Jean-Yves Laforest

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there are good free trade agreements and there are bad ones. Time often tells which they turn out to be.

I get the feeling that, in this case, the government made a positive assessment strictly from a business perspective, and that is more than we can say, because we are far from convinced that this is a good deal.

Colombia is not one of Canada's major trading partners. The human rights aspect does not seem to have been assessed properly.

In the words of my colleague from the NDP, the trade committee said very clearly that there needs to be an independent study. Why does the government not accede to this request?

[Forestry Industry, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government keep talking about $30 billion in loan guarantees, but this is not true. EDC does not offer cash. We know that the government is coming up with excuses so that it does not have to help Quebec's forestry industry, even though it gave $10 billion to help the automotive industry, which is centred in Ontario. Yet the numbers of jobs in these two troubled sectors are similar.

Loan guarantees are legal. Why does the government refuse to listen to the pleas for help from Quebec's forestry industry?

[Forestry Industry, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on International Trade, a lawyer confirmed that loan guarantees for forestry companies would not violate trade agreements if the loan parameters were in keeping with market standards. This is exactly what the Quebec Forest Industry Council is asking for: financing at a commercial rate to get companies through this crisis.

Since loan guarantees comply with international agreements, why is the government refusing to act?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague for the excellent speech she delivered to show the Bloc Québécois' position on the bill that was introduced.

She made reference to the Quebec model, which for years has been focusing on rehabilitating young people who commit crime. We have often heard, especially from the Conservatives, that people who are in favour of rehabilitation care very little about the victims and have no compassion for the victims or their families. The Quebec model has proven that rehabilitation reduces crime. Every stakeholder must understand that.

I would like the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to tell us whether rehabilitation reduces crime. Is having everyone working on reducing crime not the best compassion we could have for the victims and their families? I think it is the best form of compassion.

[International Trade, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is as arrogant as ever. There are worthwhile free trade agreements on the table, such as the one with Jordan, and yet the government is urging Parliament to adopt the controversial agreement with Colombia. The idea of unconditionally accelerating economic trade with a country that has an abysmal human rights record has raised the ire of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Why is the Conservative government insisting on the adoption—

[The Economy, March 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the hon. member, I would like to point out to him that he used a rather interesting analogy when he compared the oil sands development to a business that wants to manufacture widgets and sell them at a cut-rate price. But a visit to the factory shows that all the waste produced by fabrication is being dumped in the river and polluting it.

It would be even more interesting if the member said that the waste produced by the oil sands industry is much more toxic than that of any other factory producing any widgets imaginable. Oil production is extremely toxic. I would like the member to answer—

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this bill updates legislation governing the process whereby three maritime provinces were given compensation in 1997. The bill updates the framework, based on the assessments that have been done. Of course, this paves the way for harmonization and compensation for Ontario and British Columbia, but it also opens to the door to compensation for all provinces that decide to harmonize their sales tax or have already done so. That is very clear.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that most of the differences he is talking about regarding the way that the Quebec sales tax and the GST were harmonized have been resolved. There are just a few very minor points that remain, and they are not significant enough to justify the fact that the federal government refuses to compensate the Government of Quebec. It is very clear that changes have been made.

The main difference is that Quebec currently collects the federal tax and is paid $130 million by the federal government to do so. That is not an obstacle. It is the result of an agreement signed in 1992.

The $2.6 billion in compensation has nothing to do with the fact that the Government of Quebec collects all of the taxes within Quebec. The compensation is to compensate—as the word says—a government that has already harmonized its tax or that plans to do so for the revenue losses it will incur. The Government of Quebec has been losing revenue since 1992, since it harmonized its tax. It makes sense for the federal government to compensate Quebec, as it does for the other provinces.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that absolutely no deal or agreement has been made between the Conservative government and the Bloc Québécois. I will repeat what I just said. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill because it updates the act that serves as the framework for the 1997 memorandum of agreement between the maritime provinces and the federal government. The protocol and the framework legislation were much more rigid.

We now have before us a situation where it is clear that the federal government is agreeing to compensate two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, by removing the criterion of a loss of revenue of less than 5%, a criterion that Quebec did not meet. British Columbia and Ontario did not meet this criterion either.

We certainly believe that removing this criterion and modernizing the legislation will make it easier to reach an eventual agreement. We hope that Quebec and the federal government will reach an agreement as quickly as possible. However, there is no agreement in place and there is no guarantee that it will happen. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight this battle in this House, in keeping with the unanimous resolution adopted by Quebec's National Assembly in February 2009.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that Bloc Québécois members support Bill C-62, which is before us today. Yesterday, some people were wondering whether we opposed the time allocation motion for this bill, given that we did not even see the bill until after the motion was moved. That was completely unacceptable. But now that the motion has been adopted, we agree with the House's decision.

We support this bill, but not for the same reasons as other members, be they Conservative or Liberal. We respect Ontario and British Columbia's decision to harmonize their provincial sales taxes with the GST, because that is what Quebec has been doing for many years now.

We would like to reiterate the request made by Quebec's National Assembly last spring in a unanimous resolution: Quebec must receive fair compensation for having harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax beginning in 1992.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for fair and equal treatment for Quebec in all matters. The federal government changed the rules of the harmonization game. When it compensated the maritime provinces—New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—it said that Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec would not be eligible for compensation because they stood to lose less than 5% of their tax revenue.

As we have seen, the federal government changed the rules for Ontario and British Columbia. Its latest budget included funds for compensating those two provinces. The Government of Quebec, naturally, passed a unanimous resolution telling the federal government that it makes no sense to change the rules and that it must take into account what Quebec has done in previous years. I will come back to that.

We intend to continue putting pressure on the federal government to resolve this contentious issue that has been around for many years. This is a matter of equality.

I want to put this into context. We know that the Government of Quebec harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax in the early 1990s. At that time, the federal government agreed to allow Quebec to manage the GST within its own jurisdiction.

In 1997, the federal government offered compensation to three provinces—New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal tax.

Unlike the situation in Quebec, the federal government would manage the federal part as well as the provincial part of the new harmonized tax. As compensation for the loss of revenue caused by harmonization, the federal government paid nearly $1 billion to those three provinces.

Since then, the Government of Quebec has been asking Ottawa for compensation for harmonizing its sales taxes, which it had done five years earlier. However, even though it recognized the Government of Quebec's full harmonization of sales taxes, the federal government refused to compensate Quebec, claiming that the Quebec government's loss of revenue caused by the harmonization was not enough to justify such compensation.

At that time, in order to receive compensation, the loss of revenue caused by the harmonization of the provincial portion of the sales tax had to exceed 5% of the total amount of the provincial tax. At the same time, the federal government said that Ontario and British Columbia were not entitled to this compensation.

But the government is now going back on its word on this lost revenue rule and it has reached an agreement with Ontario and British Columbia. This agreement included significant compensation, to the tune of $4.3 billion for Ontario and $1.6 billion for British Columbia. One might say that, by rejecting the 5% criterion, the federal government has now opened the door for Quebec to qualify for compensation. The rules of the game have been changed for two provinces, so why not change them for Quebec as well and ensure that it, too, is eligible for compensation.

Instead of naturally and fairly compensating Quebec for having harmonized its tax five years earlier, in other words in 1992—or 17 years ago now—the Conservatives, using their legendary bad faith, have started coming up with new excuses not to give Quebec the $2.6 billion it is owed.

In response to their claim, which surprised Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, that the Government of Quebec had not in fact completely harmonized its sales tax with the federal government, Quebec committed to doing one thing right away. There were certain inputs for big companies that were still not exempt from QST. The finance minister announced that the Government of Quebec would proceed with those adjustments. Then, and we heard it here in this House, the Conservatives found new reasons not to compensate Quebec. They said that Quebec should stop charging tax on tax. Through its finance minister, the Government of Quebec promised to so do.

What did the federal government do? It came up with another excuse. From now on, only provinces whose federal and provincial sales taxes are collected by the federal government will be compensated. An agreement was made in 1992 whereby the Government of Quebec would collect the tax on behalf of the federal government. This is just another fine example of the predatory federalism practised by the Conservative government.

As I said earlier, when the two sales taxes were harmonized in 1991, the Government of Quebec entered into an agreement with the federal government whereby the Government of Quebec would collect the tax on behalf of both governments and then pay Ottawa its share. For Quebec, it was and still is a question of autonomy. In exchange, the federal government would pay Quebec $130 million annually. This was not compensation, but payment for services rendered.

The Bloc Québécois respects the decision by Ontario and British Columbia to have the federal government collect their sales taxes. That is their choice and their business. But the Bloc Québécois will support the Government of Quebec in its fight against the federal government, which is trying to take away Quebec's power to collect the GST in Quebec on Ottawa's behalf.

Those are the main reasons why, although we are in favour of the bill, we are still certain that until this dispute between Quebec City and Ottawa is resolved, there will still be an injustice. We are going to work hard to put an end to this injustice and ensure that the federal government provides Quebec with compensation pro-rated to its population and the amount of sales tax collected in Quebec, as it is planning to do for Ontario and British Columbia. Quebec must be compensated fairly for what it has been doing for many years under the sales tax harmonization agreement.

In closing, I would like to say that we will certainly not let this dispute continue. We are not going to let the current government keep on acting unfairly and denying what the Government of Quebec has already done to harmonize its sales tax and even make adjustments. When adjustments have been needed, they have been made quickly.

We are certain that, because of this bill, the provinces will be somewhat more able to create or enter into agreements with the federal government more easily. That is the upside of this bill and that is why we will vote for it.