Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you were in this House. Going right back to October 25, 1993, the valiant member for Saint-Jean rose in this House every week to ask questions, of Doug Young in particular, and then his successor, to get him to settle the matter of the former Singer employees as promptly as possible. Here we are in 1999, and it is still not settled. It is now May 25.

That member deserves recognition, and got it last June 2 from his constituents.

Do you know what the President of Treasury Board wants? He wants to set up a board with friends of the regime. But what sort of board will it be? One made up of cronies of the regime, of course.

One need only look at the quality and the savoir-faire of the Minister responsible for Francophonie last week—hon. members know they want to get rid of her—when she met with representatives and heads of state of the various francophone countries throughout the world in Paris, along with my good buddy Jacques Roy. They want to get rid of him too, in an exchange for the President of Treasury Board, in a sort of musical chairs.

I do not know whether the member from Acadia, who is here, has heard of the situation. They were talking about it this morning on the radio. The Minister responsible for he Francophonie—an insult to Acadians—did not even know the year the Acadians were deported. Our Minister responsible for the Francophonie dishonoured us in Paris.

Jacques Roy, fortunately, set the matter straight. In a few years, she will talk about a “small deportation”. What is going on now in Kosovo is exactly what happened in 1755 in Acadia, except there were no television cameras then. It is exactly the same thing. A people was destroyed. They tried to eradicate it.

The minister said “It was some time in the 17th century”. She is out by a century. When you're in the 20th century and you are out by a century it is a 5% error. For the Minister responsible for the Francophonie, this in unforgivable. Fortunately, Jacques Roy was there to set things straight.

I would, in the period reserved for questions and comments, like to give my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the opportunity to add to this. She is entitled, while she questions me.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, for his fine speech on the President of Treasury Board's intentions to get his hands on the loot, somewhat in the same way as the Minister of Finance did with the employment insurance fund.

I am looking at the figures here. Going back 20 months, the surplus was $30.2 billion, and if the trend continues, a quick calculation would indicate that it must be pretty close to $33 billion. It is no longer $30 billion, but close to $33 billion.

Where does this surplus come from? The public service has contributed $14.9 billion, the RCMP $2.4 billion, and finally the Canadian Armed Forces $12.9 billion. Adding all this up, it comes to a surplus of $30.2 billion. Those were the figures as at March 31, 1998, just about 20 months ago. With the projection, I would suggest that the figure would now be $33 billion.

The President of Treasury Board, before being appointed Ambassador to Paris, wants to make his time here in the House of Commons worthwhile by doing something memorable. He is getting ready to deliberately get his hands on this money. Now a committee is going to be struck to administer this surplus, with some friends of the government of course, as was done with André Ouellet, the former member for Papineau—Saint-Michel.

He was appointed chairman of the Canada Post Corporation, with a salary that far exceeds what he was earning as a federal minister, without having to be concerned about voters but with trips all over the world to see how postal services operate in other countries.

So, the President of the Treasury Board is about to set up a new committee to manage the surpluses, but that committee will include very few workers. The minister even neglected to consult the unions of the three groups to find out how these surpluses could be managed.

Also, we learned on March 31, 1998, that $3.1 billion must be paid to retirees, while $1.8 billion is coming into the fund. One might think that if the fund must pay $3.1 billion in pensions while receiving only $1.8 billion in contributions, it will get smaller every year. Not so. A fund of that magnitude can easily earn in excess of 10% annually, without any risk.

At a rate of 10%, an amount of $33 billion will earn $3.3 billion. The current outlay is $3.1 billion. This means that the interest alone provides enough money to pay the pensions to retirees. In fact, the government could even decide right now to give a contribution holiday to all employees of the public service, RCMP and Canadian armed forces. It is worth doing the calculating.

The President of the Treasury Board, and member for Hull—Aylmer, is about to get his hands on $33 billion. What will he do with that money? Perhaps he will do like the government did with the employment insurance surplus. Sixty per cent of workers pay EI premiums but, when they apply for benefits, unfortunately six out of ten do not qualify. They are told that they must pay premiums of $2.55 on every $100 of insurable earnings but that they will not qualify for benefits. Barely four out of ten qualify for benefits, and those benefits are for increasingly short periods and increasingly small amounts.

Clearly, the Minister of Human Resources Development, whom the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques sometimes refers to as the wise guy, led a very sheltered life. He has no idea what it means to earn $8 or $10 an hour. He had everything handed to him and now he is after the $21 billion surplus built up by workers in the past four years. It is truly scandalous.

To get back to Bill C-78, I would like to tell the House about a very sad case. This is something that is going on in the riding of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, with former Singer employees. I am sure members will remember Singer sewing machines. When I was young, my mother always had a Singer.

Employees of this famous multinational cannot get at their pension fund because of the federal government's refusal to help.

On the weekend, I was speaking to one of my friends, a former SAL employee and BC mine worker. His name is Charles Lacroix. He told me he began working in the asbestos mines on November 21, 1970, while he was still very young. Year after year, he paid into the pension fund.

Of course he did not contribute much, but the company contributed 19 times as much as Charles. The matter of the employees' pension fund has not been settled yet. The corporation was replaced by a limited partnership called Lab Chrysotile. The matter of the pension fund is still before the courts. Workers are getting nothing from their pension fund, the matter has been dragging on for the past 13 years.

Does it not sound like Singer, though not as bad? I am told that the majority of Singer's former employees are either dead or very old. If tomorrow morning they were given $30,000 or $50,000, they could not make full use of it. The ball is in the government's court; it is wilfully delaying any settlement. The matter has been before the courts for I do not know how many years. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this earlier this morning. He might do it again.

The employees of the corporation, the asbestos company, of Lab Chrysotile, of Mazarin, which is part of this group, are having problems. The matter is before the courts, to the delight of the lawyers. We know who makes the laws around here. It is not the lawyers. “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”. This is what is going on. Unfortunately, it is always the most vulnerable members of society who foot the bill.

This is exactly what is going on with the employment insurance. Doug Young learned his lesson on June 2, 1997. He got his answer. I congratulate the men and women who ran for the New Democratic Party in New Brunswick, and defeated Dominique LeBlanc, who was on the same wave length as Doug Young. This does not mean Doug Young is unemployed. He is in cahoots with the local premier and he will make as much money, if not more, through raising a toll on highways over there.

I thank and congratulate the men and women who worked hard to bring some order back to New Brunswick and get rid of braggarts like Doug Young.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say about Bill C-78.

There is one point he did not address. However, I would like his opinion. Would this not be just what private businesses were waiting for? Might certain companies not want to follow the federal government's lead and do what they liked with pension funds?

It would be a bit like what happened in Black Lake and Thetford with the asbestos company, which helped itself to some of the surplus in the pension fund.

The member for Laval East mentions the Singer company. I am told that three quarters of the employees are now dead, or will not have the full benefit of their pensions. The company has been dragging the process out before the courts. Employees are being told that, if they do not see the results, their legal heirs will, as if that were any comfort.

I would like my colleague to go into greater detail on the example that the President of the Treasury Board is setting for the private sector.

[Rail Transportation, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, more than four years ago, the Quebec Central Railway closed down the Sherbrooke-Lévis section of its operations. Jean-Marc Giguère, the Beauce area man promoting this line, has met with nothing but refusals from the federal government , while the Government of Quebec has already announced its financial participation.

On two occasions, the secretary of state for regional development in Quebec has refused to meet with businessmen from the Beauce and Amiante regions. In the meantime, this government has invested $16 million into the Winnipeg-Churchill rail line in Manitoba.

It seems that the Liberal member for Beauce has already said he would lay his seat on the line to get his government to support Mr. Giguère's project. Given the steadfast refusal by the secretary of state, are we to begin preparing for an imminent by-election in the riding of Beauce?

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here I am back today, once again, with the famous Bill C-78.

This is a huge bill, with over 200 pages, which will affect hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees in the public service. I have the bill here. It is clearly a huge document.

The government of the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice is imposing closure—four hours to deal with such a huge bill—true to the Liberals' democratic style.

This bill will allow the President of the Treasury Board and member for Hull—Aylmer to appropriate the surplus in the pension fund of 275,000 employees, just as this very same government has taken the $21 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund by digging into the pockets of those with the least, those working on hourly wage, by making it harder to obtain EI and by artificially creating revenues because contributions are too high compared to the benefits the plan pays out. So, surpluses were created, and the finance minister, the ships minister, took $21 billion.

Today, the President of the Treasury Board is preparing to take $14.9 billion from the public service pension fund, $2.4 billion from the employees of the RCMP and $12.9 billion from the pensions of the Canadian armed forces, our military. This adds up to $30.2 billion. Bill C-78, which will probably be passed this afternoon, will allow the President of the Treasury Board to take $30.2 billion.

This affects 275,000 contributors. Of course, those who contributed in the past are now benefiting from the plan. There are 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses receiving benefits. These 212,000 people receive monthly payments totalling $3.1 billion annually, while 275,000 contributors pay $1.8 billion into the plan. The difference between what the plan takes in and what it pays out is $1.3 billion annually.

But, if the present surplus of $30.2 billion were well managed, it would bring in more than what the government pays out in monthly benefits. Public service, armed forces and RCMP employees could be given a premium holiday lasting a number of years.

I agree that this would not be a smart thing to do. But, and I am being perfectly honest here, I do not trust the government. I have seen how it treated the hourly workers of this country in its reform. I have seen how it treated the BC mine workers, who were laid off on November 1, 1997. Its track record is not good.

What is worse, this sends a clear message to the private sector that it can follow the lead of the government and the President of the Treasury Board and illegally help itself to the surpluses in employee funds. This is the message this government is sending the private sector.

This is precisely what happened to former BC mine workers, when their employer helped itself to part of the money in their pension fund, leaving some of them with a very small pension after 30 or 35 years of work. This is the sort of government we have.

In a 1998 press release, Treasury Board stated and I quote: “The President agreed with a number of the recommendations of the special advisory committee... [which] was the result of four years of dedicated work by union representatives, pensioners and government employees”.

Here we have a minister, who stated in February 1998 that he agreed with a number of the recommendations of an advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act established by the government, not even recognizing the negotiations suggested in its report.

The President of Treasury Board is trampling roughshod over these recommendations and doing what he pleases. Gangway, he is coming through. And he will get his hands on a surplus to which he is not entitled.

At the present time, there are no provisions for the over $30 billion that is excess to expenditures, and Bill C-78 enables the government to get its hands on a surplus the ownership of which, while not clearly defined, is morally the property of employees and ex-employees, i.e. pensioners.

It is going to get its hands on the dough, and then what it is going to do with it? It will probably argue that it invested it to reduce our collective debt. Once again, a small group of people will be footing the bill for all Canadians, just like the hourly-paid workers of this country, who make excessive contributions to employment insurance and receive very little in the way of benefits, while the employment insurance fund has generated a surplus in excess of $21 billion over four years. The government stole this surplus to reduce the collective debt and create budget surpluses for the minister of ships, thus allowing Ottawa to spend money in provincial jurisdictions.

The government did the same thing with the millennium scholarship program and a $2.2 billion budget. It also showed disrespect for Quebec by giving the four Atlantic provinces close to $1 billion in compensation for collecting the GST, while Quebec, which has been collecting the GST since 1991 under an agreement signed by Robert Bourassa and Prime Minister Mulroney, did not get one single dollar. This is what we call a double standard.

Under Bill C-78, contributions would be deposited in retirement funds and then transferred to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Who will manage the board? The appointment process will be very similar to that used for the Senate. The appointees, who will be responsible for managing and administering this fund, will be friends of the government.

The President of the Treasury Board will establish an advisory committee of eight persons. He will, of course, appoint eight of his friends, who will make a list of candidates—again chosen among the minister's friends—from which the board's 12 directors will be selected.

This is how the Prime Minister appoints his friends to the Senate and to the superior court. The former president of the Liberal Party of Canada was just rewarded by being appointed to the bench in my riding.

The Prime Minister appointed to the Senate the opponent of the Bloc Quebecois leader in the last general election, Liberal candidate Aurélien Gill, for having been defeated by my colleague. He was rewarded for his sacrifice by being appointed to the Senate until the age of 75.

The President of the Treasury Board will be no better than the Prime Minister. He too will appoint friends, who often are not qualified to administer a $30 billion surplus.

[Donat Grenier, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the chamber of commerce serving the asbestos region on giving its Personality of the Year award to Donat Grenier, a generous businessperson who is involved in many social and humanitarian causes.

The tribute that he will receive on Saturday at Thetford's Aramis club is well deserved, and I want to congratulate Mr. Grenier, whom everyone affectionately calls Donat.

The numerous organizations with which Mr. Grenier has been associated include Étang Madore, which allows disabled people to enjoy fishing, and the Aube de la paix detoxication centre. Mr. Grenier also played an active role in numerous community projects, including the restoration of the organ in the Disraeli church.

On behalf of all the residents of the asbestos region, I congratulate and thank Donat Grenier for being a pillar of our region's community association.

Bravo Donat and keep up the good work.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is of course with pleasure that I rise this noon hour to speak to Bill C-78, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act.

I should point out that three categories of public service of Canada employees are affected by this bill. There are the employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian armed forces and the enormous public service, spread from one end of the country to the other.

The Bloc Quebecois, naturally, will be opposing Bill C-78, unless the government agrees to the amendments it proposes. As I have few illusions, I can tell you we will be opposing this bill.

First, we in the Bloc have moved amendments to clauses 90, 145 and 192 in order to establish a management board that would report to the House annually. The President of the Treasury Board had established an advisory committee, which, in December 1996, in fact recommended to the President of the Treasury Board the establishment of a management board.

One would not give the job of managing blood to Dracula. One should not give responsibility for the $30 billion to the President of the Treasury Board. This is the worst mistake the Parliament of Canada could make.

The management board could properly manage the accumulated surpluses. It could establish contributions. And the reason there are these huge surpluses is that premiums are too high. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

The board of directors could also manage the surpluses, and deficits if any. In the event of deficits, premiums would be increased. This is always part of negotiations.

The valiant Liberal member who spoke before me has never belonged to a union. He has never needed to negotiate his salary and working conditions. When the employer says that he has 10% for increases and is going to put them only toward salaries, this will not include holidays, benefits or pension contributions. As a general rule, contributions to the pension fund are on a fifty-fifty basis. The good member opposite should know that.

So, if there are surpluses of $30.1 billion, it is because employees and the government put in too much. However, if the fund is well run, $30.1 billion at 10%—and I think that just about any manager can easily get more than 10% interest on such an imposing amount—would yield annual returns of $3 billion, while the federal government is now paying out $3.1 billion to retirees and surviving spouses. So the fund shrinks by only $100 million a year. As well, the workers in the three groups I mentioned earlier generate $1.8 billion annually, enriching the fund by $1.7 billion each year.

We find two things particularly maddening. The first is that the government is using its majority to gag the opposition, by allowing only four hours of debate on a bill over 200 pages thick, a bill that will allow the President of the Treasury Board to appropriate $30 billion. This is $30,000 million. It is a huge amount of money.

We saw what this government did with the unemployed and the poor. It took the surplus in the employment insurance fund, $21 billion, and of course used some of it to reduce the debt, but also to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, including with the millennium scholarships.

This government is warped and mean, and it is about to plunder the surpluses in its employees pension funds.

These surpluses were largely accumulated with the employees' contributions, as I will illustrate in detail. There is a surplus of $14.9 billion in the public service pension fund; another of $2.4 billion in the RCMP fund—there are not as many participants—and another of $12.9 billion in the Canadian forces pension fund. When we add up these three amounts, we get a total surplus of $30.2 billion.

Ministers in this good Liberal government, with the complicity of its backbenchers, will rise this evening and say “Yes, we agree to gouge public service workers, RCMP employees and Canadian forces members”.

These three groups currently include 275,000 participants. Some have retired, so that makes around 160,000. Then there are 52,000 surviving spouses as well.

With proper management, we could give workers several years' break from contributing. For most of them this would be a considerable break, amounting to over $1,000. The surpluses could finance the funds just from the revenue generated. If properly managed, they could earn well over 10%. This could go beyond the $3.1 billion monthly payments to retirees cost the fund.

Did the big cheese, the President of Treasury Board, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, consult the unions? No way. Were there any negotiations with anyone? No way. He has shown no respect for the committee he himself struck, by not paying attention to a single one of its recommendations. This is another disguised theft the Liberal government is preparing to commit.

Yesterday I got an e-mail from Jean Morin, a young man from my riding, from Thetford Mines to be exact. He asked me to speak out in the House against the flaw in the employment insurance system, which counts short weeks, when he works just a few hours in a week, in order to do the calculations for his last 26 weeks. He described this as robbery, as abuse.

These robberies are not being committed against the rich, people like the Minister of Finance, but against the poor, because there are greater numbers of them and they are often defenceless.

I am therefore asking the member across the way to stand up and vote against Bill C-78.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the bill, of which we are resuming debate at second reading today, was initially introduced on March 11 by the Minister of Justice. Today, we will continue debating the motion moved by the member for Laval-Centre.

First of all it must be remembered that all Quebeckers, without exception, spoke out against and opposed the approach proposed in Bill C-68. This bill is a useless, dangerous, vicious and right-wing, if not extreme right, piece of legislation.

In Quebec, the rate of youth crime is the lowest in Canada. Why? Because Quebec authorities look after teenagers and young people and provide them with a framework.

Bill C-68 would lower the age limit from 16 to 14. This would mean that 14 or 15 year olds could be tried as adults. I wonder if the Minister of Justice has teenage children of her own, if she has raised children.

I had the chance and the pleasure of raising three children who are now young adults, and I have vivid memories of my son, when he was 14, 15 or 16 years of age, playing with his Tonka cars in his twelve by twelve sandbox. He did not look like a criminal, but I often looked at him and observed him. All the kids from the neighbourhood liked to come and play in the sandbox.

My son was no saint at that time. He probably stole carrots from our neighbour's garden, apples from our other neighbour's apple tree, he probably went fishing and exceeded his quota, but he did not become a criminal.

Had he had the bad luck of hanging around with friends who could have had a negative influence on him, he could have become a bad boy. A one night or one week adventure could have landed him in jail. Even at 14 or 15 years of age, he could have been incarcerated in a facility for adults. The danger is that, when a young person is treated as an adult, that young person is still at the learning stage and jail is the worst school there is.

Moreover, under this bill, 14 or 15-year old children who receive an adult sentence could have their name and even their picture published in the newspapers.

The justice minister is a member of the Liberal government, the same party that, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, slipped a bit towards the left, as hon. members certainly remember, when the House voted to abolish the death penalty. Does the minister today think the exact opposite of what her party stood for at the time? I do not think so.

The justice minister represents the riding of Edmonton West, in Alberta. I wonder if she is not about to give in to the right, to the extremists who say something like “He who kills shall be hanged”.

Before I was elected to this House, I had the pleasure to teach for 27 years. During those 27 years, I met thousands of high school students and often the teachers would see how some of them behaved and comment among themselves “If this young guy does not change soon, he will run into some serious trouble”. I remember we were all in agreement about one student in particular, who seemed to be highly refractory. A few years later, he pulled himself together, and today he is a much sought-after renowned lawyer who earns a respectable living. The entire teaching staff was wrong about him.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have been young, and you know that young people sometimes go out, in groups of three or four, in a car, and end up in a bar. With such a party atmosphere, one young person in the group could be a little more devious than others and lead good boys and girls to commit an unfortunate act. Thus, one evening's mistake could ruin a lifetime.

I was talking in fact to my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm of the example of David Milgaard, in Saskatchewan, who was imprisoned some 20 years because of an error of justice. It would seem the Government of Saskatchewan is getting ready to compensate him.

When an adolescent is incarcerated for over 20 years, these being the best years of his life, a few million dollars cannot rectify such an error. They are preparing to give him $2 million plus $20,000 a month for life. Naturally, such situations give us pause for reflection.

Ottawa did not consult the provinces, despite the commitments the government made at a meeting in Regina with the various justice ministers in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm also seems to recall this commitment by the Minister of Justice, who comes from Alberta. She seems to want to espouse the ideals of the Reform members increasingly. This is most unfortunate.

I would like in closing to quote the opinions of a number of Quebeckers on Bill C-68.

André Normandeau, a criminologist at the University of Montreal, said, and I quote:

People out west are still reacting the same way they did 20 or 30 years ago, when crime was constantly on the increase. They have retained a highly punitive mindset. Changing the law is too simple and, more importantly, ineffective. Coercion has no effect at all on violent crime, which accounts for 10% of the whole.

So said André Normandeau in the March 13 issue of Le Soleil .

I will now refer to what Cécile Toutant, another criminologist and member of the Quebec Bar Association's subcommittee on young offenders, had to say.

When interviewed on the television program JE , the criminologist expressed her concerns about the reform, because of its potential for automatic referrals to the adult court. The criminologist maintained that, despite the flexibility of the process, there will be the possibility of measures being applied. She wondered why what is unjustified and inappropriate should be made possible.

In Quebec there is unanimous support for rejecting bill C-68 which, I would remind hon. members, lowers the age of adulthood from 16 to 14 years. Placing children of 14 or 15 in penitentiaries, where they will be raped and come under the influence of adult criminals, means the lives of these adolescents will be ruined for ever.

[1999 Budget Implementation Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on February 16 of this year, the Minister of Finance tabled his sixth budget in the House on behalf of the Liberal government. Year in and year out, Quebec pays over $30 billion on a budget of some $160 billion, including borrowings and so on.

You will certainly agree with me that Quebec is a real cash cow for this government in that, according to the books, we pay a lot more than we receive.

I would like to give you an example. In my riding, an asbestos mine, the BC Mine, was closed. It employed 300 workers, 200 of whom were over 52 years of age at the time of the closure. On June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development, accompanied by the godfather of my riding, the good member for Beauce, came to announce that $1.1 million would be spent to help workers aged 55 and over. This spring, there were coal mine closures in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The same Minister of Human Resources Development has allocated $111 million. The $1.1 million for Thetford became $111 million for coal miners.

Another $68 million will come from Canada Economic Development and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Add it all up and you will get a total of $259 million for Cape Breton coal miners, compared to $1.1 million for asbestos miners.

I listened to the Prime Minister, who addressed last night 1,500 guests who paid $450 each to attend a fundraising dinner in Montreal. He urged Liberal senators and ministers to criss-cross Quebec to spread the good news. Try to go and ask the Minister for Human Resources Development to come back to Thetford. He is scared to go.

On the advice of the godfather, he went there as bearer of bad news, but he got so scared he had to flee in the car of the member for Beauce. Do you really believe that these ministers and senators who rely on the system to pay them fat pensions even if them do not make any effort are going to criss-cross Quebec? They are scared.

Take the millennium scholarships for example. It would appear that Ottawa is always trying to duplicate structures. In Quebec, there was and always has been an excellent system of loans and bursaries for post-secondary and university students. The Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice wants to interfere and, over a 10 year period, only 10 years, he will invest more than $2 billion in scholarships. Once again, he is duplicating structures.

There are two agriculture ministers. If your cow produces processing milk, it comes under the federal agriculture minister, but if it produces fluid milk it is up to Minister Trudel in Quebec to deal with it.

Same farmer, same cow, but two different agriculture ministers. Dairy farmers now have what is called mixed quotas. So both ministers have jurisdiction over the same cow. Two revenue ministers, two finance ministers, two health ministers for the same patient, the same Quebecers. Two natural resources ministers and we could list scores of departments which are duplicated.

To issue cheques with a maple leaf, the Prime Minister is prepared to duplicate our system of loans and bursaries, which is working perfectly well.

In order to save on taxes, the millionaire Minister of Finance, who is very familiar with the legislation, will register his boats in tax havens, and then he will tell us to tighten our belts. This is the same individual who helped himself to the $21 billion EI surplus, and who is going to grab the $30 billion surplus in government employees' pension funds.

The Prime Minister, who yesterday urged his ministers and Liberal senators to spread the good news throughout Quebec, should have a look at the article in today's Le Droit about the increasing unavailability of low cost housing. Not in the riding of Saint-Maurice in Shawinigan, but in the nation's capital, in Ottawa-Carleton. One in five tenants—or 20%—are spending more than 50% of their income on rent. Can we imagine having to spend more than half of what we earned just on accommodation?

This is news to the Prime Minister. He has no living expenses, because he has an official residence. I imagine it has been years since he set foot in a supermarket. If a couple has to spend half of their income on rent, there is no way they are going to be eating steak once a week.

On the topic of the GST—I see the member for Beauce listening closely—at least two of the women who elected the Prime Minister call me regularly, and they called again last month, to ask when he would keep his promise and abolish the GST. I told them that he made the promise in order to trick them into voting for him, but that he lied. So that he could save face once he was in office, the member for Hamilton East resigned, only to be re-elected three months later at a cost of $500,000 to taxpayers. These are the reasons I will be voting against the sixth budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. These are only a few of the things I want to mention, during the ten minutes I have.

I could also talk about the Minister of Human Resources Development, the man who is often out to throttle the neediest in society, our young people. Did members know that 100% of working youth contribute to the EI fund? They pay $2.55 for each $100 earned. Even though all the young workers pay, only 15% of them qualify for EI benefits. That represents a net profit of 85% for the government, on the backs of our young people.

The Liberals will go around Quebec spreading the good news. When he came to Thetford Mines, on the steps of the town hall, the hon. member for Beauce saw what the good news was. He is the one who so badly advised the Minister of Human Resources Development by inviting him to make his $1.1 million announcement on the steps of the town hall.

Asbestos miners know about Liberal fairness: $1.1 million for them and $259 million for coal miners.

I will leave you to ponder this and to ask yourself questions about the Minister of Finance's sixth budget.

[1999 Budget Implementation Act, May 4th, 1999]

This is not a point of order.