Richard Nadeau

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, as I mentioned in my speech.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the 38th Parliament, in the dying days of the crumbling Liberal government, the issue of the guaranteed income supplement, and retroactive payments to seniors in particular, could have been resolved. Had the Liberals agreed to what was put forward at third reading, the guaranteed income supplement and retroactive payments would no longer be a topic of discussion.

The federal government would have made sure that all low income seniors, the most disadvantaged in our society, automatically receive what they have been rightfully entitled to from age 65 on. For them, this would have meant between a few dollars and $6,000 more a year, depending on the individual case.

Canada has a social insurance number system. Canada has an income tax system. Canada can trace someone wherever they are, but it fails to inform the poorest of society, namely seniors, of their eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.

Those who found out too late should receive payments retroactive to age 65. This is outrageous. I know that you agree with me, Mr. Speaker. It makes no sense to treat people this way in a G-8 country which claims to be industrially advanced, a country with universities and a system that recognizes the importance of individuals.

The Bloc Québécois will pursue its efforts. Until such time as every last cent has been paid back to seniors and seniors have the money in their pockets, we will keep bringing the facts up and working to ensure that these people can get back what is rightfully theirs.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all to say it is a confederation is completely false. It is a federation. If it were a confederation, we would have an entity comprised of sovereign states, with each of these states having its own sovereignty and governing itself as it wishes, while having looser agreements with their partners.

In the present federation, where everyone is deemed equal, some are more equal than others. The Canadian government, when created, gave to the provinces powers that were the equivalent of municipal powers and retained the rest. Consequently, whatever did not exist in 1867 automatically falls under federal authority.

In provinces other than Quebec, for example, French schools and services for seniors have been done away with. In Ontario, in the 1990s, they even tried to close the Montfort hospital. The Speaker is very familiar with this situation as he comes from that area. At the time, the federal government said that it was a provincial matter and that it would not get involved, and that it thought that was too bad. All this was permitted in order to walk all over the French fact in this country called Canada.

Thus, we find ourselves with a centralist country. Social services, income—the right to a decent income—education and everything to do with health, are all provincial jurisdictions and represent the greatest costs for society. It is the provinces that assume these expenses and the federal government that has the money. Because of how power has been centralized, the money does not flow to the provinces.

In Quebec, because of our community spirit, we have built a society with models in order to ensure that we can meet the needs of our citizens, despite the federal government. Thank God that we have a distinct territory, a distinct state, a distinct language and a distinct culture. Only the Government of Canada does not recognize the distinct society of Quebec. Well, it is not complicated. We will soon have our country, my friends.

Until that time, we will ensure that every cent that is added to the federal piggy bank is returned to us, Quebeckers—that our invested share is paid back. That could be in a regional debate in which the Outaouais is entitled to 25% of jobs and federal offices, and to everything that is owed to us. Similarly, Quebec is entitled to take back what it has coming via the current tax system, since it is contributing.

Therefore, in the current debate on social services, we would like to demonstrate, once again, that in those areas where we have developed social projects that are important for our population, the money that is in Ottawa must be returned to Quebec for the projects we have implemented, in the spirit of cooperation. However, Canada has never really understood this, because cooperation means cooperation for Canada. This has never been done in terms of the needs expressed by Quebeckers. Quebec is not better than Canada, but it is certainly not worse. It wants the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your close attention, as I know you are a proud Franco-Ontarian. You fully understand that it is in Quebec that we will finally achieve respect for the French fact in all of North America. There will be a French-speaking country in North America.

For those who believe that Canada still has some element of the French fact, there will be two such elements: Quebec and Canada. It is in this spirit, in a debate such as this one, that we would like to share with the rest of the country our way of doing things in Quebec, to serve as a model.

Take, for example, the Quebec model for day care. The Conservatives sabotaged it, which is unfortunate. There are even Quebeckers in this government who sabotaged it because they no longer have the interest needed for this file. That is their problem. Later, they will have to answer to their constituents.

Thus, we want our fair share, no more, no less, and we will fight tooth and nail to make it happen.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion by the New Democratic Party.

For many years, the New Democratic Party has made a point of making similar proposals designed to centralize decision making in Ottawa, whereas all social programs come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is a commendable motion. Unfortunately, though, with this motion, the NDP is recommending interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

I would remind this House, as I said earlier and as I am wont to repeat, that health, education, social programs and income security are responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces. Since the early 1970s, Quebec has been asking that income security be managed by the Government of Quebec itself. In December 1995, the former Quebec finance minister said as follows:

Quebec considers the current federal funding framework for social programs unacceptable. It calls on the federal government to withdraw from funding social programs and to transfer to Quebec the tax points it uses to fund its initiatives in this area. This request is a concrete response to the problem of ongoing cuts in federal transfers.

All governments in Quebec, sovereignists or not, have always fought to preserve these jurisdictions, because we in Quebec are quite capable of making our own collective choices based on priorities which are different from the other provinces.

The Conservatives are great defenders of the industry knows best principle, while Liberals and the NDP defend the Ottawa knows best principle. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that Quebec and the provinces can do better, provided that they have the necessary resources.

I should point out that I will be sharing my speaking time with the distinguished member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

In fact, I think that, before going down the road of invading the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, the NDP should deal with problems that fall under federal jurisdiction, as the Bloc Québécois does. A case in point is the guaranteed income supplement for seniors.

The federal government has unfairly deprived, and still does, many Quebeckers among the most vulnerable of our society of substantial income that is owed to them.

In December 2001, the report on the guaranteed income supplement was published by the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. It stated that more than 270,000 Canadians, 68,000 Quebeckers, and nearly 1,100 people in my riding of Gatineau were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, but were not receiving anything from the federal government.

During the 38th Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-301 to ensure full retroactivity for those who had been fleeced out of the guaranteed income supplement, instead of the retroactive payments currently limited to 11 months by the federal government.

I personally made this issue a priority in the last election campaign, but my Liberal, Conservative and NDP opponents in Gatineau never agreed to debate this issue with the Bloc. In fact, I made a commitment to the people of my riding to facilitate access for seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

The very next day—I made this announcement just recently—several people from the Outaouais region contacted either my constituency office or my office on the Hill. These were people from Gatineau, as well as from the ridings of Hull—Aylmer and Pontiac.

They were surprised that a member of Parliament was trying to help them. This speaks volumes about what they were used to, and still are used to, unfortunately, from the federalist MPs from the Outaouais.

At the Bloc Québécois, we know full well that it is the role of the member of Parliament to take steps on behalf of the public. We are elected by people in order to help them improve their living conditions and that includes seniors, as hon. members will agree.

I want to acknowledge the excellent work of an intern in my constituency office who helped us a great deal on this issue. I am talking about Marie-Pierre Baron-Courcy, a young political science student. She helped out by contacting all the players who work with or for seniors in the Gatineau riding, for example, senior citizens clubs, the regional Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec group in my riding, soup kitchens. The purpose of this initiative was to find low-income seniors who were unfortunately unfamiliar with the program because the federal government had not done its job, which is to ensure that every senior, especially the least fortunate, knows about this program. I want to thank her because her efforts and her youthful enthusiasm showed us that this service to the people who built Quebec, to these people who paid taxes to Quebec and Canada their entire lives, could provide them with the help they are entitled to.

I will vote against this motion. As I said, overall it is worthy. However, it does not meet certain criteria that apply in this country. I reject the NDP motion on the grounds that it interferes with Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I am surprised by the NDP's approach, which yet again, despite honourable intentions, fails to recognize the existence of distinct areas of jurisdiction.

We would have rather seen the NDP address an issue that came up in debates in this House: the guaranteed income supplement. We did mention that.

Members of our party also talked about POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which is a focal point of the Bloc Québécois' demands. Established in 1988, this program enabled eligible workers between the ages of 55 and 64 who lost their jobs because of major permanent layoffs to receive benefits. The program ended on March 31, 1997, under the Liberals, and has not been reintroduced since.

Since the program for older worker adjustment disappeared in March 1997, there has been no income support program specifically for older workers who lose their jobs because of mass layoffs or business closures. This often happens in single-industry areas. Often, both parents in one family work in these factories and suddenly find themselves with no income and no help for either one of them. That is shameful.

I hope that my statement will be seen as a message that the Bloc Québécois wants to help older people and does help them. If the NDP also wants to send a good message, it will join the Bloc Québécois in demanding increased federal transfer payments and the resolution of the fiscal imbalance. That would enable the provinces to make their own choices and, if they wish, set up a social system like Quebec's, which is a world-class model.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge the hon. member for Pontiac and ask him the following question.

In my riding, 800 to 1,000 seniors are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. I have made a point of tracking them down so that they can receive what they are rightfully owed.

What I find absurd in all of this is that these people who have built Quebec, who have paid their taxes all their lives in Quebec and Canada, do not know that these funds exist for them. These seniors are the most disadvantaged people in society.

In the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill that would allow these people the retroactive guaranteed income supplement to which they are entitled.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Pontiac whether he intends to put pressure on his Conservative government and the Cabinet so that these seniors are finally granted a fully retroactive guaranteed income supplement, which is money to which they are entitled.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is very simple.

How would he react if a high-level official in the Department of Public Works and Government Services told him that he, the official, had carte blanche to decide whether or not there would be a call for tenders?

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to specify that the 25%:75% issue concerns the federal capital region.

If I am not mistaken, there are about 450,000 public servants across Canada and 110,000 here in the region. When we talk about the 25/75, it applies to these 110,000 public servants, and not to the other 340,000.

Let us get back to the tender issue. At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, last Thursday, officials said that they had a free hand to tender or not, based on their knowledge of the real estate market. This is outrageous. I support what my NDP collegue said: in this regard, the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say to the parliamentary secretary that, during our meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on Thursday, June 8, 2006--not too long ago—an official mentioned that he had met with Mr. Fred Doucet in regard to public accounts. If the parliamentary secretary wants his name, I can give it to him later.

The issue of tendering is an issue of transparency. I find it shocking that a parliamentary secretary does not tender and does not require that Public Works and Government Services Canada always tenders, to ensure that we get the best price possible, that we do not spend taxpayers' money needlessly and that all Quebeckers and Canadians have a chance to take part in the tendering process of the department, the agency or the crown corporation that needs space.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must say today that the situation that prompted this motion may have come as a surprise to a lot of people, but it did not surprise me or the people in my riding. Once again, the government is trying to use taxpayers' money to reward friends of the new regime. After a few short months in power, good old Liberal habits seem to have won out over the accountability and transparency that the Conservative government wants to bring in.

The government is getting ready to pay $224 million over the next 25 years to Minto Developments Inc. to lease office space in the JDS Uniphase building in Ottawa, without a public tendering process. Minto bought the building last June for $30 million. One day, perhaps, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will explain to us what logic told him that this was a good deal, but as you know, the minister was not elected by the people and unfortunately does not sit in the House of Commons.

Let us not forget that this government campaigned on a platform of accountability and transparency. When we look at the connection between Minto and Fred Doucet and the connection between Mr. Doucet and the current government, we can understand the transaction more easily. In 2003, Fred Doucet was a key member of the leadership campaign strategy committee of the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now things are making more sense. Let us not forget that this government campaigned on a platform of accountability and transparency. Mr. Doucet is the middleman between Minto and the government. I wonder what my Quebec colleagues who were elected under the Conservative banner think about this attitude.

What does the Minister of Transport think? These people promised major changes in how the country is governed. They promised accountability and transparency to the people of Quebec. Where are accountability and transparency when the government is going to spend more than $600 million on a building worth $30 million? Where is accountability when the government is going to pay $23 million a year in rent for a building worth $30 million?

Try offering any Canadian the opportunity to rent a house for $75,000 per year instead of buying it for $100,000. What do you think the response would be? The Minister of Public Works and Government Services said, “I'll take it”. Why? We would have to be in the Senate to know the answer to that. We would have to be sitting in the Senate to ask that question.

What do Conservative members from Quebec—who stood to vote against their fellow citizens on the fuel price issue last week—think? Do they represent Quebec in the government, or do they represent the government in Quebec? They condemned Liberal cronyism, so how can they now accept the Conservative variety?

Irony of ironies. Not so very long ago, the Liberals perfected the art of cronyism, and now they are condemning the Conservatives for practising it. Earlier on, the Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer condemned Conservative cronyism, never mind the fact that in his six years on the government bench, not once did he rise to condemn Liberal corruption and scandal. That is the kind of conduct that is giving cynicism license to run rampant among Quebeckers.

The saddest part of this story is their contempt for the Outaouais region. In 1984, the Liberals and the Conservatives promised to resolve the issue of locating 25% of public service jobs in the Outaouais and 75% in Ottawa. It is now 21 years later, and nothing has changed. During the last campaign, the Minister of Transport promised to use his position to help the region. Last week he backed away from the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology issue and tried to pretend he had never promised the people of the Outaouais anything. Still nothing has been done. This government has not proposed anything to rectify the job distribution situation.

And yet we have a minister in the region. This should give the Outaouais some prestige, but there is still nothing. I invite the Minister of Transport to drop the fine speeches and deliver the goods to the Outaouais.

It is quite ironic to see, again this time, our colleague from Hull—Aylmer huffing and puffing about the 25-75 distribution. He forgot to mention that during his six years in government he did nothing tangible about this except to put forward a single motion on November 10, 2005, some 18 days before the last federal election. It took him four elections and six years and seeing the Bloc Québécois in his rear view mirror to start getting interested in his riding and the Outaouais in this matter at the end of the Liberal cronyism mandate.

Where was my colleague during the last election campaign, the night offices were being moved from the Hull sector in his riding of Hull—Aylmer to the Vanier sector in the City of Ottawa? You have to want to see this issue through to get anything done. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer had six years to defend the Outaouais to his government. If he had done his job, like the public expected him to, he could not now denounce this situation because in speaking out against the 25-75 problem, he is speaking out against himself for not being equal to the task. Between 2000 and 2006, only 21.4% of the jobs in the national capital region were in the Outaouais. That is still far from 25%.

I believe the public expects better from a government that promised responsibility and transparency. The government has a chance to kill two birds with one stone by agreeing to take a step in the right direction in the matter of distributing public service jobs and showing true responsibility and true transparency.

Therefore, I invite the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to ensure that the leasing of office space is always done through a public tender process. It is a basic rule of transparency. On this subject, I would ask the minister responsible for Quebec, who is from my region, to look closely, with his colleague from Treasury Board, at the issue of public service jobs on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river. Previous governments introduced a policy of equity between the two shores. But there is a serious shortfall on one side that must be corrected, and I invite the government to propose a plan to restore the proper balance. I am prepared to work in a constructive manner, putting all partisanship aside, to correct this situation once and for all. I will see to it that members from the Outaouais region work with the Bloc Québécois for this particular region of Quebec.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my first reaction is one of surprise. But after thinking about it, perhaps I am not surprised. This distribution of 25% and 75% was decided on in 1984 by a Liberal government. My colleague for Hull—Aylmer, who just spoke, was elected on November 15, 1999, and it was not until November 10, 2005, with things heating up and the elections coming, that he decided to start defending the Outaouais.

Why did it take him six years to realize that there was a problem? This is an extremely important factor in opening up the Outaouais, and ensuring that the Outaouais may be recognized as an integral part of Quebec. In Quebec we have always paid our taxes; we are entitled to our share of income, our share of jobs in the region.

I am stunned. He has not clearly shown that the objective of his efforts was to defend the Outaouais. The elections are behind his efforts because the Bloc Québécois is monitoring him closely. We will work on this issue. How can the member make such comments?