Odina Desrochers

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

He's a tinkerer.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the lock-up prior to the budget, government officials could not tell us whether or not the assistance already provided by Quebec to farmers would be deducted in calculating the amount of federal support.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister clearly indicate whether his department will deduct the assistance provided by Quebec from the financial support that Ottawa is about to give to farmers?

[The Budget, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if it is this government's intention to distribute federal funding for health on the basis of the provinces' respective demographic weight, will the minister also start distributing his goods and services contracts based on demographic weight as well, because Quebec experiences an annual shortfall in excess of $2 billion in this respect?

[The Budget, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to a news report broadcast by Radio-Canada yesterday evening, information on measures to be announced in the upcoming federal budget has been leaked by federal sources.

According to these sources, the federal government is planning to increase transfer payments to the provinces for health, but the terms and conditions for distributing the funds among the provinces would result in Quebec no longer receiving its fair share in two years.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that his government intends to change the method used for calculating how transfer payments are distributed among the provinces in such a way that Quebec's share will continue to drop?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have the solution to all the disputes and to everything that is going on with the federal government, and that is sovereignty for Quebec.

Let us have a sovereign Quebec, with full powers in health, education, welfare and all the problems will be resolved.

When I see my colleague opposite boasting about this agreement today, when we are only getting what was ours to begin with, this is not a gift. Since 1993, we have sustained massive cuts. This government has yielded to pressure from the public and all the provinces. At least it has had the courage to put a little money back into health care.

With respect to the social union, I would like to ask the hon. member to pledge that his government will never interfere in health, education and social programs again. The reason for this request is that Quebec could not be a part of this social union because the document put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada was not clear.

[The Late James Baskin, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James Baskin, a former member of the House, who died on January 8 at the age of 79. He sat in the House from 1957 to 1963.

He was seen as a populist who defended the interests of his community. Although he held office for only seven years, Mr. Baskin had to face the constituents of Renfrew-South on three occasions and served under Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in two minority governments.

He was first elected in 1957 and re-elected in 1958 in the Progressive Conservative landslide that sent John Diefenbaker and his team back to power with a strong majority. He was again elected in 1962, only to lose his seat when Lester B. Pearson won the 1963 election.

This businessman turned politician, who came from a small town near Peterborough, was an energetic politician close to the people and attuned to his constituents' needs. Mr. Baskin's second passion in life, after politics, was horses. He was one of those responsible for the construction of the Rideau Carleton Raceway here in Ottawa. That was not all this former Progressive Conservative member did. He also bought the Carling Avenue Bar, which became a watering hole for regional politicians. He ran this hotel until it was torn down in 1986. The site is now occupied by the Corel Centre, the new arena built for the NHL's Ottawa Senators.

After his hotel experience in Ottawa, this enterprising gentleman invested in another hotel, this time in Daytona Beach, Florida. He loved the public as much as he loved horses and managed to benefit both.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in the debate concerning the prebudget consultation report, perhaps I should add as part of the new economic statement in December by the Minister of Finance to members of the Liberal Party of Canada on the Standing Committee on Finance.

The extensive cross-country consultations from Vancouver to Halifax, in which the committee heard from economic corporations, associations, unions and individuals who came to denounce government decisions, was no more than a tidy marketing operation conducted by the Minister of Finance's hacks to mask the truth about what was really going on in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. With the help of his Liberal accomplices, he preferred to write his own conclusions in an economic plan that will be part of his next budget, a sort of productivity covenant.

Like my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I followed the consultations throughout the country and I never heard anything about this new “martinist” definition, which is very simplistic, another centralizing move by federal Liberals whose sole goal is to meddle even more in the affairs of Quebec and of other provinces.

In recent months, the Liberal government has stepped up its political action, its partisan politics, acting out of arrogance and lack of compassion.

What are we to think of a government which is prepared to loosen its purse strings for the hockey millionaires, a government which is still refusing to compensate all Hepatitis C victims, a government which no longer respects its own constitution, but interferes increasingly in areas of provincial jurisdiction, a government which obstinately insists on making workers suffer, by maintaining an employment insurance program which now excludes 60% of those in our society who are unemployed?

What are we to think of such a government? It is a government that is totally disconnected from the economic realities of Canada and of Quebec, one that is headed by a Prime Minister more concerned with personal popularity than with governing the country, one who backs up his ministers of finance and human resources development, who thumb their noses at the workers by cutting employment insurance contributions by a mere 15 cents per $100. There have been no major changes to the employment insurance program, nor do I expect to see the Minister of Finance offering any gifts in that area in his next budget.

In my area, in the Chaudière-Appalaches region, in Lotbinière, we still have to deal with two regional rates which do not reflect the socio-economic profile of the region. Lotbinière, the region I represent, is still subject to two regional rates which create wide differences when newly unemployed workers apply to the Department of Human Resources Development.

Allow me to demonstrate once again how flawed this system is. There are two unemployed people living in two municipalities only a few kilometres apart. Their applications for unemployment are not handled in the same way. One is entitled to 22 weeks, while the other is entitled to only 14.

Despite repeated pressure from the Mouvement des sans-emploi de Lotbinière, and other groups concerned with the rights of the unemployed, the Minister of Human Resources Development continues to tolerate this geographical and technocratic fiddling by a government which uses every means of manipulating public opinion.

Here is another example. Despite the repeated promises of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, who was to do everything to stop leaks to the media, we saw what happened last month. A few hours before the report on pre-budget consultations was to be tabled, large extracts of this working document appeared on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal at 10 p.m. However, at 9 p.m. on RDI, Radio-Canada broadcast a report explaining how the Liberal government went about accumulating the employment insurance surpluses.

The message from the press conference, chaired by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the Bloc critic for human resources development, caused the Liberals considerable embarrassment. But, surprise, at 10 p.m., the Bloc Quebecois press conference had been cut from the Téléjournal and replaced with an outline of the Minister of Finance's policy.

The federal Liberals became, in the month of December, experts in report leaks and figure and media tampering. The report on the unfortunate state of our hockey millionaires was leaked. The report on the results of the selection for the city to host the 2010 winter Olympics in Canada is another example, and there are many others. The Liberals' conduct in this House flew in the face of democratic principles and made a mockery of the rules on how committees should operate.

The Liberal government, which only holds power because of the majority in Ontario, is definitely becoming increasingly arrogant. We can never say it often enough. This government is arrogant, heartless and a threat to the social security of the most disadvantaged, those who got stuck with the bill for the government's drastic cuts in transfer payments for health, education and social programs.

Once again, the Liberals have taken the prebudget consultations and turned them into a partisan activity to promote their own election platform, instead of an exercise that honestly reflects the comments made at these public hearings.

But we knew this was what the Liberals would do. So, this year, the Bloc Quebecois did something new and travelled throughout Quebec to ask Quebeckers how they thought the Minister of Finance's budget surplus should be used. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, conducted a democratic exercise and tabled a report consisting of briefs from 26 members of our party. In this report, Quebeckers' demands focussed on the following: reimburse Quebec and the other provinces for health, education and social programs; substantially reduce individual income taxes, but target these reductions; improve the EI regime. The consensus of Quebeckers mirrored that of the majority of opinions expressed by stakeholders in other Canadian provinces.

What did the Minister of Finance do with these recommendations? He rejected them out of hand. The Liberals, who show no shame in diverting funds from the employment insurance fund, are trying to convince the public that doing so is a democratic and transparent act.

Since last December 2, every dollar contributed to the employment insurance fund goes to pad the Minister of Finance's surplus, and not to provide the unemployed with reasonable benefits. Today, February 2, 1999, the surplus in the employment insurance fund, accumulating at the rate of $59 million a day, or $2.5 million an hour, $48,850 a minute, has already reached the level of $3,658 million plus several hundred thousands. That is the truth.

In conclusion, the surplus in the federal budget will in actual fact be some $12 to $15 billion, regardless of what the Minister of Finance says.

Credible economists, for instance those at Mouvement Desjardins, agree with the Bloc Quebecois forecasts.

I speak for the people of Lotbinière and of Quebec in calling for the Liberal government to at last respond to the many social and economic expectations of the people of Quebec. I fear, however, that the Minister of Finance, with his usual arrogance, will once again hit the sick, youth, women, the unemployed, and the middle class with his next budget.

Such is the tragedy of Canadian federalism at the present time.

[Agriculture, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is required to make known his position with respect to WTO negotiations by April 1999.

With the deadline just months away, we can only conclude that the federal government has come up empty. To date, there is no sign of any serious consultation.

Recently Quebec agricultural producers, processors, and distributors, as well as the UPA and MAPAQ, came up with an initial proposal: with the OECD showing more flexibility, the United States taking a tougher stance, and little give from Asia, Japan and Europe, the UPA is calling for the status quo.

Canada has slashed its funding more than any other country, and everyone admits that it is a pushover. If he hopes to defend the farmers of Quebec and Canada, the minister has to get out of Ottawa: it is urgent that he consult the agricultural sector and take a firm stand based on what he hears.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-43 establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

First off, let me tell you that I am against the establishment of this new federal agency, primarily because of the attitude and actions of this government; this is an arrogant, centralizing government, which ignores provincial jurisdictions.

We in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support a bill that only seeks to centralize the collection of taxes in Canada, downsize the Department of National Revenue and, more importantly, create an agency that will be in direct conflict with Quebec's ministry of revenue.

With this bill, the Liberal government is showing that it is having more and more difficulty fulfilling its administrative responsibilities. It is once again about to abdicate its responsibilities.

This new agency could make it possible for the minister of revenue to avoid doing his duty, which is to protect the taxpayer against the abuse of power.

The purpose of the Liberal mania for creating independent agencies is to then use any pretext for blaming them for everything that goes wrong, while refusing to get involved by saying that the independent nature of the agency must be respected and the government cannot get involved.

I can already hear the words of the revenue minister when he has to answer a question about this new agency “As members know, this agency is an independent entity. I will carry out the necessary checks and, as soon as we have the information, we will make it known here in the House”.

In other words, while the investigation is going on, they will be looking for a solution that will get them out of the embarrassing situation.

Let us now have a look at what lies behind Bill C-43.

It mandates the federal government to set up the right conditions for one more anti-labour move. The result of this bill would be that 20% of Revenue Canada employees would be taken out from under the protection of the Public Service Employment Act, and this would allow the new agency full rein to raise or lower salaries, to hire or lay off employees. This government is prepared to do anything to satisfy its excessive need of centralization and its publicity seeking efforts to get the maple leaf onto everything.

For the Liberals, simplification and duplication are synonymous, and harmonization to them means interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is opposed to the creation of this agency. Ontario is also on its guard against this new threat of centralization, and is even giving thought to setting up its own agency.

Can the minister of revenue tell us why he is in such a rush to create this new agency, when Quebec does not want it any more than the majority of other provinces? Where does his support for this bill come from?

We are in favour of the principle of a single collector, and in Quebec this should be the Quebec Minister of Revenue, who would collect all federal and provincial taxes. Judging by the outcome of the joint collection of the Quebec sales tax and the GST in Quebec at the moment, this is an effective formula.

The Canada customs and revenue agency is another federal creation, the inspiration of senior federal revenue officials in Ottawa, who want to create a sort of monster, a sort of octopus reaching out its tentacles beyond the provinces to the municipal and local levels.

They intend to administer everything, from provincial sales taxes to gas and alcohol taxes. Are we going to take the risk and let this arrogant, voracious and centralizing Liberal government enact this bill?

Who is this agency accountable to? Will the members of this House be able to obtain explanations on its management, its results and its errors. Currently, the department of revenue is accountable to the House of Commons. The government cannot avoid embarrassing questions about family trusts and the small privileges the Minister of Finance enjoys with his little boats, for example.

We are afraid that this new agency will face less parliamentary scrutiny than is currently the case for the Department of National Revenue. Members can imagine an embarrassing question on the agency's activities; the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister of revenue have already written their answers.

From what we see in the debate on Bill C-54, some answers are needed here about the incredible quantity of personal and private information that will end up in the hands of the federal government. In the current debate on Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill, which once again collides with Quebec legislation on access to information, we can see already how the federal government would use this information to achieve its goal of centralization.

This new bill is doomed to failure. The Canada customs and revenue agency, an agency that wants to collect everything and that should convince the provinces to join it, lacked both agreements and signatures when Bill C-43 was introduced. Even in committee, when we asked the minister of revenue “Where is your support, Mr. Minister”, he had none.

Who will foot the bill for this agency? Its users, but at what price? Initially, the federal agency will try to show that it is generating savings, but it will soon raise its user fees to satisfy the voracious Liberals.

And, speaking of how voracious this government is when it comes to finances, yesterday, the Minister of Finance and his sidekick, the Minister of Human Resources Development, had the nerve to announce a paltry 15 cent cut in premiums in response to the Bloc Quebecois' many calls that something be done about the present EI system.

There is no change in the system per se, which continues to be a wonderful method of collecting funds for the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada, or plumping up the future campaign fund of the Minister of Finance, who has serious designs on the leadership of his own party. And where do the surpluses go? Into the Minister of Finance's pocket. What is this government doing to correct regional rates based on the number of hours worked? Nothing.

When it comes to the most disadvantaged members of our society, this government turns a deaf ear. It is the embodiment of arrogance and heartlessness, taking its cue from the behaviour of the Liberal Prime Minister.

As far as the Y2K bug is concerned, will all the changes that Revenue Canada employees will have to face make it any easier for them to prepare for this transition in informatics, on which much energy already had to be expended?

Where is Revenue Canada at in preparing for the year 2000? Statements made by the Auditor General of Canada show he is expecting the worst because the government is not taking this potential bug very seriously. One can only imagine the administrative and data processing chaos in which the transition from Revenue Canada to a future customs and revenue agency would take place.

In closing, I would like to summarize the reasons why I am reiterating my opposition to Bill C-43: the centralizing obsession of the Liberal government; the danger this agency represents for the revenue department in Quebec; the inordinate amount of power this agency would have; the anti-union attitude of the government in this bill as it affects Revenue employees; the intrusion on the privacy of our fellow citizens; the performance of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its current handling of the scrapie crisis with Quebec sheep, where there is such an administrative muddle that the minister and the agency cannot even figure out where they are at.

I am saying no to the Liberals, I am saying no to the Minister of National Revenue and, once again, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am calling for the immediate withdrawal of this bill.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the long speech made by my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, shows how sensitive most of my colleagues and I are to the issue of the importance and vitality of small and medium size businesses. Be they established in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, in the Gaspé region, or in my riding, Lotbinière, in the heart of Quebec, they are all important.

The Lac-Saint-Jean region has benefited much from Alcan. However, if we want to create jobs now, if we want to rebuild the social fabric, the collective fabric of each and every one of our regions, we must count on small and medium size businesses.

Frequently, a small business with ten or twenty employees will allow a small community to survive. How many times have we seen a community lose a school? But the arrival of a new investor who created jobs and made possible the coming of new families can allow a community to survive. It is a part of Quebec's history that must be preserved.

I believe that this heritage depends on the creation and survival of our small and medium size businesses.