House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 30% of the vote.
Air Transportation October 23rd, 2007
Let me remind the members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is a proposed new U.S. regulation. Our government has been working with the U.S. to minimize the impact on air travellers. So far, we have been able to ensure that almost 80% of flights will not be captured by the new U.S. law.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, whether it is in the Quebec National Assembly or the Parliament of Canada, I am always surprised to hear a sovereigntist rise and give a lecture on Canadian federalism. He is trying to discredit us by making it sound as though we are misleading the public. It is quite the opposite. The men and women here, obviously with the exception of the sovereigntists at the National Assembly, are people who are fully prepared to work for the well-being of the community and to reform Canadian federalism.
Neither my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie nor I can count on the support of the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois to help Canada and Canadian federalism move forward. That is not in its mandate.
The Bloc should tell the truth: it wants to eliminate the federal spending power because it is sovereigntist and wants to have everything in Quebec. We on the other hand, will be able to tackle problems head on and move forward with Canadian federalism. Talking about limiting the federal spending power is something significant and positive.
There has been conflict for 40 years. Who has anything to gain from it? Which political party in this House benefits from conflict or problems in the Canadian federation, if not the Bloc Québécois?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague raises a good question. He knows that we, on our side, will always live up to our commitments. The member raises the very pertinent issue of small airports throughout the country, not just in his riding and his province, but elsewhere in the country.
Obviously, the throne speech will not be supported by my colleague because, at the outset, he said he would oppose it. However, I can reassure him. As mentioned in the throne speech, we will soon unveil our Building Canada Plan, and hopefully at that time we will give him what he wants.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007
In Trois-Rivières.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my intention today is not to repeat verbatim all the initiatives and goals mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Rather, I want to focus on the proposed limits on the federal spending power, which take on a special meaning in Quebec.
The spending power, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Canadian Constitution, has been haunting federal-provincial relations for generations. As for us, ever since we were elected, we have made it clear that we want to restrict the use of the spending power, based on the criteria in the social union framework agreement, and in the 2006 and 2007 budgets.
The Speech from the Throne said:
Our Government believes that the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected. To this end, guided by our federalism of openness, our government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs [with the national objectives].
Therefore, our will to restrict the spending power is the direct result of a concern that has been strongly expressed by all Quebec governments from Duplessis to Charest.
I should also point out that respecting the constitutional jurisdictions of each order of government has been a fundamental principle of the Conservative Party since its creation.
However, as we have seen, the root cause of the problem, of this abuse of the federal spending power, will always be the fiscal imbalance. In other words, if the federal government did not have disproportionate revenues compared to those of the provinces, it would probably be less inclined and, more importantly, less able to get involved in areas other than exclusive federal jurisdictions.
This is precisely why we wanted to restore fiscal balance within the federation, as early as in the 2006 budget.
First, we restored fiscal balance with Canadian taxpayers, thanks to tax cuts totalling $26 billion. Then, we reiterated our support to long term and predictable funding for health care. We also made new, major investments in infrastructure. Moreover, we provided funding, to the tune of $3.3 billion, to the provinces and territories to alleviate short term pressures in the post-secondary education, affordable housing and public transit sectors. We also put in place measures to increase the federal government's fiscal accountability and budgetary transparency and we clarified the governments' roles and responsibilities by targeting spending in areas that clearly come under federal jurisdiction, such as defence and security.
Budget 2007 also included a renewed and strengthened equalization program, a renewed and strengthened territorial formula financing program, a new approach to long-term funding support for post-secondary education, a new approach to long-term funding support for training, a new long-term plan for infrastructure, and a new approach to allocating unplanned federal surpluses.
I think it is appropriate to point out that before a major problem can be resolved, it has to be acknowledged. The previous government thought otherwise, and the Bloc has shown, as it has done countless times before, that it can raise major issues but cannot do a whole lot about them.
We are very pleased that provincial governments, especially the Government of Quebec, have welcomed the measures we have taken to ensure fiscal balance. However, I should point out that this initiative was not a unilateral concession to the Government of Quebec. It was not a political favour.
We wanted to ensure fiscal balance and limit federal spending power because we believe that this will improve the federal system.
We all know why Quebec's governments—of all political stripes—have always been more concerned about fiscal imbalance and federal spending power than other provincial governments. It is because, since Confederation, Quebec's governments have been responsible for protecting and developing a society with unique historical, cultural and social characteristics within this country.
Recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec society has repeatedly created difficulties during recent and not-so-recent federal-provincial negotiations.
At the Prime Minister's urging, Canada's Parliament recently made a historic decision to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. To my mind, that is the crowning glory of our policy of open federalism toward Quebec.
That being said, clear recognition of Quebec's uniqueness must not result in abdication of our responsibilities to the entire Canadian federation. We want to strengthen the country's economic unity by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each government. Over the coming months, we will follow up on this commitment set out in the Speech from the Throne, just as we are doing with the federal spending power.
Taxation October 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I want to immediately make one thing very clear to the Bloc Québécois. We will not eliminate the federal spending power; we will limit it, as we said in the consideration of the throne speech. That is in French, therefore we can understand it: we will limit the federal spending power.
Taxation October 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is very aware of the areas of jurisdiction and it practices a form of open federalism. We have proven this with such gestures as recognition of Quebec's role in UNESCO, among others. We did so when we were able to resolve the fiscal imbalance to the satisfaction of Quebec. We did so, everyone in this House did, when we recognized that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. I believe that what they did not like was the part about a united Canada.
Taxation October 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it must be said that if this was a ploy—which it most certainly was not—the fact remains that the Bloc Québécois supported it. The Bloc Québécois quite clearly stands behind the report by the former finance minister of the Government of Quebec, Yves Séguin, whom I knew personally. But I have to say that there were other comments as well. Canada is a federation, and the other provinces had their say too. I have to say that the results in Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean have proved our party right. In fact—
Taxation October 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, in the 2006 and 2007 budget speeches, the government took into account not only the recommendations made in the Séguin report, but also a broad consensus among the provincial premiers. It acted to correct the fiscal imbalance by balancing the distribution of federal government revenues.
The federal government and the other provinces have been wrangling over the issue of federal spending power for more than 40 years, and we are going to tackle that.
Forest Industry October 18th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, obviously we must keep in mind that these things reflect the global situation. It is no secret that some sectors of economic activity are suffering. However, the economy is booming in other sectors.
In the Speech from the Throne, which the Bloc opposes, we clearly indicated that we planned on taking steps to help the manufacturing sector, the tourism sector and the forestry sector. It is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois opposes the speech.