House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
Government Contracts February 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister set limits and reached conclusions: anyone who knew anything and did nothing should resign.
In light of the revelations contained in this February 7, 2002 letter, which confirms that the Prime Minister knew and did nothing, can he tell us what conclusion he will reach about himself?
Government Contracts February 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in his letter dated February 7, 2002, the senior executive of the Liberal Party of Canada warned the current Prime Minister that, if it were ever revealed that the party contributed to this loss of trust either through silence or indifference, the blow could be fatal.
Ignoring these warnings, did the Prime Minister not choose silence?
Auditor General's Report February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, every time we asked the former President of the Treasury Board, she told us all the rules had been followed, but this is simply not true.
In playing the role of someone who enforces the rules, and claiming that all the transactions were done properly, the President of the Treasury Board was an accessory to the system the Auditor General has uncovered.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his industry minister should not only be the subject of a public inquiry, but should step down from her position immediately since the evidence against her is so overwhelming?
Auditor General's Report February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, every time we asked the current Minister of Industry, who at the time of the sponsorship program was the President of the Treasury Board, about compliance with the rules, she rose in her place and swore that all the Treasury Board rules had been followed. Yet today, the Auditor General is quite clear. All the rules of the Treasury Board and of Parliament had been flouted.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his current industry minister tried to cover up the misappropriation of funds from the sponsorship program by directly misleading the House?
Canada Steamship Lines February 6th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is serious this time in his determination to review tax havens, does he intend to apply retroactivity? If retroactivity was good for allowing the present Prime Minister to avoid paying $100 million in taxes since 1995, it ought to be equally good for recovering what he owes.
Canada Steamship Lines February 6th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated his openness, nothing more, to a review of the tax treaties and rules concerning tax havens, particularly those between Canada and Barbados.
Is the Minister of Finance not adopting the same attitude as the present Prime Minister, who has done nothing to correct the situation which the Bloc Quebecois and successive auditors general have condemned for years as a threat to Canada's tax base?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. Indeed, that bill was introduced twice.
The first time, in 1996, the finance minister introduced Bill C-69. The provision concerning international shipping was found at the very end of the 485 page bill, which died on the order paper when an election was called.
He tried again in 1998. He had his own parliamentary secretary introduce the same omnibus bill that contained, again at the very end, the same minor provision of about 20 lines or so. I thought he showed then a total lack of transparency in a premeditated way. In 1996, he had himself introduced this provision for the first time in Bill C-69. If he does not know what he is putting forward, that is a whole other issue.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The federal government has indeed had nothing to say for over a week in connection with Kanesatake, although it is the prime fiduciary of Indians according to the old Indian Act.
What is worse is that it was there when James Gabriel and a large portion of the band council asked for help from the federal government to fight organized crime. Let no one say these are just suppositions. The Hells Angels are there and are trafficking in drugs and cigarettes, and in weapons as well. That has been going on since 1990.
Mr. Gabriel was given the help. In a document awarding the $900,000 to him to help fight organized crime, there was an acknowledgment of the urgency of action, the presence of organized crime, and the extraordinary nature of the situation at Kanesatake. Once he was given the money things took a turn for the worse and the government washed its hands of any responsibility, turned its back and walked out the door. That is how the federal government acted.
This is a totally irresponsible way of acting, particularly when the Government of Quebec, Mr. Chagnon in particular, had acted in a totallyresponsible manner, undermining the credibility of duly elected Grand Chief James Gabriel, saying he was the one who had made mistakes. It is easy to accuse others when such things happen. Negotiating with people associated with crime, and likely connected to those who torched Grand Chief Gabriel's house, is a serious matter.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to list in just 10 minutes all the concerns that have been raised by the Speech from the Throne.
But in the next 10 minutes—and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—I would like to concentrate my remarks on three subjects: health, government ethics and aboriginal affairs.
In the throne speech, the government has not mentioned any plan for additional funding for the future, nor any stability in the transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces for health financing. And yet health is the highest priority, not only in Quebec but in Canada as well.
The Minister of Finance, echoing the Prime Minister who said it through the throne speech, has repeatedly told us that public finances are tight. He can only honour a two-year-old promise that a one-time payment of $2 billion would be transferred—a promise his predecessor made. But for the rest, the public purse is too strained and he will not be able to free up any money.
This Prime Minister, once the minister of finance, still has the same tendency to hide the true picture of public finances from the people. This year there will be a surplus of at least $6 or $7 billion. The minister is going to great lengths to show us that it will be difficult, that there may be only $2 or $3 billion, but there will be $6 or $7 billion, and my estimate is conservative.
He already has $6 or $7 billion he could use to plan an additional transfer to the provinces to fulfil one of the recommendations in the report by Mr. Romanow, who is not a sovereignist, namely, that the federal government ought to increase its contribution from 16% to 25% of health costs.
The second suggestion we could make to the Minister of Finance is one he knows well, because he designed these measures. The large number of foundations he created while he was finance minister are completely ineffective. These foundations are still holding $7 billion. Why does the federal government not take back the billions of dollars lying dormant in those foundations in order to do something about people's real priorities, which are health and education?
Education was neglected, due to the systematic cuts initiated by the former finance minister, now Prime Minister. He is responsible for the health care crisis. He is also responsible for the precarious situation in education, because he slashed transfer payments to these two essential services.
Let us talk about ethics. The Minister of Finance repeated it following the throne speech: they want to redo or examine the tax system to see if it could be made more equitable, ensure equal treatment for all, and eliminate any tax loopholes. It is a disgrace.
It is disgraceful that this is what the government wants to do when we are now faced with the situation created by the former finance minister, now Prime Minister, with regard to a bill he introduced himself for the first time in 1996, Bill C-69, and a second time, through his parliamentary secretary in 1998. This bill, Bill C-28, granted Canada Steamship Lines International, headquartered in Barbados, undue benefits in terms of tax treatments and also protection from legal proceedings, for example, if it were in violation of environmental standards or minimum workings standards.
The throne speech refers to ethics, and we have before us a Prime Minister who himself initiated highly questionable legislation that is in his own interests and the interests of his company, to the tune of $100 million per year.
When I let the cat out of the bag in 1998, everyone was skeptical, so much so that, at one point, we wondered about the contents of Bill C-28. However, on verification, following numerous analyses, after getting outside experts to look at these analyses and debating with the former finance minister and the former prime minister, who protected him because he was unable to defend himself—he was unable to defend the indefensible—we realized that Bill C-28 was totally unacceptable.
It was almost like helping himself to the public purse, since the $100 million he has not paid in tax over the past five years is being paid by others. By those earning minimum wage. Families are suffering because of him. These families pay tax, but he does not.
Today, he is trying to defend the indefensible.
As for the ethics issue, I was listening to Mr. Jean Lapierre, who just joined the Liberal Party of Canada and said that the Bloc Quebecois was outdated. However, if the Bloc Quebecois is outdated, on the ethics level, the Liberal Party is in an advanced state of decomposition. This new Prime Minister has solved nothing.
Let us take the example of Gagliano, of the sponsorship contracts. He had promised that there would be a more serious inquiry. He did not mention this at all in the Speech from the Throne. Yet, this is a very serious issue. It is the very integrity of the government that is in question. And he, as the successor in this Liberal government, should be concerned about this. But he is not.
I think that the Prime Minister is missing a great opportunity to correct the ethics situation. And if he does not have the political will to do so, it means that he thinks ethics is not an important value.
We see this in the actions on Bill C-28. We also see this in the nonsense uttered by his Minister of Finance, who says that Bill C-28 did not affect CSL, while even the vice-president of CSL told us that changes were made since 1995 to international holdings, to comply with changes made to the Canadian Income Tax Act. And it was at the same time that this act was being framed, that the current Prime Minister, the then Minister of Finance, was framing the act.
Consequently, these changes were made especially for CSL International, to ensure that the current Prime Minister, the former finance minister and ship owner could save $100 million in taxes. These changes were also made so that he would be protected against Canadian environmental laws if he caused disasters with his ships in international waters. Moreover, these changes were made so that he could be protected against Canadian laws on minimal labour standards. Indeed, he hires Filipino workers for $10 a day.
If CSL International were not now deemed a foreign company because of Bill C-28, which he introduced in this House himself, he would be charged for his antisocial acts. He may claim to work for the less fortunate in society, but he is exploiting people through CSL International. Filipino workers paid $10 a day for working in atrocious conditions is not exactly helping the less fortunate. Do as I say, not as I do. My colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, was right.
My third point concerns aboriginals. They must be sick of hearing in every Speech from the Throne how aboriginal children have health and substance abuse problems and how aboriginals have problems with governance, yet nothing is ever done to resolve the aboriginal issue. They must be sick of being studies in anthropology.
Indeed, they are fed up. While the Minister of Finance was part of cabinet, while he dithers about speeding up negotiations for self-government, aboriginal nations are dying. Aboriginal children are committing suicide. Aboriginal children have multiple addictions. Entire communities are living in conditions that are reprehensible for a country that is supposed to be one of the most advanced in the world. There is a limit on using aboriginals to make the throne speech look good.
Do you know how long it has been since the Erasmus-Dussault report was tabled? Almost 7 years. Contrary to the recommendation by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, there has been no acceleration in negotiations to make aboriginal communities independent, to respect their inherent right to self-government, to give them the tools they need to take charge of their own development, bearing in mind the fact that they are nations within the United Nations definition.
Seven years have been wasted with this government and time will continue to be wasted. The events at Kanesatake should be a wake-up call. To go to aboriginal communities and see the incredible poverty, unemployment rates of 80%, young aboriginals with no hope for the future; is this not a breeding ground for organized crime? That is what is happening.
As for events such as those that occurred at Kanesatake in 1990 and recently, there are hundreds of communities in danger of facing the same fate because the government is not thinking about speeding up negotiations for self-government and not thinking about resolving this issue once and for all.
National Suicide Prevention Week February 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, suicide remains a taboo subject, despite the size of the problem. Every year in Quebec, close to 1,500 lives are lost, the equivalent of a Titanic disaster. There are also close to 29,000 suicide attempts.
On the occasion of national suicide prevention week, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of thousands of paid and volunteer workers throughout Quebec, but particularly those of Richard Lavoie. He is the man behind a consciousness-raising walk, the “Marche Québec-Amérique”.
During the summer of 2003, Mr. Lavoie covered more than 1,000 km raising public awareness of suicide among young people. He attracted audiences by stopping in a number of towns where he organized percussion performances. I had the pleasure of welcoming him to Saint-Hyacinthe and taking part in one of these performances.
He has also written a book, entitled La prévention du suicide est malade , in which he tells the story of his three months of travel and shares his feelings on this issue and on the shortcomings in the way it has been handled in the past 10 years.
To Richard Lavoie, his partner Manon, and daughters Allison and Stéphanie, as well as all the volunteers who made these public awareness efforts possible, my thanks and congratulations.