Debates of Dec. 12th, 2002

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Chair will take this matter under advisement that has been pointed out by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

The hon. member from the Canadian Alliance involved in this question of privilege is not in the House at this time, nor is the hon. member for Laval East. I feel we should hear what they have to say before ruling on this matter.

The Speaker's ruling will be deferred to a later date, probably after the House has adjourned for the holiday period.

I have a notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke first.

Points of Order

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today during statements pursuant to Standing Order 31, the member for Hull—Aylmer in a statement to the House made a comment that was false. I wish him to withdraw the statement and I wish to have the record corrected.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to be more specific in her allegation.

[The Speaker]

I agree. I think the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will perhaps have to indicate to the House what the false statement was. We are quite prepared to review the blues, but he spoke for a minute. Is the entire statement false? Perhaps she could be a little clearer.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull--Aylmer made the comment in the House that the householder I provide to my constituents is not available in both official languages. This allegation is absolutely false. While I appreciate the fact that the government members have nothing more to do with their time than waste the business of the House, he should have read my householder more carefully. He would have seen that it is available in French for anyone who requests it.

For Canadians who are watching these proceedings, the House loses every time something like this occurs. The communicator I provide to all constituents is available in both official languages and I invite the member to withdraw his comments.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can talk about this knowledgeably because I read the part that my hon. colleague is referring to. There was in fact a short paragraph on the front page of the householder that the hon. member sent to her riding. It was in a small shaded box and was supposedly written in French, indicating that the documents might be available in French or that information in French could be obtained from the office.

I was utterly unable to understand what was written, so completely fractured was the French. There were words that do not exist in French. There were words that could be understood individually, but had nothing to do with the subject. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer was perfectly justified in his criticism.

[The Speaker]

Obviously, this a subject for debate. In my opinion, it is not a point of order that the Speaker can address. The hon. members may discuss it among themselves.

I am sure that after some discussion they will reach some kind of understanding, at least of the other's position, but it does not sound to me as though this is a matter for intervention from the Chair.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in thinking of this very generous season that we are moving into I would like some clarity from you as Speaker.

I think I am correct in this, and I sort of scratched down notes as you were speaking. In that generous invitation where you invited all members to join you, the phrase you used was to raise a glass in celebration of the season, but you did not identify or clarify what season you were speaking of, the holiday season or the Christmas season. Which is it, Mr. Speaker?

[The Speaker]

'Tis the season to be jolly and the hon. member will want to come and enjoy it. I trust that clarifies the position for the hon. member.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North on a point of order.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is on the same issue that the right hon. member brought up to protect his rights in the event that somewhere down the line they needed some protection.

What I want to talk about is the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Justice this morning. I think the area of ambiguity, the area that needs some clarification, is this, and I quote from his words: “I have already indicated that there are some limited funds left in the firearms program. We are looking within existing justice operational appropriations to manage any shortfall in program resources until the review is completed”.

Those were his words and I trust that he will clarify them. What we are particularly concerned about is that sometime last week when the supplemental estimates were coming before the House there was a $72 million item that was removed, we will recall, from the supplementary items because of the Auditor General's report with respect to the mismanagement of the firearms registration process.

What we want in the clarification from the minister is that he should also confirm to the House that funds he talks about as operational will not be used from other ministries such as the Solicitor General to support the firearms registration system, but more importantly, that only funds heretofore approved by the House for other justice programs not be diverted to the firearms program.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay--Superior North has raised essentially the same point, notice of which was given by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. I am sure he will want to follow events in regard to these expenditures with care, as will the right hon. member for Calgary Centre evidently, and I am sure other hon. members. I am sure that should there be some procedural irregularity with respect to expenditure, the hon. members will be back to the House in due course.

However I think the hon. member for Thunder Bay--Superior North knows that really his question ought to go to the government House leader who provided some kind of response in comments he made earlier to the sort of suggestion the hon. member made. Of course he can raise the matter with the Minister of Justice himself, which I know he and the right hon. member for Calgary Centre will do.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Lanark--Carleton that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, December 13.

Since it has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, I am directing the Clerk to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Prebudget Consultations

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable.

Prebudget consultations are held every year. However, they are even more important this year. In fact, there is a very important issue at stake in health care between the federal government and the provinces. There will be a first ministers' meeting about the issue at the beginning of January.

During this meeting, the provinces will attempt to convince the federal government to reinvest in health, perhaps not as much as it did when the Canada Health Act was passed in the late 1970s, but at least as much as Mr. Romanow suggested, which is 25%. Right now the government is only investing 14%. This is the context in which this meeting will take place.

Before beginning my comments, since these are prebudget consultations, I would like to highlight the remarkable effort and talent of our finance critic in recent years. His forecasts have consistently been better than those of the former Minister of Finance, who aspires to be the next Prime Minister. In the last three years alone, the latter has been off in his budget forecasts by 300%.

We were hoping that the current Minister of Finance would be better. Obviously, this will be his first official budget, likely in February. We will see at that time. However, already in his prebudget forecasts, we can see that he suffers from the same propensity—I dare not use a stronger word—as the former Minister of Finance, which is the propensity to hide the surplus somewhat.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

He is massaging the figures.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

As the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable said, he is fiddling with the figures.

[An hon. member]

He said he is massaging the figures.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

He can say what he likes, because he will have the floor after me. In the spirit of the holidays, I would like to use less aggressive, more parliamentary language.

So, these were errors, but there have been surpluses. These surpluses, year in, year out, have always been greater than $10 billion recently. Ten billion dollars is quite something.

We could talk about the issue of surpluses for a long time. However, I would like to add another dimension to the debate. For years, for a very long time now, the federal government has enjoyed interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Our hon. colleague and new finance critic, the member for Joliette, told us that there was intrusion in provincial jurisdictions to the tune of $15 billion each year.

I remember reading in a report by the Bélanger-Campeau commission that the cost of administering the federal government's intrusions in provincial jurisdictions from year to year, the cost of administrative overlap, was estimated at the time at $2 billion. That was in the early 1990s. We can assume that this amount has increased since then. It is quite incredible.

Nonetheless, there is a positive note in the Romanow report. He admits that there is fiscal imbalance. A commission in Quebec, headed by Mr. Séguin, had determined that there was fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government, and that the health needs were obviously in Quebec and in the provinces, but the money was in Ottawa.

Here is what is happening. Everyone knows that the population is aging. Health, in terms of technologies, increased cost of medication, equipment and capital investment has become more expensive. Starting with 23% in 1995, the Liberals in power decreased transfer payments to 14%.

We can talk about fiscal imbalance, but it could be argued that with the increase in costs, there are two dimensions that come into play at the same time in provincial budgets. We can talk about fiscal strangulation. By 2010, the portion of the budget allocated to health and education in Quebec will represent 85% of the costs.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Landry talks about fiscal strangulation every night on the evening news.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

I have a lot of difficulty talking at the same time as another member, especially when that member is a minister. He is in the first row and even more audible. I know he wants to wish me a Merry Christmas, but I would ask him to be patient and do so when I have finished speaking, if possible.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is nice that he is so attentive.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

I appreciate his attention, but I am having difficulty concentrating.

As well as the cuts to transfer payments, there have also been cuts that have had an incredible effect on the unemployed over time. Employment insurance has been cut, and this has affected the regions. My colleague from Jonquière often points out in this House the effect this has on our ridings. We have seen that in particular in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, despite the Minister of Justice's talk of moral victory—I do not know if there can be such a thing as an immoral victory. I think the Bloc Quebecois victory was a stunning one.

I would like to digress for a moment. Like the Minister of Justice, others ask “What about the relevance of the Bloc? One wonders what a BQ supporter is doing in Ottawa.” My response is that, as long as a majority of people vote for the Bloc Quebecois, there will be Bloc Quebecois members here. If that is the way things are, it is to meet a need. The people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay are no less smart than anyone else, nor are the people of Berthier—Montcalm. They voted for the Bloc Quebecois, for people who defend the interests of Quebec.

During oral question period, I was closely observing the Liberal members from Quebec, in particular, the minister opposite. There was a sense that they wanted to applaud questions posed by members of the Bloc Quebecois on regional issues, so good were the questions. But no, they were obliged, instead, to applaud the poor answers given by the ministers concerned. It is amazing to see what people in power must do.

I know that the hon. Minister of Justice probably does so unwillingly. I know that he knows Quebeckers. He is from the Charlevoix region. It is too bad that he chose to get elected in a very comfortable Liberal riding in Montreal. He knew that in Charlevoix, it would have been much harder. Without wishing to be critical of him, the Liberal Party is not popular in Charlevoix. So he ran in a very comfortable riding. There being less pressure in Outremont than elsewhere, he has more time to spend on government matters. This is all good and well for him, but the people of Charlevoix prefer to be represented by a member like my hon. colleague in the Bloc Quebecois. This member works very hard.

We also have the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, who works very hard, and the member for Jonquière, who works very hard defending the interests of Quebeckers. There is also the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He is the Bloc's critic on transportation. He talks about the real issues that concern Quebeckers.

For as long as sovereignists take an interest in issues that concern Quebeckers, there will be members of the Bloc Quebecois in this House. Some might join other parties, like the Progressive Conservative Party. But currently, if the Bloc Quebecois were not here, there would be 36 silent Liberal members voting along party lines.

In closing, I wish the hon. Minister of Justice, as well as my hon. colleagues, a Merry Christmas.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am currently responding to the work of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, which wants to cut off part of my riding, the part that corresponds to the word “L'Érable”. This means taking away 50% of my riding. I hope that these few comments I am making now will make them aware of the importance of belonging.

This is the last time in 2002 that I will speak in the House. As regards the comments that I would have liked to have made, it would have been nice to say that I was satisfied and that I found some positive aspects about this prebudget tour. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything positive in this report.

Personally, when I look at what these people contributed to the report on the prebudget consultations, I feel that it was a complete waste of time and an insult to the people who were consulted. I personally made the prebudget rounds twice, from one end of the country to the other. Everyone had the same expectations, it was always the same question, how is the federal government administering its budget?

First there was the reign of the current member for LaSalle—Émard. Right now, his interests have shifted from finance to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I understand that what he did, he did for his party. I cannot think of any business that would have kept an accountant whose forecasts were as far off the mark as those of the member for LaSalle—Émard. A 300% margin of error is pretty big.

I have always said about the member for LaSalle—Émard that he massages the figures, manipulates them. By this I mean that all the former Minister of Finance did was make dire predictions and say how bad the situation was. Then, we would later learn through the media that there was a big surplus.

I really do not think the situation is going to change with the current Minister of Finance, the departure of the current Prime Minister and the arrival of the new one. I think the way this government operates is a good reflection of the philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not complicated: it consists of strangling Quebec. It consists of strangling the unemployed and making cuts.

In this connection, this morning I heard a parliamentary commentator on the government radio network report that the Prime Minister had asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to slash another 15% from her budget. What does that mean? It means fewer employees in the department's regional offices, it means all of the so-called discretionary programs, which are often there to help community groups and the most disadvantaged, are going to be slashed. Why? To give some leeway to this government for the creation of a program that will end up being administered by a foundation. It will ignore the Government of Quebec and deal directly with the municipal level.

This morning I also heard the comments by Hull mayor Yves Ducharme, a good Liberal. Let us listen to what he had to say. This is the same mayor who, last year, was promoting the merger of Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau, into what is now called the City of Gatineau. This morning, that same mayor was laying the blame on the Government of Quebec.

[An hon. member]

Like the mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Like the mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay, these people are blaming the Government of Quebec, and telling people “If your taxes go up this year, it is a result of the responsibilities imposed upon us by the Government of Quebec in connection with the merger.” This sort of talk is dishonest.

Now we see how all these Liberal mayors in Quebec are getting ready to come begging on their knees for money in the House. Once again, creating a department of urban affairs would enable the federal government to interfere in areas that are exclusively the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has been given the mandate to cut her budget by 15%. Out of a budget of $85 billion, that means about $10 or $12 billion would be cut, which is unacceptable.

On this side of the House they are calling for the return of the POWA program. The population is aging. This is a program to train people for other jobs. There is a crying need for it in Quebec. The needs are pressing. This morning we learned that POWA will be no more. There will be no more progressive measures to help with training, to enable our workers to acquire skills for other jobs, to prepare them for retirement, to prepare their replacements, to prepare our young people.

I would like to tell a little story. Let us take the case of a young person who is taking over for a seasonal worker; the region where this seasonal job is located is not important. This seasonal worker must work 400, 500 or 600 hours to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Seasonal work is common in many regions of Quebec. When this person leaves his job, if a young person replaces him, the young person needs to work 910 hours before qualifying for unemployment insurance. So, what do young people do? They leave the regions and move to the big cities. They try to get unemployment insurance by working 910 hours.

One of the main causes of this exodus of young people to large communities is the current Employment Insurance Act. Young people are not able to receive the support needed to learn, to get training and to find jobs in the regions, and unemployment insurance is still being cut. There is no news, either, on the disability tax credit.

The report was not that complicated. Next year, instead of touring across Canada and disregarding what it hears, it would be much simpler for the government to take the Liberal Party of Canada's program and simply ask if people agree with that. The former Minister of Finance always used the Liberal Party's program as the basis for his budget anyway.

This budget is really a road map for the Prime Minister legacy. It represents what we could call the current Prime Minister's legacy. I do not think this legacy will involve telling his government to restore all of the health and education transfers. That would surprise me.

I suspect that the legacy of the current Prime Minister, with his centralizing mentality and philosophy, will be to once again barge into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This is harmful. What is even more harmful is that regardless of who heads the party, regardless of who leads this Liberal government, this centralizing philosophy, and this lack of respect for Quebec will endure.

Despite everything, I would like to convey to all of the members of the House my best wishes for a happy holiday season.