Yvan Loubier

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

The people in Quebec who voted no, the federalists on her side who voted no, did they understand the question?

[Social Transfers, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the report by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance does not include any recommendation to restore social transfers to the provinces, in spite of the consensus among all the finance ministers of the country and the priority given to this issue by the public.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister of Finance, who has always had a say in the report by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, intend to also dodge the issue in his upcoming budget and thus continue to contribute to the crisis in Canada's health sector?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that having $500 million is a good initiative but I am concerned as well.

We have seen this government increase the number of initiatives, of structures and, ultimately, the amounts that should be used to provide services to people were spent on buildings and public servants.

Five hundred million dollars, that is good news, but it is not enough. Most witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Finance asked that 1% of the Canadian GDP be invested in social housing and that homelessness be considered part of a wider issue called social housing.

Since 1990, I was able to see, by looking at the numbers my distinguished colleague gave us, that the number of households that were putting more than 50% of their income into housing—these households are virtually living in poverty—has increased by 41%. The needs are great. The amount needed is $1.3 billion.

I am also concerned to see that the prerogatives and jurisdictions of the Quebec government are respected. Through the Société d'hypothèques du Québec, the Quebec government would be able to administer a real program that would help the homeless and people who are in need of social housing. We will work hard to have these amounts increased and to ensure they can be used effectively to get people off the street, to help and support them during the transition.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I would, however, like to correct the figures the member has given.

For the last fiscal year, 1998-99, the surplus is not $2.9 billion but over $9 billion. However, the Minister of Finance took $6 billion away during that same fiscal year, unexpectedly, and applied that amount to the debt right away.

Point one, situations can be corrected and so they should be. The public finances must be put on a healthier footing, but when that is done at the expense of one category of taxpayers and the others are left to profit unduly from the taxation system, and by that I mean the people with the highest incomes, something is not working right.

We do not have to correct problems by creating injustice and by maintaining that particular injustice. It is all very well but the ones who have had to pay are the people earning between $25,000 and $70,000 a year; those are the families that have borne the brunt of it.

People with incomes of $250,000 and up have not had to pay. Point two, millionaires like the Minister of Finance have not had to pay either. Point three, tax reform has been talked about since 1996. Ideas had even been submitted to the Minister of Finance and he applauded these suggestions. Since then, he has been standing there with his hands in his pockets. He is looking out for himself first and foremost, but he has done nothing as far as the tax system is concerned.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Second—if the member could stop shouting, I would answer—the views I expressed on behalf of Quebecers, as the Bloc Quebecois is called upon to do and will continue to do and to fight for Quebecers in the years to come until we get out of this federation, those views are the same as the ones we heard throughout Canada. If they are not to be found in the Liberal majority report, it is simply because the member and his colleagues did not do their job. That is the problem.

Third, we have had quite enough of the kind of nonsense we have just heard. The recent adjustment in equalization payments is money that we were owed and that had not been given to us for two years because the parameters involved in equalization had not been properly assessed. That is the fact of the matter. That money was owing to us and more is still owing.

To give but one example, the harmonization of the GST with the provincial sales tax in the maritimes. Since the early 1990s, we in Quebec have harmonized the GST and the Quebec sales tax. We should be getting $2 billion for that and they are refusing to hand it over.

As I have said, the effort we are being asked to make with respect to the cuts has been $2 billion too high ever since 1994. That is another $2 billion they owe us, on top of the rest.

Much more could be added. There are the R and D laboratories, the productive spending in procurement of goods and services. Anyway, it is pointless. We have been telling them this for 20 years now and they refuse to believe it, even to believe their own statistics.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are three main points in the member's question. First, yes, it has been more difficult for Quebec because it had to absorb 37% of cuts in the Canada social transfer, which is more than its percentage of the Canadian population, that is 24.5%.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

I am told there were three thousand. It is now less than half. What we need is a new shipbuilding policy with economic spinoffs. Not a word from the Liberals on that, though. Everyone agrees there is a need, but the Liberal government is turning a deaf ear.

Concerning social housing, it is a joke, there is nothing in here. It only says that a report is expected from the minister responsible for the homeless, who is still travelling all over the country to hear comments. The government recently announced that $500 million might be made available for community shelters where the homeless could spend the night.

They earmark a mere $500 million to shelters. They completely ignore the whole issue of social housing and overlook the fact that there is a way of doing things. Opening shelters is one thing, but support must also be provided to help the homeless get out of that situation.

I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Quebec for her excellent analysis on poverty, homelessness and federal government policies. Since 1994, this irresponsible government should have implemented policies and increased its contribution over the years, using the tremendous surplus it generated last year and will be generating in the coming years.

I also want to pay tribute to the members of the Accueil Bonneau choir, who honoured us with a visit on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the anti-poverty motion passed by the House. They gave a wonderful concert. I want to remind members once again that it is because of the admirable work done by my colleague from Quebec and by the Bloc Quebecois in their fight against poverty. While we are fighting poverty, the government is creating poverty. The Liberals create poverty.

With respect to tax cuts, I notice that the Liberal majority members of the Standing Committee on Finance are the true reflection of their government. These are people who put on a big show, making suggestions that may look spectacular and generous at first glance. At one point, they even got us wondering if an election was not about to be called.

However, a closer look reveals a big problem with the tax proposals put forward in the Liberal majority report on taxation. In our consultations, Quebecers told us “Yes, substantial tax cuts are required, but first tax tables and the whole tax structure must be fully indexed”. Since 1985 tax tables and tax structure are no longer indexed.

As long as this issue remains unsettled there will be no lasting solution to the problem of tax fairness for all. We are not talking here about insignificant amounts. Since 1994 the bracket creep has resulted in extra tax revenues of $17.6 billion for the federal government. It is unfair.

In the few minutes I have left let me explain what indexation is all about.

Let me put it simply, as we should always do in this kind of demonstration. If a taxpayer earns $100 a week and his employer gives him a $2 raise, his new salary is $102. But in the economy, prices in general have gone up $3, which means that the taxpayer is actually poorer.

After a $2 pay raise and a $3 overall price increase, this taxpayer is in fact $1 poorer. Full indexation of the tax tables and the tax structure as a whole takes into consideration the fact that the taxpayer is poorer and not richer, even with an income of $102 compared to $100 the previous year.

So, this increase in poverty is taken into account and the taxation level is reduced according to the inflation related rise in poverty. This measure was abolished and, since 1974, $17 billion in new taxes have been collected. The government cannot be blamed for doing something to increase taxation, but it can be blamed however for not reforming the tax system and restoring the full indexation that was abolished in 1985.

Do you know what $17 billion represent? It is a lot of money. With $17 billion, one could give around $2,400 to each of the 7 million Quebecers and that would make up for the money that was stolen from them. It represents about twice the education budget for Quebec and one hundred times its environment budget. It is a lot of money.

The report does not address these issues but it does mention the elimination of the 5% surtax. That measure, along with the elimination of the 3% surtax announced in the last budget, will greatly benefit those who earn $250,000 or more. It will give them $9,300.

However, the taxpayers earning between $30,000 and $70,000 will see their taxes reduced by only $200. Even by increasing the ceiling to 15%, this solution will only last until 2001. After 2001, without full indexing, our tax system will become unfair again and taxpayers will continue to pay more taxes than they normally should.

For all these reasons, we tabled a minority report, a dissenting opinion based on what we heard when we went to meet the people, putting our ideas together with theirs. We gathered different priorities and views and presented them, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and myself, to the Standing Committee on Finance on behalf of Quebecers.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this last debate on the prebudget consultations that have been going on since the beginning of this session.

From the outset, I would like to thank the thousands of Quebecers who, in September and October, contributed to one of the largest democratic exercises undertaken by the Bloc Quebecois, over the past two years now, which was meeting Quebecers to ask for their opinions on the federal government's budget.

This year in particular, we asked those whom we met all over Quebec the following question: How should the Minister of Finance use the huge surpluses that he generated at the expense of the unemployed, the sick, the students, the provinces and everyone, except itself?

I am also taking this opportunity to thank my leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for giving us the opportunity to meet our constituents and for having established a practice which, we hope, will continue in the future. Finally, I would like to thank my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for agreeing to take part in this excellent exercise and for making a brilliant presentation of the conclusions of these consultations.

These conclusions were collected in a synthesis report presented by the Bloc Quebecois, through its leader and its finance critic as well as the hon. member for Lévis, who took the opportunity to promote a shipbuilding policy. I just wanted to point this out to my fellow Quebecers that we delivered the goods by tabling about three weeks ago on their behalf a document that includes the consensus reached and their main priorities.

First of all, I want to go over the Minister of Finance's estimates concerning the surpluses for the years to come. With this minister, we have gotten used to the way he fiddles with the real budget figures and his forecasts, first with regard to the deficit and then with regard to the surplus. He has made us very conservative, because his forecasts are very conservative, but he has shown us in the past that he can be incredibly secretive.

Often, he has even juggled the figures to prepare an extremely summary and fragmented table regarding the options available to the federal government in order to fight the poverty to which he himself has contributed since 1994 by drastically cutting our social programs and to support economic growth and job creation.

When the Minister of Finance tells us in his economic update that he expects a $95 billion surplus to be accumulated in the next five years, the truth must be even more amazing. For this year alone, the minister expects a $5 billion surplus. When he comes up with these sorts of things, he shows little respect for the public.

The federal government's surplus for the first eight months of the current fiscal year is already $8 billion, that is $3 billion over the minister's forecast surplus for the whole of this year. We can expect that the surplus will easily top $12 billion this year. This is more then twice what the minister had forecast.

That gives the government considerable leeway. As a matter of fact, we did not wait. In September and October of this year, we made our own projections regarding the current surplus, next year's surplus and the leeway that could develop as a result and be used to improve the Canadian economy and social programs.

We believe that, with part of this year's surplus and with next year's surplus, which we think will reach $15 billion, and with a tax reform, which would not take ten years but a few months to achieve, the minister could have $25 billion to play with in the next fiscal year.

We have consulted the people regarding this possibility. Everywhere in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, through its members who work hard to defend Quebec's interests, has consulted Quebecers regarding these projections and the use of that money.

Here are the main things on which people agree with regard to the use of this enormous amount of leeway the federal government has over the next year.

First, Quebecers have always believed—and they still do, as shown in the latest survey—it is essential that the Minister of Finance restore transfer payments to the provinces for health, higher education and income security.

Second, it is important to return to a true employment insurance plan, one that really helps the unemployed. There is almost complete unanimity that the EI plan has to be revamped, because it no longer covers all the people it should.

Third, we were hoping that there would be promising projects for the financial and social economy. We are thinking in particular of a real shipbuilding policy for Canada, which does not exist at the present time, the construction of social housing, and infrastructure programs, including highways.

Fourth, we called for a real tax cut for low and middle income Canadians and Quebecers, not just window-dressing, but lasting tax reform that would permanently end the injustices that have hit middle income families particularly hard in recent years.

I will go through these four points, one by one, comparing them with what the Liberal majority is proposing in its report.

First, there is the issue of social transfers. As I mentioned, the consensus is clear that this is top on the priority list. Quebecers want the CHST restored. It will take $3.7 billion annually, starting next fiscal, to return to the level of the transfer in 1993-94, before the Minister of Finance slashed the payments that are used to help fund health and education.

Yesterday, I listened to the secretary of state say that cuts to provincial social transfer payments were a athing of the past. What hypocrisy, especially from the secretary of state. I hope he has some idea of the figures. If not, his incompetence is shocking.

The cuts announced by the Minister of Finance in 1994 are ongoing and will continue to apply until 2003. Up until now, the cumulative drastic cuts to education, health and income security total $21.4 billion. By the year 2003, since the cuts are ongoing and despite the fact that parts of the cuts were cancelled, federal transfers to the provinces for health care, education and income security will have been reduced by more than $30 billion.

This is not a thing of the past. The cuts are still being made, but in an underhanded way. As members know, we have gotten used to the Minister of Finance's vile hypocrisy. He makes one announcement only, but the cuts he announces are good for seven or eight years, and he does not have to repeat them year after year.

What is so revolting is that, because of the drastic cuts made by our Minister of Finance, a shipowner and a millionaire, Quebec is out by $6.3 billion to pay for health care, higher education and income security.

It comes to $860 per Quebecer and 37% of all the cuts made in Canada. The Quebec population accounts for 24.5% of the Canadian population, but the Government of Quebec was hit by 37% of the cuts to the Canada health and social transfer.

No wonder our health sector is having problems. Although these problems occur throughout the country, they hurt us a lot more. And the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it before: Quebec has to hurt. Well, the government is certainly on the right track, particularly with its bill preventing Quebec from using the democratic process freely in a referendum. If Quebec has to hurt, the government is definitely on the right track.

This year alone, the Government of Quebec will have $1.7 billion less for health, post-secondary education and welfare. Based on the historic distribution before 1994, before the federal government's contributions in those three sectors were consolidated into a single transfer called the Canada social transfer, here is what it looks like.

This year, the Government of Quebec will be short $875 million in federal transfers for health. Do members know what such an amount of money represents? It represents 3,000 jobs for physicians. It represents 5,000 jobs for nurses. It is a lot of money. And then people say that the Government of Quebec really has lots of problems in the area of health. But it is this government that is causing considerable harm to the sick in Quebec and to the finances of the Government of Quebec.

Based on the historic distribution, $500 million of the $1.7 billion would have gone to education. Do members know what we could do if we had $500 million more to put into education in Quebec? We could hire 5,800 university professors. And the cuts are a thing of the past? How hypocritical can one get? In terms of income security, the Government of Quebec is getting $325 million less to fight poverty in Quebec. Do members have any idea what could be done with that money? It would mean an additional $500 for each and every welfare recipient in Quebec.

Of course, $500 a year is not a lot of money for a millionaire like the Minister of Finance, but for those who are having trouble making ends meet, who are struggling, $500 a year is a fortune. And this is what they are being deprived of. Then the government goes around bragging that cuts are a thing of the past, that they have put their fiscal house in order and that they are on the right track. Give me a break.

The report of the Liberal majority on the finance committee does not recommend that the social transfers to the provinces be restored. It does not say a word about poverty either, but I am going to come back to that issue.

Second, the report says nothing about reinstating a real employment insurance program. Despite the representations made here and elsewhere in Canada and especially in the province of Quebec where the Bloc carried out wide consultations, the report of the Liberal majority on the finance committee does not mention the need to reform the employment insurance program. It is shocking.

Only 42% of the unemployed are eligible to benefits, even if 100% of the workers pay premiums. The situation for women is even worse. Only 31% of them are eligible, but all of them do pay premiums. They are going after the men and women who are unemployed, as well as pregnant women. Their benefits are being cut because they have been on precautionary cessation of work under the CSST. Because the days and hours during which they were covered by the CSST are not factored in, they are not eligible to special benefits for pregnant women. This is scandalous.

So, nothing on EI. The representations made by thousands of Quebecers and Canadians were ignored.

Third, the structuring projects. I mentioned earlier that the budget offers many great possibilities. The Minister of Finance is hiding more surpluses. He is hiding facts about his real leeway. He has much more flexibility than he cares to admit. He has more leeway than he knows what to do with. The liberal majority on the finance committee could have suggested to spend more than $500 million a year on structuring projects, on infrastructure projects. This is ridiculous.

With the possibilities and flexibility anticipated for next year and the subsequent two, the committee could have suggested $3 billion a year, as we had. In this regard, we had the support of all stakeholders in civil society, including employer associations.

There is nothing either on structuring projects in support of a real shipbuilding policy for Canada. My Bloc colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has worked very hard for many years to promote such a policy. Canadians from sea to sea want a national shipbuilding policy.

Not long ago, my colleague informed me that he had gained the support of the Canadian Shipowners Association, of which our finance minister is a member. No one is asking him to secure privileges as a shipowner. There is a difference between passing legislation that favours him and his companies, as he did two years ago with Bill C-28, and developing a national shipbuilding policy to help create jobs in Canada and ensure, for instance, that the level of jobs at Lévis shipyards gets back to what it was before, that is 5,000 jobs, if my memory serves me right.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I respect your decision, but if this is the case, it would be a good idea to amend Standing Order 43. If we adhere strictly to the standing orders but they begin to change the rules along the way, like they are trying to do with the bill to establish a framework for the Quebec referendum, then nothing makes sense any more.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, even in the Projected Order of Business, Standing Order 43 is specified.

If what is meant to guide us in the process of debate is obsolete, and tradition allows us to do the opposite of what it says, things are all wrong.

From what I have seen in the past, Standing Order 43 has applied when the speakers involved were the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the minister making the motion or the member speaking in reply to the government. They had an unlimited amount of time but not an ordinary member of the House. It is all very well that the member in question is the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance but that is not covered by the standing orders.

As far as I can recall, this standing order has always been applied in relation to the work of the finance committee.