Yvan Loubier

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

It is political marketing, and political opportunism too to come out with such things just before an election.

It is shameful to come out with such things. It is shameful for two reasons. The government forgot to say who actually cleaned up the public finances. We did not forget those people.

We know that those who had to bear the brunt of most of the $25 billion increase in taxes, to which bracket creep must be added, since 1993 are low and middle income families, those who earn less than $80,000 a year. We did not forget them.

We did not forget the unemployed either, because by being robbed of the EI fund surplus, they are the ones who are paying for the tax relief given to the rich. We did not forget them.

During the next election campaign, we will fight with all our might to force the Minister of Finance to go back to the drawing board and apply tax resources to the priorities of ordinary people, whom we have consulted. We have been consulting people for seven years since we were elected here. We know what the priorities are.

For his part, the minister consults his friends the millionaires and people from big corporations, like Thomas d'Aquino, before deciding what would be good for society as a whole. Of course, he ends up helping a few millionaires.

We will know what the priorities are. Here they are: tax cuts as high as those proposed generally by the Minister of Finance, but for families that really need them. As for employment insurance, it is a reform that would use up most of the surpluses generated in the next five years, the rest serving as a contingency fund, to improve the system so that more than 40% of Canadians are eligible. For women and young people, the exclusion rate is even higher.

We will fight against the fact that there has been no index adjustment to the Canada health and social transfer for health, social assistance and especially education which has been neglected by the government for the last seven years.

We will also ensure that the social priorities mentioned by various groups are recognized. It is urgent that sufficient funds be awarded to social housing nationally. The government could even afford to spend $8 billion on social housing over the next five years if it rethinks its priorities properly.

For the first time, the Minister of Finance and the Bloc Quebecois have forecast the same surplus. Eminent economists had to speak out last week before the minister finally recognized the existence of surpluses.

He has the means to act. He could also increase old age security benefits. According to a recent report by the National Council of Welfare the rate of poverty for single and older women is 47%. These women live below the poverty level.

There are budgets to increase old age security benefits for these women whose poverty rate is incredible. There is more money available than what has been spent so far on the environment. There is money for shipyards. Instead of having his ships built in China, the Minister of Finance could have them built in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada and could provide tax measures.

Thousands of workers are waiting for this. He could have come with an announcement today, but no, he has his ships built in China. He pays taxes in the Caribbean and asks us to tighten our belts while he gives handouts to his buddies. This is incredible.

He could have put a lot more money into international aid. This is really shameful. We are now at 0.3% of GDP while the established goal is almost 0.7% of GDP. He could have done this. He could have stopped squandering public funds to really control grants and how they are handed out.

What is management at the Department of Human Resources Development doing with our money?

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

That is right. That is the choice the voters are given, to vote for people who serve the very rich, the millionaires and the billionaires. That is what the government did first with the family trusts and now with the tax reductions.

The same thing goes for the Alliance and its flat rate. It will increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Low and middle income families will continue to pay, while the rich gets richer.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, are ready to manage the real things, the real surpluses. For four years now, we have been talking about the real surpluses the government has. We do not wail until the eve of an election to release the real figures and talk about our real priorities.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, believe the minister could have done things differently. His priorities could have been different than those he has listed. He could have addressed the real problems. He could have given massive tax cuts to middle income earners. He could have reorganized the employment insurance system instead of literally stealing the surplus from the workers every year.

He could have done more to help the poorest families faced with the oil crisis. A senior citizen, for instance, or a woman living alone, will receive a cheque of $125 to make up in part for the increase in the price of oil heating. Actually, the price of oil has almost doubled since last year, from $600 to more than $1,000. What good is $125?

Incidentally, if the government had not given a $20,000 income tax cut to those earning $250,000 and more, it could have been more generous. We could have done more for those people.

We could also have given a hand to the trucking industry. Some people are in difficulty right now because of the oil crisis. We could have helped taxi drivers or farmers who are going through an incredible crisis because of oil prices.

Instead, the government has chosen the easy way, the flag on the cheque. It chose to give $125 to make up for the constant increase in the price of oil and as a means to help the poorest, the ones the government has hit hard with such drastic measures as the cuts to social transfer payments or the restrictive rules of eligibility for employment insurance benefits.

This is what it has done. A $20,000 income tax cut for millionaires and a $500 cut for middle income families and the poorest families during an unprecedented oil crisis. It has given them $125. It is the flag that counts.

[Economic Policy, October 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the mini-budget brought down today by the Minister of Finance would do any member of the Canadian Alliance proud.

It is a budget that leans to the right. It is a budget that will satisfy a certain cross-section of taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada, but which ignores a large chunk of the population.

With the staggering, not to say exploding, surpluses at the disposal of the Minister of Finance, we were expecting that he would do something for those who were really responsible for helping put the fiscal house in order, those whose efforts have made the last three years of zero deficits possible and are still being gouged by the federal tax system, those who are the reason the minister can stand here today and boast about surpluses.

We thought that the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would be low and middle income families, not families at the top end of the scale, those earning $250,000 and up, not the millionaire friends of the Minister of Finance.

We were expecting that a major effort would be made to provide relief for the neediest families, those who are responsible for Canada's improved finances.

Instead, we see tax cuts for those at the top, those earning $250,000 and up. Many of them are listening today. We see tax cuts for these folks that are 40 times the tax cuts for a Canadian family earning $35,000. That is 40 times higher.

Tax cuts for a family with one dependent child and a $35,000 income represent 1% of that family's income, whereas tax cuts for families with an income of $250,000 or more represent 8% for that income bracket. What kind of fairness is this? It is worse than the flat rate advocated by the Alliance.

With the tax cuts, the change in the capital gains taxation, and the elimination of the surtax, a family that has an income of $250 000 will get a $20,000 reduction in its tax bill this year. This is $20,000 after taxes for people who do not need it and did not contribute to the surplus. So this family will get $20,000, and a single income family with one dependent child and $35,000 will get only $500. That is $20,000 compared to $500.

Can we imagine what we could have done by transferring to low and middle income families the tax cuts being granted to the rich? We could have eliminated all federal income tax for families with an income of $40,000 or less. Families in need, families that are in need because of this government and this callous finance minister, could have been dropped from the federal income tax roll.

Today, the finance minister candidly gave us an interesting bit of information. We have often risen in the House to ask him to do something to ensure that single parents with one dependent child earning less than $35,000 not pay any tax. He has always said “It is already taken care of, those people no longer pay any tax”. How can he explain now that he wants to reduce the income tax level for this bracket of income when these people supposedly no longer pay any tax?

After saying just about anything about the surplus, after hiding the real figures from the Canadian people to prevent any public debate on the Liberals' priorities right wing priorities, they are now fudging the figures on income tax reduction. They want Canadians to believe that they will benefit from extraordinary income tax cuts and from the government's generosity, but this is not the case at all. The only ones who will benefit from all this, as was the case in the last two budgets, are Canadians with very high incomes, friends of the party, and they say that there are income tax cuts.

With the last budget for the same family earning no more than $35,000, there is a $200 reduction. For a family earning $250,000 and more, there is a $9,000 reduction. Is that the kind of fairness the government is talking about? Is that what is meant by responsibility in the minister's documents? So much for social justice. Our viewers will not be fooled. They will realize that for the vast majority of taxpayers there might be some tax cuts, but inadequate cuts, since the Minister of Finance has surpluses coming out his ears.

This year he dares to say that the surplus will reach $6 billion only, whereas close to $12 billion has already been accumulated in the coffers of the federal government. That is more than double his forecasts for this year. He might have doubled the effort he is making now, but for ordinary people.

Given the proposals that are made, I think that is pretty clear. Over the next five years $74 billion will go to tax reductions, but these should be directed at the real people. Nine taxpayers out of ten should get tax reductions because they are the ones who paid in order that public finances could be placed on a sounder footing. We are talking about people earning less than $80,000.

That is what should be targeted, that is the unfairness that should be corrected, for these are the people who paid for fiscal improvement. These are the people who are still getting bled white by the tax system so that very affluent families can enjoy those incredible tax reductions. People within those same income brackets workers and small business people contributing to the employment insurance system are funding, through the surplus accumulated in the EI account, the tax reductions the finance minister is giving today on a silver plate to the very rich taxpayers.

I am talking also about the unemployed men and women who are not receiving any EI benefits since they were literally thrown out of the system because of the drastic cuts made in this system and because of the tightening up of the eligibility criteria.

In rural areas in particular, families are out of a job eight weeks every year and cannot qualify for EI. These people who are in dire straits are the ones who pay for the tax reductions granted to the rich. It is unacceptable.

In this statement as in the last two budgets tabled by the Minister of Finance, the last two Liberal budgets, where are the liberal values and the social solidarity? Where?

The purpose of these measures is to gain the support of the right wing, being courted by the Alliance. The Liberals are starting to look like the Alliance.

[Firefighters' Pensions, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private member's motion, and congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey on his interesting proposal.

The purpose of his motion is to restore equity with respect to CPP premiums for the firefighters of Quebec and of Canada, who are so important to the life of this country. That is why it deserves our careful attention.

Under the existing Income Tax Act, the occupation of firefighter is one associated with public safety. Firefighters are therefore forced to retire when they reach the age of 60. Over the years, a number of commissions of inquiry in Quebec, as well as in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, have suggested that the age of retirement be 55 because this is a high risk sector.

It is a high risk sector not just because of the sometimes fatal injuries that firefighters sustain, but because of the toxic substances to which they are exposed every day and which may cut short their lives.

Moreover, a study carried out in 1994 by the Ontario Industrial Disease Standards Panel stated that there was a link between firefighting and heart disease, as well as brain, lymphatic, colon, bladder and kidney cancer.

This is serious. The people in this profession are exposed daily to risks not found in other professions. In my riding in June 1998, the municipal fire chief of Acton Vale, Michel Daragon, died at the age of 55 while fighting an industrial fire. Firefighter Jacques Houle lost his life in the same incident. Eight firefighters were injured in the one fire, including Chief Daragon's son Mario, who was seriously injured. Serious head injuries were sustained by one firefighter, Réjean Messier.

In my riding, and elsewhere, these people are exposed every day to dangers that can result in fatal injuries. I should point out that just about everyone has a firefighter in the family. In my case it was a cousin, Gilles Archambault, father of two girls, who was faced daily with situations in which he could have been killed. He risked his life to save others.

This past weekend I saw a boyhood friend, Benoît Desjardins, a career firefighter with two young children, ages six and eight. He too puts his life on the line every day. They receive no pension contributions, despite the fact that they often have to take early retirement by age 60, at the latest, because this sort of job involves public safety.

What happens when these people start drawing their pensions at age 60? They have contributed to their pension plan during their life of active service at a maximum rate of 2% annually. At age 60 they are obliged to retire. In the period between 60 and 65, there are no contributions of 2% annually so these people can benefit from fair pension plans as other professions.

The public official who retires at age 60 can catch up between the ages of 60 and 65 by continuing to contribute to the Canada pension plan or Quebec's Régime des rentes. This is not the case for firefighters. Their active life, what is called credited service, lasts until age 60 at the latest. And so, their benefits are reduced because they are forced to leave their profession at age 60 and are unable between the ages of 60 and 65 to contribute to the public pension plan.

They may retire at 55, which is often the case. This is not really an old age, but it is a fairly advanced age for doing such a dangerous job and is as risky for the firefighter as it is for his colleagues. Some firefighters, for health reasons or things that have happened to them during their career, are forced to retire at 55. Things are even worse in this case, because between 55 and 60 they do not work and therefore do not contribute to their pension plan. In addition, they face the same prejudice all firefighters face, no contributions between ages 60 and 65. Therefore, they receive less pension income.

In the United States, many years ago, firefighting was recognized as being a high risk job. The value of this profession and the immeasurable contribution firefighters make have long been recognized. Pension contributions there are at the rate of 2.5% annually.

The firefighters association is asking us to restore annual authorized contributions to 2.3%. This is not much. In so doing, the government would restore fairness by treating firefighters like the members of the other professions relating to public security.

The time for fine rhetoric is over. The government must now take its responsibilities regarding this type of measure. In 1995, the Minister of Finance—with a hand on his heart or, more accurately, on his wallet, which is full of our money—sent a letter to the firefighters' association, in which he said:

I want to tell you that I am very aware of the daily pressures experienced by public safety officials and of the fact that, because of the burden that their profession represents, a large number of firefighters and police officers see their career cut short.

The time has come to follow up on that letter, sent by the Minister of Finance in 1995. We have here a concrete motion that seeks to partly correct the unfair treatment given to firefighters. It also ensures that firefighters are treated just like others public safety officials. Allowing early retirement at age 55 would make room for young people while avoiding—because this is a high risk profession—threats to the physical integrity of those 55 and over who are firefighters and of those whose lives they save, almost on a weekly basis.

The Bloc Quebecois will support this initiative.

[Budget Surpluses, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Finance to be serious.

Last week, when I asked him whether he would be lowering taxes for families earning $35,000 or less, he said it had already been done.

How does he explain the answer he gave last week to those families watching today, families earning $35,000 or less, who are still filing tax returns every year and still paying taxes?

[Budget Surpluses, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with surpluses mushrooming at the rate of $94 million a day since last April, there are persistent rumours that the Minister of Finance will give in to the Bloc Quebecois' repeated requests that he bring down a mini-budget before the next federal election is called.

Will the minister assure us that his mini-budget will include tax cuts to match his huge surpluses, tax cuts aimed at middle and low income earners?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are calling for a mini budget because we want to make the commitments official, since, otherwise, they evaporate like a puff of smoke for lack of expression.

Are we to understand from the answers of the Deputy Prime Minister that, in the face of the bill tabled by his colleague, the government is giving up and will not put one cent more in the employment insurance system than the few hundred million dollars announced this morning?

Are we to understand from the response by the Deputy Prime Minister that the government is abandoning many of the unemployed and will continue to dip into the employment insurance fund surplus?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it seems increasingly certain that the Minister of Finance will respond favourably to the repeated request of the Bloc Quebecois and table a mini budget before the next election in order to give some of the billions of dollars of hidden surplus back to the taxpayers.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee that his government will add in the mini budget all the money needed to employment insurance to end to discrimination against women, young people and seasonal workers?

[Budget Surpluses, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, how could we not ask for corrective measures, when the Minister of Finance keeps fibbing and is off by 100% to 300% in his forecasts? We ask for corrective measures every year, but it is because the minister is not doing his job properly.

Instead of hiding behind budget forecasts that no longer make any sense, should the Prime Minister not table a mini budget that would include tax reductions, a temporary suspension of the excise tax on gasoline and corrective measures to the employment insurance program? These are the real issues, the real priorities, and the government has the means to take such measures. It must take action.

[Budget Surpluses, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Finance refused to confirm the Bloc Quebecois' forecasts putting the surplus at $20 billion this year. The minister justified his refusal by saying that he was waiting for the opinion of the country's top economists.

Since Standard & Poor's, the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Royal Bank and all the others are anticipating a surplus of between $18 and $21 billion, is it not time for the government to tell the truth and to admit that we must have a debate now on how to properly use that money?