Meili Faille

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

In the last three months there have been many voices raised to illustrate the serious problems people in my constituency are currently experiencing, at the same time, and very appropriately, reminding us of the battles to be fought to ensure that the government grasps the seriousness of the issues and that Quebec comes through this in better shape.

There is still a lot of work to be done to improve the living conditions of many of our fellow citizens. Whoever we are—men, women, seniors, young people, immigrants, people with disabilities—we all aspire to live in a society where our values and choices are respected, and where the ideas of fairness and caring are not just empty words.

The participation of the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges has been invaluable and contributed greatly to the report that the Bloc Québécois presented, “Saisir l'occasion pour le Québec 2010”. The report is available on the Bloc Québécois Internet site. Together, we undertook a crucial effort to give them back their voice in Parliament during prorogation.

It is obvious that the present government has chosen to follow the path laid down in its 2006 economic statement, at the expense of the extremely pressing needs of Quebec.

With this Speech from the Throne, we have too many people falling between the cracks, while forecasters all agree that the economic recovery is weaker in Quebec than in Canada.

The throne speech of the Conservative government is far from perfect. It makes it glaringly obvious that Quebec’s needs will be ignored, once again, even though the Bloc Québécois has developed reasonable proposals that take the current economic situation into account.

Our priority is to help people get through the crisis. We have proposed measures to stimulate job creation and preservation, in particular in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

We have asked that education transfers be restored to 1994 levels, to stimulate the economy, to help Quebec and the provinces and to prepare for the future.

If the Conservative government is truly serious when it says we have to invest in education, we need $800 million for Quebec alone.

When the Conservative government tells us that it will not reduce health and education transfers, it fails to mention that capping equalization payments deprives Quebec of $1 billion in revenue. It has made unilateral cuts and it is determined not to restore the transfers. That is unacceptable.

Quebec was the first province to harmonize its sales tax with the federal tax. What is the real reason why Quebec is being deprived of $2.2 billion? Why is the federal government working so hard to undermine the capacity of the Government of Quebec to help its people, by reducing the financial resources available to it?

The Prime Minister’s statement is quite surprising and contradictory. Members can see this for themselves, by going over what was said by the Bloc Québécois and the government during question period yesterday and today.

I would also add that we have proposed strategic investments, to reduce our dependence on oil, and at the same time to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

I was not surprised to hear what the people of Vaudreuil—Soulanges had to say at our various meetings, when they clearly identified the endemic underfunding of regional environmental protection organizations. They are suffering bitterly from the inertia of the Conservative government, which, year after year, has ignored calls for increases in their operating budgets.

Businesses that are keen to innovate environmentally and that develop green energy expertise help to enhance productivity and contribute to the economic recovery. They also help to improve our environmental performance.

Businesses with an environmental focus have significant influence. They create new jobs and support the major shift our society must make in protecting the environment, for all of us and for future generations.

It is not surprising to see that, in the fight against climate change, the Conservatives are continuing to do what they do best, which is nothing. As they did in Copenhagen, they are refusing to eliminate the benefits given the oil companies.

At the very least, we can say they are increasingly moving away from the Kyoto objective, although the Canadian government had committed to reduce its emissions by 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

There is nothing on transportation. The throne speech is silent on the major investment needed in public transit.

Prorogation changed nothing. The Conservative government is steering the same course with its recovery plan, which is inadequate and unsuited to the reality of Quebec.

While growth in Quebec will be slower than in Canada, the government provides no additional measure to stimulate the economy. Where the forestry sector is concerned, the throne speech confirms that forestry companies were left to their own devices, which led to closures and layoffs. Loans and loan guarantees are needed to get the industry back on its feet.

The Conservative government is also continuing to attack culture by trying to make it easier to raise the ceiling on foreign ownership in telecommunications. By saying that the recession is not over, the government is making the right diagnosis, but is not offering the right remedies for Quebec.

Employment insurance reform is more than necessary. The Bloc did great work and was able to gather what I consider very realistic proposals based on what our fellow citizens face when they lose their job. Every day, each of the members on this side of the House meet with people who are unemployed, and the message is clear. What they really need is money in their pockets and in the economy.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed a significant improvement to the plan so as to provide greater access to everyone who loses their job. We believe that, with these changes, each year an additional 148,000 people will have access to EI. The elimination of the waiting period would mean that people would receive their first cheque in less than 14 days. Why not take a new approach to processing applications based on the assumption that the claimants are acting in good faith? That is the approach used in the processing of income tax returns. It is clear that the government has really no intention to make EI more accessible.

The Conservative government has ignored a vital resource in my riding and throughout Quebec. The contribution of community agencies often goes unheralded. In addition to helping out many of the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, they too create quality jobs in the region. We cannot consider economic recovery without the community agencies, hence the need to ensure they continue to exist and carry out their mission. Community agencies are known for their considerable ability to adapt and have always been forward thinking and creative in difficult times. It only makes sense for these agencies to demand better financial support so that government objectives tied to the well-being of communities hit by the economic crisis are not compromised.

The Canada Summer Jobs program allows organizations and businesses to hire students for the summer. While the program takes into account local needs and priorities, our various community organizations and businesses have an ever-increasing need to fill positions. While manpower was available, these positions that were not filled could have helped with succession planning in a number of sectors, enhancing employment skills in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area in both the short and long term. Enhancing the Canada summer jobs program would have been an appropriate and tangible way to help young people. We have to support the creation of quality jobs, not ignore well established programs. The government could transfer the administration of the program to Quebec, with full compensation, as previously suggested by the Bloc Québécois.

In this time of fragile recovery, choices have to be made, forcing the government to reassess some priorities based on the money available. The Bloc Québécois will continue to call on the federal government to use the annual surplus from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to supplement its investment in social housing to the tune of 1% of federal expenditures. If the Conservative government had implemented the proposals put forward by the Bloc a long time ago and invested heavily in social housing, we would probably have been better off during the housing crisis. Some families currently spend 60% of the family income on rent, while this percentage used to be much lower.

I have to say a few words about the measures for seniors. The Bloc Québécois proposes that guaranteed income supplement benefits be increased by at least enough to bring them up to the poverty line, this in addition to making these benefits automatic and paying retroactive benefits in full. There are also measures dealing with culture and agriculture.

I will conclude by saying that any enhancements to programs such as the guaranteed income supplement, social housing and employment insurance have been totally ignored by this Conservative government. Measures are needed to help these people, and we make it our priority.

[Government Spending, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while this government is trying to balance the budget by proposing flashy but ineffective measures, the media were reporting this week that the Department of Public Works awarded a contract worth $6 billion over 11 years to Profac for federal building maintenance.

By maintenance, they mean installing a doorbell to the tune of $1,000, purchasing two potted plants for $2,000 and installing lights for no less than $5,000. The problem is that the government refuses to provide itemized receipts for those costs. How does it intend to prove any irregularity?

It is even more distressing to see this Conservative government try to shift the blame to public officials. It was this government that extended Profac's maintenance contract. The government is responsible for this waste of public money by virtue of a basic principle that the Conservatives do not seem to grasp, and that is ministerial accountability.

[Tibet, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, March 10 marks the 51st anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against the systematic, brutal oppression Tibet suffered at the hands of Chinese authorities.

That is also when the Dalai Lama and other groups of Tibetans fled to India. This anniversary commemorates the thousands of Tibetans who died that day, as well as the thousands of Tibetan martyrs sent to forced labour camps in China.

After more than half a century, the preservation of Tibetan culture and heritage is threatened. Little has changed when it comes to human rights. Unfortunately, Tibetans are not likely to find the peace and tranquillity they once knew any time soon.

Together, let us recognize the strength of these people, who have not lost hope that their government in exile will find the common ground that will allow them to preserve their culture and religion.

The Government of Canada has a moral obligation to defend Tibet's right to regional autonomy and must urge the international community to push for substantive negotiations between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama.

[Seniors, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while this budget maintains tax breaks for the oil companies, seniors have been left in the cold. The budget does not propose any measures to help older workers who cannot retrain, and ignores the needs of the poorest seniors by failing to improve the guaranteed income supplement.

How can the government justify the fact that it always finds money for the oil companies but never has money to help older workers who cannot be retrained or our poorest seniors?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I am also presenting two petitions in support of the Bloc Québécois' Bill C-438. The purpose of the bill is to follow up on national round tables concerning the social responsibility of mining companies. I am presenting two petitions on the subject.

[Petitions, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from the citizens of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who are concerned about the future of their post office. They would like the government to extend its moratorium on maintaining post office services, which play an important role in the social and economic life of the riding. They believe that post offices in general make an economic contribution to communities. The petitioners also want us to oppose the government's bill to legalize remailers.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I could tell my colleague that I think that, at this point, given all the debate surrounding this issue, there have probably been 5,237 people listening to this discussion. Quebeckers feel personally affected by this injustice.

I went into some detail earlier. The general debate on this motion seems to have acquired a certain tone and drifted into more detailed issues that the Standing Committee on Finance can examine thoroughly. It is quite a hodgepodge, as my colleague said.

However, this is an issue that affects Quebec, particularly when it comes to financial compensation.

For Quebec, the issue is just that we want the federal government to recognize that Quebec was the first province to harmonize the taxes, and that it should receive fair compensation, the same as provinces that began harmonizing their taxes later.

If this is an urgent matter, I think it is up to the government to make that case and give this House a chance to deal with the bill at whatever speed it deems necessary.

If the bill can be passed quickly, fine. However, at this point, I would not want to shorten the time we spend debating an issue that is so important to Quebec.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, what would happen normally is that this bill would be examined in committee. Out of respect for all of the members who serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and for the work that they do, I believe that the Standing Committee on Finance is the most appropriate committee to examine the bill or do any additional work that is required. The process in the House allows us to refer the bill to a committee, so that it can do its job.

I believe that the committee has the power to make decisions regarding how it will conduct its affairs.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, Ms. Jérôme-Forget's letter indeed identifies one element that seems to explain the government's reason for compensating Ontario, that is, how the government calculates input tax refunds. This seemed to be a disputed issue, which, according to the Minister of Finance, is what led the federal government to transfer money to the Government of Ontario.

The Quebec minister made a point of writing to the Minister of Finance to indicate that we agreed to work towards that. So, if we are doing more or less the same work as Ontario, we should of course receive the same compensation.

I appreciate my colleague's questions. He knows that I work very hard and that I examine all issues carefully. The harmonization issue is crucial. Quebec is also concerned about economic recovery and compensation would be completely legitimate. The Government of Quebec's request for compensation is completely legitimate, probably for the same reason that the Government of Ontario is requesting it, namely, to stimulate each province's economy.

However, we must also trust this House. If this measure is as important as the government claims, and there are no bones of contention or poison pills, as I explained earlier, I believe this House is responsible and it will be capable of getting this bill through quickly, for the well being of the citizens of the other provinces.

I think everyone will agree that, in principle, the idea of limiting the debate on such an important issue is unacceptable.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a motion that would limit the time for debate in this House on the very important issue of harmonizing the sales tax with the GST. We are currently debating a time allocation motion, moved by the government, regarding the bill to harmonize the British Columbia and Ontario sales taxes with the federal GST, the goods and services tax.

I will explain why we will vote against this government motion. I think it is important to understand that we are in favour of having the government prepare a bill on the framework for harmonizing the Ontario and British Columbia sales taxes with the federal GST, but we are opposed to the fact that it wants to limit the amount of time spent debating it.

This bill is extremely important to us. I do not understand why the government would want to limit the amount of time we need to do all the work required on important issues like this one. I remind members that at the start of the debate on this motion, we did not have a copy of the bill in hand. The government wanted parliamentarians to debate here, in this House, before the bill had even officially been introduced. We should have never been put in that kind of situation. It makes no sense. In his speech last Thursday, the member for Joliette spoke about this situation at length.

The Bloc Québécois will give the government bill the attention it deserves. We must ensure that the bill does not interfere with negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa regarding the $2.6 billion in compensation for harmonization. The government is trying to ram through this bill by moving a time allocation motion. That is not what we want. We believe it is our duty to examine the bill before we vote on such a motion.

Quebec has been demanding compensation for more than 10 years now. It is unacceptable that this issue still has not been resolved. We have a unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec asking the federal government to treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation that is comparable to that offered to Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the GST, which would represent an amount of $2.6 billion for Quebec.

We intend to study this bill thoroughly. It is our responsibility to do so. We will not agree to the government's proposal that we not look carefully at all the details of this bill. The federal government cannot think that we are going to hand it a blank cheque. I can assure the House that we will not.

Quebec was the first province to harmonize its tax, and we want the federal government to come up with a solution that is fair to Quebec. That is not what is happening. In the past, the federal government had a habit of announcing bills that seemed quite fine at first blush. But we unfortunately would find out after a few hours of debate that they contained poison pills. Now, we are being asked to pass a bill after two days of debate. This is unthinkable, for the reasons I have just explained.

The Bloc Québécois will take the necessary steps to study this bill in detail, in order to detect the injustices to Quebec. The finance minister's 2006 statement penalizes Quebec. I am talking about the statement on page 68 of his 2006 budget. Under the heading Competitiveness and Efficiency of the Canadian Economic Union: Furthering Provincial Sales Tax Harmonization, we read the following:

Harmonized sales taxes are now in place in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quebec administers a provincial value-added tax, as well as collecting the GST on behalf of the federal government. However, separate provincial retail sales taxes continue to be collected in five provinces. The existence of provincial retail sales taxes substantially increases the effective tax rate on investment by taxing business capital goods and intermediate materials, thereby impairing the competitiveness of our tax system. Having to comply with different sales tax systems also greatly increases the complexity and the cost of doing business. The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

In this excerpt from the 2006 budget, the Minister of Finance never mentions anything about retroactive compensation for Quebec. That is what we are asking for. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to fully recognize retroactive compensation for Quebec. I would point out that over the past ten years, several finance ministers have recognized that Quebec has harmonized its sales tax with the GST.

To date, every province that has agreed to harmonize its sales tax with the GST has been compensated, except Quebec. Quebec will probably never be compensated as long as this government fails to recognize the principle of retroactivity. This government's failure to recognize the first government that harmonized these taxes is very worrisome and unfair.

As for the Government of Quebec, the letter from the finance minister of the day, Monique Jérôme-Forget, was quite clear. I am referring to her letter dated March 27, 2009, which my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, read in part during his speech last Thursday. The current minister, Minister Bachand, has reiterated the Government of Quebec's expectations.

I have a little time left to remind the House of the nature of the dispute between Quebec and Ottawa over compensation. It is crucial that the members of all the other parties acknowledge Quebec's situation and the injustice it faces regarding compensation, which should have been paid long ago. Over ten years have gone by, and this issue remains unresolved. It is not fair.

In 1990, the Government of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government to harmonize the GST and the QST. It provided for a gradual harmonization over two years.

In July 1992, Quebec finished harmonizing its sales tax with the federal tax.

In addition to harmonization, Quebec also negotiated an agreement to manage the GST for the federal government. As a result, the Government of Quebec collects and administers the GST within Quebec. In exchange, the government pays Quebec every year for providing this service.

On April 23, 1996, the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador signed memorandums of understanding to harmonize the GST with the three provincial taxes.

Six months later, the parties signed detailed agreements under which a new HST of 15% would be introduced in the three provinces on April 1, 1997.

Under those agreements, the federal government undertook to pay the three provinces $961 million over four years—$349 million in each of the first two years, $175 million in the third year, and $88 million in the fourth year—to offset half of the revenue loss caused by harmonization.

To induce the provinces to adopt the HST at a rate of 15% in the Atlantic provinces and 14% elsewhere in Canada, the federal government had offered to pay such compensation if the loss of revenue exceeded 5%. This “adjustment assistance” was based on a formula that applied to all Canadian provinces and covered all of the difference for the first two years, 50% in the third year, and 25% in the fourth year.

According to this formula, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia would not see their revenues from their respective sales taxes reduced by more than 5% under a harmonized system of 14% or 15%. As a result, they would not have been entitled to assistance if they had agreed to harmonization under the memorandum of understanding of April 23, 1996.

The arrival of the Conservative government changed things. While harmonization of sales tax seemed to have stalled, the Conservatives, in their first budget, relaunched the idea by opening the door to new negotiations on harmonization. We might have expected the situation in Quebec to be resolved, but that did not happen.

I read an excerpt from the 2006 budget at the beginning of my speech. It is the passage where the government excludes Quebec from the compensation it is entitled to, which is at the heart of the dispute between Quebec and Ottawa.

In the meantime, the Conservatives have reiterated their intention to keep talking about harmonization in every budget and subsequent economic statement.

When the Government of Ontario brought down its budget on March 27, 2009, it announced it was receiving $4.3 billion from the federal government for harmonizing its sales tax.

On March 30, the Minister of Finance announced he would be open to compensation for Quebec if Quebec completely harmonized its tax with the federal government.

On March 31, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion on tax harmonization and fair compensation from the federal government.

On April 1, the former finance minister announced that she would completely harmonize the provincial tax with the federal tax by creating a credit for inputs of large businesses. She wrote to the Minister of Finance to share her intentions.

In response to the Quebec finance minister's letter, the federal finance minister set even more new conditions for payment of compensation to Quebec.

First, the federal minister stated that from that point forward only one tax would be collected. In other words, we would stop collecting a tax on a tax. He added that Quebec would have to have to hand over responsibility for collecting the GST and the QST to the federal government, which would then administer the tax on behalf of Quebec.

For the Government of Quebec, giving up the administration of taxes to the federal government is out of the question.

To add insult to injury, the federal government announced in May that it intended to provide $1.6 billion in compensation to British Columbia for harmonizing its sales tax. Thus, It broke its own rules on harmonizing the sales tax and offered generous compensation to Ontario and British Columbia while stubbornly refusing to offer Quebec fair and equitable compensation.

That is why we must always study this type of bill carefully.

I would like to summarize the Bloc Québécois position.

In the matter before us, there is a disagreement, a dispute between the Government of Quebec and the federal government. I acknowledge that. I am anticipating my colleague's question on Parliament's responsibility to deal with the matter.

In the current situation, the government and citizens of Quebec are penalized. We will not ignore this injustice.

The government moved a closure motion for a bill that had not yet been introduced in the House. That is the first dispute.

The government began debating this motion even before the bill was introduced in the House. We will deal with the bill tomorrow in the House but, last Thursday, when the motion was moved, the bill was not yet in our hands.

The Bloc Québécois had to speak to the motion even before having studied and analyzed the tax harmonization bill in detail. We must be prudent and take the time to examine all the details of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois, on principle, will never give the government a blank cheque.

On principle, the Bloc Québécois is also opposed to closure motions on such an important matter that has an impact on Quebec's finances.

For all the reasons given, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this motion.