Maurice Dumas

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in February 1996, in a rather trivial throne speech, the federal government announced the establishment of a national revenue collection agency. We believed this plan had been dropped, when just before the House adjourned last spring the revenue minister introduced Bill C-43 establishing the Canada customs and revenue agency.

I want to say I support every amendment aimed at reducing the scope of Bill C-43 because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

What the minister pulled out of his hat like a rabbit, is not an innocuous collection agency, but an evil creature, a bureaucratic monster that threatens privacy, the rights of Revenue Canada workers as well as provincial jurisdiction over tax collection. Even the business community is against the creation of the agency.

The minister said he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43 before the holiday season. Why the rush? One wonders why he is going ahead when nobody wants this customs and revenue agency.

The minister is proposing to alter the current structure of Revenue Canada by turning it into a quasi-independent agency. Therein lies the danger. This agency would be responsible for collecting taxes on behalf of the federal government, but also all manner of other taxes including sales and property taxes, if collection agreements are signed with provinces and municipalities.

I will set out the arguments against this bill.

First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. In this era of electronic communications, the risk of trafficking in personal information increases proportionally with the concentration of information within private organizations. If it sees the light of day, this agency will have access to an incredible quantity of personal and financial information.

What is more, this agency would be less subject than Revenue Canada to ministerial responsibility and parliamentary control. Consequently, the dissemination of this personal information on taxpayers would not be under public surveillance.

Second, the CCRA could prejudice the working conditions of Revenue Canada employees, and even threaten their jobs. In fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would be removed from the Public Service Employment Act. In two years, therefore, it could cut salaries, dismiss people, or decide on their working conditions, without their having a word to say in the matter. By adopting this bill, the government is using a heavy hand to modernize the public service, instead of seeking to reach an agreement with the unions.

Third, the CCRA does not greatly impress small business owners. Business was meant to be the primary beneficiary, yet announcement of its creation met with an ambivalent reaction, to say the least. Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business expressed their distrust of the concentration of powers in the agency.

According to a public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada, fewer than 40% of businesses had any interest in the agency. More than two thirds felt that it would cost as much if not more than the existing structure.

Finally, and this is vital, the Canada customs and revenue agency contravenes the federal principle that the provinces are sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction. This is not the first time that the Liberal government has come crashing into provincial jurisdictions. This agency will violate the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. If the provinces have separate revenues, they should collect them themselves.

Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who we cannot call overly sovereignist, rose some 30 years ago in opposition to the practice of having the federal government collect more tax than it needed to implement policies that were not within its jurisdiction. He even thought at the time that such action was illegal. In 1957, he wrote that “the federal government cannot legally have money in its coffers it claims after the fact to be for provincial use”.

What will happen if the federal government gives a central, Canada-wide tax collection agency the power to collect taxes in the place of the provinces and the municipalities? In our opinion, it would be impossible to stop the centralization of the Canadian federation once the federal agency is given the power to collect taxes belonging to the provinces and municipalities.

It is reasonable to assume that the federal government collects its own taxes so it can carry out its responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, its plan to entrust appointed officials who are not directly accountable for their actions with collecting provincial and municipal taxes is unacceptable.

In conclusion, at a time when the federal Minister of Finance is announcing that he has billions of dollars in surpluses, he should comply with the consensus reached by the provinces and give back the revenues he slashed in recent years, to allow them to look after health, education and social services, for which they are responsible under the Constitution Act, 1867.

Unfortunately, we should not count too much on the members opposite in that regard. Indeed, the Liberal members' mandate is to defend the federal government, not the interests of Quebeckers.

The example of the customs and revenue agency should convince those who have not yet realized it that, for the past 50 years, Canada has been headed inexorably toward centralization. The federal government, and particularly this Liberal government, has always tried to annihilate any desire for autonomy, whether at the Quebec, provincial or regional level.

The proposed customs and revenue agency will concentrate in the hands of a few superbureaucrats the power to dig into the pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, at the expense of Revenue Canada employees, small businesses and provincial and municipal governments.

The federal government already collects too large a share of tax revenues and it uses its spending power in an inconsiderate manner. We will not, on top of that, give it carte blanche to collect all taxes across Canada.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-43, which proposes the establishment of such an agency, and this is why we support all the amendments that seek to reduce the scope of the bill.

[Program For Older Workers Adjustment, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the answer the Minister of Human Resources Development gave yesterday to my question on POWA was totally unacceptable.

On the one hand, the minister claims to be concerned about the older workers who have been laid off, while on the other hand he is asking them to settle for active measures he feels are more equitable.

Will the minister admit that these active measures are inadequate, indeed totally unsuited to the realities of the labour market for older workers who have been laid off, and that they require special income support measures, to which his government committed in 1996?

[Program For Older Workers Adjustment, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in order to replace POWA, the government promised in 1996 to develop “various income support measures for those who could no longer find work in the highly competitive labour market”.

Why is the Minister of Human Resources Development not honouring his predecessor's commitment and developing new income support measures to help older workers in this particularly difficult situation?

[Member For Bourassa, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in his statement made yesterday, the member for Bourassa once again experienced problems with the facts.

He said that constituents in the riding of Rimouski—Mitis support the misappropriation of employment insurance surplus funds that the Minister of Finance is preparing behind the back of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In fact, it is just the opposite. People in the riding of Rimouski—Mitis clearly said the federal government must use the surpluses hidden by the Minister of Finance to immediately repay the provinces for health and reduce personal income tax.

The member for Bourassa misrepresented the facts and he is trying once again to turn to his advantage the good initiatives taken by the Bloc Quebecois, whether it is our public consultations on what to do with the surpluses, or our Quebec lamb dinner.

Perhaps it is time the Liberal member realized he is making a fool of himself.

Relax, Max.

[International Day Of Older Persons, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Older Persons. With the International Year of Older Persons mere months away, it is our duty to emphasize the necessity of recognizing and protecting their rights.

Despite the Minister of Finance's statement in late July that “the proposed seniors benefit reform will not take place”, our seniors are nevertheless having to cope with the disastrous consequences of the cuts this government has been championing for too long already.

If it had not been for the fight put up by seniors, the AFEAS and other golden age groups in particular, the dignity of our seniors would have been attacked once again.

It is imperative for the government to assure seniors that the pension and other social programs will be cost-of-living indexed so as to guarantee the people who built Canada and Quebec a fair and reasonable standard of living.

[Olivar Asselin, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to one of Quebec's finest journalists, Olivar Asselin.

A strong nationalist, a brilliant and sarcastic satirist, he had, throughout his career, a profound impact on French Canadians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Mr. Asselin ardently defended the rights of Franco-Ontarians. He was one of the pillars of the movement by Ontario francophones to fight the ignoble Regulation 17, along with Marie Gérin-Lajoie—mother and daughter.

Even today, many Quebec journalists claim with pride to belong to the Asselin school, and it is not just by chance that the grand prize for journalism offered by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste society of Montreal bears the name Olivar Asselin.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to the work of Hélène Pelletier-Baillergeon, who with great talent paid homage in her biography of him to a legend of Quebec journalism, and I look forward to reading the second volume of this biography in the near future.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the January 1994 throne speech, the federal government, which was faced with an unprecedented deficit, committed to clarifying the role of the federal government with respect to the other levels of government in order to eliminate duplication and overlap.

Why not make better use of proven education structures within the provinces rather than creating more? As Minister Landry told Le Devoir last February 25, Quebec “will again be penalized... by endless discussions and mechanisms of all kinds.... This is not the way a system that respects the various levels of government operates”.

Has the government forgotten that, in the February 1996 throne speech, in response to the referendum, it made the promise to no longer make use of the federal government's spending power to create programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

Does the federal government not acknowledge all of Quebec's accomplishments in education over the past 30 years?

Quebec is a leader in the area of education in Canada. To the people of Quebec, education represents a vital tool for cultural, economic and social development. What is more, education is the cornerstone of any society.

Thanks to its lack of political logic, and the creation of the millennium fund, the federal government has managed to create consensus in Quebec. All those consulted, who are involved in the education field, are opposed to Bill C-36.

The federal government will have once again shown its complete ignorance of the Quebec reality. It is not the first time a consensus is achieved in Quebec against any federal interference in education.

We will recall that, in May 1991, in a motion passed in the National Assembly, Liberal and PQ members unanimously condemned the federal government's unacceptable urge to interfere further in education.

The Prime Minister of Canada is doing his best to and will go down in history as the first government leader to so bluntly and obviously interfere in the provincial jurisdiction that is education.

However, the Government of Quebec has made itself quite clear: any additional funding for education must be directed to the Government of Quebec, which will redistribute it according to its own priorities. Any other form of funding will be considered as interference.

The Prime Minister will be known as the founding father of the millennium scholarships: a fine waste of public funds and a rather unoriginal way for the current government to send students in Quebec cheques with the Canadian maple leaf on them.

There is no logical and rational reason to create yet another scholarship system in Canada. Instead, the government should improve the system already in place in Quebec. It seems obvious to us that Ottawa's only motivation for establishing the millennium scholarships is to raise its profile.

In fact, the purpose of these scholarships is visibility at the expense of efficiency. The Prime Minister has said so himself. These scholarships run counter to Quebec's practice of entitling all students desiring to further their studies to financial assistance.

According to their criteria, the millennium scholarships will help only about a third of low and middle income students. In addition, they are only a medium term solution, as they will become available only in the year 2000. It will therefore be of absolutely no assistance to those currently completing their studies with a significant debt.

It is unacceptable that the millennium scholarships will be given out not only according to need but also on the basis of merit. Linking the subsistence of disadvantaged students to their academic performance is unconscionable. The scholarships fall short of the expectations of student associations because assistance is not based solely on need.

Even if the millennium fund focused its assistance on the most needy students, the Government of Quebec also administers merit scholarships. Regardless of the name given these scholarships, Quebec will no doubt most effectively manage the new money.

Allow me to quote Premier Bouchard in a letter to his Canadian counterpart: “Quebec will not be told what approach to take with respect to financial aid to students, an area that is under its jurisdiction”.

In conclusion, the millennium scholarship has given rise to a veritable outcry of protest, not only from sovereignists, as the Prime Minister of Canada had hoped, but also from all those with any sort of interest in Quebec's education system.

With one voice all those involved in education in Quebec have told the federal government that while C-36 is good for Canada it is not good for Quebec.

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when it brought down its budget last February, the government once again demonstrated its lack of respect for the institutions and mechanisms developed by the people of Quebec during the quiet revolution.

By creating millennium scholarships, the Liberal government is once again poking its nose into a jurisdiction that belongs exclusively to Quebec, in this case education.

It is rather ironic to see the Prime Minister of Canada trying to sell the Canadian Constitution to Quebeckers and to Canadians, when his own government is not even able to respect it. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education, and the millennium fund is an unprecedented intrusion into this area of provincial jurisdiction.

In 1964, the government of Lester B. Pearson suggested making interest-free loans available to Canadian students. When this federal education subsidy was opposed by Jean Lesage, a Liberal, the Pearson government then wisely declared that, if a province preferred to stick with its own loans program, it would be entitled to equivalent compensation. So said a Liberal. The government of the day had tried unsuccessfully to interfere in the area of education. The right to opt out of student financial assistance programs with compensation has existed since 1964.

Will the Liberal government be as fair a player in 1998? Knowing that paragraphs 29(1) and 25(2) of Bill C-36 are designed to block the transfer to the Government of Quebec of its fair share for opting out of the millennium fund, one could have one's doubts. In order to have access to the program, Quebec will have to embark on a series of long and pointless negotiations in a field where it has already proven itself.

Worse yet, in order to deny Quebec its right to opt out with compensation, the federal government has decided to create a foundation outside regular federal programs. The federal government's imperialist attitude is beyond all understanding.

Why interfere in Quebec's loans and bursaries program when it is the most advanced in Canada? Quebec has built up an effective and vigorous loans and bursaries program that is the envy of students in other provinces.

Why, just when the federal government has reduced its deficit to zero, is the Minister of Finance rushing to create additional federal-provincial duplication and again wasting taxpayers' money? Now that it again has money to spend, the federal government is spending it in provincial jurisdictions.

[Hepatitis C, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health could not get cabinet to accept his viewpoint. He has lost all credibility. Why does he not resign?

[Hepatitis C, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Today, we expect the federal government will announce a budget surplus of between $4 and $8 billion for the 1997-98 fiscal year.

Does the minister realize that, with such a surplus, the government has ample means to express its compassion and that it should compensate all victims of hepatitis C?