Gilles-A. Perron

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard a number of my colleagues comment on the budget.

I hear my colleagues opposite saying that we are tearing at our clothing, bleating and taking pleasure in criticizing for the sake of it. This morning, I would simply like to comment on the budget, particularly table 6.4 on page 138, where they brag about lowering Canadians' taxes.

Looking at this table—and I am not the one saying it, it is the Minister of Finance who prepared it—we see that a Canadian or a Quebecker earning up to $40,000 will save $114.75 a year. If we divide that by 365 days, it amounts to about 30 cents a day, not even enough for a cup of coffee.

A single taxpayer earning $1 million will pocket over $8,000, and the bank president will save $30,000.

So my question to the hon. member is this: Would indexing the tax tables not be a fairer way to provide tax relief?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

If we relied on people such as you, Quebec would not be defended.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the member opposite, a very good philosophical speech. No one can object to virtue and glory. However, I have a concern. I would like to know what his position on hepatitis C was?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the philosophical speech of the member opposite. He spoke of a flexible federalist government but that government actually appears dictatorial to me.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of this government which, after cutting billions of dollars in provincial transfers, now says it wants to put some money back into those transfers, but not unconditionally. Indeed, this government wants to interfere to the point of dictating to the provinces how to administer billions of dollars, how to become part of Canada-wide programs, while the Canada Health Act already provides for five conditions to which all provincial governments in Canada have already agreed.

Why should the federal government interfere even further? Why?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, perfection might be found in the way my friend from Richmond-Arthabasca speaks, but just like his NDP colleague from Winnipeg-Transcona he does not know how to listen and hear to perfection. He should have listened to the speech by the member for Drummond who said that the Bloc Quebecois had absolutely nothing against the five principles of medicare.

My colleague said we should get our money back without any precondition. I also would like to remind my learned colleague from Richmond-Arthabasca that in the late 1980s and up to the beginning of 1993, when his party was in office, on the other side, it was next to perfect. And then in 1993 perfection dropped to two members.

In conclusion, I would like to say this: at no time in his speech did he mention the right of the government to interfere in, control or put its nose in the way Quebec manages its affairs. Whether he agrees or not, he did not say so and made no mention of their accomplishments. I would like him to elaborate further on this.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for sharing her time with me.

I cannot say that I am pleased to address the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on prebudget consultation.

To give a bit of background, I travelled across Canada in 1997 to listen to people and to their recommendations on what ought to be in the 1997 budget. Bhat happened? Not a thing. People were made to travel, much energy and money was expended to listen to them, but none of their recommendations made it into the last budget.

In the fall of 1998, in the latest consultations, once again people put themselves out to appear and to tell this Minister of Finance what should be in the budget. Still more surprising, what these people had to say did not even make it into the report.

The report tabled before the holidays is one that was created, thought up and written, by the boss, the real boss of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of Finance. If read carefully, this report is there to pat the government on the back, tell the minister what a fine, intelligent fellow he is, what a really great job he is doing.

If the finance minister is going to show off, he should do it properly. His forecast was a surplus of some $2 or $3 billion. According to the Bloc Quebecois figures, the figure will instead be $10 billion or more, if not $15 billion.

What is the source of these surpluses the Minister of Finance boasts about? Where do they come from these billions of dollars saved by the Minister of Finance? It is easy, no academic studies are required to figure out where these billions of dollars come from. They come first from the unwarranted cuts in transfers to the provinces, health care services, social services and education. My colleague from Drummond could talk for hours about the negative effects of these cuts in health in all the provinces of Canada, primarily in Quebec.

Where does the money come from? Quite simply from the fact that over the years the government opposite has been raising income tax on the middle class and the poor by not indexing tax tables. Where do these surpluses come from? They come from this government's shameless siphoning-off of funds from the employment insurance fund, to which workers and employers contribute to create employment insurance intended to help workers in trouble. But they siphon the money off.

Our Minister of Finance is lucky, for the low interest rates of recent years have provided him with lower debt service costs, allowing him to save on income tax. The world economic situation has also provided the government with more revenues than it expected.

No, this Minister of Finance and this government have not kept their promises. They told us “We will put a stop to this shameless wastage”. But they have not yet done so. They also said “We will cut useless and outdated programs”, but they are creating other useless and outdated programs, such as the millennium scholarships. They are going to spend billions of dollars rather than give the money to the provinces so they can manage it efficiently. They are continuing duplication in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The report refers to a productivity covenant. Rubbish! This government should start by being effective and productive and by doing a good job of managing taxpayers' money.

This year I did not travel across Canada listening to what people had to say on the budget. I sat down in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles—I am sure you will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I say hello to my constituents—and asked members of the general public, bank managers and presidents of chambers of commerce what the government should do with the surpluses. They came up with three or four ideas.

First of all, there was unanimous agreement that the government should return the cuts in provincial transfer payments so that the provinces could do something about the problems caused by the cuts in the health, education and social services sectors.

The second suggestion was to give the middle class and the most disadvantaged a tax break. This could be done by indexing the tax tables.

The third suggestion was to improve the employment situation and reduce the premiums paid by employees and employers.

I suggest that the Minister of Finance pay a little visit to the Gaspé and New Brunswick, that he pay a little visit to seasonal fishers with EI problems. He should get out and see some real people.

Finally, everyone agreed that the government should clean up its act, as it has been promising to do since 1993. Everyone remembers the famous red book of 1993. This government should not establish programs like the millennium scholarships. Instead it should introduce the programs needed to create jobs and get Canadians and Quebeckers working.

That is what an intelligent government should be doing, not boasting of its achievements at the expense of the provinces and the poor workers of Quebec and of Canada.

[Petitions, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition calling on parliament to form a parliamentary committee with the main objective of considering Canadian parliamentarians' ability to narrow the gap between rich and poor in the new context created by the globalization of markets, and suggesting specific solutions.

I particularly wish to thank my constituents in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, many of whom signed this petition set in motion by my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Income Tax Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for London North Centre. We are in favour of Bill C-316 and it is unanimously that the members of the Bloc Quebecois hail the initiative of the hon. member for London North Centre.

We must indeed support our young people, as our hon. colleague said. But that is what we, in Quebec, have been doing since 1964. At the time, the Prime Minister Pearson and Premier Lesage agreed on the transfer of powers over 24 areas to Quebec. One of these areas of responsibility was education.

In 1964, we immediately set out to develop in Quebec one of the best education systems and a grants and bursaries system second to none in the world today. We are very proud of this system.

That is why we furious and prepared to fight with all we have got to keep the federal government from laying even a finger on our school system. The Government of Quebec should be able to opt out of the millennium scholarship program with full compensation.

When the people across the way do things that we find are good, and they do, I make a point of acknowledging them.

Again, I want to tell our colleague from London North Centre that he can count on our support. We will be voting in favour of this bill.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Mississauga West that, if this is not trying to ram a bill through, I do not know what it is. We were gagged, quite simply, when the witnesses came before the committee.

He says there was great participation. Yes, 18 organizations plus some 50 individuals, who came to tell us that there was no unanimity on Bill C-43.

I ask the hon. member for Mississauga West what his basis is for making such false statements.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Mississauga South said to one of my colleagues, because I was insulted.

If I understand correctly, he said that making changes to the revenue department for the next millennium would be like changing the oil without changing the oil filter. This is an insult to the employees of the revenue department.

The hon. member for Mississauga South should have compared the establishment of this agency to the construction of a new vehicle, as the revenue minister did.

I answered that the new vehicle put together by the department does not look too good. The best clients, the provinces, were not even consulted, so we could find out whether or not this vehicle would sell. In my opinion, it will not sell.

I would like the Reform member to tell me why the provinces will not buy Bill C-43.