Thierry St-Cyr

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

Madam Speaker, I will do what I can in the time that I have.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will not support this budget because the government has broken its promises. Once again, it is encroaching on areas under provincial jurisdiction that fall within the exclusive purview of the Government of Quebec. Take the securities commission, for example. The government's plan to impose a Canada-wide securities commission and centralize the work and the regulation in Ottawa is blatant interference. Quebec does not want this commission, and neither do many other provinces.

One reason the federal government's interference in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction is so surprising is that it cannot even take care of business in areas that are under its own jurisdiction. As I have always said, should the day ever come when the federal government can manage its own affairs capably, it would have nothing more to do. Perhaps it would be tempted to get involved elsewhere. But that is not the case. Take immigration, for example.

Currently, all classes of immigrants are subject to long wait times. For example, immigrant investors are prepared to put up $400,000 to come to this country and invest in our economy. Those who go through Quebec's system get their Quebec selection certificate within a year, but they have to wait many more years for the federal government to do a basic criminal records check through Interpol before they even go to a designated doctor for a physical exam. That takes years.

I would suggest that if the government suddenly stopped interfering in areas that belong to Quebec and the provinces, and started taking care of its own responsibilities and putting a little money into speeding up case processing for immigrant investors selected by Quebec who are still waiting for confirmation from the federal government, thousands of people on these lists would come here in the middle of the economic crisis and contribute to and stimulate our economy.

That is not what the government plans to do. Instead it is getting in the way of members from Quebec and the provinces. Like the Liberals in their day, the Conservatives say they are listening to Quebec. But they are not. One hundred and twenty-five members out of 125—

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

Madam Speaker, in his presentation, my colleague stated that, in practical terms, in order to avoid elections, the Liberals had no choice but to support the budget. That is not true because, first of all, there was the coalition agreement signed by the three parties, which would have made it possible to take down the government and bring about change without going to the polls. Thus, it is false to state that there was no other option.

I would say that, at the very least, the Liberals could have made significant gains for citizens. What did they get besides a new cloakroom in the lobby and an end to the lawsuit against them? Next to nothing. They made a pitiful amendment asking that the government report on its work. I believe that it is the responsibility of all parliamentarians to monitor the government. Therefore, in general, the Liberal amendment asks the government to do the opposition's work.

Could the Liberals not have seized the opportunity to make substantial rather than trivial changes to the budget?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent presentation. She demonstrated once again that, regardless of who is in office in this Parliament, whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, they are never able to address the legitimate aspirations of Quebec. These aspirations are presented to the House of Commons by the Bloc Québécois, but sovereignists are not the only ones who are defending them. The motion that we tabled today in this House is a reflection of two motions that were unanimously passed by the National Assembly.

If, as is the case, Quebeckers are never able to influence decisions in this House based on what they unanimously believe, what solution do they have left to truly take control of their destiny, to vote their own laws, to manage all of their money and to represent themselves on the world stage?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what disdain for Quebec institutions. Always the “Ottawa knows best” attitude, ever paternalistic federalism telling the 125 members from Quebec, who ably represent the interests of Quebeckers, that they are wrong, that the 10 Conservative members from Quebec know what is good for Quebec, and that the rest of Quebec is wrong.

In his intervention, the member spoke at length on what we are voting against. I will tell him whom he is voting against this evening. He is voting against the 125 members of the National Assembly who voted unanimously in favour of the very text of the motion we present today. He is voting against Pierre Arcand, Vincent Auclair, Jean-Martin Aussant, Claude Bachand, Raymond Bachand, Line Beauchamp, Denise Beaudoin, Louise Beaudoin, Claude Béchard, Stéphane Bédard--

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a bit sad when a member from Quebec runs down his province and his fellow citizens. I can understand that a member should follow his party’s line, when it has members throughout Canada, but it seems to me he should try to keep quiet, and not go overboard.

My colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse talked about common sense. The Canadian securities commission he offers as a solution is very good. It is great.

But how come the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly are all against it? There are not just a bunch of nasty separatists, since they also include the Quebec premier, a federalist as far as I know, members of the ADQ, Québec solidaire, and the Parti Québécois, Monique Jérôme-Forget, the unions and the employers.

Everybody objects to the hon. member’s securities commission. Apparently, everybody is wrong but the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse. They all lack common sense. Just 10 people are right in Quebec, and those are the Conservative members. Come on. It does not make sense.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put to my hon. colleague a question which I ask time and time again.

The exchange that just took place shows that Quebeckers can never get what they want out of the Canadian federal system, under either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

Today, we have Conservative members looking forward to vote against the consensuses in Quebec. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse passionately stated that Ottawa knows best. It knows was is good for the 125 MNAs in Quebec who passed two unanimous motions, both of which we support and are putting before this House today. All 125 members were wrong. Ottawa knows what is right for the people of Quebec.

I have a simple question for my hon. colleague. Where does this leave Quebeckers? With the federal system never meeting their needs, under either the Conservatives or the Liberals, what can they do to take charge and make their own decisions without having to seek permission from Ottawa?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, whether we hear from the Liberals or the Conservatives, there is always this same paternalism. What the member just said about how corporations in Quebec will be happy is not true. They are against this. In Quebec, everyone has come out against the Canadian securities commission. The 125 members of the National Assembly, the unions, management representatives, the banks, the caisses, everyone is against it. I have a great deal of respect for the people of Ontario, and the member from Ontario is doing his job well and defending his province. We are doing the same thing and defending Quebec. So it would appear that all those people in Quebec are wrong. Ottawa knows best, Ottawa knows what is good for Quebeckers and has just told us that this will be a good thing. In addition, we have to realize that the fact that membership in this securities commission will be optional is just smoke and mirrors. Clearly, once it is in place, the provincial bodies will wither and die. That is the whole idea.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little stunned by those comments. This is another example of this paternalistic federalism, and Ottawa telling us what is good and what is not. The 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec passed two separate unanimous motions calling for exactly the same thing as we are calling for here today. Is the member for Beauce trying to tell us that the 125 members of the four political parties represented are all unanimously wrong, including the members of the ADQ, the only potential fan base left for the member? Are those people wrong, too?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the presentation by my colleague, who, in the end, showed clearly that regardless of which party is in government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Quebeckers can expect nothing from the federal system. They should expect nothing from federalism.

Tonight, we are going to vote on issues that are unanimously supported in Quebec, as he very eloquently pointed out. Not only 125 members of the National Assembly expressed the same views as the motion that is now before us, but there is also a broad consensus, for example, on the matter of securities, ranging from unions to management, on other such fundamental issues in Quebec. Unfortunately, I expect that, once again, we will go down to defeat in this House.

What solution remains for Quebeckers to free themselves from the current federalism and to fly on their own?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right. It shows that even though Quebec may debate and reach wonderful consensuses, we are always blocked here in the House. Not because the rest of Canadians are bad people—far from it—but simply because they want to build a country in their own image, which is not the kind of society we want to build in Quebec. Now, we have to make a choice. We can choose to fight forever with the federal government, waging epic battles to try to protect what we have. I am not talking about making headway, but about not losing ground. Or we can decide to put that aside and create our own country. It will be a sovereign state that, like other countries, will negotiate how we want to collaborate with Canada.

It is incredible that we are talking about two issues that everyone in Quebec agrees on—unions and management, people on the left and the right, federalists and sovereignists—yet we still have to fight. Imagine how our society could move forward on issues on which there is not such a strong consensus. To get out of this situation, to stop constantly banging our heads against this brick wall, we have to go our own way and create a sovereign nation.