Yvan Loubier

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it extremely rarely in the past 12 years have I risen in this House and been totally proud to speak on a motion or bill, at least with this sort of intensity.

I am particularly proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois, for, since 1994, that is, since our very first deliberations in the House of Commons, it has always been a concern of the Bloc Québécois to combat organized crime. We were motivated to combat this organized crime particularly in view of the weaknesses that could be found in the Canadian Criminal Code.

The intensity, conviction and passion that we have devoted to this have been such that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois have brought about two radical reforms of the Criminal Code, particularly on the anti-gang provisions concerning organized crime. And there were other provisions concerning threats and intimidation that were prompted by the Bloc Québécois. Also the whole debate surrounding the ease with which drug traffickers in particular could launder money using $1,000 bills.

On this subject I would like to salute my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who, upon being made aware of this issue in 1997, tabled a bill to eliminate these $1,000 bills, which facilitated the transport of dirty money and the laundering of it.

I would like to thank my party, its leader, and all my colleagues, for all the work that has been done since 1994 to even more effectively combat organized crime. In particular, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, an outstanding young lawyer who is deeply concerned to build lasting society based on law, justice and social justice. He has been primarily responsible for the production of a volume on the Shoah and on our capacity to all recall the Jewish genocide every year.

I was pleased when my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asked me to support this motion which he has tabled on reversal of the burden of proof. I was pleased and honoured as well that he should think of me. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie had the same idea of urging me to support the motion of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I am proud to have supported this motion on the reversal of proof, because I have believed in it for many years.

In spite of myself, for sure—as you know, it was not my career plan or my choice either—I have had to change my political path a little over the last few years. A few years ago, my family and I were the victims of death threats from organized crime and drug traffickers in the greater Saint-Hyacinthe area.

Why were we threatened? Because in 1997 I had started denouncing the criminals in the Hell's Angels south chapter, who were squatting on farm land, planting thousands of cannabis plants, threatening farm families and terrorizing them too. I had taken up the cause of the rural world, and of freedom too, because that is what it was really all about.

One cannot be a descendant of sons of freedom, for example, desire the emancipation of Quebec and still agree to close one's eyes to the fact that hundreds of farm families are imprisoned by threats from organized crime, no longer masters in their own homes and no longer able to enjoy the tranquility, peace and serenity of their own land. I decided at that point to take a stand for the freedom of some, which means a lack of freedom of others.

This confrontation with organized crime was just a matter of circumstance. But, given the seriousness of the threats, I decided that instead of keeping quiet in the face of organized crime, I would be more outspoken than ever in order not to leave an inch of land to these criminals, who, through terrorism, subject people daily to omertà , that is, the law of silence.

We created a public info-crime committee in my region, whose main objective is to promote a very simple tool—a telephone number—people can call to report crimes of any kind anonymously and completely confidentially. I co-founded this committee a few years ago with the late Raymonde Rivard, who at that time chaired the school board in my region. She too was fed up with organized crime, which was poisoning her children, as she put it.

We decided to take things in hand with the citizens committee. We would bring organized crime out of the woods and off the land in our region. If that is done in all regions, at some point these people will not have anywhere to go, except to greenhouses where the electricity meters go 200 miles an hour and where it is easier to find them and send them to jail.

The events of last week, that is, the simultaneous murder of four police officers, should also open our eyes to the fact that these people with links to organized crime, to the biggest gangster groups like the Hell's Angels, for example, the Nomads in particular, are not luxury gardeners. It is not humdrum. It is not something that can just be alone. These people are criminals.

What they grow in our fields they exchange for cocaine, heroine, ecstasy or date rape drugs. They poison our children right from primary school. Quebec has just published the most extensive study ever done on first experiences with all sorts of drugs. The study found that, unlike three or four years ago, children are starting at age nine to have their first experience using drugs.

If there were no supply, there would be no demand for these drugs. If there were no supply, there would be no dealers wandering around elementary and secondary schools selling this junk to our children, who can end up in a vicious circle.

We know through experience that even if a community takes charge and locks people up there are still flaws in the Criminal Code and in the way sentencing is handled. I repeat, these are not deluxe gardeners or very nice people. They are criminals, who poison our children and kill people just to monopolize the drug market.

We saw this during the biker wars. There were 160 deaths, including an innocent child in Hochelaga. He died in a bombing by a rival gang of the Rock Machine. We have noticed that although well equipped, there are still flaws in terms of sentencing and the degree of wealth of these criminals when they get out of prison.

We have noticed a problem with sentencing. A Hells Angels henchman in my region was incarcerated a few years ago for controlling the squatters who were keeping an eye on the land and threatening the farmers. This man spent a few months in prison. He came out just as rich as when he went in. His sentence did not make up for the damage he caused to society and to our children or the quality of life he took away from the farmers when he terrorized them.

This is one of the problems that could be resolved with the new bill on decriminalization that includes much harsher sentences for major producers.

Then there are the proceeds of crime. We have seen with Opération printemps 2001—this was in March 2001—how difficult it was to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the assets belonging to a criminal were the proceeds of criminal activities.

It costs the Crown, the country, that is all the taxpayers, millions and millions of dollars and takes an awful lot of time just to establish a direct link between, for example, a half a million dollar house, three Harley-Davidson, one Mercedes and somebody's criminal activities.

For that kind of evidence, the obvious is not enough. When somebody with no known job or on welfare is accused of being a drug dealer linked to the Hells Angels for instance and owns a 350 000 $ house, two Harley-Davidsons, three Mercedes and one country house in Charlevoix, it is too obvious to be true. We have to complicate things a little. We need a very comprehensive file.

A Crown counsel was telling me that a year of work and tons of files were needed to establish proof as regards proceeds of under 500 000 $, and we still cannot recuperate half of what we should be getting back.

There are blatant cases at this time. I will mention only two, where things do not make a lot of sense . Normand Robitaille is number 2 with the Nomads, the Hells Angels' deadliest group, and is “Mom” Boucher's right arm. He was arrested during opération printemps 2001, more specifically in March 2001. His assets have been estimated at $1 million and that only part of part was seizable based on the evidence, if it was shown beyond any doubt that this part of Mr. Robitaille's assets had been acquired through criminal activities.

Since March 2001, we have been trying to find evidence concerning an amount less than $1 million. We have not finished yet. We have not yet gathered all the documents necessary to seize part of the assets valued at $1 million belonging to the number 2 of the Nomads, a component of the Hells Angels. We are talking about $1 million and that man did not have a known job. He managed to amass assets worth $1 million, and he did not have a job. He had a numbered company, which never produced a thing. That man, today, has cost us maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to establish evidence that his assets in the amount of $1 million were acquired through legal, licit means, even though he does not have known employment and he has no income. It does not make sense. This has been going on since March 2001 and it concerns but a small part of the million dollars.

I might add that the drug trade in Canada, which is controlled to a large extent by the Hells Angels Nomads, represents $10 billion a year. I talked to a journalist with La Presse , Mr. Cédilot, who told me that in 14 months, that is to say the 14 months leading up to opération printemps 2001, $110 million linked to the drug trade had entered the coffers of the Nomads alone.

We are pleased to say that, in Quebec, over a period of nine years, for example, we were able, through this very complex and expensive procedure, to recover $32 million in assets from organized crime. This amount represents less than $4 million a year. We can be proud of that. We certainly hold the record compared to the other Canadian provinces. However, $32 million is less than $4 million a year over a period of nine years, and we know that the drug trade generates $10 billion a year. Consequently, organized crime has recovered $90 billion over 10 years, and we cannot brag about seized $32 million in assets from it. This does not make sense. There are flaws somewhere: $90 billion in drugs, our children are being poisoned, 160 people have been killed in the biker gang war to capture the drug market. There are questions to be asked about this, because $32 million is a drop in the bucket.

Let me give you a second well known case. This is probably the most dreadful criminal whom I have ever met. Maurice “Mom” Boucher is responsible for the murder of two prison guards, for conspiring to commit a murder, for gangsterism and for drug trafficking. This man has been in jail for two years. He went in with an arrogant smile, perhaps thinking that he would get out more quickly.

He has been in prison for two years. He appealed the charges against him for the murder of the prison guards. It has been two years, and the process to compile evidence regarding several millions worth of seizable assets belonging to Mr. Boucher has not even begun yet. Seasoned observers in the justice community tell us that building up the evidence could take years and years and cost millions and millions of dollars.

Yet, Maurice “Mom” Boucher himself is almost a numbered company. He was supposedly a used car dealer in downtown Montreal even though he never sold a car in his life. This man has a superb residence on Montreal's South Shore, a magnificent piece of property. He also own Harley-Davidson motorcycles, of which he is very proud, as any member of a criminal biker gang would be. Bikers who are not criminals are also proud of their Harley-Davidson motorcycles but in his case, let us say that it has a slightly different connotation. He owns properties everywhere.

As I was saying, he was leader of the Nomads. In 14 months, before opération printemps 2001, they made $110 million from drug trafficking. It will take us years and millions of dollars to build up the evidence and maybe seize part of the assets obtained using the proceeds of criminal activities.

Currently, the most common practice is that if, for example, a criminal was arrested last year and had his trial this year and if there were changes in his assets during that year, a judge will decide that it is those assets that will be seized. We do not even look at the last 10 or 15 years during which this criminal amassed a fortune and deposited money in a lot of different places, probably in secret bank accounts. We no longer look at that because it takes too much time and too much taxpayers' money to prove that assets have been obtained through criminal activity.

It is time to put an end to this. I must again pay tribute to my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a talented young lawyer. I pay tribute because it is my opinion that his motion forces the government to take action. Using the concept of the balance of probabilities in the reversal of proof, and totally in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are going to have criminals who are charged with offences, Maurice “Mom” Boucher, Normand Robitaille and the like, have just one responsibility: to prove that their assets, their half-million-dollar homes, their Harleys and Mercedes, their yachts, their property holdings, were acquired through legal activities. It will be up to them to prove it, and not the taxpayers. They will have to prove that they have, for at least part of their lives, been involved in legal activities and have not been life-long criminals.

On the other hand, if they have been life-long criminals and cannot prove that their assets were legally acquired, all their possessions can be seized. It will not be a matter of proving this without a shadow of a doubt. This concept would not be applied in cases where criminals have already been sentenced for serious offences, “Mom” Boucher or Normand Robitaille, for instance.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank two journalists who have helped me a great deal over the years, since my background is economics. They have guided me through the legal process. André Cédilot, whom I have already mentioned, who helped flesh out of the reversal of proof aspect. The information I received from a lawyer with the experience of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles meshed extremely well with the explanations of a seasoned observer like André Cédilot.

I would also like to express my thanks to Michel Auger, with whom I discussed a lot. He helped me understand how organized crime works, in order to be in a better position to fight it.

Finally, a motion like this could lead, with the unanimity of the House, to a bill that will include this reversal of proof. In my opinion, this is an important step in increasing the efficiency of our battle against organized crime. I do, however, hope that some of the proceeds of the disposal of criminal's belongings will again go to the law enforcement agencies to enable them to keep up what they are doing.

And that some will also go to the victims of these criminals, to help them get through their ordeal and any after-effects.

I am speaking for myself and for those who are involved. I would like it if some could be directed to Info-Crime committees. Because every time Info-Crime committees have been created in our regions and Crime Stoppers in Ontario, miracles have been achieved, not only through police work, but also because of citizen involvement.

Once again, hurray for my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and hurray for the other members who are going to support this initiative.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question directly. He should have accepted the calculator I offered him last time because he cannot count. He is ashamed of his figures.

Checking the figures in the budget shows that personal income tax will continue to increase, year after year, until 2010.

How can the Minister of Finance explain the fact that personal income tax will increase an average of 7% per year until 2010, and that he has nothing better for Quebeckers than the cost of a litre of milk per month?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has significant financial leeway because he has taken ample advantage of the fiscal imbalance. However, what taxpayers are getting in return is completely ridiculous.

How can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that his cuts to personal income tax represent only $1.33 per month in 2006, the cost of one litre of milk? One litre of milk per month is the gift the Minister of Finance is giving Quebec taxpayers. What a disgrace.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his excellent question.

Indeed, there is in the budget a reference to the guaranteed income supplement. As the hon. member so aptly pointed out, this increase only comes into effect at the beginning of the third year. Hang on to your seat, because this is really making fun of people. The government, which has owed billions of dollars to the elderly for a number of years, will now give them an astronomical amount every month. Indeed, these people will get a monthly increase of $38, in three years. Considering that this minority government could be defeated in six months, saying in the budget that it will give money in three years from now is not even worth the paper on which it is written. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens , and Quebeckers will indeed remember at the next election.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much to see in terms of rural or strategic infrastructure, because the funding methods have yet to be defined and negotiated. I have a lot of respect for my colleague. However, I would have liked for my colleague and his Conservative colleagues to join forces with us to get the government to make concessions and deliver a better budget.

Three weeks ago, the Conservatives announced they might vote against the budget, but did not think they would bring down the government. As a result, there was less pressure on Mr. Goodale to table a more favourable budget, in our view, which could have started resolving the fiscal imbalance, improving EI and setting up an independent fund.

With all due respect to the Conservatives, we would have liked them to join with us.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has put his finger on something that is a major problem. When I refer to social housing, I mean all kinds of social housing, rent to income, cooperatives and so on.

He referred to the problems of the homeless in Toronto, like everywhere else in Canada, it is the same thing in the Montreal region, and pointed out the frequent connection with mental health problems and multiple drug addictions. That is self-evident. When I said that the Liberal government and its then finance minister, now the Prime Minister, blithely slashed federal transfer payments for health services, did it help the cause of homelessness? Of mental health? Of multiple drug addiction?

In Montérégie, for example, with its large population, there are two youth addictions workers. A recent Government of Quebec report states that the youth addictions problem is growing but there is no money to solve it. Why is that, do you think? I have already referred to the shortfall in the Quebec government's coffers since 1994 of $14 billion, precisely for such purposes.

In a way, my colleague has shot himself in the foot. In trying to add something on social housing, he highlighted the problems in health and the lack of funding to resolve them within the Quebec and provincial governments.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, never before have I risen in this place to speak to a budget as terrible as the one brought down yesterday by the Liberal government. None of the priorities of Quebeckers are addressed in this budget. Quebec has been totally ignored.

Take the fiscal imbalance for example; if there is one issue on which there is a consensus in Quebec, it is fiscal imbalance. Yesterday morning, newspapers reported that a survey showed that nearly 80% of Quebeckers agreed that there was a problem of fiscal imbalance and that it should be resolved. This is not some abstract concept. The people of Quebec fully understand that.

Because of the fiscal imbalance, post-secondary education, among others, is underfunded. Health is also underfunded, in spite of the accord signed in September, whereby the federal government was to increase its participation to 25% of the total over the next four years. In the early days of the program, the federal participation was 50%. There is such pressure on the health care system that, over the next few years, the Government of Quebec will have to be very shrewd in finding the money necessary to respond to the real needs of Quebeckers.

As for post-secondary education, the system is crumbling. Why? Because the federal government's contribution has dropped from 50% to approximately 12% today. The post-secondary education system cannot be properly funded with the federal government not taking its responsibilities. There is no answer in this budget in terms of increasing the federal participation through transfers for post-secondary education in particular.

More shocking yet, a few years ago, the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec informed me that the federal government had the nerve to collect tax on the grants students receive from the Government of Quebec. We have been fighting against that for years. Not only is the federal government continuing to fail to take its responsibilities with respect to transfers for post-secondary education, but it is also taxing student grants from the Government of Quebec.

In 1996, the current Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, changed how transfer amounts were calculated, moving from the needs of the provinces to a per capita basis. Since 1994, because the amounts paid in 1994 were indexed, Quebec has lost more than $14 billion in federal funding.

They have the nerve to say that with the increases in federal transfers we are back at 1994 levels. That is, the non-indexed 1994 level. We are back at the same level as in 1994, but in the meantime there has been a general increase in the cost of health and education. We are not at the same level. Some $14 billion in total is missing from the kitty and $1.2 billion a year, if we really want to go back to the same indexed level as the transfers that existed in 1994.

We are dealing with a situation—and that is the fiscal imbalance—whereby too much money goes into the federal government's coffers in relation to its responsibilities and not enough money goes to the coffers of the Government of Quebec in relation to its basic responsibilities in health, post-secondary education and social assistance.

Even with the agreements on health and equalization, when we calculate what the fiscal imbalance costs the Government of Quebec each year, we are talking about $2.3 billion. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but a $2.3 billion shortfall every year. This would not be the case if the fiscal imbalance were resolved.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary this morning—the Prime Minister is just as guilty of this and the Minister of Finance even more so—deny the very existence of the fiscal imbalance. I would remind him that we currently have a House of Commons special committee, which I am proud to chair, with a mandate to prepare a report on resolving the fiscal imbalance by June 2. It is in the Speech from the Throne and they agreed to it. This issue is addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

The special committee began its work in Halifax last week. It will be in Toronto next week and Quebec City on April 11. Judging by the high turnout and the popularity of the hearings, I would suggest that people are coming out to have a say on the fiscal imbalance precisely because it does exist.

If there were no fiscal imbalance, this special committee would not attract as many witnesses. The Liberals are the only ones not acknowledging that there is a problem, and not a new problem. It was recognized by Mr. Pearson in 1964. He transferred tax points to those provinces who wanted to take advantage of them, particularly for educational funding. Then, in 1971, came the Victoria conference. Only the Liberal government does not understand that huge surpluses are accumulating at this time in the federal coffers. According to our assessment, and those of the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives , $10 billion in surplus funds is going to accumulate yearly in the federal government's coffers. This government does not seem to get it: there is too much money in its coffers and not enough in the provincial coffers.

Ontario recorded a $10 billion deficit last year. Next year, Quebec is headed for a deficit estimated at around $1.5 billion to $2 billion. There is a problem somewhere. The single taxpayer is paying too much to Ottawa and then having to face the consequences of Quebec not having the proper resources to provide basic services such as health care, post-secondary education and help for disadvantaged families.

Employment insurance is another priority for Quebeckers, and probably for Canadians as well. In the past three elections, the present Prime Minister, and then finance minister, kept promising us in-depth reforms. He travelled to the regions and when things began to heat up a bit—I remember one instance in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—he said “No need to get upset, we are going to fix the problem. We are going to overhaul the program.” When the next election came along, the same thing happened. When things began to heat up a bit, he repeated the same promise—since the PM is a bit of a chicken, as well as being a ditherer. In the last election campaign, there he was again saying: “Don't worry, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has provided us with not one, but two unanimous reports, including the Liberal members of the committee—one wonders if they are sticking to their convictions—and we are going to solve the problem.”

We are now at the budget, a few months after the election campaign, and we find ourselves with a so-called reform of employment insurance, which is getting $300 million for seasonal workers in the most affected regions. That is seven one-thousandths of the surplus that the Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, stole from the employment insurance fund, the contributions of employers and employees. He comes to tell us that the unemployed will be satisfied with this injection of $300 million.

I was listening to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the lieutenant of the Liberal government and Minister of Transport say: “The unemployed will be happy. This is great. The unemployed will think this is great.” I invite them to tour the regions with us to see if it is all that great. I think they will have a great reception, but not in the way they think.

This reform was supposed to ensure—and this had the unanimous support of the House, coming from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities—that the number of hours needed to access employment insurance was reduced to 360, that the number of weeks of benefits was increased, and that benefits were higher for all workers. Instead of that, we have a general, short-term pilot project. Nothing has been resolved. Since they say it is great for the unemployed, I am eager to see the reactions in the next few days.

Furthermore, they say it is marvellous, because there is going to be a commission independent of the government. That is a smokescreen: government members will be sitting on that commission. What is more, they tell us in the budget that they have set the premium rate at $1.95 for a long period of time. It was supposed to be $1.92, but they kept 3¢ more to finance their second-rate $300-million initiative. So what is the commission going to decide? Nothing, because it is already decided. If it ever decides something one day, the government will be party to that decision. What is more, the Liberal government reserves the right to overturn that decision by the commission. Hurray for the independent commission. No independent commission would prevent the government from cheerfully dipping into the employment insurance fund surpluses, and they expect us to believe that a miracle has come to pass with this remarkable initiative.

As for parental leave, in the second week of the election campaign the Prime Minister was telling us: “It's done. Don't worry: the day after the election there will be no more talk about it, because it will be resolved”. Well it is still not resolved. It is not resolved in this budget.

For years young parents in Quebec, men and women, have been waiting for the Quebec system, which depends on a transfer from the federal government's EI fund. People in Quebec are entitled to ask for this. It is a transfer to fund this initiative.

Young parents have been waiting for years for a system that would cover men and women who are self-employed. For years people and parents have been waiting to get out of this horrible federal parental leave system which depends on the employment insurance regime. Just think: the government values families so much that when young parents decide to have a child, they are given a two week penalty because they are subject to the Employment Insurance Act. What a way to value families.

People expected this to be taken care of. On the other side, the compliant Liberal members from Quebec, tell us. “It will be taken care of. Be patient, be patient.” They have been telling us that for years about employment insurance and parental leave. Where are they? They applaud. They stand to applaud a budget that completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. The Liberal members from Quebec, who were cut way back in the last election campaign, rise to applaud, even though none of these Quebec priorities are in the budget. It is appalling. We will make them pay one day, even more than they paid last June 28.

Insofar as day care is concerned, you should have heard them. For six months it has been unbelievable. They are full of praise for Quebec. They say, “The Quebec day care system is the most progressive in the world. We are going to copy your system,” and so forth. All the while, Quebeckers alone have been paying for the day care system in Quebec. For more than five years now, Quebeckers alone no longer benefit from the federal tax credits and tax deductions that they used to have when children went to day care for $35 a day. Now it is $7 and there are tax losses. The federal government has never wanted to acknowledge these losses. It has never wanted to correct these losses, while in Quebec, parents have lost more than $1 billion over five years in federal tax deductions and tax credits because the government does not want to correct the tax system to take into account this progressive policy, which they praise to the skies.

In this budget, for the first year there is no problem, because $700 million will be in trust. The provinces will be able to go and get this money. Nevertheless, what happens the second year will be a problem because, in later years, national standards will be applied. Criteria for the transfer of funds will be applied to the provinces. From the mouth of the Prime Minister himself during the election campaign, we heard it was to be an unconditional transfer, because Quebec had already established its $5 and $7 day care system—five years ago. However, that is not the case anymore. According to the budget, conditions and criteria will have to be negotiated. Quebec will have to give in, as they tried to make it give in regarding health, which is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, as they tried to make it give in last September when they negotiated the health agreement and the transfers of funds involved.

With respect to social housing, the government's attitude is detestable. I remember clearly that, during the election campaign the Prime Minister met with members of FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain. He met them in front of the cameras. He wanted to show that, even though he had ships in the Caribbean, even though he did not pay income tax in Canada, even though he and his Canada Steamship Lines completely ignored labour and environmental laws, he was someone with his hand on his heart, left leaning, progressive. He promised the people that he was going to care about social housing for the most disadvantaged in our society and that he would fix the problem. In the first budget of the minority Liberal government, there is nothing about social housing. It is a big fat zero. That is so horrible. It is enough to make one lose faith in politics. People may well be fed up with politicians, because they never keep their promises. The Liberals lie shamelessly when it is time to win seats, when they are on the ropes and at risk of losing power. It is disgusting to offer things like that and win an election, as the Liberals did, on false promises.

Agriculture is another priority for Quebec. This is the worst crisis agriculture has faced in 25 years, and there is no significant federal contribution to resolve this crisis.

As for international assistance, we can talk about it. At the current rate, and including the amounts provided in yesterday's budget, five years from now, it will have reached 0.3% of GDP, with only four years left to reach 0.7% of GDP. At this rate, we will never reach the target set by the UN. It is smoke and mirrors to say that spending in this area is increasing and that the UN target will be met.

I need not list tax reductions, since there were none. Approximately $1.33 a month per family, starting in 2006, the cost of a litre of milk every month. Still, they speak of incredible tax breaks and paying attention to the people.

This budget does not in any way meet the priorities of Quebeckers. Every year, we taxpayers in Quebec send more than $40 billion in taxes to the federal government. It is time to wake up. Consensus and priorities are developing in Quebec. These priorities are tested and expressed by the National Assembly, often through unanimous motions. When the time comes for action to be taken in the House of Commons, Quebec is ignored, for purely electoral reasons. Quebec lieutenants are sent to tell us that this is a good budget, which serves Quebeckers well. It is despicable to operate only with a view to being elected.

Listen to this. Over the next three years, year in, year out, the federal government will have a surplus in excess of $10 billion in its coffers. It is stashing this money away with a view to elections. Whenever he decides to call an election, the Prime Minister will have enough surplus money on hand to give out gifts, win the election, and have a majority government again, because it looks like the Conservatives are losing steam. Then, he will find money to invest a little something in health and post-secondary education and to resolve the employment insurance problem to some extent. With an eye to elections, this government, applauded by the federal MPs from Quebec, has decided not to meet any of Quebec's priorities.

During that time, patients are lined up on stretchers, despite the accord signed in September; students are not receiving the services and quality of education they are entitled to, because education is underfunded; individuals among the most disadvantaged are sleeping on the streets or have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing and are left with less than 50% to cover basic needs like food and winter clothes for their children.

It is for election purposes that such a crummy budget was brought down, so crummy that Quebec is being given short shrift, in every one of its priorities.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that yesterday, when I saw the Liberal government presenting a budget that totally ignores Quebec's priorities and consensus, when I saw the official opposition on their feet applauding the budget, I understood one thing as a Quebecker, and I hope that all Quebeckers understood the same thing: this country is made up of two countries, and as far as Quebeckers are concerned, there is one too many.

If $40 billion in tax dollars had been handed back to Quebec years ago, we would have remedied fiscal imbalance a long time ago. There would be only one level of government so there would be no more fiscal imbalance. The parental leave issue would have been long settled, as would all the problems with EI. All of the priorities and all of the consensuses reached in our National Assembly would have been implemented. We would not be waiting for anyone else to act. We would not be the victims of election-focussed calculations by the Liberal government. We would be taking the right steps to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

I hope that the people of Quebec have finally got the message. In the days to come we will be expressing other reactions to the budget. I can guarantee that the Liberals will pay, like the Conservatives and that Quebec is, even more than ever, a distinct society, a distinct people capable of looking after itself.

[Taxation, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to encouraging interference by the federal government, the fiscal imbalance has slowed Quebec's development. The Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs is categorical that, “fiscal attrition” threatens to compromise Quebec's distinct nature.

Instead of choking Quebec until it becomes a province like the others, will the federal government, which has the ample means to do so, attack the fiscal imbalance in tomorrow's budget, by taking specific measures?

[Taxation, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec repeated, “the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved—the federal government continues to swim in surpluses while Quebec can barely balance its budget”, in education, for example. Another perverse effect, according to Mr. Charest, is that the fiscal imbalance encourages Ottawa to intrude in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

As the Quebec premier and all of Quebec are asking, will the federal government use tomorrow's budget to recognize the fiscal imbalance and take concrete measures to correct what is “obvious to everyone but itself”.

[Quebec Games, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on February 25, the opening ceremonies of the 40th Quebec Games Final will take place in the beautiful city of Saint-Hyacinthe, launching a wonderful week that will see thousands of young athletes compete in 18 different events.

For more than three years now, many stakeholders from all areas of the community have put their shoulders to the wheel to get the games and to put in place all the infrastructure necessary to ensure the success of this major event.

With the official opening just days away, I would like to salute the remarkable work done by all these people, as well as the work of the 3,500 volunteers who will look after the comfort and well-being of the 10,000 athletes, officials, escorts and visitors who will be spending the week in Saint-Hyacinthe.

To all young Quebeckers, I wish great games.