Steven Blaney

[Bloc Québécois, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc used its parliamentary budget, taxpayers' money, to fund a newspaper that prints extremist rhetoric and preaches intolerance. The Réseau de résistance du Québécois showed its contempt for democracy during the debate around the commemoration of the battle of the Plains of Abraham, using fear, intimidation and calls for violence.

How does the Bloc plan to compensate the Quebec City area for the losses caused by the cancellation of the historical re-enactment, losses the city's tourism office estimates at more than $3 million? More importantly, why is the Bloc aiding and abetting splinter groups that are trying to deny a defining event in our history? As Quebec's motto states, “Je me souviens”, I remember, and as a Quebecker, I condemn the narrow-mindedness and self-centredness of the Bloc Québécois, which is mortgaging Quebec's future by denying its past.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this Chamber to ask a question of the hon. member for Hochelaga. I was astounded to hear the member's speech because what he said was the opposite of common sense and truth.

Never before has Quebec received such large equalization payments as it does with our Conservative government. Quebec members, and all my caucus colleagues, have not done anything to deprive Quebec of significant payments. In the days of the Liberals and the Bloc, hospitals were closed and cuts were made to education. What have we done for Quebec since coming to power? We have increased equalization payments but we have not stopped there. Social transfers to Quebec have also hit record highs in the history of our federation. The Conservatives and the Quebec members rise in this House and approve initiatives such as this budget, which is an extraordinary prescription for Quebec in these times of economic uncertainty.

My question for the member for Hochelaga is the following. How can he abandon Quebeckers, workers, families and seniors by not supporting this economic action plan in such a period of economic crisis? How can he keep his blinders on and continue with his ideology when Quebeckers need members in this House who will deliver the goods for Quebec?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to rethink his speech. Equalization is a Canada-wide system that distributes wealth. Quebec receives more money than other regions of the country because of the equalization formula, which is an advantage of federalism for Quebec.

That said, is the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel willing to acknowledge that this year Quebec will receive a record equalization payment of $8.3 billion? Is he willing to acknowledge that equalization will continue to increase under the new formula we have put in place? Quebec is receiving more than it did last year. In fact, it is receiving 70% more than it received before we came to power. Is he willing to acknowledge that, thanks to the Conservative government, Quebec is receiving more equalization? If that is the case, why is he against the budget when this money will be transferred to Quebec?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. I am glad that he has referred to the OECD, because it is precisely that very body, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that is telling us we need to improve our system because there are some problems.

As I have said, the OECD feels it is difficult to maximize efficiency. There are risks, namely that companies here would abandon our system and go elsewhere. For our part, we want to retain the companies that continue to have access to our markets and use our organizations. So that is very important.

I would also like to remind the hon. member that Canada is the only industrialized country that does not gone for the option of a single securities regulator. It is high time, in 2009, that we caught up with others as far as our institutions are concerned, and that we provided the best financial tools so that our companies can continue to thrive and we can keep our workers employed in our businesses in Quebec and Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to acknowledge my friend from the Jeanne-Le Ber riding. He is also a professional engineer. And we need people from this profession in this House. They get some nice training, and we need men and women who embrace this career if we are to promote the knowledge economy in this country.

Let me bring a couple of important points to my colleague’s attention. First, equalization is a system we use in this country to redistribute wealth. With this budget, equalization payments to Quebec will reach new heights.

I urge my colleague to support this budget so that we can transfer $8.3 billion to Quebec. Unlike the previous government, which cut equalization and forced Quebec to make cuts in health and education, we keep increasing equalization payments because we think it is important. We will keep working for Quebec.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I seize this opportunity to thank my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans for his intervention. He works very hard for the people in his riding.

This afternoon, I would like to say that it is important to strongly oppose this motion, with its outrageous content, which underplays the excellent budget presented in this House. Unfortunately, I see that some members do not support it. Nevertheless, I support it, my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles supports it, my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans supports it as well and, of course, my colleagues on this side of the House all support it.

I am rising this afternoon because I want what is best for businesses in Bellechasse, Les Etchemins and Lévis when they are looking for capital. I have especially in mind the Davie shipyard, whose stocks are doing very well these days. I want these businesses from my riding to be able to access the financial market as quickly as possible and with a minimum number of obstacles to overcome. They should be able to obtain the capital which is so important, particularly during these uncertain economic times.

I believe it is important to act, and that is what our government is doing, while respecting areas of jurisdiction and taking a voluntary approach. Since we were first elected, we have been working together with the provinces to institute a simplified, more efficient system for regulating securities in order to bolster our financial stability, protect investors and of course, be accountable.

We currently have 13 commissions and it is difficult to act quickly. We saw during the crucial events in September 2008 that our counterparts elsewhere in the world, including in the United States and the United Kingdom, were temporarily restricting the short selling of certain shares in the financial services industry in order to ensure market stability. Our interventions in Canada were late in comparison with other countries and there were some differences. Our system was not necessarily very efficient. It is important, especially in times of economic uncertainty, to be particularly efficient in order to provide and maintain a competitive advantage.

Canada is also working with its partners in the G7 and G20 to deal with the systemic risks to the financial industry. We have a healthy financial sector in Canada and we want to keep it that way.

Third, it is very expensive to keep multiple commissions going. What we want is to eliminate the barriers and have the most efficient system possible. If we take the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, for instance, they will say that they want a more efficient system. We want to ensure that the efficiency and vitality of our financial sector is not diminished by governmental quarrels. What business people tell us is they want an effective, efficient system. They do not want to be the object of squabbles over flags or parliamentary disputes. That is why it is important to vote this motion down today and to vote in favour of the budget.

The support for improving our system comes from far beyond our borders. Last year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development stated that multiple regulatory systems made it hard to maximize efficiency and there was a mounting danger that companies would choose securities in other countries. The report said, “A single regulatory authority...would eliminate the inefficiencies created by the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial agencies”. What the OECD was telling us, as the Government of Canada, is that we should assume our responsibilities and make sure that our companies can access financial and credit markets and that we should eliminate the barriers that are harming them.

Contrary to what our colleagues in the opposition are saying, the creation of a single commission is not an intrusion. This is a voluntary initiative.

Those provinces and territories who wish to do so may join the organization, but they do not have to. In fact, several provinces have already indicated their desire to work together with us during these challenging economic and fiscal times.

The senior vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, Mr. Marcel Boyer, said:

A single securities commission with a strong regional presence would favourably resolve the complex issue of regulating securities in Canada—

Decentralizing to non-exclusive offices that are nevertheless able to influence for the best a single securities commission would promote innovation and efficiency in terms of financial market regulation while at the same time ensuring de facto mutual recognition of regional sensitivities and distinctive features.

We are realizing, thanks to the G7 and G20 countries in particular, that our system needs to be improved and upgraded. This way, our businesses will enjoy the same opportunities and rapid access to capital markets as those from other countries.

How can one be against common sense and local businesses from Quebec, Prince Edward Island or the Yukon having access to capital markets Canada-wide without having to go through 13 different authorities and getting bogged down by bureaucracy?

Here is an opportunity to simplify the process while respecting everyone's areas of jurisdiction, as was clearly pointed out.

I could go on and on this afternoon about the importance of passing the budget, taking concrete action to support our economy and continuing to ensure that our businesses can benefit.

I will gladly answer questions on this topic.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell you I will share my time with my friend from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who does a wonderful job for his fellow citizens.

I am pleased to take the floor this afternoon to inform you and invite you--

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Lévis, where the largest Quebec and Canadian cooperative, the Mouvement Desjardins, has its headquarters. This financial institution says that the 2009 budget presented by our government is the best prescription for preparing the Quebec economy to deal with the economic crisis.

As a Conservative member, I am pleased to support the budget. On the other side of the House, the Bloc Québécois members remain seated with their arms crossed. They need members who will work for Quebec. We have heard some pretty amazing things this afternoon. What surprises me is that equalization became problematic while the Bloc Québécois was in Ottawa.

The Liberals put a stranglehold on Quebec's finances and the Conservative government put an end to the fiscal imbalance. Quebec will receive $8.3 billion. Equalization payments have never been this high. Why? Because all Conservative colleagues from across the country are working together to ensure that Quebec flourishes within Canada. Our goal is to have a strong Quebec within a united Canada.

I will ask my colleague this question: when will she stand up for Quebec by supporting the Conservative budget?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague’s speech but it seems to me that she is more the one who is turning her back on Quebeckers by presenting the two parts of this motion today and voting against the budget. I find it hard to understand how she can oppose a budget that increases equalization payments to Quebec by $8.3 billion. That is a 70% increase. It is unprecedented.

Since the Conservatives have been on this side of the House and put an end to the Liberal cuts that were closing beds and hospitals in my riding of Lévis—Bellechasse, equalization has increased like never before. So my colleague is now opposed to that. Is she not turning her back on the Quebeckers she represents when it comes to equalization?

I would also like to know what she is doing for businesses in Quebec. There are a lot of them in my riding and I am sure there are a lot in hers too. These businesses need to be able to access financial markets, especially in times of economic uncertainty. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tells us that it is hard for Canada to be as efficient as possible and there is a danger that companies will decide to issue securities in other countries because of the inherent inefficiencies in the various commissions’ limited enforcement powers.

Whose interests is my colleague serving? Are there interests here that I cannot quite make out? Who is going to serve the interests of Quebec businesses? Would she not prefer to get on board and support a budget that is good for businesses that want to be able to access financial markets?

[Member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members are abandoning Quebec families, workers and seniors by voting against a budget that the Desjardins Group has stated will stimulate the economy in this time of global economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, some members of the Bloc have gone off the deep end.

The member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour barely distanced himself from verbal violence, then he sent hate propaganda by email. His latest exploit was to insult the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent yesterday during question period. His misogynistic attacks are unworthy of a parliamentarian and scornful of women. That kind of attack is unacceptable. Instead of ranting and raving, the member should have the decency to retract his statements and apologize to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and all of the women of Quebec.

If he really believes in respect and good manners, values Quebeckers hold dear, he should show it by standing up and apologizing in the House right now.