Yvan Loubier

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the address in reply to the government's Speech from the Throne.

First off, I would like to thank the voters in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for the trust they have placed in me once again, by electing me for a third mandate. I will try to represent them with all the vigour and dignity the job requires.

I have nine comments to make on the throne speech. That means I have less than a minute per comment. I will try to do so quickly, but these are things I consider vital.

The throne speech has once again set out the general policies the government intends to follow in its dealings with Quebec and with the citizens of this country.

First off, there still was no recognition of the federal government's flagrant tax imbalance with Quebec and the other provinces in Canada. The money is in Ottawa. The surpluses expected this year will exceed $20 billion, and the needs in health care, education and other areas are to be found in Quebec and the other provinces. There is no concern about striking a tax balance in Canada. That is most disappointing.

We would have preferred to have the Minister of Finance recognize the mistakes of the past and, acknowledge that when he lowered income taxes he targeted first and foremost the very high end incomes, so much so that in the latest two budgets, people earning over $250,000 in Canada, probably not most taxpayers, received a $9,000 tax cut this year, whereas families earning about $40,000 received a $300 tax cut.

This is outrageous, particularly since the anticipated surpluses for the coming years could have been used to provide immediate relief to families with an income of $40,000 or less, particularly single parent families with two dependent children. With that money, these families might not have had to pay any federal tax and the government would have created a balance in society, instead of granting tax reductions that primarily benefit the millionaires in this country.

We were also very disappointed not to find anything for the unemployed who, over the years, have been hit very hard by the government. Considering that only 43% of the unemployed are covered by the new employment insurance program, one would have expected the government to make adjustments and use the annual surpluses of $6 billion to $7 billion to come up with a much improved program for the jobless.

We are not talking about cosmetic changes such as those proposed in the bill, which only use $500 million per year, out of the surpluses of $7 billion, and which give to the federal government the power required to control the fund's surpluses, to legitimize the robbery of the money in these surpluses that has been taking place over the past four years.

Third, we would have liked the government to recognize the consensus in Quebec on parental leave and to transfer the necessary funding to the government of Quebec, so that it can implement its parental leave policy, which is much more generous and universal than the federal government's policy.

Fourth, we see in the throne speech the government's perpetual desire for confrontation with Quebec. For example, there is the new citizens' council on the quality of health care provided by the Government of Quebec. It is unacceptable that the federal government tell the Quebec government what to do in the health field when this is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

It is always this policy of confrontation which drives the federal government in its relations with the government of Quebec.

Fifth, we would have liked to see mention in the throne speech of the fact that Quebec has been enforcing the Young Offenders Act the way it was intended. Quebec is a success story with respect to the reintegration of young offenders into society. The success rate it achieves with its approach is the envy of many. It would have been nice to see this acknowledged in the throne speech.

If the minister really has the courage she claims to have to impose a new young offenders policy, she should have imposed the policy being used in Quebec throughout Canada, instead of the brutal policy of sending 14 year olds to prison.

Mr. Speaker, if it were your son or daughter who made a mistake and was liable to be charged under the new legislation introduced by the minister, with the support of the Canadian Alliance, I think that you would stop and think twice before giving this bill your support.

We would have liked to have seen that consensus respected, and this contemptuous treatment of Quebec and young Quebecers avoided.

Sixth, once again we find unacceptable intrusions into the sector of education and early childhood education, to fuel this confrontation with Quebec.

Seventh, we would have expected the government, with more than 20 criminal investigations on its back relating to presumed fraud, particularly within Human Resources Development Canada, to have addressed an important issue in its throne speech: government ethics. Let it agree to carry out its red book promise to have an ethics counsellor, one who is appointed by parliament, answerable to parliament and guided by rules defined by parliament. Instead, we still have an ethics counsellor who reports to the PMO, who says what the Prime Minister wants to hear, because the Prime Minister is the one paying him.

When it comes to government scandal, to undue pressure from ministers or the Prime Minister on crown corporations, when the ethics counsellor tells us there is no problem, he cannot be believed. Why can we not believe him? Because he is on the Prime Minister's payroll. One does not bite the hand that feeds one.

Will this matter of transparency be one of the fundamental questions for this elitist government once and for all or will it be sidestepped again? Like the House leader of the government said yesterday in the House, will we again be told “We are a government with an incredible record of honesty and integrity”. There has to be some reason for twenty criminal investigations, because such investigations are not carried out for no reason.

We would also have liked to see an announcement of measures to properly deal with cyclical fuel crises. We would have liked to see the government show a bit more compassion for people like the independent truckers who have to deal at various times throughout the year with the major oil companies and the way they set prices.

Let us not beat about the bush. The government should stop telling us there is no proof of collusion between major oil companies. One simply has to walk around and look at the prices posted by major oil companies at service stations to realize there is collusion.

The Competition Act is full of loopholes. It must be strengthened. It must have teeth so that major oil companies can be confronted about their actions in the areas of gas and heating oil.

It is time the government gave some teeth to that act, teeth as sharp as those of the sharks called oil companies. In other words, it is time the government assume its responsibilities in that area.

The cheque of $125 did not solve anything. It merely eased the plight of the poor. At least they got that, because when it comes to income tax and social transfers, this government has made huge cuts in recent years. At least they got that cheque.

However, mistakes were made and we cannot accept that some inmates received $125 for heating costs.

The government did not solve anything with that. Oil prices are still rising quickly and so are heating oil bills. We would have liked to see the government take that into consideration.

I will conclude by saying that Canada is being built without Quebec. It is absolutely shameful to see that while the summit of the Americas is going to be held in our national capital of Quebec City, our province is not given a place of choice. Quebecers have pride and at some point they will express it.

Forty five per cent of those who took part in the latest poll support sovereignty without a referendum campaign. This is a significant increase in the support for sovereignty. It means that at the next referendum, Quebecers will decide to leave a country that has no room for them, a Canada that is being built without Quebec and without Quebecers. I can assure the House you that Quebecers will make that decision.

[Financial Institutions, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently the government tabled its bill to reform financial institutions.

Could the government assure us that this bill is going to include amendments that will protect the medium sized banks such as the National Bank in Quebec?

Just before the election was called, the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions had committed to amending the bill with the conditions set out in a letter from Bernard Landry, Quebec's minister of finance and deputy premier, specifically in order to protect the specific nature of Quebec as far as its financial institutions are concerned, the National Bank in particular, in the event of a control bid by a single individual, which would be contrary to the interests of Quebec.

[André D'Allemagne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is in mourning. Yesterday André d'Allemagne, a pioneer of the sovereignist movement, passed away at the age of 71.

A founding member of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, he made a significant contribution to the advancement of the indépendantiste cause.

A figurehead for the Quebec sovereignist movement, he was also a visionary whose analyses have not become dated.

In a text that appeared in the magazine L'Indépendance in December 1962, he wrote as follows about the new relationship between a sovereign Quebec and Canada: “In this field, as in many others, everything possible under Confederation is possible within independence, while many things impossible under Confederation would be made possible by independence”.

André d'Allemagne leaves a rich heritage for all those who share his belief that Quebec must assume its rightful place in the world.

On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, my sincere condolences to the family and friends of André d'Allemagne.

[Economic Statement, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few days the minister has not stopped telling us that Canada is not affected by the downturn in the United States. It may be a little hard to believe him, but we would love to.

Can he acknowledge his duty to make public all of the base data, the hypotheses, his own forecasts, in short all pertinent data, so that we may make a judgment on the current situation and on future prospects, instead of merely trusting him blindly?

[Economic Statement, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said there would be no budget this winter. Fine, but he needs to recognize that a budget is an opportunity, not just to announce budgetary measures, but also to present up to date financial and economic data in order to provide people with some idea of the current situation and of future prospects.

Since, in the past, the Minister of Finance has been way off in his forecasts and does not exactly have top marks on his report card with a record of a 120% forecast error rate, will he not agree that he has an urgent obligation to present a true and carefully prepared economic statement?

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance claim that truckers, farmers and taxi drivers are going to benefit from lower personal income tax? They are penniless, in the red because of the price of gasoline.

How is he going to explain to taxi drivers, truckers and farmers that he has given the amount they should have had to Canada's richest taxpayers, by cutting the income tax of his millionaire friends significantly? What will he say to them?

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's mini-budget neglected many: the victims of the major oil companies were left out.

This morning, we learned that Imperial Oil has reported profits of $1 billion, in the first nine months of this year alone.

What is the Minister of Finance going to say to taxi drivers, who find nothing for them in the budget, to the truckers choking on the price of gasoline, to the farmers whose profits are disappearing into the pockets of the major oil companies? What will he say to them?

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his particularly relevant question and remarks.

The government has grown wealthy on the backs of the most disadvantaged. It has always been so. We are talking about the employment insurance fund. For six years the fund has had significant surpluses contributed by workers and employers. The federal government does not contribute a cent to it any more.

Yet it has the gall, on page 101 of its budget document, through its Minister of Finance, to liken cuts to employment insurance contributions to tax cuts. It does not contribute one red cent to the employment insurance fund and it considers cuts to employer and employee contributions to be the equivalent of cuts in income tax. How twisted can one get?

The member is right. By creaming off $38 billion in surpluses since 1994 the Minister of Finance has funded most of his surpluses from the surplus in the employment insurance fund.

Moreover, savage cuts were made in funding for health care, education and social assistance to the provinces. It took a first ministers meeting and the realization that the government could no longer reasonably say that it had no surplus when surpluses were arriving by the shovel full to get the government to react and repair the damage.

From one end of the country to the other, Canada's health care system was cracking while the Minister of Finance was cracking under the weight of the surpluses. Is it not shameful to wait until a few weeks before an election may be called to announce he was putting money back into health? People have been waiting for that for years. The system was cracking.

We expected an employment insurance reform because, as my colleague accurately pointed out, only 43% of unemployed workers qualify for EI benefits. Some people are on the street because of the Minister of Finance. Since a surplus of between five and seven billion dollars was generated each year for the past five years, we expected the Minister of Finance to allocate more to improving the program than the $250 million announced a few days ago by the Minister of Human Resources Development. We expected that the unemployed, the poor and the families on the street would benefit from the minister's generosity, not the millionaires. But we were wrong.

Even though the Liberals are electoral opportunists when they make people believe that there are tax reductions and so on, they cannot even manage to do so in a way that will benefit them. This budget is clearly a budget for the wealthy. It is not a budget for the middle class, the poor, the unemployed, or for young people striving to get an education. There is not any additional money for education.

This is not a budget for the poor, who are faced with the oil crisis. It is not a budget for the elderly or for the women who marched in the streets to call for special measures for them. This is unbelievable. The hon. member is right and his comments are to the point.

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I find the latter part of the member's question irrelevant.

I would like to talk about the Canadian Alliance's tax reduction proposals. Last week I had the opportunity, along with other economists, to speak with the Leader of the Canadian Alliance in Montreal. I can tell the House that as far as progressivity goes, the tax system proposed by the Canadian Alliance is a bust. It does not make the grade.

No one found the Canadian Alliance proposal credible. It increased disparity among the various income levels and did little to solve the real problems of taxation.

We on the other hand, have been working hard since 1993 to observe and analyse this taxation system and have reached the conclusion that the important thing is not the rates of taxation but deductions, tax credits. We analysed all that, as well as the taxation structure. I would remind the Canadian Alliance member that the discrepancy in tax cuts is worse with the Canadian Alliance proposal than with any other proposal.

For instance, we looked at a family with one dependant earning $250,000. The tax cut would be 14 times greater than that for a middle income family. It would be 11 times greater for the Liberals. They are still leaning to the right, but the Canadian Alliance proposal is far from being a solution to the problem and being fiscally fair. On the contrary. Relatively speaking, tax cuts for top income earners are far higher than for middle income earners.

By the way, Quebecers are paying $35 million in taxes to the federal government. This is a huge amount of money. They are therefore entitled to have a say in how this money is spent, particularly in light of the government's patronage, cronyism, and squandering which the member mentioned.

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

That is it, cronyism. There are five RCMP investigations in the Prime Minister's riding. This is no joke.

He could have announced some measures to put public finances on a healthier footing, to make fair use of the proceeds of that operation of putting policies and fund allocation on a healthier footing. He could have announced that he was giving them to those in need. No, in keeping with his last two budgets, as soon as he began to accumulate major surpluses, his priorities were to please in this order: number 1, the highest income group; number 2, big business; and number 4, 5 or even 6, his last priority, to help out ordinary people. Those are this government's priorities. It has shown us that again today. The next election campaign will be one based on truth. People will have to choose between the Liberal right and the Alliance right. I believe that the Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated that it is the true defender of the interests of Quebecers and even of Canadians, when possible. The real interests of real people who must be served by democracy, not the millionaire buddies of the minister or the Prime Minister, but real people.

Today that is not the priority of the Minister of Finance. His priority has gone directly to the people with the highest incomes. The minister may have forgotten that Halloween falls on October 31. He has already put out his pumpkin and started distributing his goodies. The goodies are for the rich; the poor will get the crumbs.

This is the conclusion that can be drawn from this mini-budget. We are going to fight with all our might to send the minister back to the drawing board and to have the truth come out.

People are going to see that real income tax cuts are not for those who are watching us, the nine out of ten taxpayers who earn $80,000 or less and who are not going to benefit from it, but they are the ones who are going to pay, through their contributions to the UI fund for tax relief for those who make upwards of $250,000. I think people are going to find out about this.

I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “restored” the following:

“, for not having given enough tax relief to lower- and middle-income families and too much relief to high-income earners, for having done nothing to resolve the Employment Insurance problem, for not having solved the social housing problem and for not having indexed the Canadian Social Transfer, for having provided those who are most in need with completely inadequate compensation for the rise in oil prices, and for having done nothing to help the trucking, taxi and agricultural industries facing this crisis;”.

By the way, there is nothing there about Mosel Vitelic either. We would have expected to be pleasantly surprised by the finance minister telling us that Mosel Vitelic was a done deal, that the government was going to participate and it would happen in Quebec. Unfortunately not. When it comes to job creation and economic growth in Quebec, we are the poor relations. This is not a priority for the finance minister and the Liberal government.

To conclude, I would say we are going to fight the government every inch of the way and the truth will come out even more than it has in the past.