Jean-Yves Laforest

[Taxation, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while six European countries are calling for sanctions against tax havens, the Minister of Finance is doing the exact opposite by allowing companies to use them to twice deduct interest on their loans.

At a time when his government is refusing to help industries in difficulty and the unemployed, how can the minister give greater access to tax havens and encourage tax leakage?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises an important point regarding the extreme partisanship practised by this government. As we know, the government was elected to represent all citizens. Normally, the citizens of all regions of the country—regardless of the party they voted for, since that is democracy—could have expected that some measures would apply to them.

There are also very real concerns about this government practising extreme partisanship. In Quebec, we have even seen public servants already following in the footsteps of MPs or ministers who have announced that certain regions will not receive certain subsidies, because they did not vote for the right party. It feels like 1940, during the good old days of Duplessis, and it is deeply regrettable. This is step backwards for democracy in Canada and Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his question. It seems as though the government has used this budget bill as something of a catch-all. It includes amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget bill.

If the government really wanted to take honest, concrete steps to stimulate the economy the right way and approach its governmental responsibilities coherently, this bill would not include measures to change responsibilities with respect to navigable waters, just to avoid future environmental studies.

Nor would it include amendments to pay equity legislation that attack women's rights, or unilateral changes to the equalization formula, as I mentioned earlier, without going through the usual channels for amending the formula.

It would also not include clauses that give the government $150 million to gradually set up a single, Canada-wide securities commission that almost nobody in Quebec wants. Last January, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution to that effect.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak to the changes proposed in the Bloc Québécois amendment.

With regard to equalization, we propose to delete clauses 383 to 392. The Conservative government has proposed similar measures that, in a way, completely change major elements it had announced in 2007.

With the change in the equalization formula, the increase in equalization payments will be much smaller, Payments will be $991 million less for the fiscal year running from April 1, 2009 to 2010. This is significant, because Quebec was counting on that $1 billion.

Equalization payments are planned well in advance. Increases in those payments are also planned well in advance, and a province like Quebec plans its expenditures and the services it will provide for the public accordingly. The federal government is using an economic crisis as an excuse to unilaterally modify a formula that had already been agreed on. That is what is known as passing the buck to the provinces.

As I said earlier, this represents a shortfall of just about $1 billion for Quebec for next year alone. Just imagine the services the Government of Quebec is going to have to take away from people. What services will it eliminate? What tough choices will the Government of Quebec have to make because the federal government decided on its own to change a formula?

One feature of the changes made in 2007 is that they were predictable. That was one of the strong arguments put forward by the Conservative government in 2007: from now on, the equalization amounts the provinces receive will be known in advance. I will come back to this later. That was a strong argument made by the Conservative government, which even said it was correcting the fiscal imbalance in this way.

We do not agree that the fiscal imbalance has been corrected, far from it. In fact, the fiscal imbalance will be corrected when the government stops collecting tax money where it has no business doing so and transfers those tax points to the provinces, including Quebec. But that is another issue.

This change, which was announced in November during the Minister of Finance's update and during a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of finance not long afterwards, and which has been confirmed, completely changed the Quebec government's calculations. Consequently, Quebec's National Assembly held a special session in January where the three political parties—I should say four political parties, since there is now a fourth one represented—unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the federal government's intention to unilaterally modify the equalization formula.

This motion, which was unanimously passed, urges the federal government to keep the equalization formula as it is now. We did not create the current formula. Rather, in 2007, the Conservative government agreed to a new formula. The Prime Minister even wrote to the Quebec Premier to tell him in no uncertain terms that “...for the first time in decades, provinces and territories can now count on long-term, predictable and substantially growing federal support for shared priorities including health care, post-secondary education, training and social programs, and the rebuilding of Canada's infrastructure.”

Knowing that these words were written by the current Prime Minister just two years ago and that today, the government is unilaterally putting an end to it, we no longer have confidence in this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who is the same one as in 2007.

It is a matter of trust, because a commitment was made, in the budget and in a specific letter, to be a good government. As well, a plan was promised that would reflect a strong commitment to open federalism and respect for provincial jurisdictions, notably by limiting the use of the federal spending power. That letter even added that Quebec would benefit from long-term, predictable transfer payments and new investments in post-secondary education. That was not all. In the second last paragraph of that letter, the Prime Minister wrote, “We are establishing a solid foundation based on budgetary accountability and transparency and long-term, predictable fiscal arrangements.”

All that did not last very long. Today, we are faced with a budget that shows very clearly and distinctly that the federal government is making unilateral changes to these arrangements, which were supposed to be predictable. It is nonsense for the federal government to make changes unilaterally. It ought to have called a federal-provincial conference to discuss them, since it had already made a commitment that the arrangements would be predictable and long-term. I have already referred to trust in connection with the fine words of the Minister of Finance in 2007, but that is now a thing of the past.

The people of Quebec have great difficulty in trusting this Conservative government, Once again they have been given strong reasons for not trusting it. It says things, but what good is its word? It does not keep promises. It makes commitments, but does not stick to them.

There is a myth in Canada, particularly in the west, that Quebec is the spoiled child of Confederation, the one that takes everything and gives nothing in return, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that Quebec receives substantial equalization payments, but that is just because Quebec is a very populous province. But if the whole amount is recalculated per capita, it is very clear that Quebec is not the spoiled child of federalism, absolutely not. In past years, Quebec received $1,037 per capita, while Prince Edward Island got $2,310, New Brunswick $2,111, and Newfoundland and Labrador $1,781. The disproportion is very clear and it is also very clear that these changes will have a major impact on the future of public services in Quebec, particularly in the areas of education, health, and early childhood resources.

We are therefore suggesting these changes, and we hope all opposition parties will vote in favour of these amendments, so that Quebec will be able to regain the share of the equalization payments that the Conservative federal government has abolished unilaterally, which will cause great suffering to Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

moved:

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to see the Conservative members, one after the other, applaud the Liberal member to show how happy they are to see him support the Conservative Party's budget proposals, which fly in the face of a rather important environmental process. We are having a hard time understanding the Liberal Party's attitude and its current position, which is to support the government in measures that are completely contrary to the process we now have in place for protecting the environment and navigable waterways. I would like to hear the member's point of view on this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the amendments put forward by the NDP to eliminate the amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Last week, a number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance said they disagreed completely with the government's plan to introduce such changes in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009. The arguments we heard were quite commendable, in my opinion. The witnesses explained that many infrastructure projects will no doubt be carried out without an environmental assessment. We know that infrastructure projects that involve navigable waterways affect the environment, and not just for one, two or three weeks. Eventually, we will create problems that will do permanent damage to the environment.

Building a bridge where there should not be one, rather than making changes to a structure to take into account the specific environmental conditions and the navigability of these waters, will lead to major problems in future. In the name of development, and to the detriment of the environment, projects will go ahead that, one day or another, will be counterproductive. People are saying that we have to move quickly even if we contravene the Environmental Protection Act. It will be future generations who are affected and who will pay the price. Yet, to be productive globally, corporations must increasingly look at the big picture.

The second reason why the Bloc Québécois will support these amendments is because it is obvious that the Conservative government knew that the Liberals would support this budget implementation bill. They took advantage of this and included a series of measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process. I am referring to pay equity as well as navigable waters. It makes absolutely no sense for the Conservative government to have included in the budget implementation bill a clause to amend this act.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carried out important studies of amendments that could be made. This issue should have gone back to that committee. These amendments do not belong in the budget implementation bill. That is the second reason why the Bloc Québécois will support the NDP amendment to eliminate these changes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. Liberal colleague. On one hand, he is promoting the need to adopt budgetary measures as soon as possible to stimulate the economy, but on the other hand, he acknowledges that the budget contains some rather negative measures. If I understood his speech correctly, these measures would have led him to vote against it in other times. I would like him to explain how it is that he is more or less willing to go back on his previous commitments in order to support such a budget. Indeed, we know that, among the projects that are supposed to begin immediately, there is a very good chance that those involving navigable waterways could cause considerable damage to the environment.

How can he reconcile these two situations? He is for environmental measures, but at the end of the day, he is in favour of this budget and the environmental measures go out the window. I do not understand.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to Bill C-10 to implement the budget, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that were then grouped with other amendments. The main purpose of the Bloc Québécois' amendments was to delete the entire portion of the bill relating to the government's intention to create a single securities commission.

Last week, during the Bloc Québécois opposition day, we focused on this issue. In Quebec, there has been strong opposition to this plan for several years. The Conservative government had a so-called expert panel undertake some studies and, in the end, it told the government exactly what it wanted to hear.

Quebec has always been against this plan, primarily because of jurisdiction. Securities regulation falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. The federal government must respect that. That is the main reason the Bloc Québécois proposed the amendment to delete provisions creating a single, Canada-wide securities commission from the bill. Such a commission would result in a regulatory monopoly that we believe would be dangerous for the entire regulated securities sector.

We currently have a proven system that has been made better with the introduction of the 13 passports. Within this system, the various regulators can deal with each other and institutions or organizations regulated by one entity can do business with the other 12 regulators.

At present, only Ontario has refused to take part in this initiative, which has been commended by the OECD and the International Monetary Fund as being very effective. Ontario has refused to take part because, by refusing, it put pressure on the government to waste no time in creating a single securities regulator that would likely be located in that province. That would have many benefits for Ontario, but not for Quebec.

With the changes affecting stock markets, including the case of the Montreal Stock Exchange versus the Toronto Stock Exchange, the securities regulator in Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers, has become the last bastion protecting the industry and securities trading in Quebec. The current passport system has made it possible for several organizations to exist, and it will continue to do so. It provides balance. The smaller regulators can encourage diversity and innovation.

We have only to think of the solidarity fund managed by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec or FTQ. This is a Quebec innovation, but other provinces have also made innovations. The current system makes these innovations possible. It provides protection against overly large markets that would create a form of regulatory monopoly, as I said earlier.

This bill would establish a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office. This bill would provide the government with $150 million for this plan. We do not need such a system. To start, we would save $150 million. We can see that the government wants to spend large sums at a time when the economy needs the money. Creating this kind of an organization does not make sense; this money should go into supporting businesses. We are reminding the government almost daily that it must increase its help to Quebec's forestry industry, yet it is contributing only $170 million for the entire forestry industry across Canada. This is pitiful compared to the $2.7 billion given to the auto industry in Ontario. This $150 million could very easily be directed elsewhere. It would not entirely correct the inequity, but it would at least serve to soften the severe blows to Quebec's forestry industry.

This group of amendments also deals with tax havens. If it passes—which we hope it will—one of the amendments would ensure that the government cannot back down on recent announcements. In 2007, it said that tax havens are unfair to small and medium-size businesses and to workers in various sectors, because businesses that benefit from tax havens pay less tax, and then the tax which the government requires in order to fulfill its responsibilities comes, for the most part, from the pockets of workers and small and medium-size businesses.

This amendment would keep the government from backing down on previous commitments. We will support this amendment to remove the entire clause pertaining to tax havens from Bill C-10.

To conclude, I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for these Group No. 1 amendments.

[The Economy, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question.

The Prime Minister has to accept the fact that he has a minority government. He has to bear that in mind and work together with the opposition. By asking us to sign a blank cheque for $3 billion without even listening to our suggestions, he is showing us that he just does not get it.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he is doing anything but boost public confidence during this time of economic crisis?