Jean-Yves Laforest

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to answer my NDP colleague, but I was wondering the same thing myself. I have served in the House for four years. I know that there are members who have been here much longer than that. To my knowledge, in four years I have never seen a motion like this that asks us to vote on the length of debate on a bill that we have not seen. I completely agree that it is anti-democratic and unacceptable.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something. I did not hear many questions, but I will say that if some Liberal members were running for cover, they must have found a good hiding spot because we have not seen them.

It is very clear, once again, from comments made to me, that the NDP members would like to start a debate even before the bill is introduced. They want to debate its possible contents and its scope, when it is very clear that the Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to this motion because we have not seen the bill that it deals with. It is very obvious that this is unacceptable and anti-democratic.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague who has asked the question.

We, too, find that this is a threat to democracy. It is completely unacceptable that we are being presented with this type of motion.

I will reiterate what I just said. This motion asks us to adopt a framework to study a bill that we have not yet seen.

I have been a member of parliament for almost four years. I do not know if governments often present such motions. I hope not because it goes completely against what I believe in and my convictions.

I believe that if we want to establish a framework for debating a bill that is presented, it is imperative that all members of the House of Commons have had the opportunity to read the bill in question. They would be able to say that it should be studied more quickly for this or that reason. We have not even seen it yet. It is very clear that we will not be supporting this motion.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance introduced his budget in late January 2009. In it, he announced compensation for British Columbia and Ontario for harmonizing their sales taxes with the GST. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has asked I know not how many questions in the House about when the federal government plans to do the fair thing and compensate the Government of Quebec and the Province of Quebec for having harmonized its tax 18 years ago.

Quebec has been doing what others are doing now for 18 years and has never received compensation. In January, the government's Minister of Finance announced that he would provide billions of dollars in compensation to Ontario and British Columbia, but nothing has yet been done.

Today, we have before us a motion to hold the debate on the bill relating to compensation for British Columbia and Ontario in two days, but we have not even seen the bill yet. The government has started debating the motion before the bill has even been introduced in the House and before the Bloc Québécois has had a chance to speak to part of the motion. We voted on part 8 of the motion before even seeing the bill. Of course the Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion. It is unacceptable for the government to ask us to agree to a debate on a bill that may—I have to say “may” because we have not seen it, so we do not know—have repercussions on potential harmonization and potential compensation paid by the federal government to the Government of Quebec. That is what the government wants.

We are being asked to accept that a bill be introduced, read and agreed to, all in just two days, when Quebec has been asking for $2.6 billion in compensation for years now. Why should we concede so easily? It makes absolutely no sense, that is for sure. I said 18 years, but really it has been 17 years. Quebec harmonized its sales tax in 1992. Imposing a framework to deal with such a major and important issue, and expecting us to debate it for just a few hours makes no sense. We know that this will very likely affect Quebec, because the federal government cannot continue treating Quebec unfairly forever. We are sure of that. Sooner or later it will have to loosen its purse strings to compensate the Government of Quebec and the Quebec nation for harmonizing its tax several years ago. I will not keep on repeating the same arguments, but we cannot support this motion.

As I said earlier, the government harmonized its sales tax in the early 1990s. The GST had just come into effect. Quebec already occupied this tax field. The federal government agreed to allow Quebec to manage the GST within its own jurisdiction. That is still the case. We heard the Minister of Finance say last spring that Quebec did not really harmonize its sales tax, but that is false. It is merely a matter of perception and a point of contention for them. However, it really is not an issue, since it was all framed in an agreement.

Consequently, this is no reason for the federal government to deny Quebec the same compensation that it will pay to Ontario and British Columbia and that it previously paid to the Maritimes. In 1997, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland harmonized their sales tax and received federal compensation.

That compensation exists because harmonization leads to loss of revenue for the provincial governments. That happened in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and the federal government compensated them to make up for the losses these provinces were suffering in harmonizing their sales tax. The federal government plans to do the same thing for Ontario and British Columbia, but it has never compensated Quebec. It always has the same excuses. We have not even seen this bill, yet the government wants us to agree to pass it in two days. That is incredible, and it shows a lack of respect.

The Government of Quebec has demanded compensation from the federal government for harmonizing its sales tax, but the federal government has always refused, claiming that the Government of Quebec did not lose sufficient revenue because of harmonization to warrant compensation.

How can the government claim that Quebec lost less revenue than the other provinces? We have not seen any figures and have never heard any solid arguments.

It also said that neither Ontario nor British Columbia would be entitled to compensation in the event of harmonization because British Columbia and Ontario also, emphasis on “also”, did not meet the criteria used for the Maritimes.

In January, the Conservative government did an about-face on its rule for lost revenue and concluded an agreement with Ontario and British Columbia to harmonize their sales tax. This agreement included major harmonizations. In its budget, the government earmarked $4.3 billion for Ontario, $1.6 billion for British Columbia and still nothing for Quebec.

Now it is getting ready to introduce legislation to implement a framework for harmonization and compensation for both provinces. Before Parliament even had the chance to read the bill, the government tried to force us to adopt a motion for the bill to be fast-tracked before the holidays, but there was no argument to support such a motion.

It is the duty of the Bloc Québécois, and we are convinced of this, to examine the bill before voting on a time allocation motion. That is the crux of the argument for Quebeckers and Quebec in order to ensure that this legislation does not obstruct negotiations with the Government of Quebec on the compensation plan it has been calling for for a number of years now. That is why the Bloc Québécois is against this motion.

[Tax Harmonization, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is getting ready to introduce a bill that would establish the framework for provinces that harmonize their sales tax with the GST. This framework will eventually enable Ontario and British Columbia to pocket nearly $6 billion.

Since Quebec agreed to harmonize its sales tax 18 years ago, what is the government waiting for to compensate Quebec to the tune of $2.6 billion?

[Employment Insurance, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance measures proposed by the Conservative government, like the assistance for industrial sectors in crisis, are designed to meet Ontario's needs. In Quebec, the unions and unemployed groups are clear. The proposed measures do not do the job.

Rather than speeding up the looting of the employment insurance fund, as proposed in the last economic update, will the Minister of Finance propose a comprehensive reform of employment insurance in order to improve the system and increase accessibility?

[Forestry Industry, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cut off hope for everyone who was left out of his last budget by saying that he did not intend to release additional funds to cope with the economic crisis. After spending $10 billion on the automobile industry in Ontario, the Conservative government is telling Quebec forestry workers to fend for themselves because there is no more money.

How does the Minister of Finance explain his refusal to give Quebec's forestry workers what he gave Ontario's automobile workers?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I would like to ask her if the committee examined the following specific issue, either in its report or elsewhere. By calling for more contracts for small and medium-sized businesses, considering that the government seems to grant a lot more contracts to large firms, did the committee examine whether this would not result in the government giving out a lot more contracts under $25,000? Those contracts can often be put out according to the rules, without invitations to tender.

That is something I have observed in the past in my work with the Public Accounts Committee. I was wondering if this was taken into account in the committee's recommendations.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Conservative member's question to my colleague about not rising to support certain measures. I would like to ask my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who just gave an excellent speech, if it was not the member opposite who should have risen more often in his Conservative caucus to more forcefully defend the interests of Quebeckers. He could have ensured that the Quebec manufacturing and forestry industries were given the same treatment as the Ontario automotive sector, which received $10 billion in assistance. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about his speech, in which he referred to the home renovation tax credit, and said that the NDP was in favour of this measure.

I would like to know, based on the assessments he and his party did, whether this measure is as important as one might imagine, and whether it is worth carrying it over for another year.