Jean-Yves Laforest

[Goods and Services Tax, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to GST harmonization, there is no reason Quebec should not be compensated. According to a June 2000 document produced by the Library of Parliament's economics division, “Since 1995, the two taxes have been completely harmonized, i.e., they are applied to the same tax base”.

Instead of using strong-arm tactics in an attempt to arbitrarily change Quebec's prerogatives, will the Minister of Finance finally compensate Quebec, just as it has compensated Ontario and the Maritimes? It would only be fair.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly suggest that the Minister of Finance and all of the members opposite reread what the Minister of Finance said two years ago.

Yesterday, Quebec's finance minister wrote to her federal counterpart to say that Quebec agrees to changing the details that the Conservatives say prevent them from compensating Quebec. Quebec is ready to negotiate, but it takes two to tango.

Will the government commit to negotiating compensation for Quebec similar to that for Ontario in good faith?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as La Presse's editorial writer, André Pratte, correctly pointed out, “The Minister of Finance...should reread the budget he tabled last year. That budget invited provinces that had not yet harmonized their sales taxes to go ahead and do it. The budget named the errant provinces and, surprise, surprise—Quebec was not one of them”.

Will the government acknowledge that Quebec's sales tax is harmonized with the GST and that Quebec should therefore be compensated?

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that point. That is what I was saying as a preamble, and I was getting to the procedural matter. The position of parliamentary budget officer was created under the very first bill introduced in the House by the new Conservative government during the 39th Parliament, Bill C-2. Today, however, the Conservative party is waging a procedural debate on the role of the parliamentary budget officer.

Let us be clear. The real problem is not a procedural one. The real problem is as follows. Like many other public officials, the parliamentary budget officer upsets the Conservatives, who find a number of its statements and figures contradicted by this senior official. That is the whole problem.

Every time the parliamentary budget officer intervenes, he contradicts the government. He even told the Standing Committee on Finance that he was to present reports to the standing committee and that, to do so, he needed documents put out by the Department of Finance. He went on to say to the committee that the Department of Finance had not given him all the documents.

Clearly, there is a problem with equity and transparency on the part of the government. It is absolutely essential that the Standing Committee on Finance make a recommendation in that regard. Bill C-2, which established the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, added to the Parliament of Canada Act section 79.2(b)(ii), which states:

The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to

...when requested to do so by any of the following committees, undertake research for that committee into the nation’s finances and economy:

...the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Finance, the appropriate committee of the House of Commons—

The finance committee is indeed the one which hears the Parliamentary Budget Officer most often. It is the committee to which he reports. We cannot see how the sales pitch for this point of order could hold. Since the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports to the Standing Committee on Finance and this committee needs the Parliamentary Budget Officer's insight on the budget, we cannot see how it could be unable to ensure that this officer is provided with what he needs to do his job properly.

It is totally absurd to oppose a motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance, arguing that it is normal, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides us with information, which means that this absolutely has to be the committee reviewing the needs of that officer. As I said earlier, the last time he appeared before the committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that the Department of Finance had not been transparent, in that it failed to provide him with all to the documents he needed.

[Points of Order, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I deplore and regret having to intervene on this matter today. I find it rather ironic that the Conservative party is not supporting a motion to ensure that the parliamentary budget officer has the wherewithal to be as effective as possible. My colleague is claiming that the motion with respect to the parliamentary budget officer passed by the Standing Committee on Finance is beyond the mandate of the committee. I do not agree with this statement.

Before beginning on the procedural aspect of this matter, permit me to remind my colleague of the promises and claims made by his own party regarding the position of parliamentary budget officer. In the 2006 election campaign, the Conservative party complained of the lack of transparency in the budget process. After describing the inaccuracy of the Liberal party's budget forecasts, the Conservatives concluded that it was impossible to demand an accounting from the government if Parliament was unaware of the state of the public finances.

As a solution to this problem, the Conservatives proposed that a Conservative government would create the parliamentary office—

[Goods and Services Tax, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had really wanted to show good faith, he would have admitted that Quebec's finance minister said that the tax was harmonized in Quebec.

Quebec has never been compensated for being the first province to harmonize its sales tax with the GST, even though three Atlantic provinces received $1 billion in 1997 and Ontario is now getting $4.3 billion.

Instead of showing bad faith, will the government make a clear commitment to compensate Quebec and pay it the $2.6 billion it is entitled to?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister will say anything to avoid answering the question. Quebec's finance minister has clearly stated that the tax is harmonized in Quebec. Yesterday, she promised to change the few details in the harmonization of the TVQ with the GST that the federal government is using as an excuse to refuse to compensate Quebec.

Will the federal government show good faith and promise to “treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation that is comparable to that offered to Ontario”, as the National Assembly has unanimously called on it to do?

[Goods and Services Tax, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it would truly be the end of things if the Government of Quebec adopted federal legislation.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, in his role as token Quebecker, yesterday justified the unjustifiable by describing money received by the Government of Quebec for the administration of the GST as compensation. There must be someone in government honest enough to admit that this is not the compensation sought by Quebec for harmonizing its tax with the GST.

Instead of misleading the public, will the federal government do the only reasonable thing? Will it compensate Quebec and give it the $2.6 billion it seeks?

[Goods and Services Tax, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Quebec was the first to harmonize its sales tax with the GST. The federal government congratulated itself on this, but offered nothing in compensation. The Atlantic provinces received $1 billion in 1997 because they were losing revenue. Today, Ontario, whose tax revenues will increase with harmonization, will be receiving $4.3 billion.

Will the government acknowledge that, regardless of the party in office, the recipe is the same: any excuse is good to avoid giving Quebec its due?

[Goods and Services Tax, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, that was the government’s tame Quebecker speaking. We want to ask him another question. Once again, the federal government is trampling the interests of Quebec. The Liberal government compensated the Maritime provinces with Quebeckers’ money in 1997. Twelve years later, the Conservatives are digging into our pockets to compensate Ontario. In all, Quebeckers will have spent more than $1.3 billion to finance tax reform in the rest of Canada.

Does the minister realize that, regardless of the party in power, there is a double standard toward Quebec?