Thierry St-Cyr

[Broadcasting Act, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill presented by my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which is really quite interesting. It is always surprising to note, unfortunately, how slowly things move in our society; however, they seem to move even more slowly through the levels of government and the legislative apparatus.

To illustrate, I would like to go over the chronology of events surrounding Canadian and U.S. discussions about television violence to demonstrate that theories about this issue and the studies proving that there is a link between television violence and societal violence go back a long way. It is somewhat sad to note that even today there are still some who are not convinced and would leave it up to the broadcasters to voluntarily improve the situation.

I will start in June 1952, over 50 years ago. In the United States, the subcommittee on interstate and foreign commerce of the House of Representatives held the first congressional hearings about violence on radio and television and its effects on children and youth. This is not very recent history. We are not talking about a new issue today; this is something we have been debating for quite some time.

In December 1971, the U.S. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behaviour published its report. It concluded that there was a link between watching violence on television and the aggressive behaviour of some children. These findings date back to 1971, and continue to prompt us to wonder if we should be taking stronger action.

In 1977, the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry published a report establishing a link between violence in the media and the incidence of violent crime in society.

In 1982, the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health updated the 1972 Surgeon General's report on television and behaviour. The report found that most people carrying out research in the field agree that there is a link between violence on television and aggression.

In February 1985, the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution recommended that the federal government treat violent publications the same way it treats sexual and obscene publications under the Criminal Code, and that the provinces establish a system to review and classify films.

I must add that this provides an interesting parallel to the issue we are considering. I do not think anyone in this House would argue against the fact that we must limit and control the dissemination of pornographic material. Why? Because we think that if it were to be distributed freely, it could have a negative impact on people. We are doing this because we do not want people to copy the kind of behaviour they might see in those movies. We do this for pornography, which often promotes degrading practices, so we should be asking ourselves questions about violence, which is always unacceptable. It is shocking to hear the Conservatives, who are supposedly champions of law and order and defenders of morals and virtue, object to allowing the CRTC to exert more control over programs with violent content.

Although I must, unfortunately, omit some points, I want to mention another event that touched me personally. In 1992, when I was younger—I did not say when I was young, because hon. members would not believe me—a young Quebecker of 14, Virginie Larivière, presented to the government a petition signed by over 1.2 million Canadians, asking it to pass legislation against violence on television.

By 1993, the petition had been signed by over 1.3 million people. I personally remember that we discussed this issue in school—I was still in school at that time—and everyone agreed that something had to be done. Even now, some members in this House are still wondering whether we should act, whether it would be relevant to do so, or whether we should simply let the market regulate itself. A recent study done by Laval University shows that, since 1994, the number of acts of violence on television has increased by over 200%.

After more than 15 years, despite all the public pressure urging broadcasters to do something, violence on television has doubled. There is no decline at all. Looking at the situation in a reasonable, rational, objective fashion, we can only conclude, in good faith, that the voluntary system is not working, that it has not been successful in restricting access to violence on television.

This consensus still existed on June 7, 1993, because a Gallup poll indicated that 72% of Canadians supported an act that would restrict violence on television.

On November 16, 1994, the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled its report entitled “Report on Crime Cards and Board Games”, in which it recommended that the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code be expanded to prohibit the importation, distribution or sale of goods or materials whose dominant characteristic is the undue exploitation or glorification of horror, cruelty or violence. This issue was discussed in this House, 13 years ago.

In 1996, the CRTC unveiled its policy on violence in television programming, and set a deadline of September 1996 for making V-chip technology and a corresponding program rating system available in Canada. These tools were implemented gradually and delayed a few times.

In April 2000, the national coalition against violence on television was created, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. In addition, on April 11, 2006, coroner Catherine Rudel-Tessier questioned the effectiveness of television violence regulations following the death of a young boy who was watching the movie The Patriot, rated 13 and up.

My point is that it is high time we took action. We can wait no longer. There must be regulations, we must give the CRTC the power to do its job. It seems to me that the public is asking us to move forward and do something about this issue.

[Finance, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, instead of doing advertising for the banks, the minister should consider this: the members will have to determine whether Parliament should legislate ATM fees. To make that determination, members of Parliament will need the cost, price and profit margin figures associated with these transactions.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to amend the Competition Act to require banks to submit figures to the Commissioner of Competition, thereby putting an end to the voluntary approach once and for all?

[Finance, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, representatives from major Canadian banks appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. I asked them if they were willing to make available their figures on their costs, prices and profit margins on ATM transactions. My question was met with a long, ominous silence.

Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Bloc Québécois that, unless they are provided with these figures, parliamentarians will not be able to do their jobs properly?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has decided to support this budget. It is easy to see that this is a minority government budget.

There never would have been a start toward correcting the fiscal imbalance if this Conservative government had had a majority. Without the work of the Bloc Québécois, Quebec never would have gotten the gains it recently obtained and will obtain in the future, if there had not been 50 Bloc Québécois MPs in this House.

Furthermore, I am not the only one to say so. We have often heard government ministers say this in the House. The Minister of Transport said he needed the Bloc Québécois' help. The Minister of Finance and other ministers also asked us to support this budget.

Since our decision to support it, the Prime Minister and a number of ministers have thanked the Bloc Québécois for its support. This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Bloc Québécois does constructive work in this House and that it allows Quebec to advance and make real progress.

In my opinion, this is a clear message to Quebeckers. If Quebeckers continue to support the Bloc Québécois and send as many Bloc members as possible to represent them in the House of Commons, they can be sure that Quebec will have a strong position and a voice to defend them that will not give in to blackmail and will always be loyal to Quebec.

We have made many gains. A number of them were the result of lengthy battles that are starting to pay off. I am talking about the fiscal imbalance or rather the start of the process of correcting the fiscal imbalance. I will come back to that later, but obviously that is what comes to mind first. Nonetheless, that is not all. Quebec received $328 million from the Canada ecotrust, which will allow Quebec to meet its Kyoto protocol obligations and reduce greenhouse gases. This is something else the Bloc Québécois has long been asking for. We pushed really hard for this. We questioned the government about it in the House.

I also know that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked very hard on it. At meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance I often questioned the government. We showed that this amount of money was needed by the Government of Quebec to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives. Even though the government was opposed outright to this protocol and did not hesitate to subject Canada to the ridicule of the international community by reneging on commitments made, the Bloc Québécois exerted enough pressure to have this government listen to reason and allocate this amount to Quebec for the environment.

It should be noted that the amount allocated in the budget was announced beforehand, when the Bloc Québécois, during one of its opposition days, was debating a motion calling on the government to take action. That proves that our work is effective.

In addition, the $200 million allocated for the reconstruction of Afghanistan was largely due to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, who asked that the Afghanistan mission be rebalanced. You will recall that the Bloc Québécois voted against extending the mission in Afghanistan, among other things because the government was asking for a blank cheque. This government did not answer questions and did not know the criteria for the success of the mission. It still does not know them and has not answered the questions. It does not have a comprehensive plan and it does not know where it is going in this matter.

The government asked us, in just a few hours, to fast-track the debate and give it carte blanche to extend the mission in Afghanistan, which we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, all opposed. Nevertheless, with the support of many Liberals, the mission was extended. Parliament gave the Conservative government carte blanche.

This tells me that it would have taken only two or three more Bloc members to avoid giving this blank cheque to the government, this permission to do nearly anything in Afghanistan. Once again, this perfectly illustrates the importance of sending a maximum number of Bloc members to Ottawa.

As we all know, this is not the first time that Quebeckers have lost a vote in this House. That said, although we lost that vote in the House, we nevertheless retained our hard-hitting approach and we continue to work to ensure a balanced mission, at the very least, specifically, to see that perhaps a little less money is allocated for the military aspect and more is spent on humanitarian aid. In Afghanistan, the solution depends largely on the humanitarian aspect. Once people have acceptable living conditions, there is a good chance that matters of security will be more easily resolved and conflicts will diminish.

Work has been done on this aspect. We have fought and we have kept saying that this had to be a balanced mission. A great deal of work has been accomplished, the results of which can be seen in the budget. This idea, long advocated by the Bloc Québécois, comes out in the budget presented by the minister. Thus, Afghanistan will receive a little more humanitarian aid. We are very proud of that.

I would now like to talk about the GST visitor rebate. Once again, this accomplishment comes largely thanks to the Bloc Québécois, although the opposition parties were against this measure. In short, the Conservative government's original proposition consisted of doing away with all GST rebates to visitors, tourists who come to Canada and then return to the U.S. At present, and until the legislation is passed, tourists who spend money in Canada—on things such as accommodations or goods purchased and taken back to the U.S.—can be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses.

This is reasonable, because we must definitely regard tourism as an export industry. We export our image, our culture and our landscape outside our borders. We ask people from other countries to come to Canada, but in fact, it is really an export industry.

Of course, there is no other export industry anywhere— in almost all countries that have a consumer tax—for all practical purposes, nowhere are exports taxed. That is completely counter-productive. Even though the GST rebate for foreign visitors was originally implemented by the Conservatives when they brought in the GST, they wanted to change things later and abolish the measure. We know that that would have been disastrous for the tourism industry. The government argued that only 3% of travellers claimed the rebate. The problem—and this is often the problem with the Conservatives, unfortunately—is that they cannot count.

I took the time to delve a little deeper into the numbers. I admit to being somewhat conditioned by my profession. Before I was elected to this House a year and two months ago, I was an engineer and among other things, I did a lot of data analysis for my former employer.

Let us say that I was not taken in by the 3% figure. It is important to understand that people often travel in groups of two, three, four, five or more, and they travel as a family. A family of four that makes a lot of purchases during a trip does not submit four claims. When they get to the customs post, they submit one refund claim. That increases the figure significantly. If you multiply that figure by 2.5 or 3 people on average—we do not have an exact number—you get almost 10%.

The other thing to keep in mind is the money this represents. If you take visitors who come for the day and tourists who come for more than 24 hours, the ratio is about the same. For all practical purposes, it adds up to the same number of tourists: 17,470,000 versus 18,690,000. However, visitors who stay for several days—that is, more than one day—spend three times more than those who stay for just one day. In my opinion, for our listeners—I do not know how many there are—I do not think it is a huge revelation to point out that people who stay for more than a day spend more than those who stay for a day.

Obviously, those who stay less than a day usually do not have accommodation expenses, which are often the biggest expenses: a hotel room, renting an apartment or something like that. People who come for less than a day, who do not even spend $100 in Canada, are obviously not going to claim a rebate at the end of their stay. To say that the system is not working, that the program is useless because people are not claiming these refunds, if we include day visitors, then these figures go down.

We have to look at this in terms of money. For frequent travellers, people who come and spend a lot of money in our economy, how many of them are going to claim the rebate and what sort of commercial advantage does this represent? In committee I asked the government representative to tell us, relative to the total amount of money people are entitled to claim, how many people file a claim? I am not talking about the number of visitors. We do not even know if all the visitors are entitled to claim the rebate or if they all have an amount to claim. Of the total amount that can be claimed, how much money is claimed? No one was able to give me an answer. This shows that the government has no idea whether this program is effective or not. And yet it has come to the conclusion that the program should be eliminated. That is a shame and it worries the tourism industry greatly.

Another aspect that has been underestimated here is the commercial or marketing effect this will have. Just because people do not claim their refund does not mean that they did not take it into consideration when choosing their vacation destination. People who work in marketing, who work for example with mail-in rebates, would be able to explain this phenomenon. There are more and more products purchased that sell at full price, and that come with a sheet to fill out to receive a mail-in rebate in 6 to 8 weeks.

Anyone who works in marketing will tell you that a large proportion—it varies from one product to another—of people choose to purchase product X, Y or Z, because there was a mail-in rebate, but never send it in. But measuring the effectiveness of these mail-in rebates based on the number of people who send them in is not what counts. What counts is how many people made the purchase because there was a mail-in rebate. We can see that this is the ideal situation. Someone purchases the product because of the mail-in rebate, but never uses it. That is the ideal situation. It is the same thing in the case before us.

Say that people decide to travel here because they hope to claim a 6% GST refund, and that they never do so. Personally, I think this is a great thing for the government. We attract these people and they do not even use it. So we can see that the government did not know where it was going on this.

We have put a lot of pressure, and I think that the government realizes it was going to make a big mistake. It has backtracked a little. From now on, it will reimburse GST paid during conferences or tours. However, it will not reimburse individual travellers who are not part of a tour. This makes me think that the government realized it was going to make a big mistake. So it decided to make a small mistake rather than a big one. It is a mistake nonetheless. But, we succeeded in making them backtrack and limiting the impact.

The Bloc Québécois has made progress on one of its longstanding demands: GST refunds for school boards. The Liberals never pushed this issue. At the time, the Liberals never followed through, despite court decisions ordering them to refund GST to school boards. It is in the budget.

For its next challenge, I would like to see the government abolish the GST on books. Culture and education are important. In Quebec, books are now exempt from the provincial sales tax. The federal government must do the same regarding the GST.

A little earlier, I said I would talk about the fiscal imbalance again. I realize I must do so quickly. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting against the fiscal imbalance for quite some time. We are the members who raised this question in the House. This has been the work of the sovereignists for a very long time. We even had to explain to the Conservatives what the fiscal imbalance was, since they knew absolutely nothing about it. Apparently, they still do not fully understand the concept. The fact that the Minister of Finance said that the issue is resolved is proof that the Conservatives do not understand the fiscal imbalance. How can the fiscal imbalance issue be resolved when no fiscal action was taken?

When the Séguin commission met, its members introduced the concept of the fiscal imbalance. They chose to name the problem. They did not open a dictionary and choose words at random with their eyes closed. These words were not pulled out of a hat. There is a reason it is called “fiscal” and there is a reason it is called an “imbalance”: because it is a fiscal problem and it is an imbalance. The solution to the fiscal imbalance is to restore the balance by way of a fiscal solution. That seems obvious to me.

We will have to keep repeating this to the Conservative government because it does not seem to have understood. The Liberals, for their part, have always denied the existence of this problem. In its next budget, the government will have to transfer tax points or tax fields like the GST—which would be the simplest solution—to the governments of Quebec and the provinces so they can benefit from stable, predictable revenues that will not change from budget to budget or from government to government. For example, Quebec's recent gains could be completely erased in the next budget or if there is an election and the government becomes a majority government, or if the Liberals return to power. We will always be at the mercy of the central government's vagaries. To Quebeckers, that is the price of dependency, budgetary dependency, which is a logical result of political dependency.

I would like to end by talking about equalization. I have just a few seconds left, so I will be brief.

Unfortunately, the government decided to exclude half of non-renewable resource revenues from this budget. This measure unfairly penalizes Quebec. Why did they not exclude revenues from the aerospace industry or hydroelectricity? It just so happens that that would have benefited Quebec. The Bloc never asked for these exclusions because it has never asked for an arbitrary advantage. I do not see why other provinces should be given an arbitrary advantage.

This is unfortunate. We will continue to fight for this.

[Aerospace Industry, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, an American expert who appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence argued that governments are entitled to impose conditions on suppliers as far as regional spinoffs are concerned. Canada is getting ready to sign aerospace military contracts to the tune of $9.6 billion in the next few years.

Will the government meet the expectations of the Quebec Aerospace Association, which wants more than 55% of the spinoffs from the aerospace military contracts to go to Quebec?

[Aerospace Industry, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government's entire approach to procurement is quite flawed. First it was submarines taking on water, then it was military planes unable to perform the tasks they were intended to do, and now it is untendered contracts, like the contract awarded to Boeing without requiring over 55% in economic spinoffs for Quebec.

Does the government not think it is high time to review its procurement policy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting a long time to have the fiscal imbalance corrected. We have decided to support this budget because it starts to address fiscal imbalance.

We are well aware that this is a minority government budget, and that this government would never have begun to do anything for Quebeckers if there were not 50 Bloc Québécois members and a minority government. However, there is still a lot of work left to do, partly because the fiscal imbalance cannot be fixed without a tax solution. What we have here is a monetary solution.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question on equalization. It was completely arbitrarily decided that non-renewable natural resources would be excluded from the calculation and the inclusion rate set at 50% and even 0% in some cases. This is completely arbitrary and is designed to favour some provinces over others.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain why they made this decision. For example, why were aerospace revenues not excluded? It would be a good idea to exclude these revenues, 60% of which happen to be in Quebec. Why are hydroelectricity revenues not excluded, which would also help Quebec? Out of the entire tax base, why was the only tax revenue excluded one that just happens to be something that puts Quebec at a disadvantage in the equalization calculation?

[Textile Industry, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it is finally my turn to speak. You saw how anxious I was to participate in this discussion on the motion introduced by my colleague, the industry critic from the Bloc Québécois.

This government has an ideological blindness which is beyond understanding. Several thousand manufacturing jobs in Quebec and the rest of Canada are being sacrificed for a laissez-faire economic approach, for economic natural selection, simply because of an ideological obsession. I think this is unfortunate. Earlier, I heard the member for Lévis—Bellechasse talk about Advantage Canada and its great plans. He tried to convince us that everything was fine. Unfortunately, this is not about verbal sparring, it is about the lives of families who worked for years in the manufacturing sector who are losing their jobs and who are in difficult financial and emotional situations. This can even lead to divorce and family crises, among other things. It is not a joke. It is a serious matter, and frankly, I think it is distasteful that members of the government—like the member for Lévis—Bellechasse did earlier—emphasize that their government has lowered corporate taxes and say that the problem is solved.

We are talking here about companies and people who are losing their jobs in the manufacturing sector. They work for companies that are no longer profitable and therefore close their doors. If they are not profitable, they do not pay any taxes, and if they do not pay any taxes, tax cuts will not do them any good.

The government could make some very simple decisions. The previous Liberal government could also have done so, but chose not to. The Bloc Québécois has been fighting for years to get these decisions made and will continue doing so. There is still hope. We have fought on many fronts, including the fiscal imbalance, our recognition as a nation, recently the reimbursement of the GST to school boards, and a number of others. The battles we have waged for many years are finally beginning to bear fruit. We will continue, therefore, the fight to protect our manufacturing industry, and we hope that it will ultimately be successful and the government will finally listen to reason, as it did in some of our other struggles.

One of the measures suggested in this motion is very simple. It would allow clothing manufactured abroad from Canadian textiles to be imported duty free. This is totally consistent with the international rules. We have the right to abolish duties on certain materials. This measure would stimulate the Quebec and Canadian textile industries. These are simple, rather inexpensive steps that the government could take, but it refuses to do so.

The International Trade Tribunal has handed down a series of decisions that the government never followed up. People from this tribunal appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance this very day. We spoke with them. My hon. colleague and I questioned them.

This tribunal has made decisions including recommendations to the government that would have enabled it to adopt protective measures without contravening our international treaties. We asked how many of these measures had actually been implemented. The answer was none. The purpose of the International Trade Tribunal is to make recommendations of this kind, but none of the protective measures perfectly in keeping with our international commitments has ever been implemented.

I know the Conservatives will say that the Liberals never implemented these decisions and the Liberals will say that the power rests with the government. They pass the ball back and forth but the reality is that, while they try to assign blame, our manufacturing industry is experiencing great difficulties and is in serious trouble.

I almost regret using the term “manufacturing industry” because it might lead some members of this House to believe that it is an abstract concept, as though the manufacturing industry were an entity that exists in and of itself. I would like to remind all members of this House that when I say “manufacturing industry” I want them to think of the workers who make a living in these industries. I want them to think of the spouses who rely on their partners to survive. I want them to think of these families' children who need the income to live in dignity. That is what we are discussing. This is not a debate about semantics, an ideological or philosophical debate. We must act now.

In closing, we must take steps to protect the industry so that as few jobs as possible are lost. Then we must put in place a program for older workers, the POWA that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for so long now. It is important to do so. If we are unable to limit the number of jobs lost we must at least help citizens and older workers by providing a real program enabling them to bridge the gap between the end of their employment and the start of their retirement. These programs do not currently exist. In its first throne speech, the government promised, as a result of a Bloc Québécois sub-amendment, to get the ball rolling. It announced the introduction of a program on several occasions, but it only came up with a requalification program.

In the manufacturing industries, in many cases, when a company closes its doors in a remote region, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, it is often in one industry towns where people work at the same plant their entire lives. Sometimes, both members of a couple work at the plant and lose everything. It is not a matter of whether we can provide them with training to go work at another plant or in another sector because there are no other jobs in these regions. Furthermore, these people are just a few years from retirement.

When travelling through Quebec—and people are also going through this in my riding in Montreal—I have seen these people end up with nothing just a few years before their retirement. Once their EI benefits run out, they have to sell all their belongings, their assets, their home and everything else only to end up on social assistance.

I think that for someone who has worked their entire life, who paid taxes their entire life, who contributed to our society their entire life, this is a sad end and it is too bad the government is abandoning them at a time like this.

In the worst case scenario, this program would cost roughly $120 million across Canada. This is not a lot for a federal budget when there are surpluses of several billion dollars, and this would help maintain the dignity of the people who worked their entire life to build Quebec. The respectful thing to do is to implement this program that already existed and was abolished by the Liberals. The Conservatives promised they would reinstate it, but they still have not done so. We are still waiting and we will continue to fight for this.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the issue of hazardous goods.

In my riding, people are very concerned about the storage of hazardous goods in railway cars. In Pointe Saint-Charles, in southwest Montreal, an entire area has a railway line running through it with a high volume of freight train traffic. Marshalling also occurs in this sector. Often trains stop in the marshalling yards for many hours and sometimes even for days.

A good number of these trains have tanker cars that store hazardous goods. Residents are very concerned because railway companies are no longer storing these tankers only at the far end of their marshalling yards. They are being seen increasingly at a standstill on tracks in the middle of residential neighbourhoods. Citizens in my riding are very worried by the fact that they probably contain toxic, explosive and other hazardous goods and that they are left for prolonged periods in the middle of residential neighbourhoods.

Does my colleague not think that this is a risk that we should deal with as quickly as possible?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that there are people reminding us that we have a Constitution in Canada that provides for the division of powers. I wonder why the Conservative government did not take that approach even further to ensure that taxation respect this division of powers. Why would we not use tax solutions to transfer monies to resolve the fiscal imbalance?

I would also like to know why this government, which claims to respect provincial jurisdictions, encroaches frequently in education and health. There is still talk of creating a federal securities commission when this is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction. That is the problem.

There is a difference. The Conservatives give the appearance of respecting jurisdictions, but there remains a tendency to centralize, even among the Conservatives.