Mario Laframboise

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want my Liberal colleague to be well aware that the Liberal Party's current position is in line with the position it has taken in the past. When Paul Martin was prime minister and Liberal leader, he signed a tax treaty with Barbados that did not include an information exchange agreement. That encouraged Canadian companies to set up subsidiaries in order to evade Canadian income tax. I know that Paul Martin himself benefited from this.

Once again, is the member aware that this is the good old Liberal way: signing agreements with tax havens where friends of the party can set up subsidiaries and avoid declaring and paying tax on income, because they would be exempt from declaring it here in Canada?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is aware that the Bloc Québécois' position has always been clear: Panama is a country on the OECD grey list of tax havens. Before the treaty is ratified, we would like the government to sign a tax information exchange agreement banning income tax exemptions for subsidiaries created by Canadian companies in that country. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to get the message that the Bloc Québécois will never promote setting up Canadian subsidiaries in tax havens. I hope he will support the Bloc's request.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, our very capable health critic.

I know that my colleague is well aware of the situation. All of the members in this House need to understand that 53% of Quebeckers' tax money goes to Ottawa, keeping in mind that corporate taxes are higher in Ottawa than in Quebec. That is the reality. Is there a way that Quebeckers can do what they want with their money when it comes to health?

It upset me to hear the Liberal member. The Government of Canada, which runs only one hospital in Quebec, the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans' hospital, is currently negotiating to have Quebec run it because it is not capable of doing so. That is the reality. The fact is that none of its 10,000 civil servants can run hospitals. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan, who has to live with this situation.

The lower north shore and the north shore include much of the St. Lawrence and part of its estuary. In the early days of Confederation, it was already the most important engine of economic development in Canada. At that time, the federal government wanted the ports because this was the engine of economic development. But as the years passed, it became less glamorous. It was less profitable in political terms because commercial traffic was no longer necessarily by water, and was rather by land or air.

Health networks grew up, and health spending by the provincial governments grew as well. The federal government decided to make some political hay. I recall very clearly, when I came here as a member, the first speech that then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made when he was in Europe. He gave the President of France a piece of advice. He suggested that he do what we did in Canada, leave health entirely to the provinces and then make decisions. For example, for emergency room waiting rooms, he could enact a law and decide to cut waiting time in the ER. He did not manage a single hospital. It made no sense. It is all very well to do that when, in France, it is the central government that manages all the hospitals.

That is the reality. If the Liberals wanted that, they should have told the provinces they were going…

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his question, but he is making the same mistake as every Liberal, past and present. Health is under provincial jurisdiction. Each of the provinces must decide what their health care system means to them. Are we at a crossroads? I think we are, but Quebec will decide what kind of health network it wants to have.

The problem is that there are more than 10,000 civil servants in Ottawa, not one of whom runs a hospital or a CLSC, or provides services to the public. Not one. They just work on programs and statistics. It is time to end federal spending in health and give each of the provinces what they need to develop their own network, as the Constitution of Canada requires.

If my Liberal colleague intends to amend the Constitution in order to centralize health care in Ottawa, let him say so and base his next election campaign on that. The Liberals would like to but they do not dare put it in their election platform. They want to centralize health care in Ottawa. All they have to do is put it in their platform and tell the provinces that, in future, they, not the provinces, will look after it. That is a political choice they would not dare make. They have never had the courage to make it.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois today, which was read so brilliantly by my colleague from Sherbrooke. This motion was drafted by our colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and by our House leader, the member for Joliette. It is clear. I will come back to it, but first, I would like to give a bit of an overview.

I have already spoken about how there are the young parties in the House, including the Bloc Québécois—which turned 20 this year—and the NDP—which is still quite young, but older than the Bloc Québécois. And then there are the older parties, which have been around since Confederation—the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. They are getting up there in years, and they have not evolved at all. That is the sad reality.

But Canada, Quebec and the provinces have evolved, and new situations have developed. To give you a better idea, I will read out the figures I just received for the Canadian provinces, because we are lucky enough to have the Internet, even here in the House. In 2010, the population estimates by province were the following: Newfoundland and Labrador: about 509,000; Prince Edward Island: around 142,000; Nova Scotia: 932,000; New Brunswick: 749,000; Quebec: 7,828,000; Ontario: 13,064,000; Manitoba: 1,219,000; Saskatchewan: 1,095,000; Alberta: 3,720,000; British Columbia: 4,531,000; Yukon: 34,000; Northwest Territories: 42,000; and Nunavut: 33,000.

Six Canadian provinces have populations smaller than the former City of Montreal, before amalgamation. That does not include the three territories, which have veto rights in the Canadian federation. I am not saying that they do not deserve them. They also have the right to be heard. Furthermore, they will probably ask to be given provincial status, and the rest of Canada will probably give it to them, especially since Quebec has not ratified the repatriation of the Constitution. So this is a possibility. The Canadian federation is an association of provinces that do not have the same capacities per capita. But there are territories that go with these people. New Brunswick, which has 749,000 people, is a rather vast province that has needs, as we have seen.

Quebec, through Hydro-Québec, wanted to buy their hydroelectricity service. It was practically a national crisis even though it was a small expense for Hydro-Québec. It was a big deal in the Maritimes. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador felt it was the end of the Canadian Constitution. The transaction did not go through but, still, the province of Quebec must evolve with its own values, which often differ from those defended by the rest of Canada.

Often, the resolutions unanimously adopted in Quebec's National Assembly are not supported by members of the Conservative, Liberal or NDP parties from Quebec because their visions differ from those of Quebec. But this is 2010. As I explained, six provinces and the three territories have fewer inhabitants than the former City of Montreal, and four provinces and the three territories have fewer inhabitants than the City of Laval. I understand that these people need help from the federal government in order to create health systems simply because of the size of their provinces. The problem is that health is under provincial jurisdiction. This is no longer the federation envisioned by the founding fathers.

The federal government has played that game. It decided to invest because it wanted equality in the services provided.

Often, the services were developed by Quebec. That is the reality. The best example is Hydro-Québec, which was developed without any funding from the federal government but with fees paid by Quebeckers who pay their electricity bills every month and work very hard to do so. That is the reality. Hydro-Québec developed a grid that is among the most powerful in the world, which means that tomorrow morning it could buy neighbouring companies with pocket change. That is the reality.

Once again, we are imprisoned in a federation that does not want Quebec to grow too big, that does not want Quebec to develop equality and justice for its citizens. A daycare system was created in Quebec and it is being tried in other provinces. All of the equality services that were created by the Government of Quebec have been, for the most part, emulated by the other Canadian provinces. However, that has often been done with a cheque issued by Ottawa, without Quebec receiving any compensation for the money it has invested.

As we know, health and child care are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Yet the Liberals are trying to create Canada-wide programs paid for by the federal government, even though Quebec has already developed its own network and invested its own money. Quebec wants either tax points or financial compensation. This has not happened. There have been a few piecemeal agreements regarding labour legislation and assistance for workers, but as for the rest, Canada-wide centralizing systems have been created to the detriment of Quebec. Year after year, decade after decade, we have had quite enough. That is the reality. Quebeckers are becoming increasingly fed up.

I will not read all of the texts, because I know my colleagues have had the opportunity to do so today. Whether we are talking about Jean Lesage, René Lévesque, Robert Bourassa, Lucien Bouchard or Benoît Pelletier, all Quebec leaders—whether federalist or sovereignist—have asked the federal government to give up its spending power in provincial jurisdictions. The federal government needs to withdraw and give us the money, in the form of either tax points or financial compensation, so we may look after our own affairs.

The Canadian Constitution grants us these rights, although the federal government—Conservative and Liberal alike—prefers to fall back on the Supreme Court, which allows the federal spending power. Quebec has gone beyond that. For decades now, we have not wanted the federal government to take care of our affairs because we are perfectly capable of taking care of them ourselves. The only thing we want is to stop paying 53% of our taxes to Ottawa. That is the reality. The federal corporate tax rate is higher than Quebec's. Some 53% of our tax money goes to Ottawa. We do not get that money back. That is the reality.

All Quebeckers are asking for is that when we create our own service, the federal government must withdraw and give us the money in the form of either tax points or the right to opt out with full compensation. That is what the Bloc Québécois motion calls for. The motion is straightforward.

The hon. member for Beauce has decided to get on board the ship that the Bloc Québécois has been sailing since it arrived in the House in 1993. Good for him. The fact remains that the Canadian federation cannot go on like this. We cannot have a Conservative Party that ignores the issues and that, during an election campaign, promises not to interfere in provincial jurisdiction with its federal spending power, then does exactly the opposite when it gets into power because it is politically expedient. Once again, the Liberals are proposing Canada-wide programs. I understand that. There are six provinces with fewer inhabitants than the old city of Montreal, and four, plus the three territories, with fewer than the city of Laval. I understand that the Liberals want to help them, but this must not be done at the expense of Quebeckers, who have paid for their own services, such as Hydro-Québec. The federal government even wants to pay for Newfoundland's underwater transmission line so that it can sell electricity to foreign buyers when Quebec paid for the same thing out of its own pocket. This House has to move into the 21st century. The old parties have to stop living as if they were in 1867.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the Constitution, but one must always consider the current context, and I would like him to reflect on that. The fact is that, setting aside the territories for a moment, there are currently four provinces in Canada with fewer inhabitants than the city of Laval and six provinces with fewer inhabitants than the old city of Montreal. We understand that there are some provinces that need the federal government in order to make progress. However, colleagues in this House must understand that Quebec does not need the other provinces in order to flourish. Quebec is capable of creating its own systems, its own networks, and its own social development plan.

I would therefore like my colleague to compare the events of 1867 and what is occurring right now.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. As I was telling her, it is even more unfortunate given that the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, is trying to establish a new economy. It is trying to sell it to us as economic development. However, an entire sector of our traditional industry—I am referring to the forestry industry—has been left to fend for itself. I have trouble understanding that. I can understand that the Conservatives are trying to play politics with this, but I hope that the people will not be deceived.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right, especially since Canada is headed for a record deficit of more than $54 billion. The men and women who are watching us, the workers and the retirees, have no hope that there will be a change in their personal situation in terms of the income the government provides, whether it is old age security or employment insurance, to those who need it.

It is even more frustrating when a political party, the Conservative government supported by the Liberals, decides that it will not ask the rich to pay their fair share, while those who suffer the most have no hope of seeing their income rise. They could at least have decided to take from the rich, who have been spared through tax avoidance measures, and improve support for seniors, the unemployed and those without work. That will never happen with this Conservative government supported by the Liberals. Never.

We have to fight hard against free trade agreements such as the one the Conservative government is about to sign with Panama, a country on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

My NDP colleague is right. I hope he will vote with us against this bill.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. I am also pleased to be speaking after my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who does such excellent work on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

First of all, it is never easy to keep track of the Conservatives because they go off in all directions, which is why they got such a bad grade at the UN. That is part of the problem. They are not focused enough, they cast too wide a net and they are not building a solid base. The result is inevitable. And we can see it in the agreements that this government is signing.

To begin with, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-46 concerning the implementation of a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

Yes, Panama is one of the most developed economies in Central America, but the Bloc Québécois cannot ratify a free trade agreement with this country as long as it is on the OECD's grey list of tax havens. This is very important.

We know that the citizens who are listening to us work very hard and pay their taxes. Some of them are retired and continue to pay taxes. We often forget that. The economic situation is not easy, which means that we cannot revitalize our economy. This is the whirlwind that the Conservative Party got sucked into because it decided to forgo a traditional economy. This is a choice that the Conservatives made, notably by not supporting investments and the forestry industry.

In recent budgets, the Conservatives invested more than $10 billion in the automotive sector, but barely $200 million in the forestry industry, which is nevertheless Canada's primary industry. Without forestry, the development and industrialization of the past 50 years would not have taken place. Unfortunately, the decision to not support one segment of our traditional economy forces us to attempt to open markets in other economies. That is what the Conservative Party is trying to do by signing agreements with other countries. In this case, it is Panama. However, this country is on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

The Conservatives' message is that we can do business with tax havens and that we will avoid paying taxes in Canada, all the while hoping that our companies will create jobs here. However, we are increasingly seeing the good jobs leaving Canada, right under the Conservative Party's nose.

We must examine what the Conservatives have been doggedly working on: destroying the traditional economy, including the forestry sector. They have attacked it repeatedly. I am saying this because the forestry crisis started well before the banking crisis of the past two years. The forestry crisis started five years ago and businesses had sounded the alarm well before that.

The Conservatives decided to take other action rather than helping the forestry industry. This inevitably led to lower family income. There are fewer high-quality jobs and this affects our retirees and seniors, who must make an additional effort and continue to pay taxes year after year. There is no possibility of indexing the assistance that could benefit or be available to them, or the very basis for retirement income. The increase in old age security is negligible and does not even pay for a coffee.

The Conservatives decided not to invest to protect our traditional jobs in forestry and other industries, and they are shifting the tax burden to seniors and retirees. This is a choice the Conservatives are making, and the Bloc Québécois is not fooled.

The Conservatives are trying to get good press, with the Liberals' help. We must not forget that the Liberals supported the last two budgets. They let them pass by sitting down and not voting. That is how the Liberals do things. They have no backbone. We know them, and we have known for a long time that that is how they are. They have given moral support to the Conservatives as they shift from a traditional resource-based economy to a capital development economy. They have chosen to have huge mining companies that are going to invest in foreign countries and hire foreign workers.

That is not what the Bloc Québécois would have chosen to do, and it is not what the Bloc Québécois has always stood up for. We want to keep our jobs and our money in Quebec and the rest of Canada. If we can help Canadians by standing up for Quebeckers, then so much the better. That is what we do every day in the House. We have to prevent the Conservatives from continuing to damage the traditional economy, and one way to do that is to stand up against this free trade agreement with Panama, a country that is on the OECD grey list of tax havens, as I have said many times.

Today, here in the House of Commons, we were treated to quite a sight during question period: the Bloc Québécois members were asking the minister in charge about the cases of tax evasion involving the HSBC bank that were discovered by the French. Capital was being held in Switzerland and other countries by people from different countries who were evading tax. The government likes to brag about recovering money, but it is dead-set against prison terms for individuals who defraud the people of this country in this way.

That is unacceptable. Our constituents work too hard, or have worked too hard, if they are retired. Yet today we learned in the news that the French discovered that Canadians were evading taxes. We learned this through the news. It took a report from the CBC for this government to wake up. In fact, it had not decided to investigate Canadians who were evading taxes by putting their money in Swiss accounts. The Conservative government realized that it had no political choice, since it is a minority government, and could be defeated any day. As soon as there is a crisis on the horizon, the Conservatives try to put out the fire. That is what they did by trying to recover the money, but they forgot that tax evasion by a citizen is a violation of the Criminal Code.

Someone who is accused of stealing a litre of milk from the corner store must pay for the milk and face criminal charges. So I do not see how someone who diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Canadian tax authorities could simply walk away by writing a cheque and facing no criminal consequences.

That is how the Conservatives work. They are trying to destroy the traditional economy, as they did with the forestry sector, and open up new markets with tax havens like Panama. We have never supported that; we will not support it today; and we never will. We will always be against the way the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, choose to govern by taking away from the poor to give to the rich.