Serge Cardin

[Taxation, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing ridicule never killed anyone.

We have been calling on the Conservative government to be tougher on tax evasion and white collar crime, so it is shocking to see that the government has someone in its ranks who allegedly transferred funds to Switzerland to help a couple evade taxes.

Once again: will the Prime Minister relieve the member of his responsibilities with respect to the Treasury Board until the proceedings are completed?

[Taxation, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while he worked for Crédit Suisse, the member for North Vancouver approved the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Switzerland for a couple that was allegedly trying to hide money from Revenue Canada. This very serious information can be found in documents submitted to the Federal Court.

Will the Prime Minister relieve the member of his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board until the proceedings are completed?

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it will be difficult to cut a 20-minute speech down to 6 or 7 minutes, but I believe it is important for me to address the House, even if I only have a few minutes left.

We all know that PotashCorp owns 20% of the world's potash reserves. Potash is a rare mineral used to make fertilizer. We all saw what happened in mid-August when there was a hostile takeover bid and an outcry against it because BHP Billiton was offering $28.5 billion, or $130 per share. The day after the bid, the President and CEO of PotashCorp, Bill Doyle, more or less called the deal an attempt to steal the company. However, he also quickly stated that he was not saying that the company is opposed to the sale, but that it is opposed to “a steal” of the company.

We can see what is happening. Shareholders and owners of a very important company are not bothered by the fact that they are permitting a Canadian company to be taken over by foreign interests, but more so by the fact that they will have less money in their pockets. With the 30-day deadline, the government has the opportunity to jump up and purchase the company for less than it is worth. We must consider that the share price was $250 two years ago, before the recession. There may be hope yet for Billiton.

Today, shares are trading at around $145, which is more than the $130 per share offered by Billiton. Furthermore, this will obviously depress share prices, probably for a number of years. From a financial standpoint, Saskatchewan is afraid that it will lose up to $3 billion per year if PotashCorp is sold to foreign interests. In response, BHP offered to compensate Saskatchewan with a $370 million payment into a future infrastructure fund, which the provincial government rejected as being completely inadequate to offset the loss.

Even the Prime Minister indicated that he was not uncomfortable with a foreign takeover of PotashCorp. The government is rather dogged in its determination. Earlier, I mentioned a 30-day period. This will allow the government to quickly rebound.

The NDP motion is very clear. It would amend the act “to ensure the views of those most directly affected by any takeover are considered, and any decision on whether a takeover delivers a 'net benefit' to Canada is transparent”.

The first part of the motion would make “public hearings a mandatory part of foreign investment review”. I should point out that the second paragraph of section 4 of the Investment Canada Act already enables the Minister of Industry to consult with industry and labour stakeholders.

However, such consultations are voluntary, not mandatory. Also, there is nothing to state that these consultations must be public. The Conservative government loves voluntary elements. That is what it is doing with the census.

In exercising his or her powers, the minister may, if the situation calls for it—again, this is not an obligation, but the motion would make it obligatory—hold consultations by organizing conferences and meetings. With this government, everything is “may”, “maybe” or “possibly”, but this motion would make these things mandatory.

The Bloc Québécois does not believe that the government's approach to investment in Canada is the best possible approach. When discussing the Investment Canada Act, we have to keep in mind the 2009 Budget Implementation Act, which allows the government to issue an order raising the minimum threshold for automatic review of a foreign investment in Canada set out in the Investment Canada Act.

That threshold could gradually increase from the current $300 million to $600 million in one year, $800 million for the following two years and $1 billion for the years after that. Some very important players in Canada's and Quebec's economies, such as Nortel and aluminum producer Alcan, which is now just a subsidiary of giant Rio Tinto, have already been transferred into foreign hands.

Foreign investors benefit from a favourable conflict resolution system internationally. A $1 billion threshold could result in many leading lights of the Quebec economy passing into foreign hands without the government ever having the opportunity to assess whether such takeovers are good for local economies. As such, the Bloc Québécois demands that these provisions be scrapped and that the threshold for review be set at $300 million.

[Points of Order, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is just sad and pathetic. Perhaps the minister is feeling cornered and is trying to create a distraction because he feels trapped by the detailed and provable questions asked by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville and the Bloc Québécois leader.

I responded to his question clearly yesterday, No, I did not go to the meeting he referred to. I was not there. And I found out that Denis Lessard was not there either.

How can he say that I was there when I was not? I could swear on the Bible.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is being intellectually dishonest. He is doing the work of the RCMP, which hunts for terrorists in a patriots' march.

It is unacceptable to say such things in the House, things which are not proven and that he is unable to prove. Earlier, I watched a video that someone filmed of the May 24 Marche des Patriotes on YouTube. No subversive speeches were made.

The leader needs to apologize and check his sources. This shows a total lack of responsibility, professionalism and even honesty on his part.

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer his question, because over on this side, we answer questions when they are asked intelligently. There was an RRQ meeting on October 2. I was not there. There was no FLQ meeting. So I definitely was not there. I was a bit too young for that.

The leader's claims are based on the comments of a journalist. We know the people who work for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and we know what kind of resources he has. If he is not able to check his sources, then I do not know what to say.

So, I ask the member to apologize, and to withdraw his comments.

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who was, as usual, avoiding answering questions, including those from the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, was saying spouting nonsense. He accused me of having attended an FLQ fundraising meeting. He also quoted comments made by a journalist, Denis Lessard. These were inaccurate comments that we tried to have removed from the newspaper, or at least corrected. He repeated both of these things.

When someone repeats something that is inaccurate, it becomes a lie. I would like him to apologize and to withdraw his comments.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on what basis can the hon. member presume bad faith on the part of Quebec? We are committed to health care. There is a debate all over Canada about the private sector and the public sector. Most people in Quebec go to the public sector.

Why would Quebec be unable to comply with the five principles? Someone spoke a little while ago about a person from another province who came to Quebec and needed care. If we took control of the health care system and the transfer payments for health became a transfer of tax points or GST points, why could administrative arrangements not be made so that it is possible to share services of this kind and not pay for them before they are provided?

I am disappointed that the hon. member presumes bad faith on the part of Quebec when the opposite is actually the case. Whenever Quebec votes for something or agrees with something in the House, it is for the good of Quebec. When it is for the good of Quebec, it is almost always for the good of Canadians as well.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is really far too generous to his own party. Politics can be full of surprises, and as it so happens, the member just gave us a fine example of that.

The Bloc Québécois has been here for 20 years and will continue to be as long as Quebec is not a sovereign, independent country. That will happen quite soon—as soon as possible, I hope.

My colleague claimed that his government had solved the fiscal imbalance and controlled the spending power. They controlled it so well that Quebec households have no spending power left. Our companies have little spending power and little ability to invest because the government interferes in areas that do not fall within its jurisdiction and spends enormous amounts of money. As a result, Quebec is unable to take its fate into its own hands.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will first announce the good news, both for my colleagues in this House and for all those watching on CPAC, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, because everyone is familiar with his legendary eloquence.

I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher who provided the impetus for this motion on opposition day today. I would say that he is the godfather of the motion, but I know we must use sponsor instead of that term in this House, as I recall being dressed down for that in the past. He does excellent work, and so we try to measure up to his standard, to provide the key points that will mean that this motion, on this opposition day, will pass virtually unanimously. The only ones who will perhaps oppose it are the Conservative members from Quebec, because it is very difficult to make them see sense.

First, let us step back and take a brief look at how the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces stood in 1867. It was quite simple. Let us put ourselves in the context of the 19th century. At that time, it was easy, because if something directly affected people and how they organized society, it was under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Examples are civil laws that codified the relationships between people, the organization of society through social programs, health and education, and cultural matters. If something did not directly affect people or the internal organization of society, it could be federalized. Examples are monetary policy, international trade and the general regulation of trade and commerce and industry. In 1867, Quebec was not really industrialized, and that was not something that necessarily affected people.

The people in our ridings, a majority in Quebec, feel that the federal government is remote from their daily lives. In fact, what I have just read is a direct result of that, and people feel very remote from the federal government. What affects them on a daily basis are matters that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Quebec. But the situation is not the same in the other provinces, because in the other provinces, the government they primarily look to is the federal government.

How can we get the other provinces to understand our strong desire to manage our own areas of jurisdiction as we see fit? We know that there are different ways of doing things that are often extremely effective and efficient.

At one point, I went on a cross-Canada tour. The tour touched indirectly on Canada’s social policies. It would be too long a story to recount, and that is why I chose the term “indirectly”. At the time, the federal government wanted to take control of many of these social policies. In all the Canadian cities I visited, Quebec was always looked to as a model.

Indeed, the motion that gave Quebec the status of nation, which passed in this House, was a step in the right direction. But the words “in a united Canada” were added. Did this mean that “Canada had Quebec in shackles”? Were we supposed to think that the term “a united Canada” was a straitjacket in which Quebec was to be bound?

I think so, and we can see this reflected in the positions of successive governments that have tried to limit Quebec’s initiatives and usurp areas of jurisdiction in order to create a Canada in the image of what we still see occurring today: nation building.

In the past, people talked about the federal government’s spending power in public every day, and about the taxes collected by the federal government, which were too high considering its areas of jurisdiction. Technically, that is where it stopped. However, Quebec’s financial resources were limited because the money was not divided up fairly, especially after Brian Mulroney's Conservative government swept through, leaving a deficit of some $40 billion when it was voted out in 1993. We know what happened after that: after the 1993 election, there were only two Conservatives left in all of Canada.

With an impending Conservative government deficit of almost $54 billion, using the rule of three, there should be only one single Conservative left in office after the next election. People remember, and they can make the same choices again. I do not think that we can expect to see the most generous members of that gang left standing.

I am now going to reread the motion because it says it all. Even the Conservatives should find it easy to understand. They must uphold the principle that they themselves adopted in this House: that Quebec is a nation. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, as long called for by the Bloc Québécois and now called for by the Member for Beauce, end the so-called federal spending power in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, eliminate the federal programs that violate the division of powers, and transfer tax points to the provinces by: a) eliminating all federal spending in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, unless express authorization is given by Quebec or the province; b) providing a systematic right to opt out with full financial compensation and without condition of all existing and future programs, whether co-funded or not, that intrude into jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces; c) transferring, at the request of Quebec or a province, fiscal room in the form of tax points and/or GST to replace the amounts that the province would otherwise have received under the Canada Health Transfer, federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction and the transfer for social programs and postsecondary education indexed to 1994-1995 levels.

We are even giving the Conservatives the recipe, as we in the Bloc often do, but they will not listen to anything. They would rather stick to their own recipe and botch it.

Why 1994-95 levels? Because, when the Conservatives left office with a large deficit, the Liberals took office and drastically cut social programs, something that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Why ask for tax points and GST transfers? To have an insurance policy against individuals who run up huge deficits, and then pull the plug. All nations need some stability. We send money to the federal government. Every employer and organization in Quebec could be asked to send their payroll deductions, the tax money, to the Quebec government instead, which would then send the federal government a cheque for those areas that fall within its jurisdiction. But the government has fallen so low and is doing such a poor job that the amount of that cheque would not be very high.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, in Quebec, expressed himself by asking his colleague from Burlington a question. He talked about democracy and referred to the referendums. He may be right about 1980, but 1995 was another kettle of fish. Was that really democracy? We know very well that the whole thing was rigged by the federal government. I wonder where he was at the time.

I nonetheless have a question for the hon. member for Burlington. He referred to what the government has given us by adopting the motion on the nation of Quebec within a united Canada. It is in this “united Canada” that we still see the federal spending power lurking about. The federal government wants to control everything, including the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

That is what is going on now, and that is what the Conservatives want to continue to do, even though in December 2005 they said they would respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If they respected the jurisdictions, then they would send transfer payments for programs.