Daniel Petit

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for listing those names. I can tell you that, indeed, Quebec will not lose any equalization payments. We are coming out on top.

The problem is that we need a motion. Bloc members make Quebeckers believe just about anything. The difference is that we had to work to get these results. They never prepared a simple budget in their whole life. They never had any responsibility in their whole life. But for us, we have to live with what we are going to do.

We had to negotiate to get the $8.8 billion that will be given out. That is why I am telling you that this motion goes against the interest of Quebec and people in Quebec. All they are doing is voting for the rich without doing anything for the poor.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would point out to him that equalization will increase and that it will reach the figure of $8.9 billion. The province of Quebec has held the record in equalization payments since 1981, some $4 billion annually.

Furthermore, I would point out that he can read an article in the Globe and Mail, which discusses a single commission and which states that, had one existed, there might not have been the problem with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Tomorrow, we will lose $38 billion, because they do not want to join us.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as custom dictates, in light of the fact that I have been elected a second time, I would like to salute all the citizens of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who have placed their trust in me.

I today invite my colleagues to do likewise and reject the Bloc’s motion because it is against the interests of Quebec. Our measures in this budget are perfectly consistent with the spirit of open federalism that underpins our overall approach toward restoring the fiscal balance. I invite my colleagues to examine our record in this regard. The facts are most eloquent.

First of all, the government is fully honouring its commitment to pay the provinces increasing, long-term transfers to restore the fiscal balance. The federal transfers have never been so high, and they will continue to increase. The Canada health transfer is increasing by 6% per year, and the Canada social transfer by 3% per year. Federal infrastructure support to the provinces is at record highs. Equalization today stands at $14.2 billion, compared with $8.7 billion in 2003-04 under the Liberal government.

Second, Quebec is the province that has benefited the most from the measures we have taken to restore the fiscal balance. Far from decreasing, Quebec’s equalization payments and total transfers are at historic highs and continue to rise, but the Bloc persists in tabling its motion against the population of Quebec. Transfers to Quebec for equalization alone have risen 74% since 2005-06, placing the province far in the lead of the recipient provinces in terms of the increase in these transfers.

Equalization has been very advantageous for Quebeckers over the years, and the government has worked energetically to ensure that this program continues to grow in a sustainable and equitable manner. The measures it has taken were necessary because of the unprecedented and unexpected volatility in commodity prices in recent months.

As my colleagues know, just after the introduction of the 2007 equalization formula, commodity prices steadily increased, with oil prices tripling in a few months before plummeting 75% in the middle of 2008. These exceptionally high resource prices pushed up the costs of equalization, and under the effect of the new formula, they would have continued to push them up for years. If nothing had been done, equalization costs would have risen over $26 billion over the next five years. This pace of growth was clearly unsustainable, and the government would have had a lot of difficulty avoiding a long-term structural deficit.

When it submitted its final report on equalization, upon which the new program is based, the O'Brien panel of independent experts could not imagine that oil prices would reach $150 a barrel or that Ontario would become eligible for equalization. But that is what happened, and it could weigh heavily on future charges. On the other hand, the O'Brien panel recognized that the equalization program could well pose certain problems. It came up with some very wise advice in this regard, which can be found on page 43 of this final equalization report.

The O'Brien report recognizes that the long-run sustainability of the equalization formula is the Government of Canada's responsibility. We are taking this responsibility seriously and we are acting accordingly. I want to emphasize the fact that these measures do not reflect any reduction in equalization payments. In fact, these changes are only meant to ensure that the growth of the program follows that of the economy. They set a threshold to avoid a contraction of the whole program, and they provide transitional protection to offset their impact on the provinces benefiting from equalization, including Quebec.

The provinces were informed of these changes at the finance ministers' meeting held in Toronto, on November 3. They even got advance notice regarding their rights to equalization for 2009-10, to allow them to plan their budgets on solid ground.

Even if these changes recently generated a broad political debate that was strictly academic and only served to create dissension, I want to point out that they had been welcomed when they were first announced at the finance ministers' meeting, back in November.

In fact, at a press conference that followed the meeting, the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mrs. Jérôme-Forget, said that these changes were “reasonable”. They are indeed, particularly under the circumstances that all governments are facing because of this serious global economic recession.

That is why we are defending the changes that we made to ensure the equalization's viability. And we are also defending the way that we implemented these changes.

On behalf of all Canadians from all provinces, including Quebec, I am asking my fellow members to do likewise, to reject this motion—which goes against Quebec's interests—and to support our budget.

I have here many statements made by various groups from Quebec that support the measures proposed in our budget. For example, the Quebec City chamber of commerce said:

The moneys committed by the federal government to infrastructures will certainly have a quick and significant impact on the economy—The personal income tax reduction is also a good measure that will stimulate the economy, just like the rebates for renovations and for first time home buyers.

But they voted against those measures.

Also, François Dupuis, chief economist at the Desjardins group, which is in the riding represented by the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, said the following:

—we believe that the measures proposed by Ottawa will work. The government is hitting several targets at once. For families, this is a breath of fresh air.

They are voting against it.

Norma Kozhaya, research director and chief economist with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, said:

I think that these are good measures both for the short term, given the recession, and for long-term positioning in terms of making businesses more competitive, getting people back to work and increasing taxpayers' purchasing power.

They are voting against it.

The president of the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec and mayor of the City of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, said:

This budget takes into account the reality of an economy that is going through a recession and responds to the Coalition's repeated demands for more funding to help municipalities accomplish their mission, undertake work to upgrade and renew basic infrastructure, and ensure safe, adequate services for citizens. The new funding program will enable municipalities to plan infrastructure more effectively.

They are voting against it.

The Rivière-du-Loup RCM's chamber of commerce said:

This is extremely good news for the RCM of Rivière-du-Loup.

They are voting against it.

The Alliance des Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec said:

The federal government's budget [...] puts forward measures that will help the manufacturing sector and stimulate the Canadian economy [...] The 2009 budget [...] includes a number of positive measures that will help our businesses during this time of crisis. These measures must be implemented as quickly as possible.

They are voting against it.

We should listen to these groups, reject this anti-Quebec motion, and pass the Budget Implementation Act as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who gave a good summary of what should not be done in Quebec. But what grabbed my attention the most was the last point he raised in his speech, and I would like him to tell us a little bit more on that.

Tomorrow there will be a statement by the Caisse de dépôt et placement regarding the loss of $38 billion. This was money invested by Quebeckers in the Caisse de dépôt et placement.

My colleague could share his thoughts on that. According to the Globe and Mail, this great loss might have been avoided had we had a national securities commission. In this case, these people were named by the Parti Québécois and the Liberal Party.

[Bloc Québécois, February 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one wonders how the Bloc can claim to be the supreme defender of Quebec's interests when, in all the years it has spent in Ottawa, it has never been able to give Quebec a single cent. The Bloc has aligned itself both with the father of the clarity bill and with extremists. It is hard to know what it stands for.

It is becoming clear that what the Bloc wants, above all, is just plain confrontation. Yet Quebeckers do not want confrontation. The men and women of Quebec have always sought consensus. By advocating confrontation, the Bloc is going against Quebeckers' values.

The Bloc's latest achievement is to try to make Canadians believe Quebeckers are bitter and vindictive. The Bloc is tarnishing Quebec's reputation by making fear and hatred its favourite topics.

[Bloc Québécois Leader, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Bloc Québécois put up a real tragicomedy.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois and new Bloc Québécois critic for foreign affairs insulted one of our allies, namely France, which is fighting alongside us in Afghanistan.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois harshly criticized President Sarkozy for making comments he described as unacceptable and disdainful with respect to the sovereignist option. At the same time, one of his MPs extolled terrorist organizations in an email sent to all the members of this House.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois should change his priorities and stop his irresponsible attacks on France, one of our strongest allies in the fight against international terrorism.

[Leader of the Bloc Québécois, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has once again shown us how intolerant he can be and how much he dislikes people who dare to have an opinion that differs from his own.

Today, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is once again going after President Sarkozy, simply for expressing an opinion that is shared by others.

Mr. Sarkozy is asking a good question: Does the world, in the midst of this unprecedented crisis it is facing, need division? Who would say yes to that?

The leader of the Bloc Québécois would rather divide Quebeckers with his sectarian ideology. The leader of the Bloc has thus shown that he has no respect for people who do not share his point of view or for our European allies who do not think the way he does.

[Privilege, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for Ahuntsic's apology. However, I would like to raise a few points in connection with this situation.

A member of Parliament's privilege is based on two things: the rights and privileges granted by Parliament. In the course of our duties, we use items provided for the exclusive use of parliamentarians for the purpose of carrying out the mandate we have been given by our fellow citizens.

Various documents and emails were sent to our BlackBerries, prompting me to take a look at what the member for Ahuntsic wanted me to see. I received several mentions of photos and texts, and I consulted them. Also, links to groups considered by Canada's Parliament to be terrorist organizations had been inserted into the member's material, either by her or by the employees she is responsible for.

These links can be considered very serious. The Parliament of Canada's policy is clear: ours is a peaceful nation that does not, in any way, condone terrorist organizations. Anyone could end up on the member's site. Millions of people around the world can surf their way to it. People from other countries can visit the site, where they can see the member's name and her riding. They might not understand how our parliamentary system works, so they might think that the text and the links on the site represent Canada's position, even though parliamentarians in the House of Commons have always refused to support, in any way, shape or form, terrorist organizations.

Imagine someone in Asia finding the member for Ahuntsic's site on the Internet. That person would see all kinds of sad things, as well as videos encouraging certain forms of terrorism that we have condemned.

That is important to understand. Parliamentarians in the House of Commons must always support Parliament's policies. If a member thinks that it is okay to flout the rules of Parliament, how can we expect citizens to respect the laws that we pass? It would be impossible, and that is very serious. It makes it look as though Canada is adopting the position of this distinguished member of our Parliament who is known in her region for her opinions. In fact, this is not true, and this is not Parliament's position. In fact, we here in Parliament have decided to work for peace and not in support of terror.

When a member uses the means at her disposal, it is paid for by the taxpayers from both east and west. We have constituency offices and offices here on the Hill; our computers were bought with taxpayers' money. How can a member promote the things that we have condemned here in Parliament?

Citizens cannot do this, and the members of this House are also citizens. We must respect the decisions of Parliament. That means that in no way, directly or indirectly, should we be supporting terrorist movements. This is serious. I defer to your judgment, Mr. Speaker.

However, we must send the right message. If a parliamentarian does not respect the rules of Parliament, how can we expect a citizen to respect them?

[Consumer Product Safety, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today our Conservative government has introduced the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, which will modernize and strengthen the legislation on product safety in Canada.

Our government attaches a vital importance to the protection and promotion of the health of Canadian families and communities. Canadians need to be able to have faith in the consumer products they purchase.

I am proud to say that our government is taking steps to improve the safety of products Canadians buy for themselves and their children. We ask the opposition to support the bill and help us protect all Canadians.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 3rd, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question through you of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois .

I too am part of Quebec. They are not the only ones living there. What did the Liberals do for 25 years? They invoked the War Measures Act, they patriated the Constitution, they engaged in armed operations in which they stole Parti québécois lists. What is more, they arbitrarily arrested 485 people.

What will my colleague have to say to those who were arbitrarily arrested? What will she tell them today about this association?