Maxime Bernier

[Marie-Philip Poulin, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that the people of Beauce who are with me today in Ottawa join me in applauding the outstanding performance of an athlete from Beauceville.

Marie-Philip Poulin, who turns 18 next week, has just been named to Canada's national women's hockey team and will take part in the world championship in Finland next month.

I admire Marie-Philip's discipline and determination. She already has an enviable string of achievements to her credit.

Good luck, Marie-Philip, and congratulations. All of Beauce is with her.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague. I think that all the members of this House also share the view that there should be equal treatment, and that is the aim of this motion.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague say she takes my motion seriously. I am also glad to hear that the committee is looking at this very issue. I wonder whether the committee is conducting a study because I have put forward this motion in the House. Perhaps that is what prompted the committee members to study this issue.

From what the member says, I can see that this is a problem for everyone, and it is so important that the committee is looking into this and I have moved this motion, in the interests of democracy. The study can go on at the same time as the debate on this bill, and I will be very open to any recommendations the committee may make. The important thing is to treat House of Commons private members' bills and Senate private members' bills equally. I am glad that the House is holding this debate today and that the committee is looking at this issue. I hope this motion will be passed in the near future.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a very good question about the rules of the Senate and the answer can be found in those rules. However, I can say, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, that we are discussing changing the Standing Orders of the House.

The most important point is that in the Senate they have their own way of doing things and this results in a privilege. I would not be worried. I believe that the members of the Senate would be in favour of rules that guarantee equitable treatment for all members in this House and also for the senators.

We have been elected by the citizens and we should be able to present a bill. In theory, if someone's bill is 60th on the order of precedence, the chances of it being presented and debated in this House within one session are minimal.

Therefore, we want to ensure that members elected by the people can present bills that are a priority for the citizens in their riding and for Canadians and that this list is treated fairly.

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 13th, 2009]

moved:

That Standing Order 89 be amended by deleting the words “and of second reading of a private Member’s public bill originating in the Senate”; and Standing Order 86.2(2) be amended by deleting the words “a Senate public bill or”.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my private members’ business motion M-277. I am grateful to my colleague, the member for Crowfoot, for having developed this initiative in the last Parliament. Given the urgency of the motion, the member asked me to bring the motion forward and I am happy and privileged to do so.

The motion proposes to change the House of Commons Standing Orders so that Senate private members’ business items are treated in the same way as House of Commons private members’ business items. It is very important that they be treated fairly. As all members of the House of Commons know, at the start of each Parliament a list of members for the consideration of private members’ business is established. A random draw is held to establish the order in which members’ names will be added to the order of precedence, which is the list of members’ bills and motions that will be considered by the House. Once the draw has been held, the order of precedence lists 30 members of the House who have the privilege of seeing their ideas, bills or motions debated in the House.

Of course, cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are excluded from the list. The principle behind the establishment of the list is that each member should have an opportunity in a Parliament to have a private members’ business item—something that is important to the member, his or her constituents and all Canadians—debated in the House of Commons. This principle was enunciated in 2002 in the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on private members’ business, a report that was very short and to the point.

Of course, a member can have one of his or her private members’ business items debated only if his or her name has been added to the order of precedence. Other members must wait until their name is transferred from the list to the order of precedence. This ensures a fair process for the consideration of private members’ business in the House. Unfortunately, there is a problem with the Standing Orders and that is why we have a motion before us today.

The problem is that our current rules treat Senate private members’ business differently from House private members’ business. Private members’ business items coming from the Senate to the House of Commons are automatically and immediately added to the order of precedence. I will repeat that, so we all understand: once they are sponsored and introduced by a member of the House of Commons private members’ bills coming from the Senate are automatically and immediately added to the order of precedence, ahead of the members of this House. This means that Senate private members’ business items get preferential treatment in the House of Commons, unlike bills by members of this House. Senate private members’ business items can jump the queue that is established for the management of House private members’ business items. Senators are taking advantage of the loophole in the Standing Orders and are sending an increasing number of private members’ bills to the House.

To be fair, let us look at what happens in the Senate. In the Senate, there is no list for the consideration of private members’ business or an order of precedence. Senate private members’ business items are introduced are added to the order paper and can be debated on any given day. However, in practice, the Senate rules allow the party with a majority in the Senate to control which private members’ items are advanced and which ones die on the order paper.

So, even if the Rules of the Senate provide for equal treatment in theory, in fact, this is not the case. And unlike the House, where a member can bring forward only one of his or her items in a Parliament, Senators can advance an unlimited number of private members’ business items. For example, Senator Grafstein has seven bills on the order paper in the Senate at the present time.

Some may say that we in this House should not worry about a few Senate private members' items. To them, I would point out that senators have already introduced 29 Senate private members' items. That is an average of one bill per day that the Senate has sat during this Parliament.

Since the order of precedence in the House is only replenished when the number of items falls to 15 after the House has dealt with private members' business items—as I said earlier, the order of precedence is made up of 30 private members' bills or motions—Senate private members' bills that are sent to the House and added to the order of precedence can delay the adding of new members of the House to the order of precedence.

That is why this procedure is unfair. Other members of the House have to wait indefinitely for the day their name appears on the order of precedence.

If senators keep introducing one new item per day, these items will be sent to the House, and the next members in line will not be able to bring their items forward until the fall or even later. It is basic math.

That is unfair to the members of this House who are awaiting the next replenishment of the order of precedence so they can bring forward one of their motions or bills. We need to ensure that the Standing Orders treat Senate private members' items the same way that House business items are treated. That is what my motion proposes to do, and I hope that many of the parties and members of the House will support it.

Motion M-277 would change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons so that members who are added to the order of precedence have to choose between bringing forward one of their items or sponsoring a Senate private member's bill. Members who want to sponsor a Senate private member's item would still be able to do so—but only when their name is added to the order of precedence.

This motion would provide for fairness in the way we handle House and Senate bills. Fair treatment will benefit all members of this House. I therefore call on all members of this House to support motion M-277.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because the facts are clear. The budget before us, on which we will soon have to vote in this House, will transfer huge sums of money to the Government of Quebec. I am very disappointed that the Bloc Québécois is voting against this budget. The Bloc Québécois was elected a long time ago to sit in this House, and its goal was to correct the fiscal imbalance. It took a Conservative government to correct that imbalance, despite the fact that the Bloc Québécois has been in Ottawa for 13 years.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for elected members from Quebec in Ottawa and in the National Assembly of Quebec. I would like to remind the member that during the first campaign that resulted in our election in 2006, the most important promise we made to Quebeckers—God knows that we made few promises because we wanted to be able to keep our five promises—was to not interfere in matters falling under Quebec's jurisdiction and to respect the Canadian Constitution as well as provincial jurisdictions. That is what we did.

It is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois wants to pick a constitutional fight over something. It is unfortunate that, when given good news—such as Quebec is getting its fair share of equalization payments and amounts are increasing at the rate I just mentioned and meet the needs of Quebeckers—Bloc members are disappointed by the fact that Quebec is getting its fair share. The Bloc Québécois does not share our vision of Canada. We believe that there can be a strong Quebec within a united Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

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

Very simply and very clearly, transfers have increased, as I said earlier. The goal for all Quebeckers is to receive their fair share in a way that is equitable for the entire federation. We live in a confederation and our equalization formula is based on the Canadian Constitution. In that regard, Quebec receives its fair share.

I hope that in the near future, the Quebec of my children and grandchildren will receive less in equalization payments, because that will mean that Quebec is growing richer. That is the goal, namely, to see future generations grow richer. And when Quebec is richer, the same formula will apply. I hope Quebec does grow wealthier, and with that money I am sure the Government of Quebec will do the right thing to help future generations grow richer.

The goal is to ensure that more wealth can be created in Quebec, and this government is working towards that goal.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Burlington.

The hon. member is opposed, among other things, to our government wanting to unilaterally amend the equalization formula. He says this is because it would be incompatible with the commitment made by the Prime Minister to the Government of Quebec that “transfers to the provinces would be predictable and long term”.

The Government of Canada has amended the equalization formula precisely—and I want to be clear about this—so that these transfers to the provinces may be predictable and long term. I would add that these changes to the equalization formula in no way reduce the transfers, contrary to what some opposition members have tried to say. The equalization payments and all Quebec transfers are at historical peaks and will continue to rise. In 2009-10, Quebec will receive more than $8.3 billion in equalization, a leap of over 70% from what it was in 2005-06, when we came to power. Indeed, the changes we have made only guarantee the sustainable growth of the program, in step with the expansion of the economy.

Out of a concern for fairness, we have taken this opportunity to introduce a floor, so as to avoid a contraction of the overall size of the program, and we have offered transitional protection to the recipient provinces.

It is not clear to me how the hon. member defines the word “sustainable”, but I suspect that his definition differs somewhat from mine. The fact remains that the equalization program has increased from $8.7 billion in 2003-04, under the previous Liberal government, to $14.2 billion in 2009-10, when we implemented the recommendations of Mr. O'Brien’s independent panel of experts. If nothing had been done, the costs of equalization would have risen by over $26 billion over the next five years.

Everyone knows as I do that this pace of growth is not sustainable, and the government would have had much more difficulty avoiding a long-term structural deficit. Like the Government of Canada, the provinces are aware of the consequences of unsustainable program expansion, and I can assure you that “predictable and long-term” funding is not on the list.

Anyone who witnessed the budget cuts of the previous Liberal government in the mid-1990s will say that, at the time, federal appropriations for the provinces were certainly not predictable, long term and on the rise. That is no doubt why, when the details of these changes were released to the provincial and territorial finance ministers last November, Minister Jérôme-Forget of Quebec described them at the ensuing press conference as “reasonable”, particularly in the circumstances facing all governments due to the current Canadian and worldwide recession.

Not only are these changes reasonable, they are also consistent with the recommendations of the O'Brien expert panel, which declares on page 43 of its equalization report:

The Equalization program must be affordable and sustainable over time. The federal government is responsible for determining how much it will spend to achieve the goals of the Equalization program.

Clearly, the O'Brien report recognizes that the financial sustainability of equalization is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. But contrary to what this motion would have us believe, this does not mean that we have acted without informing the provinces and keeping them abreast of the consequences of these changes. As I have said, all the provinces were informed of these changes at the meeting of finance ministers last November 3. They even had the benefit of exceptional advance notice of their equalization entitlement for 2009-10 so that their budget planning would be solidly based. A news release describing these changes was issued on the same day.

All the details of these changes were also sent on November 13 to the provincial civil servants responsible for the technical aspects of the program. In addition, the economic and financial statement of November 27 described the nature of the changes and explained why they were necessary.

When they met in December, the provinces were informed of the projected impact of the changes over five years. I feel that is proof that the provinces have been more than sufficiently informed of the changes.

We will continue to see that the transfers remain viable and fair to Quebeckers as well as all Canadians.

Federal support to the provinces and territories is reaching unprecedented highs. Key transfers are over $51 billion for 2009-10 and will continue to rise. The Canada health transfer will increase by 6%, the Canada social transfer by 3%, and equalization payments will continue to increase and parallel the economy.

At over $17.6 billion, the federal support for Quebec is also at an all-time high and continues to rise. Transfers to Quebec alone have gone up 74% since 2005-06, the highest increase in transfer payments of all the provinces.

And, as I said, transfer payments will continue to rise. In this time of unprecedented economic difficulty however, they will need to progress at a sustainable rate so that future generations can also benefit from them. This is why we are defending the changes we have made to improve the sustainability of the equalization program.

I would like to read from the daily newspaper La Presse some comments by André Pratte:

In reality, the Government of Quebec will lose nothing. The equalization payments it receives, which have increased considerably in recent years, will continue to grow—

He goes on to say:

To review a few figures, in 2005-06, the Government of Quebec received $4.8 billion in equalization payments. Since then, the federal government has expanded the scope of the program and corrected the inequalities and as a result, over five years, the amount received by the province has risen to $8.4 billion in 2009-10, a 74% increase—

Mr. Pratt also wrote:

Politicians—claim that the fiscal imbalance problem remains unsolved. Not only is that position no longer tenable, it is unreal as well. Today, federal transfers represent 22% of the provincial government's budget revenue, exactly the same share as they did in the early 1990s before the cuts imposed by Paul Martin.

Those were the words of André Pratte, a great economist and editorial writer for La Presse, and they confirm what I said earlier.

In the name of all Canadians in all provinces, Quebec included, I ask my colleagues to reject this motion.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre on his speech here in the House today.

Free trade is very important and I have a specific question for my colleague. For both countries, free trade allows businesses to sell their goods and allows buyers to purchase the goods they want, without governmental interference.

I would like to ask the member a question about the steel industry.

What will be the effect of American protectionism in the steel industry? I think the member has a good answer for us and I will be pleased to hear it.