme Court made that decision for a reason, and that reason is just as clear as what is set out in the Constitution: that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected.

Yet, the Minister of Finance and his friends on Bay Street, probably, are telling themselves that they are in control, that they have the power and that they are going to shove this much-touted Canada-wide securities commission down the throats of Quebec and the other provinces no matter what the cost.

Take, for example, what is happening around the world. The government often brags that it prevented an economic disaster, but not all countries were so lucky. One of the reasons we were is because of our securities system, which ensures that Quebec and the provinces can have their own control system if they want. The system is working well.

The OECD has said as much about Canada's securities system. Other countries also work this way, so I do not understand why the minister would continue down the path he is taking when everyone, except perhaps his friends on Bay Street and a few provincial governments, are saying that he can have a Canadian commission if he wants but that each province, and Quebec in particular, should continue to have their own control over the securities system.

I have to wrap up, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal government's decision to interfere in Crown corporations' collective bargaining negotiations. This is a great cause for concern. We have already seen what happened with Canada Post and what is now happening with CBC/Radio-Canada. The government wants to interfere in negotiations. Obviously, CBC/Radio-Canada's concern is maintaining control over its newsroom. This is all also related to Bill C-377, which started making the headlines again yesterday.

In this context, the House must adopt the Bloc Québécois’s amendments to delete those provisions and ensure that the implementing legislation deals with tax measures and leaves out all the other measures that should be introduced in separate bills.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 31st, 2013]

, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

[Points of Order, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the point of order raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, because it pertained to our presence in committee.

We are not asking for more privileges than the others. We are just asking for the few rights that we do have to be respected. There are 308 MPs in the House, who were all legitimately and democratically elected. The rules of Parliament are supposed to allow all of us, from the Prime Minister right down through the ranks, to do our work as legislators for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are members of recognized parties or not.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that you want to uphold the principles behind your December 12, 2012, ruling, which reminded members that, in accordance with page 307 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

You then went on to say that:

Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.

That is exactly what we expect of you, Mr. Speaker. A new satisfactory way of considering our amendments in committee can only be interpreted as an opportunity not only to table amendments or simply send them by fax, but also to put them forward ourselves in committee, debate them and vote on them, exactly as we do now at report stage. I am sure you will agree that we cannot rely on the goodwill of committee members, our political opponents, to put forward our amendments. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible for them to debate and explain what amendments proposed by independent members or members of the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party are all about and the reasons behind them.

However, your decision opens the door to testing certain procedural measures in order to allow members of non-recognized parties and independent members to propose amendments to bills in committee. You also said:

..its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

We understood what that meant, and we were not the only ones. The government interpreted it in its own way, as did the opposition parties. We are willing to participate in committee work with the understanding that we are not permanent members of the committees and that a time limit will be imposed on us based on our respective weight in the House. However, we want to have the same right we have at report stage in the House: the right to propose, debate and put to a vote our own amendments. Simply faxing or emailing our amendments to a committee may be an efficient method of having our amendments studied in committee, but I respectfully submit that it would strip us of the fundamental right to represent our constituents, a right that is enjoyed by all other members of the House. Report stage is when we are currently given the opportunity to exercise that right.

I sincerely believe that the scope of your ruling of December 12, 2012, was not intended to deny us our rights and make us second-class members. I believe that your ruling was designed to invite committees to use Standing Order 119, which allows them to give MPs who are not permanent members the right to speak. It was in response to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who, on November 28, 2012, asked you to muzzle members of non-recognized parties and independent MPs. That member referred to the changes imposed by Speaker Milliken to minimize the use of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings. None of the motions moved by the Bloc since the May 2011 election have met that description. We also feel that there is a need to clamp down on abuse, but that this should not be done at the expense of our rights and privileges, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sadly proposed. O'Brien and Bosc fully explains those rights and privileges:

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage.

We were recently able to test out this new direction you gave, Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments by the government House leader. Following the vote at second reading stage of Bill C-60, we were invited to propose amendments in committee. According to the committee motion, these amendments were deemed proposed during clause-by-clause study. Technically, we were not allowed to propose our amendments since we are not members of the committee.

Following an email exchange and meetings with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we were able to briefly present our amendments because we did not have many, we were told. The official opposition made sure to remind us that we were not members of the committee under the rules and procedures of the House.

My colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, was not allowed to ask the officials present any questions, and the leader of the Green Party was unable to respond to comments on the amendments. Our participation was reduced to an absolute minimum.

In your ruling on December 12, 2012, you said:

The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose. For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.

I think that the opportunity to be part of a committee would help us find that balance you are looking for and we are looking for.

At report stage, we can table and propose, debate and vote on amendments, thanks to the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) to which you refer in your decision of December 12, 2012, on the selection of report stage amendments:

For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.

We participated in good faith in the process recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, but it is clear that the balance you spoke of in your decision was not achieved.

We, the members of non-recognized parties and independents, are now at the centre of a procedural war between the government and the opposition. We find ourselves in the middle of a ping-pong game where our rights and privileges are in play.

The procedure at report stage that allows us to table, debate and vote on amendments is currently predictable. The new process is clearly not. Not all committees ask us to table amendments. Some invite us to propose amendments but do not give us the opportunity to do it ourselves, and still others, such as the Standing Committee on Finance, allow us to do so, but with every possible restriction.

There are only two options: either we are entitled to propose amendments in committee with all the applicable rights, or we are not and can do so at report stage. What we want are clear rules. We do not want to be tossed around, at the mercy of every arbitrary decision made by each of the committees. We no longer have the resources to cope with the haphazard approach or the whims of the other parties, which would like nothing better than to block us at every turn.

We do not want to have to defend our rights case by case, committee by committee, and make it painfully clear with every bill that we cannot exercise our rights in committee.

In closing, I would like to point out to you that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to examine the standing orders and procedures of the House and its committees, pursuant to the February 17, 2012 motion, I wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 27, 2012 and requested that a member of the Bloc Québécois sit on the committee for the duration of its work on this matter.

“The fact that we cannot speak in committee is an aberration that deprives us of some of our parliamentary privileges, and that is what we wish to discuss in committee,” I wrote to the committee chair.

The Bloc Québécois was already showing its willingness to work with the committee to address what we consider to be the denial of our parliamentary rights and privileges. The committee never replied to our letter.

As I pointed out yesterday, there are examples of members of non-recognized parties and independents being given rights on the committees of other legislative assemblies.

It seems to me that the evolution of House practices could allow better predictability of the rights of members of non-recognized parties and independents, as is permitted by Standing Order 122 of the National Assembly of Quebec. It states that any independent member or member of an opposition group other than the official opposition can be appointed to a standing committee, which is the equivalent of the committees here in Ottawa. In that case, the committee consists of 12 rather than 10 members.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are prepared to advance the practices of the House, but our current rights must be preserved.

As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, you have a duty to preserve our rights.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to discuss the merits of the bill that the minister has suddenly declared to be extremely urgent.

There is something else I would like the minister to explain. We do not have any major problems with his bill. However, I do not understand this sudden urgency. The minister is telling us that it has not moved forward since 2006.

That is the kind of thing people say when the previous government was another party. Since 2006, however, we have had a Conservative government, the minister’s own government. As the minister said, he has done studies to get this bill going, as he should.

It is now 2013 and all of a sudden, today, at the end of the parliamentary session, a 40th time allocation motion is being brought in. Can the minister comment on that? Why is it suddenly so urgent? What is so urgent, to the point of shutting down all debate and once again preventing people from coming to testify and democracy from taking its course?

All the ministers want their bills to get passed quickly, right now, and they are all using time allocation motions.

I would like an explanation, because up to now I have not heard anything from the minister.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the point of order raised by the House leader of the official opposition concerns the non-recognized parties, it is appropriate for us to have our say today. I will reserve the right to add more arguments later because we were not aware that this point of order would be raised today.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the ruling you made in December 2012 reminds me of what happened in 2001 when your predecessor, Speaker Milliken, also made a ruling that restricted the use of report stage amendments. Between 1968 and 2001, successive Speakers were rather flexible with regard to report stage amendments.

In your ruling, you asked the government to show some openness to participation by members from non-recognized parties or independent members in certain committees, enabling them to propose amendments in committee. There is an important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and you are well placed to be aware of it. The Conservatives also know this, because in 1993 they were a non-recognized party. The NDP knows it too, because the NDP was also a non-recognized party in 1993.

The problem is that the members of this House fall into two categories. In the House we have an opportunity to ask questions and make speeches. We even have some speaking rights, which unfortunately we can no longer exercise because the government has been imposing time allocation motions on nearly all bills. Still, we feel we have proportional equality with our counterparts in the other parties. It is natural that we will be allocated fewer minutes because we have fewer members.

In committee, on the other hand, it is not the same as in the Quebec National Assembly, where the other parties have given the non-recognized parties—such as Québec solidaire and Action démocratique before it—the right to sit on committees, speak at committee meetings and even vote. Here, none of that is possible. I do not want the non-recognized parties to be treated like a ping pong ball in this dispute between the government and the recognized parties in this House. I think we have something to say on the subject.

The existence of the report stage simply allows us to propose the amendments we were unable to propose in committee, the amendments we have not had an opportunity to discuss. It is the only right we have left, Mr. Speaker, and I would like you to preserve it. We must be careful. The government says this is an invitation, but no party in the House has given us anything since May 2, 2011, and we are not asking for any gifts. We do not want additional privileges; we simply want our rights to be respected.

In committee, however, as happened in the committee studying Bill C-60, the only committee where we have been able to propose amendments, we had a few short minutes to do so, but no opportunity to speak at all. We were not allowed to ask questions of the public servants who were present or vote on the amendments we were proposing. If the government thinks it was giving us a gift, it is mistaken.

We want to preserve our rights. Therefore, we must be able to propose an amendment, discuss it, debate it and vote on it, and be aware of all committee activities, as it is possible to do in the House at report stage.

My first request, Mr. Speaker, is that you ensure that the rights of all members of the House are preserved, especially those who are less numerous, like the members of non-recognized parties.

[41st General Election, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is yet another chapter in the robocall saga.

The CRTC has just imposed $369,000 in fines on political parties and individuals who broke the rules on robocalls. The NDP, the Liberal member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and the Conservatives, including the member for Wild Rose, were singled out by the CRTC. All of them made misleading calls to Canadians. The Conservatives alone received over $92,000 in fines for their inappropriate calls.

Can the government confirm that the Conservatives are going to pay the fine and, more importantly, that they will stop using these unfair tactics?

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not had much luck with his partisan appointments, to say the least.

Yesterday, Arthur Porter was arrested. In 2008, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to oppose his appointment to the Security Intelligence Review Committee because allegations of conflict of interest and mismanagement were already hanging over his head. The Prime Minister refused to listen to the Bloc Québécois' recommendations about Arthur Porter, not once, but twice.

This time, will the Prime Minister admit his mistake and ask the Governor General—as he is in a position to do so—to remove Arthur Porter from the Privy Council?

[Ethics, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a mad obsession with wanting to control everything and cover up any scandals. Take, for example, the way he treats the media or the way he treated former minister Guergis.

The illegal spending scandal involves a senator the Prime Minister himself appointed and his closest advisers, who wanted to cover up this matter to the tune of thousands of dollars. Yet, today, the Prime Minister would have us believe that all this scheming went on behind his back and that he knew nothing about it. Individuals have appeared before the Charbonneau commission for less than that.

How is it that the Prime Minister can manage everything with an iron fist, yet he cannot control his own office?

[Louis-Joseph Papineau Prize, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to commend my hon. colleague, the dean of the House, who was recognized at the ninth edition of the Gala des Patriotes.

The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour was awarded the Louis-Joseph Papineau prize for his outstanding contribution to the sovereignist movement.

Elected to the federal Parliament in 1984, he has always been a key figure in our struggles to ensure that the values and interests of the Quebec nation are recognized and respected. A founding member of the Bloc Québécois in 1991, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour has always loudly proclaimed his love for the people of Quebec and asserted their right to control their own destiny. He has been a key witness to the federalist parties' attempts to make Quebec a province like the others, and he is more convinced than ever that Quebec's future hinges on its independence.

Today I commend this tireless crusader who came to the independence movement following both his mind and his heart and whose loyalty and passion have stood the test of time.

Bravo.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wants to make darn sure we all know how hard he plans to work now. Am I to infer that his government has been slacking off since the beginning of the session?

Like all other parliamentarians in the House, I have no problem extending sitting hours to debate real issues, as long as we show respect for Parliament, democracy, elected representatives and, above all, the people. There are some important issues we should be debating.

However, unlike the member for Gatineau, I am worried that, by forcing this superclosure on us, the government is once again trying to push its ideological agenda and bills through with no regard for democracy or Parliament, never mind the wishes, needs and priorities of the people of Quebec and the other provinces.

I would like to hear from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I believe that is the government's plan, and I would like him to say so clearly.