Lise Zarac

[Employment Insurance, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us take the example of the recent layoffs at Gurit in Magog. Many of the workers at this plant live in Magog, but others live 15 minutes away on Highway 10 in Sherbrooke. Because of the different regional eligibility thresholds for employment insurance, workers at the same plant are being treated differently.

Does this not prove that there needs to be a single EI eligibility threshold?

[Electronic Commerce Protection Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a good point, which is that an address is not a person. Even if the address from which the message was sent is available, how can we find out who was responsible for sending it? That is an address too. Of course, if it is an advertisement, there will be a name, but we must not forget that, much like the problems we had with fax machines a while back, large telecommunications or communications companies often send messages on behalf of insurance companies or other companies. So who should be held responsible? Such companies often have several numbers and addresses. How are we supposed to trace it?

[Quebec Entrepreneurship Competition, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to draw attention to the exceptional performance of two organizations from my riding of LaSalle—Émard.

Last month, at the Quebec entrepreneurship awards gala, LaSalle community radio, under the direction of Denis Routhier, was awarded first prize in the social economy category, while second prize in that same category went to the seniors' café at the Centre du Vieux Moulin, under the direction of Hélène Lapierre.

My sincere congratulations to the two prize winners for this fine recognition of their efforts. Their success is indisputable evidence of the value of team work, as well as of the quality of those working untiringly to serve the people of LaSalle—Émard well.

My wholehearted wishes for the best of success in the future.

[Government Spending, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are working hard to make ends meet, yet the Prime Minister has decided to give American consultants nearly $50,000 per month to do work that members of his staff are already paid to do. That $50,000 could help a lot of families that need employment insurance benefits but cannot get them. That $50,000 could help a lot of families put food on the table.

Why did the Prime Minister decide to spend taxpayers' money so irresponsibly?

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that in 1993, an agreement was reached with the four Atlantic provinces and they received $1 billion. The reasons mentioned are true. What has changed is the fact that there were negotiations with Ontario. In fact, all Quebec asks is to be treated like Ontario has been.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

At the end of the day, the Liberal Party agrees with the request. It is undoubtedly fair and reasonable that this money be paid. When I talk about negotiations, I mean that the Conservative government should learn what fair means. That seems to be a problem. We expect the Conservative government to make that concession and to be fair with all the provinces.

As for the Quebec government, we expect it to negotiate in good faith and to be open. That said, the request is certainly fair and proper.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did mention that some concessions would have to be made, but these concessions will become known in the course of negotiations. I could not describe them in detail since they will take shape during negotiations.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

But when the Conservative government granted a $4.3 billion compensation to the province of Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the federal tax, it ought to have expected it would have to negotiate with Quebec, the first province that harmonized its sales tax with the GST without any compensation at the time.

The maritime provinces also received a $1 billion compensation when they harmonized their own taxes. This turmoil in Quebec over the compensation that was handed to the province of Ontario should not come as a surprise. Negotiations conducted in good faith should necessarily lead to a fair settlement with Quebec, and that is what we are asking for. Complete harmonization of both taxes should normally entitle Quebec to compensation from the federal government.

The official opposition would like to support this motion by the Bloc. But it is always obvious for our party that in negotiations in good faith between the federal government and the Quebec government, compromises must be made. Quebec will perhaps have to go a little further in its harmonization process in order to get compensation similar to that given to Ontario. But it could also suggest that the new sales tax in Ontario is very similar to the Quebec sales tax. For instance, certain goods, like books, will not be taxed and reimbursement of the tax on goods and services used in commercial activities in Ontario will be identical to Quebec's.

Ottawa and Quebec should negotiate in good faith to come to an agreement on the way to harmonize the sales taxes, the GST and the QST, as I said earlier, in this new chapter of negotiations to standardize taxes. Quebec and Ottawa will have to make concessions to reach a deal that will satisfy the public.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part today in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec to resolve the dispute dating back over ten years regarding the harmonization of the QST with the GST in the early 1990s and agree to provide $2.6 billion in compensation to Quebec for this harmonization, and that Quebec continue to administer these harmonized taxes.

Our party is certainly in favour of harmonizing the two sales taxes. However, it is difficult to understand why the Bloc is giving this issue priority when the country is in the middle of an economic crisis. Market declines caused by the global financial crisis have left the solvency of Canadian defined benefit pension plans at historical lows and defined contribution plan members with shrinking retirement savings. We saw over 210,000 jobs disappear in three months, we have the forestry crisis, the closing down of plants and retail businesses, personal bankruptcies, the collapse of the auto industry, and the list goes on.

The list never stops growing. There is no shortage of subjects for a motion to make the Conservative government aware of this crisis. The Bloc’s decision to make this matter of harmonization of taxes a priority appears to have pushed into second place the numerous issues that could be submitted to this Conservative government, which continues to stumble over adopting solutions that would at least lessen the effects of this harsh recession on Canadians.

Having said that, it is still true that Quebec is the only Canadian province to have harmonized its sales tax with the GST without having received compensation, and negotiations in good faith between the two levels of government should be taking place.

It is obvious that the Liberal Party of Canada is delighted that the Government of Quebec is ready to consider eliminating the last obstacles to the full harmonization of the two taxes, including charging the Quebec sales tax on the GST. Given this opening by the Government of Quebec on harmonization of the sales tax, the federal government must also make an effort of its own.

Our party supports without reservation the principle that the federal government and the provincial governments should negotiate in good faith to settle the question of compensation for Quebec. This March, the Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation of $2.6 billion for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST. Quebec only wants to be treated in the same way as Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, which have all received compensation for harmonizing their sales taxes with the GST.

Quebec was the first province to harmonize its tax, to a large extent, with the federal government during the 1990s. It did not receive any compensation from the federal government. At the beginning of April, Monique Jérôme-Forget, who was then the Quebec Minister of Finance, promised to fully harmonize federal and provincial taxes in order to receive this compensation. Her successor, Raymond Bachand, has maintained this as the Charest government's position, while categorically rejecting that the Canada Revenue Agency should be responsible for collecting the two taxes. For it must be said that the unified management of the two taxes by Revenue Quebec is working very well.

Since the start of this imbroglio, the Minister of Finance, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, has continued to refuse to consider the Government of Quebec's request. As usual, the Conservative government has turned a deaf ear to any issues that could embarrass it. Meanwhile, the government of Stephen Harper, by granting compensation of $4.3 billion to the province Ontario for having harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax—

[Official Languages Act, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the debate, at second reading, on Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, brought forward by the member for Joliette, in order to explain clearly why the official opposition will not support this legislation.

This bill is merely the transformation of a motion presented by the Bloc, in April 2008, on the same issue. This is to stir up old fears on the same issue and to have us believe that the French language is constantly threatened, and that the efforts of previous Canadian governments to promote French both inside and outside Quebec have been to no avail.

What is even more ironic with this legislation introduced by the Bloc is that it proposes to force the Quebec government to interfere in federal jurisdiction. The Bloc, which has always boasted about defending Quebec's jurisdiction, is bringing forward a bill that would impose a provincial law on businesses that come under federal jurisdiction. That is really odd.

Moreover, for years the Bloc has been claiming falsely that the French language in Quebec is in a disastrous decline. The reality is quite the opposite. The 2006 census and the report of the Office de la langue française in Quebec, published in March 2008, both indicate that the use of French in the workplace has increased in Quebec, compared to the 2001 census data. It is also important to realize that the changes proposed by the Bloc could in fact threaten the rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec.

In many provinces and in the territories, bilingualism rates are going up, clearly showing the vitality of minority linguistic communities. A recent survey shows that a large majority of Canadians believe that bilingualism is a factor that defines our country. However, with Bill C-307, the Bloc strikes at the very heart of bilingualism, which is a Canadian value. What this bill is saying is that French must be promoted in Quebec, without regard for the linguistic minorities outside the province.

It is important to note that, according to Statistics Canada, the proportion of Canadians whose mother tongue is French increased by 1.6% between 2001 and 2006. In addition, during the same period, the proportion of anglophones who know French rose from 9% to 9.4%. The proportion of allophones who speak French rose from 11.8% to 12.1% during the same period. According to the Statistics Canada census, in Quebec, in 2006, nearly seven out of 10 anglophones, or 68.9%, said they spoke French and English, compared to 66.1% in 2001.

It is also important to note that the bilingualism rate increased between 1996 and 2006 in eight of the twelve provinces and territories outside Quebec. In support of the thesis that bilingualism is a core Canadian value, the popularity of bilingualism has increased among Canadians since 2003, rising from 56% in 2003 to 72% in 2006.

These figures are all highly revealing and show how false one of the Bloc’s main arguments is, namely that French is threatened as a language of work and that the situation could be improved by applying the charter to more companies. According to Statistics Canada’s 2006 census, 63% of immigrants spoke French in the workplace in 2001 and 65% spoke French in 2006. In addition, 60% of allophone immigrants used French in 2001 and by 2006, this had risen to 63%. Retail sales are a provincial jurisdiction and here the use of English in the workplace increased by 1%, which goes to show that even the provincial language legislation does not have the expected results.

The Bloc likes to rave over the French fact in the Americas but does not seem to care that the Official Languages Act is intended to protect linguistic minorities all over the country.

The French fact does not exist only in Quebec but in the other Canadian provinces as well.

Private member's Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, would modify the Canada Labour Code so that companies operating in Quebec yet under federal jurisdiction would be subject to la Charte de la langue française, a provincial charter.

The Bloc is trying to impose la Charte de la langue française, also known as Bill 101, on companies under federal jurisdiction, by occupying what they call a regulatory vacuum.

Indeed, section 34 of part V of the Official Languages Act states:

English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.

The Bloc argues that the law does not mention companies under federal jurisdiction, but rather, “federal institutions”, which would allow them to impose la Charte de la langue française disposition on companies under federal jurisdiction.

The private member's bill reveals the Bloc's hypocrisy on this since it tramples on already established federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc also fails to provide any detail on the economic and structural consequences of the bill for companies under federal jurisdiction, or on the Province of Quebec, which enforces language law.

Also absent from the Bloc's rationalization is how the anglophone minority would be protected.

If French were imposed on all federal institutions in Quebec, what would stop the other provinces from adopting charters of the English language and insisting that they too should not be subject to the Official Languages Act? What would happen then to the Acadians, the Franco-Ontarians, the Franco-Manitobans and the Franco-Saskatchewanians? The Bloc feels no responsibility at all for the Canadian francophonie.

Since Parliament passed the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation on November 27, 2006, the Bloc has been trying to force the federal government to implement policies that make the Quebec nation more of a reality.

Bill C-307 is just another attempt of this kind. By forcing companies under federal jurisdiction to comply with the letter of the labour relations code in the Charter of the French Language, the bill gives Quebec provincial legislation precedence over federal legislation, which in the Bloc’s view, would be a further recognition of Quebec’s nationhood.

Why in this regard would the Bloc not amend its bill to extend it to limiting voting rights only to people who pass a French test, as the PQ has suggested? When it comes to creating two classes of citizens, why stop when they have made such a good start?