The hon. member for Chicoutimi tells me that the government took $50 billion through all sorts of schemes.
We have reasons to be concerned about Bill C-10, considering the exorbitant discretionary powers that the minister wants.
My party knows that municipalities have needs, and the Liberal Party knows that too. The Liberals are putting the pressure on us. They are asking for the unanimous consent of the House to pass this bill by 1.30 p.m. on Friday. They want this bill to be deemed to have been passed without any debate, because municipalities have been asking for this legislation. They are holding the municipalities by the throat. They introduced this bill in mid-October. They fooled around a bit with it in committee. Then, at the last minute, they say “Hurry, the municipalities want this bill. You must adopt it without any discussion”.
If I were member of a municipal government, I would worry because there is absolutely no guarantee that everybody will get their due when discretionary powers are used.
I can no longer trust Liberal ministers anymore because, they act just like the highwaymen of the last century.
The Bloc Quebecois made suggestions and proposed amendments. If I remember well, we introduced more than 50 amendments. They were all rejected by the liberals because they had just defined the discretionary power they wanted to be able to help themselves to other people's money. That is what we wanted to avoid, but they rejected all our suggestions, and I understand why.
Of course, the Bloc is disappointed and I assume that my colleagues from the Conservative Party are also. We demand more transparency in the management of the public's business, but the more we ask, the less we get. Everyday during question period we hear real horror stories like the shifting of funds from Rosemont to Saint-Maurice. If I were the former minister responsible I would not laugh like the hon. member opposite is doing right now. It is no laughing matter; it is rather sad.
I remember that when we asked this individual, during Oral Question Period, to explain what was going on, he answered that 42% of workers who contribute to EI are entitled to EI benefits. He was the link between the officials of his department and parliament.
He never monitored anything, and went down the wrong way on a one way street, as they say. In the meantime, he got it in the teeth because his officials were doing things behind his back. Maybe, as he was here trying to defend his department and good management, the Prime Minister was plotting behind his back. If I were him, I would not be bragging today. The same thing is going to happen to the minister in charge now.
Canadians want more transparency, they want to limit discretionary powers as much as possible, they want them to be monitored and checked. But it is not in the bill. The bill says “The Minister may”, “If the Minister is of the opinion that”, “in the opinion of the Minister”. When a minister is made to think, it gets very expensive for those who never asked him to think in the first place.
It is dangerous. When a minister thinks, he often spends money too. And who gets to foot the bill? The unemployed workers once again, because there is only one continuous source of money, namely the EI fund. Therefore, it is the working poor—who do not have the time to watch the debates, who watch the news once in a while, and see the scandals that are happening, the poor people who are working hard to eke out a living and pay their taxes—who will foot the bill.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister and the minister are rolling in it like piglets in the trough, because it is somebody else's money. It is sad but true.
We are therefore going to support this bill so as not to penalize the municipalities. They are entitled to the respect of the opposition and of all parties. We on this side of the House, the combined opposition parties, are almost alone in respecting organizations or people. Members opposite have no respect for anything.
We respect the municipalities and will support the bill before us, but not with any enthusiasm. We will support it because the government members have the municipalities by the throat and are threatening not to give them one red cent until the opposition agrees to pass the bill. So we are giving our approval, but reluctantly, not because it is a good bill that would be to the credit of the government opposite. It is a bad bill that the municipalities are forced to go along with and that the opposition parties are forced to support so as not to penalize the municipalities.