Pierre Paquette

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think he is absolutely right. In fact, the Standing Committee on Finance heard witnesses regarding the government's intention to abolish the GST visitor rebate program. This is what we were told, not only at the border, where there are often private counters that give refunds. Indeed, one third of the program is administered by private firms that collect a certain percentage for their services. These facilities are often located in shopping malls, so that tourists who find themselves with cash in their pockets will use it to buy products in the surrounding stores.

This does have a snowball effect, not only for shops located at the borders—such as duty free shops for example—but also in all the shopping malls that have such counters. Let us not forget that we are talking about $80 million here. I should point out that the federal government has revenues totalling close to $2.350 billion. I think there is a disproportion here, and it costs about $8 million to administer the program. We are told that it is not being used enough. Then, let us integrate it into a strategy to promote tourism.

As I mentioned, it is unacceptable that this measure would come at a time when the value of the Canadian dollar has increased significantly in recent years, and at a time when authorities want Canadians who travel by land to the United States, and people who come into Canada from the United States, to carry a passport. It seems to me that the Conservative government should act responsibly and not add yet another hurdle for our industry, not to mention the cuts affecting Canada's tourism strategy. For all these reasons, common sense should again make the government reconsider its decision, or else propose a more effective plan to consolidate the tourism industry, which really needs it.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP for his question and also for having listened to my speech. I was somewhat under the impression that only some of my colleagues from the Bloc were listening. So, I am glad to know that at least one other person was also listening.

The Bloc Québécois and I totally support the demand made by school boards, including by Quebec school boards, to be treated like municipalities with regard to the GST. In fact, that is included in the recommendations that the Standing Committee on Finance made to the Minister of Finance. There was a consensus. I would not say that all parties voted in favour of the measure, but the majority of them did.

I take this opportunity to underline a pending problem. The Federal Court made a decision on the application of the GST to school transportation. Many municipalities in Quebec and Ontario won their case at that time. Unless I am mistaken, about $12 million was to be paid back to municipalities. As far as we know, it is the only court decision that has been overruled by legislation. The former government had decided to tax the school boards retroactively.

I introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on Finance asking it to recommend to the Conservative government that it not impose the GST on school transportation since the Federal Court had ruled in favour of Ontario and Quebec school boards. It is not all school boards that are affected, but some of them. We also hope that the Minister of Finance will make a positive decision in his budget.

As the hon. member said, it is money that comes from the taxpayers' pockets and that should be used for education. There is something illogical about paying taxes to school boards if they must send that money to the federal government.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us an extremely technical bill. It contains a whole series of measures. In terms of necessary adjustments, as well as the collection of GST and the various excise taxes, it is definitely a bill that makes sense. And this is why the Bloc Québécois will support it.

However we must say that it is not the most exciting of bills. Accordingly I found it quite characteristic, significant and symptomatic that the previous member should broach matters pertaining of course to finance, but that raise rather more issues than this necessary bill which, as I mentioned earlier, is not all that exciting.

Before going any further in describing the bill and the Bloc Québécois' assessment of it, I would point out, as the previous member did, that we in the Bloc Québécois are extremely concerned about the Conservative government’s decision to take another look at the visitor rebate program.

We know that a notice of ways and means was announced in this connection, but that it has not yet been put to a vote, which is a good thing. I hope that it is because the Conservatives have realized that they were on the wrong track, since this program is found in more or less all countries seeking to have a vibrant and productive tourism industry. It is a bit strange that the government and the Minister of Finance should want to reconsider a program that many countries are thinking about putting in place to attract, in particular, international conventions and groups coming from abroad.

So I take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance and the government to think carefully about what they hope to achieve by reconsidering this program. For example, when we go to Europe, everyone is very familiar with this program. Mexico is thinking of setting up an equivalent. So careful thought has to be given to the place of Canada and Quebec as tourist destinations, at a time when the Canadian dollar has risen significantly. Abolishing this program would increase the costs of large conventions in particular by 6%.

Obviously, there is probably room for improvement in this program. I hope that in the next budget, or at another time, the Conservative government will implement an effective program with the same objectives, in other words, to encourage conferences and groups of foreign tourists to come here.

There is another comment I want to make about this bill. It has to do with the fiscal imbalance and the reductions in the GST. We know full well that during the election campaign the Prime Minister announced a reduction in the GST from 7% to 6% and then from 6% to 5%. On July 1, we had the first reduction from 7% to 6% and were told that in a few years time there would be a second reduction from 6% to 5%.

I want to take this opportunity to warn the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance against confusing the issue of resolving the fiscal imbalance with the issue of reducing the tax burden on Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

I remember the election campaign very well. The Prime Minister was a candidate and leader of the Conservative Party and made his GST reduction announcement standing next to a cash register. In no way could this reduction be interpreted as the tax room that could have been left to the provinces who wanted it to resolve in part—since this is not enough—the fiscal imbalance.

I am therefore warning the government and the Minister of Finance not to try to have it both ways in the next budget by announcing the reduction of the GST from 6% to 5% and by announcing that the provinces, such as Quebec—perhaps—that want to recover this tax room, will be able to do so as part of a solution to the fiscal imbalance. This would be totally unacceptable. It would be unbelievably cynical. I think the public, Quebeckers in particular, would not fall for it. I prefer to let the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister know right away that such a move would be totally unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois.

This bill has given me the opportunity to relay my two messages. I hope they will be heard.

I will now talk a little about what is in Bill C-40. This bill amends both the GST and the excise tax collection. It is comprised of four parts. First, some changes are aimed at improving and specifying certain measures pertaining to the collection of the GST. Second, the act is being changed to exempt certain goods and services from the tax, particularly medical and social services. I will get back to this. Third, the government is amending the excise tax to specify different measures concerning the taxation of wine, beer and spirits. Finally, a fourth part changes the rules pertaining to the air travellers security charge, a charge that is currently collected at different airports.

Let us start by examining in greater detail the bill as it concerns the measures affecting the GST and the harmonized sales tax. In Quebec, it is the Quebec sales tax. These measures are comprised of five distinct categories. Thus, the bill changes the rules concerning health, charities and business arrangements. These rules also affect governments, particularly municipalities. Furthermore, some provisions change the GST administration process.

Concerning health measures, the first category under the goods and services tax, the government is amending the act so that speech-language pathology services will now be tax exempted. For parents who use speech-language pathology services because their children have language difficulties, this is excellent news. This will make it easier to access these services and minimize costs. This is true for parents of children with speech problems, but also for many of our fellow citizens who have had strokes. Often, they are forced to re-learn to speak and also need speech-language pathology services. In a sense, costs will also be reduced there and access to these services will be easier.

I think it is interesting that in its bill, the government decided to exempt health-related services rendered in the practise of the profession of social work from the GST. Here too, there may be groups, institutions, families and individuals who need the expertise of a social worker. They will no longer have to pay the GST. For people who have insurance, this means their deductible will be lower. Insurance rarely covers the entire cost of social workers. This reduction would therefore apply to the cost paid by the institution, the organization or the individuals for the services of a social worker.

Next, in its bill, the government wants to zero-rate sales and importations of a product that can, to a certain extent, replace blood. This product, plasma expander, is a blood substitute that can be injected during treatment of major hemorrhaging, serious burns or open fractures. Although they do not contain the red blood cells and anticoagulants found in blood, these substitutes offer an alternative at various stages of critical intervention to save the lives of seriously injured patients. Here too, I think it is simply humane to exempt these products from the GST, an indirect taxation measure.

The government will also zero-rate a group of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which includes Valium, Ativan and other similar drugs.

These drugs are used to treat anxiety, for example, during withdrawal in cases of detox, and as preanaesthetic medication. Once again, it is simply of question of humanity to not tax these products, which are used in extremely difficult situations and when there is no other choice. It is not a matter of saying: “Should I take this or not?” The patient has no choice but to use these products.

Lastly, the government is going to rebate the GST on motor vehicles that have been used subsequent to being specially equipped for use by individuals with disabilities. We see a number of amendments on the health side that are most welcome, that are not likely to be the subject of any history classes in the future, but that are certainly consistent with common sense.

As for charities, that is the second category regarding the GST and other sales tax. These amendments will ensure that the exemption of supplies by charities of real property under short-term leases and licences extends to any goods supplied together with such real property. For example, a charity leases a building and, at the same time, leases a photocopier, phone service and computer system. At present, those products must be supplied not only at a cost, but taxes must also be paid on those goods and services. Charities will be able to use the same supplies without paying the GST. Obviously, anything that can help reduce the operating costs of charities is most welcome. In that sense, this is also a step in the right direction. A step, once again, that will not answer all of the funding problems facing charities in terms of the support they need from our government, but at least some openness has been shown in this regard. Let us hope that the government will take such steps even further in the future.

As for business arrangements, I think there are some good changes. A foreign bank that has a subsidiary in Canada will now be able to restructure it into a Canadian branch in its own right and enjoy GST relief during a transitional period.

The Finance Committee, this House and the various governments we have witnessed recently have all tried to foster competition in the financial institution sector and especially among banks. Unfortunately, though, there is still not enough competition for us to really speak of a marketplace where supply and demand play a key role. We know very well—and have had recurrent debates about it—that many of the bank fees added over the last few years are due to the fact we have oligopolistic competition, that is to say, just a few big players, especially five large Canadian banks. Despite the legislative changes made over the years to encourage the establishment of banks or foreign banks to move to Canada, there is still not enough competition to generate sufficient pressure to ensure that consumers get their money’s worth. There are certain other group relief provisions as well, but I will not get into that.

In another area, the bill simplifies the application of the GST to beverage container deposits refundable to the consumer because this was a rather bureaucratic obstacle to recycling and the collection of the tax on these cans. This measure excludes the container deposit from the GST and will thereby facilitate recycling, the protection of the environment, and the lives of all the small retailers who now handle these deposit returns.

There are a few other technical measures as well. For example, there are provisions on agents who sell products and have bad debts that they cannot recover. When this happens, they will have GST deductions.

The same applies to persons acting as billing agents—they are not the ones who will have to pay the GST—and for special arrangements between businesses in certain situations where goods are supplied outside Canada to Canadian customers. Things will be made simpler in this case also.

The bill also ensures that GST group relief rules cannot be used to exempt from the GST otherwise taxable clearing services that are provided by a group member to another in order to avoid a situation where a third-party purchaser outside the group would benefit from the GST exemption even though the services were provided by one member to another.

It also confirms the policy intent and Canada Revenue Agency’s existing practice that no GST or provincial sales taxes on a passenger vehicle are included in calculating the maximum allowable value for input tax credit purposes.

In the case of governments, the bill will exempt a supply of a right to file or retrieve a document or information stored in an electronic official registry. This means that the GST will not apply, which will facilitate the transfer of a certain amount of information by municipalities and government agencies. In some way, this is what the bill is all about. It will facilitate the flow of information. It will also ensure that a small supplier of a municipality is treated in the same manner as a small municipality.

Other amendments deal with the application of the law with regard to the GST. For example, the bill adds a discretionary power for the Minister of National Revenue to accept late-filed applications for the GST new housing rebate and the Nova Scotia HST new housing rebate in exceptional circumstances.

A number of measures such as these give some latitude to the Minister of National Revenue as well as to the revenue agency to take into account exceptional circumstances.

A number of amendments were made with regard to the excise tax. For example, the rules pertaining to tobacco were tightened. Everyone here will agree it is very important to tighten the rules because of smuggling. There will have to be greater compliance in terms of the origin of tobacco products and their source, in particular for duty free shops.

In the case of alcohol, the bill contains measures to support the development of the Canadian wine industry. This industry is flourishing, particularly in Île Ronde in the Lanaudière region, which is producing wines comparable to those being imported. Once again, this measure will help this increasingly important and high-end industry—associated with regions such as Lanaudière—to develop.

I would like to close by saying that there has been some relief with respect to the air travellers security charge. Under this legislation, airports that should not have been included, in our opinion, on the lists have been removed from them. For example, La Grande III airport and La Grande IV are not commercial or tourist airports. Some tourists use them, but the majority of users are workers.

In conclusion, although this bill does not represent a tax revolution, it is moving in the direction of common sense. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill because it corrects certain shortcomings, reduces the cost of access to some medical services, reduces the tax burden on charities, assists small producers of wine, tightens provisions pertaining to the sale and production of tobacco in order to help the fight against smuggling, and adjusts the air travellers security charge to reflect reality, particularly that in Quebec. We are therefore pleased, not in the name of revolution but rather in the name of common sense, to support this bill.

[Lanaudière Centre for Innovation in Food Processing, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last spring, the Lanaudière regional cegep in Joliette, the Lanaudière bio-food development board and their partners launched the Lanaudière centre for innovation in food processing. I would like to salute this initiative, which will promote local products, create quality jobs and offer a high-level service to all regional food processing companies.

The mission of the Lanaudière centre for innovation in food processing is to support the start-up, growth and development of regional agri-food businesses. Its work will take place in the cegep's agri-food facility.

Congratulations to everyone working on this initiative. The Bloc Québécois hopes that it will be a long-lasting one.

[Canada Pension Plan, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her remarks, which were not only very generous but also very sincere. She has just been appointed status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois. That is a great honour that our leader bestowed on her.

In her previous comment, she touched on the impact of the lack of women-specific measures, women having a longer life expectancy than men. I would like her to elaborate on that.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. On this, the Conservatives and the Bloc can come to an understanding.

The Bloc proposed a reduction in federal government operating expenditures over three years, representing $15 billion. I passed this proposal on to the Minister of Finance.

I think the Conservatives will agree with us. We noted that operating expenditures increased on average by 8% annually in the past seven years, I believe. I am not referring to either programs or transfers to individuals or the provinces, but to bureaucracy and computers. The figure, then, is 8%. We think it is too high. There is a recommendation to reduce the spending growth rate.

Without cutting any program—especially not like what was done on September 25—without laying off anyone, only through attrition, hiring people, but at a more reasonable rate, by cutting certain outsourced professional services that could be provided by the public service, we think that, in three years, some $15 billion could be saved.

In the most recent election, I saw that the Conservative platform proposed freeing up some $22 billion in five years. In terms of reducing operating costs, it is perhaps not such an undertaking to come up with the manoeuvring room to resolve the fiscal imbalance. Still I would remind the member that, last year, the federal government had a surplus of $13 billion and will this year have some $6 billion or $7 billion in surplus.

Therefore, by reducing operating expenditures and using the flexibility the surplus gives us, there is plenty of room to resolve the fiscal imbalance problem once and for all.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois never said that the softwood lumber agreement was a good deal. In fact, it contains a great many weaknesses. Moreover, when I was the international trade critic, I had written to the Minister of International Trade to suggest that a number of things be corrected.

However, the people in the industry and the Government of Quebec have asked us to support the agreement because they are hamstrung because of the countervailing duties that are currently in American hands. Sure, we can win a decisive victory in a few months, but if our companies are closed and our jobs are gone forever, the victory will be hollow. An agreement can be renegotiated. I worked in organized labour for a long time. Sometimes, you get a collective agreement that you are not very proud of, so you make up for it in the next round of negotiations. That is what we are hoping for in the case of the softwood lumber agreement. What we want is a return to free trade.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to something the member said. When the federal government provides financial support for the provinces in their jurisdictions, that is the best illustration of fiscal imbalance, in my view. If the federal government has money not only to assume its responsibilities, but also to transfer money to the provinces for their own responsibilities, then the tax room that corresponds to those transfers should be transferred to the provinces. That is what the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to do: restore transfers to the levels they were at before the cuts, then negotiate a way to transfer the tax base so that Quebec has freedom of choice in its jurisdictions. That is what we are suggesting, and that is what we are going to insist on.

We also want the federal government to limit its spending authority and allow provinces that want to opt out of a program to be fully compensated. Unfortunately, we did not find any mention of this with respect to the loans and bursaries program in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. At least, it is not stated in that way.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having is extremely important. The indications we must give to the Minister of Finance and to the government as far as the next budget is concerned are particularly important in a minority government situation. For the Liberals and the New Democrats there are a certain number of things that are essential. The same is true for the Bloc Québécois.

I want to first point out that we were extremely disappointed by the general direction of the report submitted by the Standing Committee on Finance. We certainly agree with some of the recommendations. However, in our opinion, others could have been better worded. And there are others still with which we completely disagree.

Two things are particularly disappointing. The first is the lack of willingness by the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, from all parties, to respect the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces and the Canadian Constitution. That has always struck me ever since I arrived here in 2000. It would seem that the only people who have read Canada's Constitution are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The only people who want to respect the jurisdictions under the Canadian Constitution, are the members of the Bloc Québécois. I think we are the last representatives of this agreement reached in 1867 between two nations around the creation of Confederation. Apparently, across Canada and in the other political parties, there is no willingness to respect the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces.

Over the years—particularly since the second world war—the government has taken a series of initiatives that interfere in these jurisdictions. It has used a taxation power it claimed during the two world wars. It has also refused to give back the part of the tax base it should return to the provinces to allow them to assume their responsibilities preferring to implement transfer programs for health, post-secondary education and social programs and a certain number of other programs affecting areas that clearly come under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

The members of the committee thus ignored the Bloc's and Quebec's desire for respect for the province's jurisdictions. This was the Bloc's first major disappointment with the committee report.

The second great disappointment was the blatant refusal to recommend to the Minister of Finance, to the Prime Minister and to the government any specific measure to resolve the fiscal imbalance. It remains a matter of some importance for the Conservatives. I remind them once again, as I have in committee, that on December 19, in Quebec City—almost a year ago, now—the Prime Minister made a commitment during the election campaign to resolve the fiscal imbalance. It is already a step in the right direction to acknowledge it. The federal Liberals have a hard time doing so. It seems that a resolution was passed in this regard at their convention. However, at the end of the convention, their new leader contended still that the fiscal imbalance was a myth.

It is a good thing to recognize the fiscal imbalance, but it is a better thing to propose solutions to resolving it than to simply just acknowledge its existence. The members of the committee, with the exception of the Bloc members, refused to propose avenues for a solution to the Minister of Finance. I point out, and cannot say so enough before the budget is tabled, that our support for the budget is conditional upon a resolution of the fiscal imbalance.

As I have said and will say again, we do not expect everything to be resolved in the next budget. We do, however, expect that the people of Quebec will at least know whether the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have honoured the promise made last December 19, reiterated in the throne speech and reaffirmed in the most recent budget. Next February or March probably, when the next budget is tabled, we will know the solutions proposed by the Conservative government. Once again, we are not expecting a solution to be put in place immediately, but we expect to at least know the scope of the corrective action needed to resolve the fiscal imbalance.

We have made known our estimates, which come to approximately $12 billion for the provinces overall and $3.9 billion for Quebec specifically. We want to know how large a correction the government is going to make.

As well, a schedule for making this correction needs to be agreed on. We have proposed that, within three years, the government correct the fiscal imbalance to the tune of $12 billion for the provinces overall and $3.9 billion for Quebec. This would restore Canada's fiscal balance.

We also want to know the government's timetable and the measures it will take to correct the fiscal imbalance and inject the equivalent of $12 billion into the transfers to the provinces and Quebec.

We have made proposals. My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber and I presented these solutions in committee. Unfortunately, they were rejected. Sometimes, it was strange, disturbing and distressing to see the committee reject, for example, solutions pertaining to transfers for social programs and post-secondary education, proposals that meet with approval across Canada from rectors of universities, professors' associations and unions and students' associations. The same figures came up in Halifax, in western Canada, in Toronto and in Quebec CIty.

We are the only ones who made this proposal, and all the other parties except the NDP voted against this recommendation, which represents part of the solution to the fiscal imbalance. It is not the whole solution, but it is part of the solution and it meets with approval across Canada. In this case, the Bloc Québécois was the only party that defended the interests of students, not only in Quebec but across Canada. The Bloc Québécois was the only party that defended the interests of university professors, not only in Quebec but across Canada. The Bloc Québécois was the only party that listened to rectors, not only from Quebec, but from across Canada.

I am astonished that there is a consensus throughout the university and post-secondary system—including the colleges—and yet it is being ignored. There is a consensus across Canada, including in Quebec, but the representatives of the party in power and the Liberal Party of Canada are not paying any attention to it.

For these two reasons, we were unable to support the general direction of the report, even though, as I mentioned, it contains some extremely interesting proposals. I will come back to this.

The first thing that we found especially disappointing was the failure to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.This was not in just one particular area, or it might have seemed merely inadvertent, that my colleagues forgot how the fathers of Confederation divided the areas of responsibility. One could have believed it was a small oversight or lack of historical and constitutional knowledge. This was not the case, because it occurred in all areas of jurisdiction.

Consider education. Is there any area of jurisdiction that is more exclusive to the provinces and Quebec than education? The government wanted to establish national standards, to put conditions on the transfer payments.

The government wants to create transfer payments exclusively for post-secondary education. This limits even further the choices that existed at the time of the Canada social transfer, when the provinces could decide how to balance their spending between health, post-secondary education and social programs.

We now have transfer payments for health. We therefore do not have a choice. The transfer payment must go towards health. I must say, the needs in that area are enormous.

That left post-secondary education and social programs. Thus, Quebec or any province could choose the balance that most suited its situation. However, now the government wants to introduce a transfer payment exclusively for post-secondary education and a new transfer for social programs, thus limiting the autonomy of the provinces and Quebec.

And the government goes even further. Mr. Speaker, if you read the committee's recommendations, consider recommendation number 8, at the end. It reads:

Once the Canada Post-Secondary Education Transfer has been created, the government should introduce guidelines, principles, responsibilities and accountabilities with respect to post-secondary education.

These are jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. They want to establish guidelines and, eventually of course, conditions for transfers of money under the guidelines dictated by the federal government. That is encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and all the provinces and territories. That should result in an outcry from not only all the provincial and territorial governments, but also those in this Chamber who believe that we should respect the Canadian Constitution.

I will give another example, that of health. As you know, this is not the first time that there has been interference in this area. There is a recommendation dealing with mental health. Unfortunately, I cannot find it right now. What is proposed is the establishment of a Canadian mental health commission. Yet, health— whether mental health or all components of health— is a provincial jurisdiction.

Once again, these are new programs, new encroachments, new conditions for federal transfers for health. They are pushing the envelope in this area just as they are in education. However, we were able to prevent the establishment of a federal department of education, as provided for in the initial bill.

Municipalities are also touched on. The Minister of Finance mentions them in the economic statement. He wants to promote private-public partnerships. If Quebec is to have a choice, it is in the implementation of infrastructure programs. In the slate of items previously negotiated, Quebec retained control over its infrastructure programs. However, they wish to promote a formula which does not even seek to have the consensus of the Quebec public. Thus, they are interfering directly in the decisions that should be made by Quebec.

I have found Recommendation 2 which proposes the creation of a Canadian mental health commission.

They also propose the establishment of a pan-Canadian securities regulator. Recommendation 37 reads as follows:

The federal government conclude an agreement with the provincial/territorial governments on a single securities regulator no later than 31 March 2007. The regulator should begin operations no later than 30 June 2007.

The Constitution clearly states that the area of securities is a jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec. Furthermore, in Quebec, as you know, we have the Civil Code. How would a pan-Canadian securities commission be able to deal with this reality specific to Quebec?

As Bernard Landry said, the securities commission is so important that everyone agreed there should be two of them—one for Quebec and another for the rest of Canada. However, I also know that some other provincial governments do not want the federal government to get involved in this sector.

The government did not respect constitutional jurisdictions. We tried, quite constructively, to change the report to take into account the motion that was passed almost unanimously in this House recognizing the existence of the Quebec nation. What do they mean by a “national program”? The Quebec nation? The Canadian nation? It would have been better to clarify whether it was a federal program, a pan-Canadian program, or a program for all of the provinces. But no, this government ignored the democratic vote held in this House. As my friend Gérald Larose said, some people seem to think this is purely symbolic. Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois, along with the Quebec nation and the Government of Quebec, regardless of who is in power, will continue pushing to ensure that recognition of the Quebec nation is accompanied by specific tools to facilitate its development even within Canada.

This first aspect is extremely disappointing. The second, the fiscal imbalance, is utterly stupefying. Imagine if the only thing the committee had recommended was the last recommendation in the report. I simply must quote it because I find it so astounding. We are talking about a major issue that could potentially set off an election in the coming months. Here is what the committee produced:

Recommendation 43:

The federal government meet with the provincial/territorial governments with a view to assessing their relative fiscal capacity and the extent to which they are able to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

We know there is a fiscal imbalance, so we do not need to meet with the provinces to find out if there is one. We know there is. What the committee should have done was recommend action, as I said. We proposed one measure. We proposed several, but as I said before, we proposed one specific measure: increasing transfer payments for post-secondary education and social programs to bring them up to where they were in 1994-95 before the member for LaSalle—Émard started making his draconian cuts to provincial transfer payments.

That represents some $5 billion for Canada as a whole—$4.9 billion, more accurately—and $1.2 billion for Quebec.

Then it could have easily been proposed, as the Romanow commission recommended, that a quarter of the cost of health care to the provinces and Quebec be assumed by the federal government. The current figure is 23%. A little more effort would do it. Commitments have already been made. It has not been easy, but some progress has been made in this area. In all, in order to reach 25%, it would take some $400 million for Quebec.

Two proposals have already been made and they are far from revolutionary. The first is to roll transfer payments for post-secondary education and social programs back to their levels prior to the cuts. Then it is a matter of the federal government assuming 25% of provincial health care spending.

A third proposal was also possible. It would concern equalization payments, a highly contentious area. This subject is a matter of debate. However the Prime Minister was aware of it when he was campaigning to be Prime Minister and promised last December 19 to resolve the problem. He knew of it. Equalization must involve the ten provinces and all of their revenues.

Some want to exclude oil royalties from the calculation of equalization payments. That is totally absurd.

What is one of the sources of the disparity in fiscal capacity in Canada? It is the layers of oil and natural gas in Alberta.

Newfoundland is an interesting case. Suddenly an 11% growth rate is predicted for it this year. One of the provinces with the highest level of poverty has an 11% rate of growth. Why? Because the Hibernia platform was set up and Newfoundland is now developing a series of businesses in the industrial sector around this oil. This is therefore a significant element of disparity. Failure to take it into account is like hiding one's head in the sand.

The implementation of these recommendations was supported by the Séguin commission in Quebec and the Government of Quebec—federalist and sovereignist. The bottom line is an increase in equalization payments of some $5 billion and of $2.1 billion for Quebec, if the proportion it currently receives is taken into account.

We can add to that compensation for the Conservative government's unilateral decision to eliminate the national child care program, for which Quebec is receiving $270 million this year. We therefore feel that the money was promised and must now be delivered. Perhaps the Conservative government does not want to go ahead with this plan, but it must compensate Quebec, at least , which already has its own child care network that must be adequately funded. We are talking about some $270 million.

If we add up those four amounts—$1.9 billion for post-secondary education and social programs, $2.1 billion for equalization, $400 million for health and $270 million in compensation for the unilateral decision to eliminate the national child care program—the total is nearly $3.9 billion.

Clearly, this sum can be easily broken down and the committee could have made recommendations based on this information, but some people chose to shut their eyes instead.

As a final point, we are very pleased that the committee recommended re-establishing the programs cut by the Conservative government on September 25, 2006. Those programs affect literacy, associations, women's groups, the social economy, support for museums and open diplomacy. This is good news.

We are also pleased with the recommendation to increase the Canada Council for the Arts budget to $300 million. We are also glad to see that the committee recommended the reinstatement of some of the environmental programs that the Conservative government had cut or was about to cut.

I hope the Minister of Finance listened to my speech, or will at least read it, and act on the recommendations. I will not call these recommendations extremely conservative, for this could cause confusion. They are very moderate and cautious, and they allow the Bloc Québécois to support the budget. Otherwise, we might have to go into an election, and then I would wish the Conservatives good luck, in advance.

[Emergency Management Act, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I mentioned in my speech, clearly, certain matters come under federal jurisdiction, and he just mentioned one example. In the crisis that arose in Lebanon this summer, it was normal for the federal government to take responsibility for evacuating Canadians.

As I said and I will repeat here, it is customary for the government to have an emergency plan as well as legislation for emergencies. It is important to bear in mind that, within their jurisdictions, the provinces and Quebec already have some plans. We must avoid overlapping and duplications. What we are hoping for is coordination.

Obviously, certain situations can affect more than one jurisdiction, such as a natural disaster or epidemic. Imagine if the SARS outbreak in Ontario had spread to Quebec. Clearly, in this type of situation, the federal government can play a role of coordination, but it must nevertheless respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

The hon. member is right. On the international stage, and until Quebec becomes a sovereign state, the federal government is responsible for evacuating Canadians and Quebeckers caught in emergency or crisis situations, as in the example of Lebanon I just mentioned.

[Emergency Management Act, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts. Obviously, we have no problem with the basic principle that the federal government can take action to respond to emergencies.

That said, it is extremely important that the federal government understand that the provinces, particularly Quebec, have already prepared emergency response plans. The government should not try to use this bill, which is now at third reading, to encroach on areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The summary of the bill reads as follows:

This enactment provides for a national emergency management system that strengthens Canada’s capacity to protect Canadians.

In future, we should perhaps take into account the motion adopted in this House to the effect that Quebeckers form a nation. When the bill refers to a national system, it is actually referring to a Canada-wide emergency management system.

A number of aspects of the bill could lead to encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions. As I mentioned, Quebec already has a number of emergency response plans. These plans and the legislation that provides for them were developed in the wake of catastrophes such as the flooding in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and the ice storm.

In 2001, Quebec adopted a new Civil Protection Act, which replaced the Act respecting the protection of persons and property in the event of disaster, dating from 1979. I want to point out that this reorganization took place under the direction of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who was then the Minister of Public Safety in the National Assembly of Quebec.

Under the law that was adopted in 2001, a national plan was drawn up, a civil protection plan for Quebec. It divides responsibility among government departments and agencies according to their respective jurisdictions and organizes government resources so that the government can respond to various types of disasters.

Obviously, we all understand that to be effective, this plan relies on some relatively simple principles: citizen and corporate accountability; better preparation of regional authorities, such as municipalities and, in Quebec's case, regional county municipalities; better coordination among partners in the sector; and optimal use of the Government of Quebec's resources. Obviously, there would be no problem with the federal government introducing a plan that complements the provinces' plans, as I said. When the ice storm hit, the Government of Quebec called in the Canadian army to help, especially to clean up the road system, which was in terrible shape because of weather conditions.

In that context, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the federal government's right, nay, its obligation, to ensure that its institutions and departments are prepared to deal with emergency situations. The Bloc Québécois also believes, as I said, that the federal government should not interfere with how Quebec and the provinces organize their public emergency services.

I must reiterate the fact that it is, first and foremost, every citizen's responsibility to prepare for potential disasters, even if that means just having a first aid kit at home. Companies are also responsible for having their own plans for dealing with emergency situations. According to Quebec's plan, the front line responders are the municipalities, regional county municipalities—which support their municipalities—and the Government of Quebec—which supports the regional county municipalities and the municipalities.

Once again, I repeat that not only does this make perfect sense, it is also desirable for the federal government to develop an emergency response plan and corresponding legislation. Let us hope that this does not mean more opportunities to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction.

We will support this bill on those terms.