Yvan Loubier

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is saying so many incorrect, narrow and twisted things it is outrageous.

To say that our amendment to the amendment is threatening the accord on equalization is twisted. What our amendment to the amendment says is that we must go further than equalization, resolve equalization, but go beyond and examine all federal transfers.

The Minister of Finance, who prides himself on helping the agricultural sector, does not recall having made a commitment that he did not live up to when he was responsible for the Canadian Dairy Commission four years ago. He cut the $6.03 a hectolitre provided to dairy producers. It provided Quebec dairy producers with $120 million. He said he would raise prices accordingly to compensate for the losses. He never did. This man does not honour his commitments.

Today, he is talking nonsense. He just told my Conservative colleague that our amendment to the amendment is threatening the equalization accord. What equalization accord?

Two weeks ago I attended the first ministers' conference. They presented a convoluted position for reforming equalization. He says there is no agreement. Yes, there are agreements with the receiving provinces to make substantial changes to the equalization system based on all 10 provinces and a realistic view of property taxes.

This minister is talking nonsense, as the government did earlier, as the Prime Minister did during oral question period when he said this would be abdicating the federal government's responsibilities.

This is so wrong and warped that it is bad faith. It is bad faith. It reeks of bad faith.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he admit that he and the Prime Minister made promises?

They need to broaden the scope of the first ministers' conference and come better prepared than they were two weeks ago at the health conference, when the Prime Minister did not even know what he was talking about. They need to be ready to explain to the provinces the shameful surpluses that were accumulated not by good administration, but by making cuts to employment insurance, health and education. That is what you have been doing for 10 years. So much for your good administration and your surpluses.

While people have needs in health and education, there are surpluses here. Will he address the public's real concerns?

[Speech from the Throne, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec minister Benoît Pelletier identified not only the equalization program as posing a problem, but the whole issue of transfers to the provinces, which should also be discussed by Quebec, the provinces and Ottawa.

If the Prime Minister agrees that these issues must be examined, why is it unacceptable to support the Bloc Quebecois' amendment to the amendment, which, precisely, reaffirms the need to alleviate the financial pressures that the provinces are facing?

[Speech from the Throne, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a misinterpretation that it reeks of bad faith. Everyone agrees that Quebec and the provinces are faced with a serious lack of financial resources. Even the Prime Minister recognizes that. On June 3, he said, “Are the provinces facing financial pressures? Absolutely!”

If the Prime Minister agrees with the facts, why does he refuse to include them in the throne speech supporting the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

You can see dirty tricks the government plays to try to alleviate the disaster it has created over the past decade. It has starved the provinces, forcing them to tighten their belts to avoid running huge deficits. Some were successful, while other are on the verge on going into a deficit. Recently, we saw the situation of the Government of Ontario.

These are dirty tricks. All that has guided the federal government for the past 10 years is visibility. When you are swimming in surpluses—$10 billion annually on average these past three years—you end up spending left and right. Visibility is what is guiding this government's decisions.

There is a solution to this problem: redefine tax fields. If there is too much money in Ottawa given the mandates the federal government has to fulfill, there is too little in the provinces and in Quebec to meet the needs of the people. That is what has to be redefined. The last time this was done was in 1964, under Messrs. Pearson and Lesage, when tax points were transferred. Let us do it again.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my illustrious colleague from Joliette for his most important question.

The two and one-half years during which I was responsible for aboriginal issues were a great revelation to me. I learned something new every day. The situation of Canada's aboriginal people is disastrous, and not far off third-world levels. Every throne speech makes reference to aboriginal problems. It looks good. In all throne speeches there is a paragraph about recognizing the first nations.

How then does it come about that the necessary actions are not taken? The first thing we should have seen in the throne speech, particularly after the battle we led against the governance bill, C-7, unwanted by every aboriginal nation across Canada, is that the government was planning on allocating additional resources to speed up negotiations on first nations self-government. This is the only way to enable the first nations to take charge of their own affairs, to have their own tax base, to make decisions on their own future, and to have full jurisdiction over that future.

There is a frequent tendency to paint a bleak picture of our first nations, whereas 90% of these communities are administering their lands appropriately. They ought to be allowed to do so because it is their jurisdiction. They ought to be given the resources as well as compensation for the harm done by an Indian Act that is as bad as any apartheid regime the world has ever known.

But no, back they came again with the usual paternalistic approach, telling the aboriginal people what was good for them and how to do things. There we were with Bill C-7. My NDP colleague and I fought for 55 days and 55 evenings, some of them into the night, to get that bill rejected. Despite what we were told, this was just a second version of the Indian Act on top of the original one, which was terrible enough on its own.

The problems are so obvious: chronic under-employment, otherwise known as unemployment, a youth suicide rate double that of the rest of society, multiple addictions, housing problems. Some of the housing is not fit even for an animal to live in. I have had the opportunity to visit reserves in Quebec and in Canada, and the situation is shocking.

It is disgrace for a government not to have made the aboriginal issue a priority. Aboriginal people are promised the moon every five years or so. Such was the case with the report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission, which opened up incredible possibilities for them. In opposition to the Erasmus-Dussault report, they are presented with a bill no one wants. Enough time has been wasted on this issue. It is time to speed up negotiations. First, there has to be a recognition of first nations as nations, according to the UN definition, like any other nations of the world. In that sense, they have the right to self-determination and ought to be able to decide their future, as should Quebec's people.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished and very competent colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I would like to thank my constituents from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for giving me their trust for the fourth time with the largest majority I have received since 1993. I can assure them once again that they will not be disappointed in their choice. I will work hard to defend their interests.

Some things in the Speech from the Throne are surprising. My colleagues will have the opportunity to talk about other matters that are missing from or poorly presented in this speech. I will focus on two aspects. The first concerns the whole issue of financial pressures, commonly referred to as the fiscal imbalance on this side of the House. The second concerns the agricultural sector, which is also one of the major areas that was forgotten in the Speech from the Throne and one of the major sectors that has been neglected by the government for many years.

A first ministers' conference will be held shortly to address equalization and all federal transfers. It is quite surprising that just a few weeks before this conference there is no mention in the Speech from the Throne of this important issue, except for one line. It says that the federal government will present the most significant, most magnificent reform of the equalization program in 45 years.

My first point is this: equalization is one thing, but there is also the conference of October 26. I trust the Prime Minister is far better prepared than for the last first ministers' conference on health care. That time he was absolutely at a loss. He gave the impression of being totally disconcerted, with no idea of what he was talking about. I hope this time he will be well prepared.

During the election campaign he made a commitment—one he repeated two weeks ago—to open the first ministers' conference with two major subjects: equalization payments and the other fiscal transfers which are causing tax pressure on the provincial and Quebec governments. This is in large part due to the skyrocketing costs of health care and the growing needs in the area of education and social assistance.

Equalization is important, but if it is done according to the formula presented to us two weeks ago, nothing will be accomplished and it will be a mere travesty of the objectives and mission of an equalization program.

Two weeks ago, on the very first day of the premiers conference, the federal government presented an equalization payment amending formula: take the 2000-01 payments and index them. When the formula is not corrected from beginning to end, we end up with a situation where, for example, the Government of Quebec would end up over the next 10 years not get half of what it would normally would have obtained in equalization payments had the formula had been reshaped using correct and stringent parameters. There has been talk of reshaping the equalization payment system for 10 years now.

Two constants with two parameters keep coming up and there is provincial consensus on these. The first: provincial representation must be changed. Calculations to determine the per capita payment must be based on the ten provinces, not five. The other parameter is property tax. This has been volatile in recent years and as a result, for example, Quebec suddenly lost $2 billion in equalization payments.

Real property tax values must be used as the basis for the calculation. There is nothing complicated about that. Change two parameters and we have a lasting solution to the problem.

Second, the Prime Minister must fulfill his two commitments—the one he made during the election campaign and the one at the last conference—and deal with the fiscal pressures. I find it hard to understand why the Prime Minister and the members of his government are upset when we propose an amendment dealing with fiscal pressures and fiscal imbalance. The Prime Minister himself admitted, during the election campaign and two weeks ago, that the Quebec government and the provincial governments were under undue fiscal pressure and he said that he was prepared to work on this issue.

But the throne speech makes no mention of these fiscal pressures. The first ministers' conference is in three weeks. Are we justified in questioning the government's agenda? After all, this is what the throne speech is about: it presents the government's agenda.

If the Prime Minister is not able to anticipate that, under his agenda, he will have to meet the provincial premiers in three weeks to discuss fiscal pressures, then there is a problem. Something was overlooked. I do not know whether this is deliberate or if the Prime Minister is in the process of changing his mind.

There is only one way to deal with the fiscal imbalance in a thorough fashion. The tax fields of the federal, Quebec and provincial governments must be redefined.

In other words, we must transfer the additional taxing powers to the provincial governments and to the Quebec government so that they can fulfill their primary responsibility regarding health, front line services to citizens, education and income support for society's poorest.

It is easy to transfer tax points or, for example, to transfer GST revenues, as was pointed out by the Séguin commission. Here again, the government is not even open to discussing the issue. Imagine what it will be like when it comes to finding solutions.

But we are expecting the Prime Minister on October 26. So are the premiers of Quebec and the provinces. The federal government cannot accumulate surpluses unduly while the provinces have glaring needs in health, education and income support, which are all fundamental responsibilities enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.

There is something indecent about the fact that they hid these surpluses from us, year after year. Once again, the Conference Board is talking about a federal government surplus of $164 billion over the next 10 years, while the deficit for Quebec and the other provinces will be over $60 billion. Something is not working properly; the federal government has too much money for its responsibilities and there is not enough money for the basic responsibilities for services to the people, such as health and education.

This conference must be guided by four principles that are not found in the Speech from the Throne. These principles are: provincial autonomy with regard to constitutional responsibility; stability; predictable management of the funds they have on hand; and long-lasting arrangements. It must not happen that every two years someone has to come back and grovel on behalf of those who require services. The money does not belong to the federal government; it belongs to the citizens whose highest priority—and this was seen everywhere in the election polls—is to have that money invested in health, education and income support.

Unless it accomplishes this, we will consider the conference a failure.

Second, there is agriculture, the most important sector in my riding. It is an important economic motor for all rural regions in Quebec. The same is true in the rest of Canada. My honourable friend from the west was saying so just now.

For a number of years, the federal government has neglected farmers, so much so that if we compare the incomes of farm families now to those of the past 30 years, these are the lowest incomes for 30 years. The men and women who farm have been victims of an incredible depression, particularly in the last three years. Between mad cow disease and American subsidies, it has been incredible. Those subsidies represent at least 20 times what the federal government can provide to the producers of large-scale crops such as corn and wheat.

We cannot go on like this. Competition is not based on the quality of the products; it is based on the ability of governments to intervene with outrageous subsidies that contravene all the trading rules of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

Five years ago the federal government cut the dairy subsidy by $6.03 a hectolitre. It provided $120 million to dairy farmers in Quebec. If the farmers still had this $120 million today, they could survive the mad cow crisis. But that is not what the federal government did.

As for the Quebec Artificial Breeding Centre, a vital part of the agricultural economy, it has been cornered a financially disastrous situation because of mad cow disease. Indeed, 75% of QABC products that used to go the United States no longer go there.

The federal government is abandoning the agricultural sector and cast doubt on the survival of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, the only francophone school of veterinary medicine in North America. It is the only one that currently does not have full accreditation. The four others located elsewhere in Canada are fully accredited, but Saint-Hyacinthe is not. Why? Because the federal government did not do its job.

If that is what they call a government program then it is only normal that we reject it. However, it is abnormal for the government not to agree to work with us to improve its work program, to make this Parliament work.

The government has to understand that we are in a majority position, which is not easy to do. We are the majority, we have a majority predisposition and that can have a major impact. The Liberals still do not understand that they have a minority in this Parliament. It might be a good idea for them to cooperate rather than impose the Liberal party agenda, which was rejected by 62% of Canadians, a significant figure.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak.

I do not share all of the opinions expressed by my colleague from Medicine Hat, nor do I subscribe to all the comments made by my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I know my colleague from Medicine Hat well, from eight years together on the Standing Committee on Finance. Right from the start, we were on the same side in certain battles, particularly those for indexed tax tables and reduced tax rates for those with lower incomes. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that my colleague has done nothing for the past ten years but defend tax cuts for the rich.

That is, however, what the Liberals have done for the past ten years: reduced taxes of all kinds for the richest members of society. One former finance minister even managed to obtain tax advantages for his shipping companies in Barbados. This also represents not a tax reduction for the less well off, but a tax reduction for the well off, his peers. So let them not try to preach to us on this.

I have a question for my colleague from Medicine Hat. I am very pleased that tax reductions for low- and middle-income people are still being promoted. But what is the explanation for the fact that, the whole time the present Prime Minister was finance minister, the government operating budget increased a mere 39% over the past five years, or close to 8% annually, whereas inflation increased an average of 1.9%? Can this government be described as a good manager?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to tell the hon. member for Outremont that we are not asking the government to abdicate its responsibilities: we are asking it to assume its responsibilities while taking into consideration the fact that it is a minority government.

When we call on people's sense of responsibility, we must look at ourselves. The member for Outremont is saying “We do not want others to tell us how to govern”. What does this Speech from the Throne do if not dictate the Liberal Party's agenda to a Parliament in which the government is in a minority position, a Parliament in which a majority of members sit on this side. This is not a consensus. This is not the way to ensure that this Parliament will work.

As for being responsible with the taxes paid by Quebeckers and Canadians, we do not need to be lectured by people who are in it up to their necks with the sponsorship scandal. If they want to talk about sound management, that is fine with us.

During the last five years that the current Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, the federal government's operating expenditures increased by 39%. This means an annual increase of about 8%, while inflation was at 1.9%. Is this what they call sound management? An abyss of sponsorship spending and operating expenditures out of this world?

Do you know how this came to be? When you make a surplus year in and year out, this means you have too much money compared to the responsibilities you have to fulfill. That is what happens. Laxness sets in. During that time, Quebec and the provinces have needs. Their people have needs in health, education and income security. We do not need any lectures from them. Anyway, we did not miss the member during his 12-year absence from the House of Commons.

I would like to ask him the following concerning the fiscal pressures referred to in the amendment. The current Prime Minister was the first to raise this issue during the election campaign, when he acknowledged that the provinces were facing fiscal pressures and indicated he was prepared to sit down and work on this.

Later, he made another commitment. After the conference on health, another conference was held, which dealt with not only equalization—there is this incomplete formula we were presented with two weeks ago, which does not take into account the demands of the provinces which benefit from equalization—but also transfers as a whole and the redefining of tax fields. The Prime Minister of Canada himself appeared to be open to this debate.

I have a question for him. Why is it that in less than three months the government has changed its tune?

[Acton International Plant, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the workers at the plant of Acton International in Acton Vale had some sad news yesterday: 240 of them, mostly younger workers, will be losing their jobs at the end of August.

In response to this massive layoff, will the minister at last decide to revive POWA, which, if available in this particular case, could have convinced the older workers to take early retirement, thereby limiting the layoffs affecting the younger ones?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for his question. He is always very enlightened. I was happy to fight alongside him for 55 days, on behalf of the first nations and against Bill C-7, in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. That was a record in Canadian parliamentary history.

The worst thing is that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. If the government is so enthusiastic about this bill, if it thinks this bill represents the future with all the parameters it contains, then it is possible and completely plausible to think that the government—through the back door—has given directives to the officials in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who are responsible for implementing all these programs for the first nations, to have the first nations conform to the provisions of the bill, a bill they do not want, in order to receive grants or continue to benefit from government programs.

The government is still deciding on behalf of the first nations what is suitable for them and what is not. That is paternalism, pure and simple. What is the difference in attitude between the Indian Act that was imposed on the first nations and a bill like this one? They are the same. There is always this desire to keep the first nations down, to keep the pressure on them, even if they disagree with a bill, to apply the provisions of that bill, which might become law. That is unacceptable.

It is understandable that the first nations who are opposed to this may have their doubts about the government's good will. For decades, they have been promised all sorts of things, and their rights have been trampled on. For decades, they have been told they will be able to live, to develop and to benefit from the growth in the collective wealth, but they are kept on the sidelines.

I was talking earlier about Winneway and Chief Mathias. This same chief is engaged in a dispute with the lumber companies that want to cut wood on his land. His community would not collect any royalties on this harvest—on their own land. That is unacceptable.

Most first nations chiefs saw right through the government's intentions. The federal government is trying to get in through the back door in order to shirk its fiduciary responsibilities toward first nations.

There is also the whole matter of dispossessing traditional lands. Not much was said about this earlier. This is also a risk. At some point, traditional lands could be used as collateral by financial institutions. Is that right? Generation after generation of first nations members and chiefs have fought, throughout Canada's history, for the right to get their land back. Suddenly, this land could be seized by financial institutions. This is also a risk.

Not all first nations communities are prepared for this development, property tax, loans, and so forth. Can we allow this risk? Can we just ignore these risks when the provisions are not clear on this?

So many mistakes have been made in the past. The federal government's management of aboriginal affairs for the past 130 years is nothing to be proud of, not that it has been easy. As I mentioned at the end of my speech, even the United Nations finds that Canada is acting like the Rhodesians in South Africa before apartheid was abolished. Our treatment of the aboriginals is a little nicer, but not any less cruel.

That is why negotiations on self-government should be accelerated and concluded. Since the Erasmus-Dussault commission, since 1997—five years ago—not much progress has been made. Some first nations have achieved self-government. Some have concluded sectoral agreements. Some have reached a true self-government agreement on governance and jurisdiction, but not many.

In Quebec, we set ourselves the objective of speeding up the negotiations. Hon. members have seen what happened with the James Bay Cree, with the peace of the braves. That grew out of the 1978 agreement concluded by René Lévesque with the James Bay Cree. We modernized it, providing additional tools. Everyone knows how the James Bay Cree are developing now.

The same thing goes with the proposed agreement with the Innu. We want to speed things up in order to be able to live in harmony, to share the land and live as two nations on the territory of Quebec. The federal government ought to share that enthusiasm and that concern.

Imagine what an about-face would ensue. After 130 years of the infamous Indian Act, of subjugation, suddenly the federal government steps things up. Firm negotiations. The Erasmus-Dussault report. The first nations took great hope from the Penner report and the report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Young aboriginal people could glimpse the possibility of identification with their nation, of pride in their nation, of a future with opportunity instead of a dead end.

What has happened since? Some things have been done, but are they things to be proud of? Can we say that we put every effort, every enthusiasm into it? When the government across the way is convinced of something, then it puts in the appropriate resources. When there is a bill it wants to see passed, it makes sure it moves through. Why not the same approach to the first nations? It would not be hard to devote more resources to this. The Prime Minister has surplus funds coming out of his ears, and he is well aware of this, having been the finance minister. Why, then, not put more resources into it, speed up the process, achieve self-government, be proud of this coexistence with the aboriginal peoples?

Aboriginal culture is a treasure. Its history, its languages are rich. Why not take advantage of that wealth instead of blocking the first nations' rights to be themselves, to govern themselves, to enact their own laws on their own territory, to benefit from its resources, and thus to survive? Quebec knows something about preserving culture. It is the most fundamental aspect of any people.

But instead, we are still stubbornly engaged in the divide and conquer approach. That is not the way to improve things.