Yvan Loubier

[Budget Surpluses, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance confirmed that this year's surplus of over $15 billion wildly exceeds his forecasts, as usual.

The member for Markham, formerly a Royal Bank economist, said yesterday, on television, “The Minister of Finance introduced errors so that the surpluses would be larger than forecast for political reasons”.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that his behaviour is unacceptable and anti-democratic and that hiding the real surpluses, year after year, as he has done for four years now, prevents a real debate on the public's priorities?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to an amendment to the young offenders bill, which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm.

This amendment strongly suggests that Quebec be excluded from the application of the new legislation recently introduced by the Liberal government.

It must be acknowledged that, during the course of this debate on amendments to the Young Offenders Act, the Minister of Justice showed good judgement on one particular occasion. Do you know when it was? It was when she recognized that Quebec was incredibly successful in the way it enforced the Young Offenders Act.

In all her documents and even when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice, the minister recognized that Quebec had done so well with the Young Offenders Act that its success rate exceeded that of the Canadian provinces as a whole, with the lowest recidivism rate in North America.

So why change things? Why ignore Quebec's success just because the YOA was a total failure elsewhere and because the right—that has become more powerful over the last seven or eight years—wants children to be treated like adults, wants them to be thrown in jail just like adults?

Why a blanket policy? Why impose a new Young Offenders Act that makes no sense, thus ignoring the greatest consensus in recent years—a consensus supported by all stakeholders, who are against the fact that the Minister of Justice wants Quebec to be like any other province despite its successes?

When we talk about a consensus, we are not referring to a small one. The National Assembly has adopted a unanimous motion to postpone the review of this new Young Offenders Act, so that Quebec can keep on enforcing the law as it has always done with all the success it is known for.

In the last two and a half or three years since the beginning of the debate on the reform of the Young Offenders Act, we have heard from people who work with young people on a day to day basis. These people try to ensure that these young people benefit from a first or a second chance, that they are given a chance. This is what young people want. We have demonstrated it in Quebec.

When we react with an open mind and give them a second chance, most young offenders do not commit other offences. However, when we put them in jail with adults, it is well known that prisons become criminal factories for them. They have an opportunity to meet hard-core criminals, real criminals, and living with them, they soon become like them. We deny them the chance to rehabilitate.

In passing, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his excellent work on raising awareness of the most important issues in this bill. He was telling me that he had met this afternoon with a University of Ottawa professor who had worked as a criminal lawyer in Alberta as well as in the Maritimes. He is well aware of the mess these provinces made in enforcing the Young offenders Act. He supports us. A University of Ottawa professor is supporting us in our opposition to changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Once again, this shows that, in Quebec, when this act was properly enforced, there were some success stories. We have an incredible rate of success in the rehabilitation of young offenders.

In recent years, there have been many testimonies. Among other things, speaking about a consensus, a coalition was created in favour of justice for minors. Here is what this coalition said in September 1999, when we were dealing with the bill that preceded this one, which contained almost the same provisions, and which died on the order paper because the election was called.

The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs said in September 1999:

Before throwing away sixteen years of practices, adjustments and case law to engage in a program that breaks with traditions almost a century old, parliamentarians must ask themselves if it is worth doing.

Will they have the courage to defend an act that is unanimously agreed on by those who know and use it, or will they give in to lobbies that are relying on misinformation to promote a program that is both mean-spirited and simplistic?

This tells a lot about the state of mind of those who oppose this reform. This reform makes no sense. It throws away all the efforts of people who work with young offenders to try to give them a chance.

There have been other testimonies by people known for their great competence on the issue of rehabilitation of young offenders.

Here is what André Normandeau, a criminologist from the University of Montreal, was saying in 1999:

People in western Canada still react as they did 20 years ago, at a time when the crime rate increased each year. They have kept more of a punitive approach. Changing the law is the easy way out, but, more importantly, it does not work. Violent criminals, who represent 10% of offenders, do not respond to coercion.

It is an easy way out to resort to the stick, or the whip, as my father would have said. It is an easy way out to play petty politics in referring to a supposedly increasing youth crime rate, which is wrong and refuted by every statistics.

It is an easy way out to engage in petty politics at the expense of our children's future. It is cheap. There is no other word to describe what the minister is proposing and to describe also the support she can get from her Liberal colleagues or from Alliance members. It is cheap to play politics with that.

It is cheap to use misinformation about an alleged increase in youth crime rate to show support for a right wing approach, for beating, or for the death penalty while at it. That is cheap.

First and foremost, we should think of our children. That is what we are doing in Quebec. Why not accept to exclude Quebec from the application of the new legislation? It would be so simple for some people to stop playing dumb and to open their minds to the fact that Quebec has made it work.

Why prevent us from continuing just because people from western Canada want to be tougher and Liberals are willing to go along? All they do is play petty politics.

Why not think of the children's future first? No wonder young people are no longer interested in what goes on in parliament. We are not listening to their concerns. We are ignoring their concerns. On top of that, we want to throw them in jail instead of giving them a second chance.

In what kind of country do we live? Sometimes I wonder. The Minister of Justice is thick as a brick and she is narrow-minded. I have never met anybody as narrow-minded as she is.

Today again, on another bill, the one aimed at strengthening the criminal code, we mentioned the fact that the solicitor general said that the bill would not apply strictly to criminal groups, that it could go beyond that. The solicitor general could authorize a police officer to commit crimes to enforce the new provisions of the criminal code.

That is the only thing wrong with this bill, but the minister could very well kill any support for her bill. The Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a strengthening of the criminal code for years to be able to fight crime more effectively. Why does the minister not go after real criminals instead of children? She should stop including in her legislation provisions that are too broad, thus killing any support we could have given her. She should open her mind.

I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the member for Berthier—Montcalm to exclude Quebec from the application of the new legislation.

[Income Tax Act, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill introduced by my very hon. colleague, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. He is a bit of a visionary. He showed remarkable intelligence by putting this bill forward.

For too long this category of workers has been neglected. We only have to think back to the quiet revolution of the mid-1960s and Quebec's development in the 1970s. A similar phenomenon occurred in the rest of Canada. A university education was valued to such a point that what we used to call trade schools, today's training schools for specialized technicians, were neglected.

We must re-assert the value of specialized technicians as a trade in various sectors. There is a shortage of specialized technicians these days. In my riding we are experiencing a situation I never thought we would see only a few short years ago. We can no longer fill specialized technician positions, especially in mechanics.

There is going to be, there already is a shortage of specialized technicians. The shortage could very well worsen with time. Recently, in June 1999, if I remember correctly, the Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Council said that the biggest challenge facing the industry at the end of the 20th century was to attract young people. They were talking about mechanics.

When it is possible to improve the situation for automotive mechanic technicians, we must do so with the objective of attracting new recruits. We must make it easier for young people who decide to get training in automotive mechanics to become skilled technicians, because we all need them.

If we do not attract excellent skilled technicians to parliament, we will be prevented from doing our work correctly. Who never wished for a skilled automotive mechanic when his or her car broke down? Automotive mechanics provide an essential service for the smooth operation of the economy.

If, a few years down the road, we face a shortage that is worse than it is today, we would deeply regret our inaction. This is why we must make a particular effort.

Once again, I congratulate my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. It is thanks to this kind of initiative that we often manage to change things.

We are not asking for much. We are only asking for fairness for automotive mechanics, by allowing them to claim a tax deduction for tools of $250 or less in value. For tools that cost $250 or more, we are asking that this be treated as a capital expenditure, which would allow these workers to claim a capital cost allowance on the cost of their tools, which are often highly sophisticated and very expensive.

For example, the cost of the basic tool kit for a young person starting out as an automobile technician is said to be between $3,000 and $4,000. This young technician needs this basic tool kit. When he is looking for a job, the first question he is asked by the prospective employer is “Where is your tool kit?” This young technician who just got out of school must pay $3,000 to buy his tools, after having paid several thousand dollars for his specialized training.

A highly skilled technician, a brake specialist or a radiator specialist, for example, may have a basic tool kit that costs $3,000 to $4,000 and a special tool kit that may cost anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 depending on the area of specialization. This is a lot of money to spend for tools that are required.

I am pleased to see that, in the last parliament, my colleague introduced a similar bill, which was passed by a vast majority of members in this House. I think only 11 or 12 out of the 301 members of the House of Commons opposed that bill.

It is encouraging to see that it is possible to raise awareness among all members and to get them to set aside any partisan considerations in order to make tax policy decisions that will help the cause of a particular category of workers, namely automotive technicians.

It may seem like a minor tax bill, but its impact is just huge. I say that, because the only reason my colleague—and those who, like me and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, support him—has introduced such a bill is to serve the public interest and improve the general well-being of the population. All bills, private members bills as well as government bills, should aim at serving the public interest.

Such deductions may seem trivial, but they may be the incentive needed to bring a young person, who still does not know what to do in life but who is very gifted in mechanics, to choose this trade.

We need gifted mechanics. I am not a specialist of mechanics and I will never be, this is not my ambition. I hardly know the difference between an engine and a carburetor. However, I do not want to dwell on my shortcomings. My point is that a young person who has such a talent and who does not know yet what trade to choose could decide to become a mechanic if he has some hope that a tax credit or a special capital cost allowance on tools will make things easier for him.

Those who already work as mechanics and who are given the chance to deduct the costs of their tools will also feel relieved. We should not forget that automotive technicians provide an essential service. Without them, we might not be here this morning. Mechanics do not make fortunes. The average salary varies from $29,000 to $40,000 a year. Providing relief to automotive technicians, who must not only buy their equipment but keep it up to date, could contribute to improve their quality of life. That is what we are here for.

The automobile industry goes through changes and incredible technological evolution. My colleague, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, told me that every year there are incredible changes occurring in mechanics, namely in terms of hybrid components, that is electrical and fuel injection components. We must take into consideration the fact that technicians need to renew their equipment.

I hope that all members will support this bill introduced by the member for Beauport-Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré-Île-d'Orléans.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as usual the Finance minister's assistant is talking through his hat.

Any confusion is coming from his side. It will not be easy to fool those who just completed their income tax returns. Canadians know very well that a lone parent family with one dependant and an income of $30,000 a year is still paying a lot of income taxes to the federal government and that the federal income tax impoverishes this family already living below the poverty line. He will not fool those people.

If he thinks that Canadians are all stupid, he should think again, especially since the income tax period only just ended. Canadians just filed their income tax returns. They cannot be fooled because they know what they paid in income tax. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that, talking about these great tax reductions, he said—he was honest enough to say so—“within four years”, not right now. The surplus is there. Does anyone know how much has accumulated in the federal government's coffers in the first 11 months of the last fiscal year? Twenty billion dollars, and the Minister of Finance is committed to put $15 billion into the debt payment. He is forgetting the other priorities.

It is fine to pay off the debt, we are all for that. But to put all the money in there, while there are huge needs in the health sector and in the fight against poverty, I cannot take this.

He is having discussions with the provinces about social housing. Let us look at that. Do people know what the government wants to do? It wants to leave the old stock of social housing to the provinces, with maintenance costs, but not one cent for investing in social housing. It is easy to pass the buck that way.

The forecasting errors—I did not want to raise them, but he did. Do people know for how long the Bloc Quebecois, with a small team of two or three people and a small portable computer, has been doing the estimates, the forecasts for the deficit and the surplus? Since 1995. Do people know what the margin of error in our forecasts has been from year to year? Three per cent, a normal forecasting error.

What kind of error margins did the Minister of Finance and the Liberal representative who just spoke have in their forecasts? Between 130% and 400% recently, a 3% margin of error in our forecasts as opposed to between 130% and 400%. Where is the confusion? Where is the inability to forecast the surplus, or rather, the deliberate way of hiding the truth, the real numbers, from the population?

This does not come from the Bloc Quebecois. It comes from the government. So, before telling us what to do and saying any odd thing to the population, who knows how much taxes it is paying to the federal government, I would urge my colleague to reflect further.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this important legislation, but I want to say from the outset that my party will oppose Bill C-22.

Why? Because of the lack of concrete measures that would serve the public interest, particularly low and middle income earners.

I want to discuss the tax cuts that were mentioned in the last federal budget and that will now become reality with Bill C-22. These tax cuts by the Minister of Finance are great for very high income earners.

If we look at measures such as lower tax rates or the new tax rate on capital gains, we realize that those who will benefit the most from the Minister of Finance's budget and tax cuts are the people who earn at least $250,000. The Minister of Finance targeted these people first and foremost. As of this year, this group will save about $19,000 in taxes.

Instead, we are shocked to see how minimal the tax cuts and savings for low and middle income families are.

Taking the example of a single parent with one dependent child and an income of $30,000, this person will have a tax saving of $750 and will continue to pay taxes. Is it normal for a single parent family, with a single wage-earner and one child to earn $30,000 and still pay some $1,545 in income tax, even after a tax cut? Is this normal for a family that has to live on $30,000? That is the cut-off figure for the poverty line, according to Statistics Canada.

Is it normal for the federal government to continue to impoverish this family still further, even with the tax cuts, by making it pay an average of $1,500 in federal income tax? No, it is not. A single parent with one child and an income of $30,000 ought not to be paying any federal income tax.

That is the way it is in Quebec. For some time now the Government of Quebec has been revising its tax categories. It has revised the marginal tax rates with the following result: a family of two adults and two children with an annual income of $47,000 will pay hardly any tax. How is it that a family with one child and one wage earner is still in the situation of having to pay more than $1,500 in tax?

I can already hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance replying “That is wrong, it makes no sense”. I have news for him. It is wrong to say that it makes no sense. He should save his breath. People have just finished filing their income tax and they have it fresh in their memories that, once again this year, they have paid federal tax even though they are in the low income category.

When we look at the tax cuts for low and middle income families, we see that the tax savings this year, for example, will be no more than $300 or $350. That is for this year, because these tax cuts are being phased in between now and 2004; that is about the average.

But the high income earners get great breaks. As I mentioned earlier, on average, those earning $250,000 and up will save $19,000 this year. There is a double standard here. The government has also forgotten that it is low and middle income earners who have brought down the deficit since 1993, who have contributed to the huge surpluses, and we will come back to this later.

Middle income families are the federal government's cash cow. They are the source of most of the money collected in income taxes. The government should have been a bit more sensitive when it came to this category of revenue. These families should have been given a few more credits for having played such a major role in helping put the fiscal house in order.

It can never be said often enough that all the cuts made by this government since 1994, such as in the Canada social transfer for funding health, education and social assistance, have taken their toll on these families. These are the people really responsible for putting the fiscal house in order and generating surpluses. They are still doing it today. It must never be forgotten that every year the Liberals greedily help themselves to the surpluses accumulating in the EI fund because of the premiums paid by workers and employers.

It is not right that barely 40% of unemployed workers qualify for EI benefits. It is not right. The system is too restrictive. It excludes too many people who should normally have been entitled to EI benefits, since everyone pays into the plan now.

There is something wrong when these people are being hung to dry by the last budget, actually the last two budgets, and asked to help with fiscal consolidation through their contributions. The government does not have to worry any more.

Everything left in the employment insurance fund, once it has paid benefits to only 40% of the unemployed, the rest, that is 60%, goes into the consolidated revenue fund. It is added to general revenues, therefore contributing to fiscal consolidation and general surplus.

Why is it that these people could not benefit from true employment insurance reform; a real reform, not a “reformette”, a true reform of the employment insurance plan using most of the accumulated surplus to really help the unemployed instead of excluding 60% of them?

What we have instead is tax relief especially for millionaires, probably those who contribute the most to the Liberal Party coffers. We have unemployed workers who are excluded from the employment insurance plan. Low income single parent families with one child, making $30,000, are still paying $1,500 in federal income tax. It is despicable.

Is there a justice in this country? Are we eventually going to do something for these people or are we going to shamelessly forge ahead with the same budgetary policy we have being following so far?

As for social housing, why was there nothing in the past two budgets, that is, those of February and October 2000, the October mini budget geared to the election, of the Prime Minister in waiting. He has long been in waiting, but he is still hoping.

How is it they failed to consider social housing? It is an important issue that probably affects the single parent family, with one dependant and an income of $30,000 or less, which I cited as an example earlier.

How is it that this family is being put off once again? Why is not one cent provided for social housing? Is this a matter of no importance?

And yet, when we look at the statistics, the number of people spending over 50% of their income on housing has increased alarmingly, especially since the start of the 1990s.

At the moment, if we look at the statistics, there are 833,000 households—nearly a million households—that should be offered social housing, because they spend over 50% of their income on housing. That means that the other 50% is left for all the rest: food, electricity, telephone, clothing the children, child care and heating in winter.

When we think of the scandalous profits of the oil companies, which have raised prices significantly in the past two years, we could say there is collusion—let us not beat about the bush—in the oil industry.

They get together and raise prices at the same time. This is what the major oil companies do, and the government does nothing about it. Who is hit by the oil crisis, a crisis created by the big oil companies through collusion? Again, it is the poor, it is those who, after spending 50% of their income on rent, must spend part of the other 50% on heating.

Given such glaring needs, why did the federal government not think for one second of including new money for social housing in its budget?

If the government had continued to spend proportionally the same amount on social housing that it did before 1994, if it had maintained these expenditures since 1994, there would be 30,000 additional social housing units in Quebec alone. The government should have invested $3.5 billion in social housing since 1994, but it did not.

I cannot believe that, with surpluses coming out of his ears—even with the downturn—the Minister of Finance is not ashamed when he gets up in the morning and looks at himself in the mirror, because he did not show any consideration for the poor, who are not the main beneficiaries of his tax cuts and of all the measures implemented by the government since 1993.

I can hardly believe that. Why did he not also consider—after talking about it for so long—the possibility of transferring $500 million from the employment insurance fund to Quebec, to set up a true parental leave program?

Instead, they are putting the $6 billion surplus in their pockets to increase the surplus and to promote the image of the Prime Minister in waiting, that is the current Minister of Finance. Why have these people, who claim to be civilized, who claim to support social justice, not think of transferring, as provided under section 69 of the Employment Insurance Act, the $500 million that is required to set up a parental leave program in Quebec?

Because of this and because of them—and they are not in the least ashamed—the introduction of this plan has been put off until 2003. How is it that they are making young couples postpone having children? Are children not important to this government? Why will it not agree to transfer to Quebec the amount allowed under the Employment Insurance Act? Is it because Quebec is asking? Do they have it in for young families in Quebec?

It is sometimes hard to understand, to keep one's cool, in the face of such deceit, such an obstinate refusal, such incredible closed-mindedness, when by rights we should have had a parental leave plan in Quebec in 2001 or 2002, thus helping not just young parents working for businesses or the government, but also those who are self-employed.

Unlike the federal plan, the Quebec parental leave plan pays benefits to self-employed workers and takes the reality of the labour market into account. Not only are we still dealing with dinosaurs when it comes to a single currency, but also when it comes to parental leave. They are incapable of adapting to the labour market and keeping the public interest in mind.

Let us not forget that not only does federal parental leave not cover self-employed workers, but the eligibility criteria for this leave are the same as for employment insurance. This means that most people are excluded right off the bat. That is the situation right now. A little over 40% of unemployed workers qualify for EI benefits; if these are the same criteria used for the federal parental leave policy, quite a few people besides self-employed workers will not qualify.

In Quebec no one is excluded, not the self-employed, not the parents who wish to take advantage of our parental leave program. It is a far superior program. Because of the obstinate refusal of this government, however, young parents cannot take advantage of such a program.

How can it be that there has been no thought given, with billions of dollars in surplus again this year, to indexing the social transfers to the provinces, for health and education in particular? How can it be that, seeing what is going on in the hospitals, with the lack of funds and increasing demand, no thought is being given to putting more into transfer payments for health and education?

They say “But we must be prudent. The surplus is not all that big”. This is false. Contrary to the Minister of Finance's forecast in last year's budget, the surplus will not be $4 billion—insignificant, even taking into account the tax cuts in the October mini budget—but rather in excess of $17 billion, or four times his predicted figure. When it comes down to it, the Minister of Finance's sole plan was to use figures that have nothing in common with reality for petty political gain.

That is what he has done ever since he has been Minister of Finance. When there was a federal government deficit, he inflated the deficit figure, telling people “Look out, we need to be careful, because we do not have all the manoeuvrability we need, and the battle is far from over”.

He even told the members of his own party “We need to be careful”. But there is always a limit to prudence. We are all in favour of being careful, of having a contingency fund, but we are not in favour of lying to the population by not giving the real figures and by avoiding any debate on how to use the surplus.

When he forecasts a $4 billion surplus and that in reality the surplus is $17 billion, the $13 billion that was not forecast is used directly to pay down the debt. He avoids any debate and puts everything on the debt. There is no democratic debate, no transparency. This is hypocrisy, big time, and he wants us to swallow it.

I made a bet with a reporter. Did he know what the Finance Minister will say next week in his economic statement? He will say “There is no unanimity among economists; some say that things may go well, others that they may go wrong”. One of his former assistants, Mr. Drummond, who has been Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and who is now the chief economist at the Toronto Dominion Bank, said “We have to be careful. We could come back to deficits in three years”, and he knows what he is talking about. Having been an assistant to the Minister of Finance for several years, Mr. Drummond cannot go wrong that easily and talk nonsense.

The Minister of Finance is setting the stage for next week by saying “Surpluses will not be as high next year. The economy is slowing down, we could go into a recession, find ourselves in the red. We may not necessarily be headed toward a deficit, but we still have to be careful. Since there is no unanimity among economists, I prefer to draw a line down the middle and say that surpluses will not be as high”. In other words, he is still going to tell us nonsense.

He is setting the stage. Some economists are optimistic. Yesterday, Thomas Wilson, a well known forecaster, forecast a surplus of $14 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. He is a bit closer to reality. Our own figure is $17 billion. Even with last October's tax cuts and the new spending for Genome Canada, we still come up with $17 billion.

Next week, the Minister of Finance will tell us we have to be careful. That is a lie. It is hard to believe how much the public has been fooled since this man has become the Minister of Finance.

It is so much so that the economic statement exercise is losing its credibility, according to several analysts, particularly Mr. Piché, of La Presse , because the figures we are given are false. They are just not the right figures. We cannot rely on them to tell whether government management is good or bad. Does it follow certain priorities in its management, or does it take into account the interest of the population? There is no way for us to know, because we do not have the right figures. We have to find them for ourselves.

For the last fiscal year ending on March 31, we have a surplus of at least $17 billion. For each of the last five years, I have tried to lower the figures because of an economic downturn, but I cannot see the day when we will have a deficit.

The government could have done a lot of things with this money. It chose to side with the millionaires and not with the population. For all these reasons, we are going to vote against the bill.

[Monetary Union, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is because the Governor of the Bank of Canada has no power to determine the value of the Canadian dollar, or interest rates. He is already doing what Washington does.

Therefore, why does the government persist in keeping a minor currency, which is the victim of speculators, which in turn creates instability in business planning, while everywhere else in the three Americas, they are talking about a possible single currency?

Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada agrees. Yesterday, Thomas Courchene described those who are not thinking about this issue now as dinosaurs.

[Monetary Union, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance wondered why Quebec's referendum legislation of 1995 suggested that, following a vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, the Canadian dollar would remain the currency used in that province.

There were two reasons for this: first, the dollar belongs to Quebecers as much as it belongs to Canadians and, second, this legislation provided that the Canadian dollar would be the currency having legal tender in Quebec following a yes vote.

Since then, the world situation has evolved. There was the Euro currency and now the FTAA issue. The only one in Canada who has not evolved is the Minister of Finance.

I would like him to tell me why he is so stubborn and narrow-minded that he will not even consider having a single currency for the three Americas?

[Single Currency, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, instead of continually twisting the words of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said that it will be inevitable in ten years' time, could the Minister of Finance demonstrate a little leadership by setting up a real special commission, which would take an in depth look at this important question, in the manner of the MacKay commission on reforming Canada's financial institutions?

It is not simply a matter of being for or against, but of being ready.

[Single Currency, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Courchene, the economist, testified today before the Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. Courchene expressed his support for the establishment of a single currency in America and considered it irresponsible on our part not to give thought to this issue immediately.

Is the Minister of Finance not in fact being irresponsible by refusing to give thorough consideration to a monetary union of the Americas, which could be achieved in ten years, despite him, despite Canada, and in the opinion of the Governor of the Bank of Canada?

[Foreign Affairs, May 4th, 2001]

Fuelled by Talisman.