Jean-François Fortin

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want the truth about the repatriation of the Constitution and how it was forced on Quebeckers.

Two-thirds of Quebeckers are not buying the government's claim that this is an old debate, and they want Ottawa to open the archives and shed light on the serious irregularities alleged by historian Frédéric Bastien, in particular that Supreme Court judges allegedly violated fundamental democratic principles.

Instead of insulting two-thirds of Quebeckers by saying that they are wrong to want to shed the light on these events, will the Prime Minister—

[Search and Rescue and the Percé Wharf, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly called on the federal government to reverse its decision to close the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre.

In addition, the mayors of 35 municipalities along the St. Lawrence River are also asking Ottawa to reconsider, because the closure would compromise marine safety. Today we learned that the government may have finally decided to abandon its dangerous plan. I am asking the government to confirm now that the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre will stay open.

The federal government must also take action on the Percé wharf. In light of Ottawa's failure to understand the importance of the Percé wharf, just when tourist season is starting, the National Assembly and the RCM of Rocher-Percé are demanding that the federal government take the action needed to restore the wharf and that the government reopen it as soon as possible.

The government must heed this unanimous call by the Quebec National Assembly.

[Government Programs, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development praised social finance as a way of providing services to the public. The needs are great because the government keeps gutting its own programs and withdrawing from them.

The government is cutting pensions, leaving more seniors in poverty. It made cuts to employment insurance, leaving more workers, families and communities in poverty. It is cutting social housing, leaving more people without a decent place to live.

Does the minister realize that her strategy for privatizing federal government services is not fooling anyone?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his excellent question.

He is right. The government's infrastructure program is very helpful to municipalities. As a mayor in my former life, I was able to benefit from the program and passed that on to my municipality.

This program helps municipalities complete infrastructure work within a reasonable time frame. However, the problem is that the numbers announced in the last Conservative government budget were shared with municipalities in 2010. Now it has become a permanent program, but the new money that we would have liked to see added to the program is not there.

Unfortunately, there is no money for 2013. There is just $203 million on top of the $53 billion for 2014. There is only $203 million for 2015. In fact, municipalities will have access to all of the money only after the 2015 election.

The government is being proactive, but the majority of the money will be available for use only after 2015.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Basically, the government is trying to interfere in various ways in the internal policies of crown corporations. This is not the first time the government has done that; it has done so in the past. That is clear once again today, and in other recent events. Among other things, the government wants to be involved in the CBC.

As members may recall, the CBC's new code of ethics, imposed by the federal government less than a year ago, may also be dangerous, since it infringes on journalistic freedom and integrity.

The government now wants to interfere in collective agreements, which is completely unacceptable. Crown corporations must remain at arm's length from the government to remain independent.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois members to voice our views on the Conservatives' recent budget.

Although the federal government claimed it would negotiate pragmatic agreements with the Government of Quebec in good faith, instead it is directly attacking Quebec's unique approach with measures announced in budget 2013 and Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to ask the government what happened to negotiating in good faith. Where were the negotiations on the labour program that will deprive Quebec of millions of dollars? Where were the negotiations on abolishing the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Where were the negotiations on higher taxes for the Caisses populaires Desjardins, which will wipe out a portion of Quebec members' dividends? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly to retain Quebec's jurisdiction over securities? Where were the negotiations after the National Assembly's unanimous vote to keep Quebec's approach to homelessness? Where were the negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to worker training? Where were negotiations following the unanimous vote by the National Assembly against changes to employment insurance? Where were negotiations when the federal government imposed, once again, the “Ottawa knows best” doctrine to the detriment of Quebec's organizations and Quebec's approach? Where were the negotiations with Quebec when the federal government decided to finance the Lower Churchill project? Where were the negotiations with Quebec following the recognition of the Quebec nation?

There are many eloquent examples of conflicts.

Let us talk about employment insurance. As hon. members will recall, previous budgets have chipped away at the very foundation of our social safety net: government services and the old age security program.

Budget implementation Bills C-38 and C-45 were also a direct attack on seasonal workers and the regional economy of some areas of Quebec.

To justify its employment insurance reform, which harshly penalizes the economy in regions like the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, the government claims that it is trying to connect unemployed workers to available jobs, but really, it is tearing up its labour market agreement with Quebec, which helps unemployed workers find jobs.

In the last couple of budgets, the federal government has been trying to centralize Canada's economic development at the expense of Quebec's land use strategies, the well-being of the people in the regions and regional economic development. The federal government is trying to gradually strip us of our dignity and our pride in our distinct identity.

With last year's budget, it was clear that the Prime Minister was continuing to build his version of Canada based on his values and interests. He proved that there was no room for Quebec to develop within that model. This year's budget is simply more of the same.

Budget 2013 is a direct attack on the way Quebec does things. As for labour market issues, Ottawa will take away millions of dollars from Quebec that helped the unemployed find jobs.

In its place, the federal government is pushing a program that will force employers and the Quebec government to provide more money if they want the federal government to contribute. In order to hand out cheques with the maple leaf on them, the federal government is ready to axe initiatives that are working well.

Ottawa also wants to bring in a new formula whereby the federal government, the provinces and employers would put in up to $5,000 each to train workers. Although worker training falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is stubbornly forging ahead, to the detriment of our financial services industry. The Quebec Minister of Finance has also criticized this.

Now I would like to talk about labour-sponsored funds. The elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit is another direct attack on Quebec and its workers.

In addition to impoverishing people who are trying to save for their retirement, the federal government is also going to deprive Quebec SMEs of a key economic lever. Labour-sponsored funds are an integral part of Quebec's economic organization, as demonstrated by the fact that $312 million of the $355 million Ottawa plans to take away from workers will be from Quebec.

The Chantier de l'économie sociale has strongly criticized the abolition of the federal tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN. Quebeckers, including unionized workers, use these funds as savings vehicles and commit to helping develop Quebec businesses, such as social economy businesses.

Bill C-60 again includes provisions on securities, as mentioned in the latest budget. The federal government is extending the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office and still insists on creating a Canada-wide securities commission, despite clear decisions from the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In response to the federal government's budget, the Government of Quebec said, “Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.”

We have long known that Canada's Minister of Finance dreams of getting his hands on Quebec securities. Even after he was turned down by the Quebec National Assembly and the Supreme Court of Canada, the minister has not concealed his intentions to interfere in Quebec's key financial sector.

I would like to talk about homelessness and how the government does not respect Quebec's way of doing things. In its latest budget, the federal government said it supports the housing first approach, which could threaten community-based, universal homelessness initiatives that currently respond to very real needs in Quebec.

According to the Réseau Solidarité itinérance du Québec, all of the support services for some 50,000 people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless are in jeopardy as a result of the federal government's new policy. The federal government's actions on homelessness are worrisome. In addition to reducing funding, Ottawa wants to impose its housing first approach, which will force Quebec to sacrifice its expertise and the programs tailored to its needs. The National Assembly unanimously denounced Ottawa's attitude and asked that the homelessness strategy be redesigned according to the existing model and in compliance with Quebec's policies.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that the federal government's approach is unacceptable. It could severely hamper the work that people have done over the years on this issue. It would disregard the expertise that has been developed over time to reach the people in need most effectively. This is a direct attack on Quebec's way of doing things.

I would now like to talk about health transfers and social programs. Budget 2013 is one step closer to a $36 billion reduction in federal health transfers. It will have devastating consequences on Quebec's finances because it imposes new agreements for equalization, health transfers and social programs and withdraws money transferred to Quebec for worker training. This is essentially a slap in the face for Quebec. To achieve a zero deficit, the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are lobbing the deficit into Quebec's court. Budget 2013 ushers in fiscal imbalance once again.

For all these reasons, and many others, the Bloc Québécois will not support the next federal budget, a budget that is unfair to Quebec, takes aim at Quebec and takes away some of its fundamental powers.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since Ottawa has been completely inept at properly maintaining the Percé wharf, the entire tourism industry of the Gaspé peninsula is now suffering the consequences, not to mention all the fishers whose jobs are more difficult because of the closure.

The Percé wharf is just the tip of the iceberg. If the federal government could neglect one of the most popular wharves on the Gaspé peninsula that badly, one can easily imagine the state of other wharves, harbours and ports that belong to the federal government.

When will the government understand the serious consequences of its negligence and come up with a credible maintenance plan for small craft harbours?

[The Environment, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers have legitimate questions about the Enbridge project, which involves moving oil from the oil sands through the pipeline connecting Ontario to Montreal. The federal government now requires such minimal environmental assessments that they fall far short of responding to concerns.

Citizens, municipalities, environmental groups and the City of Montreal are calling for a real assessment of the project. That is why the Government of Quebec has indicated that it will hold its own environmental consultation.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to abiding by the results of Quebec's environmental analysis rather than acting like a pushy salesperson who works on commission?

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Quebec agrees: we must get to the bottom of the events that led to the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution and the serious allegations of political interference by Supreme Court justices.

Since Ottawa has not responded to the unanimous motion of the National Assembly of Quebec, this morning, the Government of Quebec had to submit three access to information requests in order to have all the relevant documents made public.

Rather than hiding behind the Supreme Court's internal review and making the Government of Quebec submit access to information requests, will the Prime Minister order the release of all relevant documents?

[Intergovernmental Relations, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Earth Day, we see that Quebeckers are unique in North America. They believe that fighting climate change is more important than increasing oil sands development in order to achieve energy independence. However, the Minister of Natural Resources, with the support of the NDP, is determined to force the pipeline between Alberta and Quebec down Quebeckers' throats and refuses to accept that Quebec may say no to the project or impose conditions.

Will the minister realize that Quebeckers are far from being convinced of the need for his project, and that he will have to respect Quebec's decision?