Robert Carrier

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

The goal of our opposition day here today is really to allow Parliament to reach a decision on this important matter of the compensation that the government owes Quebec for the harmonization of the Quebec sales tax with the goods and services tax.

The motion reads as follows:

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

The Bloc Québécois motion strongly emphasizes the words “negotiate in good faith”. The Conservative government has taken quite the opposite approach, despite the number of times they have talked about it in this House. With his dithering and his all too frequent objections concerning current negotiations with Quebec, the Minister of Finance has proven that he does not understand the meaning of negotiating in good faith.

Since they came to power, the Conservatives have reiterated through their finance minister their intent to continue the discussions on sales tax harmonization in all their budgets and economic statements. Over the last few weeks, though, the finance minister has demonstrated just the opposite. He has shown instead how able he is to use all possible subterfuges to try to undermine the negotiating process with the Government of Quebec.

What does the minister mean by “negotiating in good faith?” Quebec was the first province back in the 1990s to harmonize its sales tax with the federal tax and it did so by negotiating in good faith with the government of the day, as it has always done. Can the same be said of the federal government?

Last March 31, a motion was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly concerning the provision of compensation similar to what the federal government provided to Ontario. The motion was passed unanimously by all the parties in the National Assembly.

It states that Quebec was the first province to harmonize with the federal goods and services tax in the early 1990s. Since then, three Atlantic provinces harmonized with the GST in 1997 and received nearly $1 billion in compensation. The Government of Ontario announced that it would harmonize its sales tax with the GST beginning on July 1, 2010. The federal government is going to pay Ontario $4.3 billion in compensation for this, an amount that is justified in the Canada-Ontario agreement by a desire to stimulate economic growth and job creation. The federal government will administer this new provincial tax for free on Ontario’s behalf. The Ontario sales tax will be very similar to the Quebec sales tax because certain items, such as books, will be exempt. The input tax rebates in Ontario may well be identical to those in Quebec. Ontario is the fourth province to receive compensation from the federal government for the harmonization of the federal and provincial sales taxes, while Quebec has not received any compensation, even though it was the first to harmonize its sales tax.

All the parties present in the Quebec National Assembly are asking for fair, equitable treatment from the Conservative government and its Minister of Finance and want compensation similar to what was provided to Ontario.

The voters in my riding who have given me their majority support on three occasions are closely following the supposed good faith negotiations with the Minister of Finance.

They do not understand why the government is applying a double standard to the detriment of Quebec.

My voters have not been fooled. They have understood that, to defend their rights, they must rely on the members of the Bloc Québécois; that to defend respect for their culture, there is only the Bloc Québécois; and that to properly protect their future, there is only the Bloc Québécois. For far too long, they have understood that rhetoric is and will remain just that, rhetoric, and that only the Bloc Québécois can really defend them.

I will recall a little bit of history to corroborate what I have just said.

In 1980, Pierre Elliott Trudeau stated in Quebec that the Liberals would put their seats on the line to bring about change, leaving the impression that Quebec would receive its due. What we got was the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, which was imposed on Quebec.

In 1984, Brian Mulroney promised that Quebec would return to the constitutional fold “with honour and enthusiasm.” What we got was the Meech Lake shipwreck.

In 1995, during the referendum campaign, Jean Chrétien promised change. What we got was the Clarity Act and the sponsorship scandal.

In 2005—closer to our time—during a speech in Quebec City, it was the turn of the current Prime Minister to try the grand seduction by promising an open federalism. What we got was a government that rejected the rights, the identity, the values and the interests of Quebec. For 25 years now, the orators have changed but Quebec is still waiting and nothing has changed.

Despite all the great promises to Quebeckers, despite the smoke and mirrors by the Conservative Prime Minister, after 31 months in office, after 31 months of speeches and promises made to Quebec, nothing has been done.

To practice open federalism, in addition to respecting the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution and ensuring that Quebec has the autonomy it needs to exercise those powers, the federal government would have had to demonstrate its openness and take into account the opinions and interests of Quebec when making decisions within its own sphere of jurisdiction.

In that respect, Quebec lost ground when the Conservatives were elected. Indeed, in areas under federal jurisdiction, the current Prime Minister demonstrates less openness than his predecessors with regard to the opinions and interests of Quebec.

In conclusion, I call on the government to recognize the longstanding injustice to Quebec of denying it compensation for harmonizing the federal and provincial sales taxes.

In particular, I call on the Conservative members from Quebec to show solidarity with Quebeckers and to support the motion introduced today by the Bloc Québécois.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, again, the speakers' question and answer are not relevant to the motion before us today, which deals with tax harmonization. Planted questions like the ones we just heard distract from the issue at hand which is important to Quebec. I find it unfortunate that you would allow a different topic to be raised when the topic of discussion today is tax harmonization.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Québec on her excellent presentation. I would like her to comment on the statements by the current Minister of Finance and his government to the effect that the government is prepared to negotiate in good faith. We are hearing that over and over on a daily basis in the House.

What does good faith mean for this government? This is the government that recognized the Quebec people as a nation. What meaning does it give to good faith? What might it mean ultimately, given that Quebeckers form a nation?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, every province but Quebec receives compensation for harmonizing its tax. The government has recognized the Quebec nation, but it refuses to recognize a motion passed unanimously in Quebec's National Assembly asking the federal government to pay the province $2.6 billion for having harmonized its tax. What could possibly be clearer?

Will the government admit that it is making excuses to avoid compensating Quebec, and that this whole song and dance is just a way to avoid cutting a cheque?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us that he did not want public arena negotiations about compensating Quebec for having harmonized its tax. Yet the Minister of Finance himself sent the media a letter in which he laid out his conditions—the reasons he hopes to avoid compensating Quebec to the tune of $2.6 billion.

Will the minister acknowledge that his demand that the province turn tax collection over to the federal government is just an excuse for not compensating Quebec?

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first off, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion by the New Democratic Party to introduce comprehensive legislation relating to the problem of credit cards.

Bearing in mind consumer vulnerability in the current crisis, the Bloc supports the motion. However, when the government introduces this legislation, it will have to make sure it respects the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, consumer protection legislation has been in force since 1971. It sets out strict requirements regarding contracts for credit cards of all sorts. It will be important therefore to respect Quebec's expertise and jurisdiction. Once again, the Quebec nation has taken the lead over the Canadian federation in protecting its merchants and its consumers. In addition, the organization known as Option consommateurs sees that the rules are followed.

In order to understand the development of credit cards, we have to understand the principle of habit, almost obligation, created by the major credit card companies.

And what of Quebeckers' and Canadians' financial situation? It is true that debt is a major problem in the country. According to a survey done by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada in the spring of 2007, 84% of Canadians reported being in debt, 14% of all Canadians reported a significant increase in their debt and, most notably, 40% of Quebeckers and Canadians in debt believe that their debt hurts their chances of being financially secure in the event of unforeseen circumstances. In the spring of 2007, the current recession was just starting. The current government did not even realize that there was a recession. Let us not forget the remarks by the Prime Minister during the 2008 election campaign.

The level of Canadians' and Quebeckers' personal savings has decreased hugely since the 1980s, dropping from a high of 20.2% in 1982 to a low of 1.2% in 2005.

It is true that the spread between the Bank of Canada's key lending rate and credit card interest rates is growing. To help Canadians and Quebeckers, the Bank of Canada lowered its key lending rate several times to today's level of 0.25%, the lowest in Canadian history. Recession oblige, you might say.

In the case of the major credit card companies, a credit card should be a matter of choice for individual consumers, but is that really the case? Just try to book a hotel room without a credit card. This is just one example.

Because of cuts by the federal government to transfers to the provinces, Quebec has had to cut funding to home economics organizations, many providing information on credit.

However, business oblige, and the major credit card companies, MasterCard and Visa, not to mention any names, are working miracles to make access to supposedly easy credit all the easier, but in tandem with a rate of interest to consumers often over 20%. Consumers increasingly use credit cards as a method of payment. We should therefore expect credit card charges to drop.

Despite increased volumes of sales, reduced fraud, lower interest rates and improved technology, credit card rates continue to rise. It seems that the main problem involves information and awareness about the benefits and the risks of credit.

A survey by Nanos Research has revealed that 55% of Canadians have a poor understanding of the costs of credit cards—63% think that the charges increase without a corresponding increase in terms of value and 67% think that the credit card companies do not explain their charges clearly.

Another survey ordered by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that 82% of Quebec card holders support having the credit card industry more strictly regulated.

And what about merchants? The credit card companies charge those who accept a credit card from customers doing business with them. Approximately 10¢ is currently charged merchants on average for each debit transaction, regardless of the amount of the purchase. Credit card transactions average $45 per transaction. The credit card companies are preparing to increase transaction fees charged retailers. The consumer does not see these fees. They currently represent about 2% regardless of the amount of the transaction. Applying a hypothetical charge of 1% would represent, then, 45¢, an increase of over 400%. Who, but the consumer, do you think, is going to pay this dizzying increase?

On top of that, Canadian retailers have higher hidden costs than do retailers in other industrialized countries. True, the major banks and financial institutions reap a significant profit from this. In 2007, alone, the fees amounted to $4.5 billion in Canada.

Most credit cards are issued by a limited number of companies. Visa and Mastercard control close to 85% of the credit card market, and this gives them total freedom to impose charges and conditions on retailers. One might therefore wonder whether the hikes in hidden fees might not be a sign of abuse of a dominant position. In order to ensure that there is no abuse by issuing companies, the Bloc Québécois contacted the Competition Bureau this past January in order to have the commissioner examine the issue. The Bureau's powers are limited, however.

This is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to reinforce the Competition Act during the last parliament, Bill C-454. That bill would have given the Competition Bureau the power to carry out its own real investigations into the industry. At the present time it cannot, on its own, do more than general studies that have no clout. With its own investigations, it will be able to summon witnesses and protect them. If the companies conspire together on price-fixing, they will leave no proof of having done so.If witnesses cannot be summoned and protected, it is very likely that no anti-competitive practice will ever be proven. When businesses want to enter into agreements with their competition, they will have to prove that such agreements are in the public interest. At present, these agreements with competitors are allowed, unless it can be successfully proven that they are contrary to the public interest.

This is not all the Bloc Québécois has done. Following on representations by the Quebec coalition of merchants opposed to the increase in transaction fees on credit and debit cards, my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain and I got the following motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance.

That the Finance Committee conduct a study of the various debit and credit card transaction fees imposed on merchants as well as the standard and transactional practices that justify them and report its observations and recommendations to the House.

This study will be undertaken shortly, in the next few weeks. It will make it possible to hear from a number of witnesses as well as various stakeholders. This will enable the committee to formulate its recommendations to the government. These could then serve as the basis for the legislative measure called for in the motion presented today by the NDP.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois is therefore in favour of the motion, because consumers need legislation to ensure they are protected. The Bloc will, however, ensure that this legislative measure introduced by the government fully respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

[Goods and Services Tax, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this government takes pleasure in creating obstacles and cultivating an anti-Quebec attitude. With the financial crisis we are currently facing, this behaviour does a lot more harm than good.

Is the Minister of Finance trying to tell us that he is creating a new federalism? After the so-called open federalism, are we now seeing spiteful federalism?

[Goods and Services Tax, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the government harmonized its tax with the maritime provinces, it refused to compensate Quebec, invoking the 5% rule. Then, when it harmonized its tax with Ontario, it claimed there were exemptions that explained why Quebec was not compensated. Basically, the reasons change from one day to the next.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that by changing the reasons from one day to the next, not only is he being unfair to Quebec, but he is also making his own economic situation even worse?

[Taxation, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the statements I quoted earlier were those of his colleague, the finance minister, on page 239 of the budget plan 2007.

If the Minister of National Revenue is worried about people using tax havens to avoid paying the income tax they owe to the Government of Canada, how can he explain the about-face by his government, which is re-implementing a tax loophole that it promised to abolish?

[Taxation, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, “some corporations, both foreign owned and Canadian, have taken advantage of Canada’s tax rules to avoid tax. Others, especially wealthy individuals, use tax havens to help them hide income and evade tax. In all of these cases, working Canadians and small businesses, among others, are left having to pay more tax than they otherwise should. This is simply not fair.”

If the Minister of National Revenue agrees with those statements, why does he allow tax loopholes for billionaire companies?