Yvan Loubier

[Budget Surplus, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, between now and 2003, the federal government will be slashing over $30 billion in transfers to the provinces to fund higher education, health care and income security.

Now that he has surpluses coming out his ears, will the Minister of Finance make a commitment to reinstate the social transfers so the provinces may provide their residents with proper services?

[Budget Surplus, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance is not saying is that he took away $33 billion from the provinces' funding for education, health and social assistance.

I am asking him whether he is aware of the havoc he has wrought in the schools, in the hospitals, in the poorest families? Does he realize this? If he does, is he not ashamed?

[Budget Surplus, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is asking us to let him take advantage of a $95 billion surplus, the people are suffering because of rapidly deteriorating health systems and educational systems that are crying out for reinvestment of the money to which the Minister of Finance has been helping himself for the past four years.

Why does the Minister of Finance not commit to return to the provinces what has been cut from transfer payments, rather than getting ready to make new expenditures in areas that come under their jurisdiction?

[Budget Surpluses, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is more erroneous information.

How can the minister talk with any decency of tax reductions, when, since 1994, tax revenues from individuals have grown faster than the economy, and a middle class family today pays $700 more in income tax than in 1993? Where are the Minister of Finance's tax reductions?

[Budget Surpluses, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that his government had increased the social transfers to the provinces by $11.5 billion over five years and had lowered income tax for all Canadian taxpayers.

How, with any decency, can the minister speak of increased transfer payments to the provinces, when these transfers amounted to nearly $19 billion in 1993 and have decreased this year to $15 billion?

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, really, we have heard our fair share of contradictions from the Reform Party.

My colleague said that the free market had to be considered and that business decisions had to be made on the basis of cost effectiveness. I would remind her that, again this morning, it is being said that, with its financial difficulties, Canadian would have a hard time making it to next spring if the situation did not change. For years now, the government has been trying, through various ploys, to help Canadian hold on, while it kept sinking every year. This is the first point I want to make on what my Reform colleague said.

The second point is as follows. Could she explain—because Reform members are not short of contradictions in their speeches—how it is that last year, in the debate on the reform of financial institutions and the banks in Canada, no Reform member on the Standing Committee on Finance opposed the retention of the rule on 10% of the stocks of a financial institution being held by one shareholder?

How is it that, in the case of the banks and financial institutions, the Reform members fought with the Bloc Quebecois to retain the rule of 10% in order to prevent Canadian financial institutions from falling into the hands of Americans, among others, and that today it does not apply to air transportation? Is she picking up the failings of the Minister of Transport and supporting Canadian at all cost?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is rare for me not to be pleased to be part of a debate on a bill, as is the case today.

This bill, formerly Bill C-54, which was criticized by most of my colleagues, remains a bill that should be treated as the Bloc Quebecois proposes, that is, it should be set aside. The Minister of Industry should be sent to do his homework so that everyone is satisfied. To this point, one party is totally dissatisfied—Quebec.

It is unanimous in Quebec. Everyone opposes this bill on e-commerce and personal information. Why is everyone opposed?

First, it is as a matter of principle. The federal government has an almost legendary propensity to meddle in jurisdictions other than its own. Every lead taken by Quebec in areas of its jurisdiction is penalized by the federal government with its wall to wall bills.

Over the years, there have been fairly remarkable examples of this. In 1994, for example, we were all newly elected to our first term, and the Minister of Finance started talking about the appropriateness of establishing a Canadian securities commission. Securities are under Quebec's jurisdiction exclusively, and Quebec has worked very hard for the past 30 years to create an effective system with highly interesting areas of jurisdiction that are in fact higher than what is found in most provinces in Canada.

Because Quebec took the lead in the area of securities, in a field the Canadian Constitution recognizes as its own, the federal government decided, because the other provinces were not as well organized as Quebec, to establish a Canadian securities commission, wall to wall, with duplications, overlap and total confusion in this sector so vulnerable to uncertainty. The Minister of Finance paid no attention to the problems this might cause Quebec.

There are other examples, such as that involving provincially chartered insurance companies. Quebec had an inspector general of financial institutions, a Commission des valeurs mobilières to monitor transactions and minimize the risk for shareholders and insured persons. However, that did not stop the Minister of Finance from deciding a few years ago to prevent a provincially chartered insurance company from Quebec, L'Entraide assurances, from acquiring a block of insurance from a federally chartered company. The reason given was that it would create a precedent and other provinces would want to follow suit, although they were not prepared to do so.

Once again, with the levels of protection Quebec has introduced in the financial sector generally, and particularly in the insurance sector, we were penalized because the other Canadian provinces did not show the leadership that Quebec did in this area.

If we go back a little further, we will recall that Bill S-31, in the early 1980s, prevented the Caisse de dépôt et de placement from acquiring a large block of shares in Canadian Pacific. Once again, because Quebec had established an institution like the Caisse de dépôt et de placement starting in the 1960s, which was already a force to be reckoned with in the early 1980s, because Quebec had taken the lead, had opted for modern methods of managing the pension funds of Quebecers, it was penalized. The federal government wanted to stop Quebec from getting ahead, from modernizing.

The millennium scholarships are the same thing all over again. Every time Quebec moves ahead, shows leadership, as we saw with the millennium scholarships, because the other provinces have not put together a system like Quebec's—once again, a coast-to-coast policy—with the millennium scholarships, the federal government is ignoring the consensus in Quebec opposing this project.

In the case before us, it is the same thing. Quebec has had a personal information protection act for five years. That act works well, and everyone is familiar with it now, both the consumers, who can invoke its provisions, and businesses.

Quebec's act protects not only personal information in the province, but also personal information that is sent by a Quebec business, for example, in other Canadian provinces, or personal information that is received in Quebec from other Canadian provinces.

This is such a good act that it enjoys unanimous support in Quebec. It is not perfect. All laws are, in a sense, imperfect. Legislation must adjust to evolving situations. But the Quebec act enjoys the unanimous support of Quebecers. It is a good act with a good middle of the road approach that pleases everyone and that includes provisions to prevent any leak of personal information.

This is so true that, as others have said before me, even the Conseil du patronat finds that it is a good act with which businesses can work, and with which they are now familiar, because it has been in effect for five years. Should Bill C-6 come into effect, it would create total confusion among Quebec businesses.

In fact, the Conseil du patronat refers to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec government in the area of personal information protection, as provided by section 92.13 of the British North America Act. The Conseil recognizes that Quebec has jurisdiction to legislate in that area.

It also feels that this bill will create confusion not only among businesses, but also among consumers, who will not know who to turn to, or to which legislation to refer to protect their rights and the information that concerns them.

In its brief, the Conseil du patronat said “As for Quebec consumers, they would always have to identify which act applies and to choose between two remedies, depending on whether the information is protected under one act or the other”.

This bill would create total confusion. It has been criticized since it was first introduced as Bill C-54. It has been criticized by everyone in Quebec and particularly by those who take an interest in personal information protection and in the civil code.

As others have mentioned before me, even the Barreau du Québec said that the best way to handle the situation—and one must think that nine Canadian provinces do not have personal information protection legislation—the only way to respect Quebec's choice and to avoid any harm to consumers and businesses who have been operating for five years under Quebec's act would be to enshrine in the bill a reference to that act confirming that it replaces the federal act on Quebec's territory and when personal information is exchanged between a Quebec company and a company from another Canadian province.

This proposal was made by the Barreau du Québec. It may be worth considering. As others have said, it is not that we hate the bill. We consider that it could very well be implemented in the nine other provinces but that, in Quebec, the choice made five years ago should be respected. This could be one of the flexibilities that people across the way like so much to boast about, particularly after the Speech from the Throne read by the Governor General.

It seems to me that that could be a good way to prove that the government wants to improve a little bit the functioning of the system. It may also be advisable for the government, after six years in office, to show that it can respect the choices made by Quebec and recognize that it was a pioneer.

Since our first day here, we have been asking the federal government to take action in its own jurisdictions. For example, it was asked to take action in the transportation industry during the debate on Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Onex. Just recently, we saw another example of the federal government refusing to co-operate in the transportation industry with the way Quebec's finance minister was treated by the Minister of Industry with regard to the restructuring proposal for the GM plant in Boisbriand.

It is being asked to take action in the area of public safety, an area under federal jurisdiction. It is being asked to fight organized crime, reform our tax system, and give middle income Canadians a substantial tax break as early as this year and this fiscal year. But it refuses to take action in these areas.

It always finds a way to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It creates conflicts, and the opposition always finds itself in an awkward position when it would have been so easy for the federal government to say that this bill will apply to the other provinces, with a reference to the Quebec legislation regarding the protection of personal information for that particular province.

Therefore, for all these reasons, we will vote against this bill.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very clear and no one asked for any clarification on his excellent analysis of the situation.

Before dealing directly with the throne speech, I want to convey the following message to all farming families in my riding, in Quebec, and even in Canada: the Bloc Quebecois will not let you down. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to demand additional resources to fight organized crime efficiently and to eliminate the terror that these families are subjected to year after year by cannabis producers.

In the weeks or months to come, my colleagues from Berthier—Montcalm and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert will propose legal measures to step up the fight against organized crime, particularly with regard to cannabis producers. We expect the government, which has a great responsibility in this regard, to take measures based on our proposals.

That being said, I will now deal with the throne speech from a public finance perspective. First, I want to correct two major blunders found in the Speech from the Throne, which I am sure are accidental, but which have left a lot of people wondering. I am convinced these are mistakes.

The two big blunders found in various parts of the throne speech are the references to tax reductions and to the government's determination to fight poverty. There appears to be two analytical and factual errors in the speech. I will take the next few minutes to set the record straight.

First of all, I practically fell off my seat when I saw in the throne speech that the government had reduced taxes by $16 billion over three years. At this rate, if we are to believe the government, in about ten years' time, Canadians will not be paying a cent in taxes.

That is what the Minister of Finance is telling us. He talked about the cumulative tax cuts he has supposedly made over the years and added them up. If we took this to its logical conclusion, in ten years not a single Canadian would be paying any personal income taxes.

It is well known that the Minister of Finance eliminates surpluses. The truth is that he has continued to cook the books. A look at the most recent Department of Finance publication shows that Quebecers and Canadians were paying $5.5 billion less in taxes in 1993-94, before the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government took office, than they are today.

In other words, by means of various hidden taxes, as well as tax tables and a fiscal structure in general that are completely unindexed, the government has increased the tax burden of Quebecers and Canadians by $5.5 billion since 1993-94. These are real figures.

As I mentioned, these figures can be found in any financial publication put out by the minister's own department.

Undeniably, there have been tax cuts. The last four years have seen a number of such cuts. Let us look at some examples of just what sort of cuts the Minister of Finance is offering.

Let us take the last budget. A significant measure in the last budget was the abolition of the 3% individual surtax.

And who will benefit from the elimination of the 3% surtax? It focuses first and foremost on those with incomes of $250,000 or higher. These are the people who have benefited from this tax reduction, from the abolition of the 3% surtax. On average, their tax savings this year will be $3,700.

Yet when one looks at those who have really been the ones responsible for putting public finances on a sounder footing, that is the middle income earners, those with annual incomes of between $30,000 and $70,000, they have saved approximately $160 in taxes this year. They are the ones who are being strangled by the lack of indexation and by other disguised taxes, and they are never the ones who get any recompense for their efforts.

Yes, there have been tax cuts. But cuts for the richest people in this country. Those who have been most responsible for putting public finances on a sounder footing have been totally forgotten.

We in the Bloc have done an analysis on people earning between $30,000 and $70,000, and we have consulted Quebeckers on the basis of that analysis. People who earn between $30,000 and $70,000 a year are the ones most responsible for putting public finances on a sounder footing, and yet they are the ones with the worst balance, in terms of tax payments.

I will offer two figures to illustrate this. Families earning between $30,000 and $70,000 in Canada constitute 27% of Canadian taxpayers. They are responsible for about 50% of personal income taxes that flow into the federal government's coffers.

Do you see the imbalance? These people make up a little over one quarter of all taxpayers, but they contribute half of all the taxes paid by individuals to Ottawa. It is for that group that the government must do something, not for those earning $250,000 or more, which include millionaire friends of the Minister of Finance.

It is in that category that the government should have taken action, but did not. The fact is that, in net terms, Canadian individuals pay $5.5 billion more in taxes than they did before the Liberal government came to office, in 1993.

The other major blunder to which I referred earlier is the fight against poverty. I read on page 7 of the throne speech that the government intends to make it easier for families to break the cycle of poverty.

I believe there is a mistake here. I think the analyses were not presented properly and the government will make corrections. How can you break the cycle of poverty when you are the one that created it?

When I see what this government did with employment insurance by excluding close to 60 per cent of those who should normally have benefited from the program, with the result that only 42 or 43% of unemployed people can now collect benefits, I can only conclude that this cycle of poverty was triggered by the government and the result is that there are now 500,000 more children living in poverty than there were when the Liberals came to office. I can only conclude that excluding the unemployed from the employment insurance program, excluding people who are experiencing hard times because they lost their jobs has resulted in an increase in the number of people living in poverty.

How can the cycle of poverty be broken when the government is the author of it and is not prepared to change the employment insurance plan.

In some instances, problems have been deliberately incorporated in the plan. Let us take, for example, the case of pregnant women, who must stop working because their health and the health of their child are at stake. Because of the problems in the plan, weeks spent on the Quebec CCST are not included in the calculation of hours and weeks worked in order to be able to enjoy special employment insurance benefits subsequently. This is a serious problem. Women are therefore going to think twice before taking precautionary time off work, thus putting their own health and the health of their child at risk.

There are a lot of problems in the system. And why do all these problems exist? Why are most of the unemployed excluded? In order to bring in a surplus of between $6 billion and $7 billion. This is despicable. Especially when the government is saying that it wants to break the cycle of poverty and then behaves in this way. This is an acceptable.

The government also cut the Canada social transfer, much of which goes to funding social assistance.

Every year, there is $4.6 billion less in the plan than there was in 1993. The government wants to break the cycle of poverty, but continues to create it and nurture it.

Finally, when we look at this government, we realize that it generates poverty. In conclusion, in examining this and having seen what the government proposed in the throne speech, we have no choice but to consider this government irresponsible. It is much better at making hollow formulae than at correcting inequality and fighting poverty with vigour.

For all these reasons, we reject this throne speech, which is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on.

[Privilege, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have often had occasion in the House to raise the problems of leaked committee documents and reports. I have brought numerous problems to your attention. The need to find a solution to these problems has become so great that even the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was to analyse these cases and propose sanctions, has itself been leaked. It is ridiculous beyond belief.

Given what has gone on here for the last two or three years or so, with more and more of these leaks taking place and members saying they are not responsible for releasing documents to be tabled in the House before they are made public, now we are wondering whether the rule of confidentiality still applies in the House and in committees, which are an extension of the House.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are wondering whether these parliamentary rules and traditions should be taken seriously in future, because the situation is becoming ridiculous.

A solution must be found because I, as a parliamentarian, have the feeling that my rights and privileges are slipping away from me. In case after case, no solution has been proposed to prevent documents from being leaked before they are tabled in the House.

It is too easy for a member who is quoted four times in an article to say that that was not what he said. At a certain point, people should stop taking us for idiots.

[Tainted Blood, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor has been consulted about the conduct of the Minister of Finance with respect to the tainted blood issue in order to determine whether the minister placed himself in a conflict of interest situation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he agree to release the full text of this report, as soon as his office receives it, so that MPs can examine it?