Yvan Loubier

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is because he does not often listen to what we have to say. We have a great solution, and that is to run our own show and stop arguing with this gang that understands nothing. We call it Quebec sovereignty. This is our great solution.

When we run our onw show, we will no longer have to come to Ottawa to discuss how to redistribute our own money.

For his information, it is urgent that we put some order in the Quebec government's finances. I remind him that in 1994, when the Parti Quebecois came to power, his gang, his gang of Liberals, Bourbeau and company, left us with a $6 billion deficit, making it urgent to get our financial house in order.

If he does not think this is important, I remind him that federal cuts mean a $2 billion shortfall every year for Quebec. If he believes this does not hurt the people he is supposed to represent, he has one helluva problem.

If he thinks the millennium scholarships are a good deal he should run somewhere else in Canada because in Quebec we have a consensus against the millennium scholarships—

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have fully complied with the rules. Perhaps the hon. member should clean his ears, because I did not mention anyone when I talked about hypocrisy. I referred to a budget that is hypocritical. Perhaps the member feels that a budget is a person. There seems to be a problem of understanding, perhaps a problem of conceptual learning. I have never made a personal attack.

So, I was saying that this was the most hypocritical budget, because, in one fell swoop, the government decided to impose cuts that will exceed $40 billion by the year 2003, money that is largely used by the provinces to finance health services.

Since it is the national health care system, which is administered by the provinces, that was the victim of the government's attempt to put its fiscal house in order, one would have expected the government to use part of that money according to the previous provisions. In other words, the federal government should have given that money back to the provinces, without making a big show of it to promote its visibility. It should have given part, not all of what was asked based on the Saskatoon agreement, that is the agreement reached by the premiers.

I find it totally unacceptable to be at this point, where the government has huge surpluses that help promote the personality of the year, namely the Minister of Finance and future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, at the expense of ordinary Canadians. The government is even resorting to despicable methods—as we saw with the employment insurance program—to deprive the unemployed of hundreds of millions of dollars. They create a surplus in the employment insurance fund of $6 billion annually, a real public vendetta. That is where we are.

The federal government is setting itself up as the great saviour of the health care system when in fact it is responsible for entire mess we have been in since 1995. Then there are the unemployed, who continue to pay and will do so forever, if we are to believe the offhand and arrogant remarks of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development, at the rate of $6 billion annually.

They keep pressuring them so they can draw off every cent that will enable the federal government to increase its surplus and fund initiatives such as the millennium scholarship fund that move the Prime Minister's face, the federal government and the Canadian flag into the foreground. They are threatening the unemployed who are considering appealing a decision that is totally unacceptable and unjustified. They are even threatening the officials carrying out this vendetta with the loss of their jobs should they not meet the objectives.

There is not much difference between that and the mafia. There is not much difference between that and an organized vendetta. It is as if the idea in the little brain of the Minister of Finance is to have the biggest surplus possible in order to impress as many as possible so he appears to be the best manager in the world and swell his popularity in the near future at the head of the Liberal Party of Canada.

But is he creating social problems in his efforts to score political points? Is he dragging down the health care sector? Is he creating hardship for families in Quebec and in Canada, so that he can look good and keep Bay Street happy?

The humanity has all but gone out of the system when visibility is more important than people's health, when misinformation is more important than hard facts, the truth and democracy, and when vendettas are more important than unemployed workers in need of assistance. This is a terrible way to treat people.

I hope that one day the government will come to its senses. We should not have to get down on our knees for what is rightly ours. Quebeckers pay $30 billion in taxes annually. It is only right that part of this money, a good part of it, should come back to us without our having to negotiate a deal that would guarantee visibility for a power-hungry Prime Minister.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part this morning in the Bloc Quebecois opposition day on health care.

It is truly distressing to see that we, the Bloc Quebecois, we in the opposition, are being forced to introduce a motion calling upon the federal government to respect its own Constitution. To have come to this is totally abnormal.

I believe, however, that this reflects the state of the Canadian federation, the state in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal party of Canada, has plunged us, particularly in the last four years.

It is especially sad to hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister tell us to stop our constitutional squabbling, that there is no point in getting into constitutional discussions again when there are people waiting for federal transfer payments, that there is no point messing up the system as we, the evil separatists, do.

One has to be unbelievably hypocritical to make such a statement. Any debate or friction with respect to jurisdiction originates with the Prime Minister of Canada and member for Shawinigan or with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Under the Constitution, health is undeniably an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

They are now telling us that, in the future, the federal government will not only have a say in the matter but will actually manage transfer payments to the provinces for health. It will also monitor results. Such departure from the Canadian Constitution is pure heresy. They are not even complying with their own Constitution. It also makes for great theatrics.

The federal government is passing itself off as this great saviour of the health system, when in fact it is largely responsible for all the problems currently faced from coast to coast. The crowded emergency rooms and closed hospitals are the doing of the finance minister and the Prime Minister.

Since the 1995 budget, one of the most hypocritical budgets in the history of Canadian taxation, the Minister of Finance has decided that, every year until 2003, systematic cuts would be made in federal transfers for the funding of health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. But these cuts hit health care, which accounts for about half the transfers, the hardest.

By the year 2003, federal transfers to provinces for the funding of health care will have been cut by $40 billion.

This is today's reality. But the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs constantly distort reality in order to have us believe—and at the same time to increase their visibility—that the federal government is the great saviour. The federal government is the great destroyer of the health system in Canada. Every year, the provinces have $6.3 billion less in their coffers, almost half of that amount for health care in Canada.

Negotiations are now ongoing, and I hope they will be successful. But if it were not for the action taken in the 1995 budget and the disarray of people who are waiting in hospital emergency wards, which are in bad shape because of the federal government, this conference would not have been necessary. The federal transfers for health care would have increased automatically because, since last year, the federal government has managed to create a surplus thanks to its horrible cuts, a surplus that, normally, should have been given back automatically to the people those who really paid for putting our fiscal house in order.

This year, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister should have said that, because of the surpluses resulting from the fact that some $6 billion have been cut each year from transfers to the provinces, in particular for health care, they would give back this year's surplus to the provinces, unconditionally and in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.

But that is not what was done. With great fanfare, the federal government wanted to ensure its visibility and show that it is the saviour of the health care system. This is a monumental farce. It is sad that the provinces should be forced, with a knife at their throats because they are struggling and suffering from yearly shortfalls, to take part in last minute federal-provincial conferences to agree to certain transfer arrangements. Six billion dollars every year, this is not peanuts. I think it is sad and tragic that we have come to this.

I will explain to you how we have come to this. The Prime Minister did not make any bones of it. When he was in France, he said that everything was fine in Canada, that the federal government made the cuts and that the provinces did the dirty work. The Prime Minister made no bones of it. The president of the Treasury Board did not either when he said: “When the provinces make cuts, after our own cuts, we will appear as saviours”. He said it just two years ago, and that is what was brewing.

Coming back to the 1995 budget, the finance minister said to himself: “It is not a very popular thing to make cuts in social programs and health care, I will do it only once, I will announce it only once, and it will continue until 2003”. That is what he did. That is why I underlined earlier the hypocritical aspect of the budget, because it will cause a disaster—

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say this is the first time I hear about such a situation. However, there have been a number of other cases where small overpayments were claimed. People's initial reaction was “I will settle this and pay the amount”, even though they knew they had not received that money. Since they could not prove their case, they paid the amount that was claimed.

But what they did not know—and these people are not told about their rights in human resources development centres—is that once they recognized that an overpayment had been made to them and once they paid the amount, they became, in the eyes of the minister and his henchmen, guilty parties. They now have a black mark on their employment insurance file, and the next time they have the misfortune of being unemployed and make a claim under the employment insurance program, the department will take a look at their file. Because they spontaneously paid the money back, these people will be penalized in terms of the number of weeks required to get their first benefits. People must be made aware of that situation and it is our duty to do so.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us is the total opposite of the truth. He twists the figures. He twists them in a scandalous way. Fewer than 40% of people can draw employment insurance benefits.

From December 2 last until March 31, employer and employee contributions to the employment insurance fund have been and will be used solely to increase the employment insurance fund surplus.

Even with the 15 cent decrease in contributions set by the Minister of Finance last November, the surplus in the fund is still going to end up over $6 billion. This is going to be used for something other than helping the unemployed in New Brunswick or anywhere else in Canada.

As I have said, the situation is so serious that not only has access been reduced, thus adding to the surplus, but the unemployed are, as well, now being harassed into not challenging claims for supposed overpayments before the Commission. This is serious. It means that the rights of the unemployed are being denied, while the members opposite are pretending everything is just great, because there are not many appeals.

One day, the self-same Minister of Human Resources Development will be getting up to say “Judging by the number of complaints there have been in the past six months, things are going well. The number of complaints is dropping.”

I understand, throughout Quebec and Canada people are being discouraged from appealing overpayments, and that will be reflected in the statistics the minister likes so much to refer to, although he does it all wrong. This man has not served, and does not, serve the interests of the unemployed.

As I have said, I find it rather distasteful that he speaks in his report of the most disadvantaged and of his priorities, when in fact he is the one responsible for increasing collective poverty

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

We are still looking, and maybe one day will find some. But if one reads between the lines of the prepared words that come out of the PMO or the office of the Minister of Finance, one can see there has been nothing positive.

How could there be when, since 1995, it has been decreed that there will be cuts year after year until 2003 in the health field? How could there be, when they have the nerve to want to use the contributions of employers and employees to the employment insurance fund to finance tax cuts for the rich?

Where are these positive actions? How are the interests of the people of the people of Quebec and of Canada being served? We are still looking, and maybe one day we will manage to find some.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had read the paper this morning, she would know that I have already commented on this to a journalist, from the Gazette furthermore. As far as I know, she can read English.

I made exactly the same comments about the Minister of Human Resources Development as those I made in the House, so it is not a question of having the backbone. If she thinks the government is so wonderful with its tax points, she is mistaken. In any event, she has been mistaken as long as we have known her. As a member of Parliament, she is often mistaken. But this time, she shows her ignorance by constantly harping on the tax points ceded to Quebec in the 1950s and 1960s.

These tax points were ceded at a 1964 meeting between Mr. Pearson, a very sensible Canadian, and Mr. Lesage.

I would like to put a question to the member. If there had been no cuts, if things had been left as they were in 1994 where federal transfers to the provinces were concerned, what would the level of tax points transferred to the provinces have been? Exactly the same as they are today. This is undeniable proof that the changes in tax points are completely independent of federal government decisions. This is a given.

Is someone going to go after the person who sold him a house 50 years ago because the roof is now leaking? It is the same thing. As futile as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As for her reference to the good things the federal government has done, my colleagues and I have tried to find some.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

I will. I have done so before.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the report of the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, which was tabled last December and suggests certain approaches with respect to the next budget.

The Liberal majority's report is a blatant piece of propaganda. It could have been—and was, I believe—written by the office of the Minister of Finance, so completely is it at odds with the comments we heard from individuals and from business and anti-poverty organizations in our travels across Canada.

What is more, the report touts the marvellous achievements of the Liberal government. This is a change from the reports produced by the Standing Committee on Finance over the last five years. They were mildly propagandist but this one is nothing but.

The report glosses over the nasty tricks and lack of consensus on such issues as the millennium scholarships. Nor does it make any mention of the fact that Quebec's opposition to this new Liberal government policy, this new intrusion into the education sector, is unanimous.

The report also refers to issues that never came up during this consultation, such as the famous productivity covenant. I do not know where this came from. Again, the likeliest source is the office of the Minister of Finance, who has the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance to do his bidding. This is the first time the committee chair has been nothing more than a puppet controlled by the Minister of Finance.

I was also appalled at the arrogance of this report on such issues as employment insurance.

I will quote the report of the Liberal majority, at page 55. Members are aware of the many problems with employment insurance, the increasingly limited access to it and the fact that fewer than 40% of the people contributing to it can now draw benefits. These benefits have shrunk in the past two years, since the employment insurance reform.

So what do we find on page 55 of the Liberal majority report? This is what we find, and I quote “The committee thinks that the phenomenon is misunderstood. The unemployed receive nothing because the system was not designed for them”.

Never have I seen or read such arrogant remarks in a Liberal majority report. So, even though statistics come out every week telling us what a total fiasco the employment insurance plan is, how it does not serve the interests of the unemployed in Quebec and Canada, the Liberals say the Quebeckers and Canadians who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance do not understand the plan when it is the plan that makes no sense at all.

Another arrogant remark in the Liberal majority's report is when they say that the Canadians consulted want the Minister of Finance to continue his very prudent management of public funds.

The comments gathered across Canada are not self evident. On the subject of prudence, they do ask the Minister of Finance to be prudent too, but next above all, what Canadians across the country asked the Minister of Finance to do was to stop making up all sorts of stories, to stop saying things that do not make sense.

For example, as regards the surpluses, the minister was told to stop viewing Quebeckers and Canadians as gullible and to stop being off the mark by close to 100% in his forecasts. This cannot go on.

During that consultation, Canadians and Quebeckers asked the Minister of Finance to show greater transparency and honesty. Such comments were made by organizations from various sectors across the country. Honesty yes, but also accuracy, which is the very foundation of democracy and the basis of effective processes, such as the prebudget consultation process.

If the prebudget consultation is conducted while relying on falsehoods and lies, how can we expect the citizens of this country to have a clear mind and to propose sensible ideas based on the real figures?

How can we be expected, as lawmakers, to have a solid and credible basis to urge the government to make decisions, if the Minister of Finance is always fibbing about the state of public finances? He stated recently that the surplus—based on his own document, that is the last budget—would be somewhere between zero and three billion dollars, when in fact it will be in excess of six billion dollars.

The content of the Liberal majority report confirmed that we were right, last year, to have decided to conduct our own prebudget consultation. During the months of August and September, the Bloc Quebecois—led by its leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and myself as its finance critic—toured Quebec to hear the comments, ideas and suggestions of the people of Quebec regarding the content of the upcoming budget and the use that should be made of the huge surpluses collected by the Minister of Finance, primarily to score political points. We did our job.

What we heard is very different from what is found in the report of the Liberal majority. We look at the real issues. The people whom we consulted told us about the real issues. They said they had had enough of being told just any old thing by this government, of being told to continue to behave, to continue to make sacrifices, when the result of the sacrifices—far from seeing the benefits of these sacrifices, if we can believe the recent remarks by the Minister of Finance, they are not likely to see the benefits in the upcoming budget either—these people see the money saved on the backs of the most disadvantaged and the middle income earners reallocated to the most favoured classes. This is not normal.

Quebeckers and Canadians told us three things during these consultations. First, they said their first priority for federal transfers was to fund higher education, social assistance and most importantly health care.

They discussed the Saskatoon agreement. Remember that the agreement signed by all the premiers in Saskatoon provided two things, essentially: that the federal government stop cutting some $6 billion year in and year out in transfers to the provinces, and Quebec in particular, for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance, as it had set out in its 1995 budget.

They also called for the right to opt out with full compensation in areas of provincial jurisdiction. They asked that, if the federal government wanted another initiative there, provinces wanting to withdraw from a federal program in a provincial jurisdiction be able to do so with full compensation.

I think it is in the public interest to know what the Minister of Finance decreed in his 1995 budget. He decreed it once, but nobody mentions it anymore and nobody will mention it until 2003. We are making a point of putting it back on the table.

In 1995, the Minister of Finance decided that announcements of cuts to social programs, health care and education year after year were really unpopular. So, he said, “I will do it once, and it will be valid until 2003”. That is the plan for systematic cuts the Minister of Finance, the pretender to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, set in motion in 1995.

Under that plan, every year, without any warning, provincial governments have to put up with an average shortfall of $6 billion in the areas of health, higher education and social assistance.

Based on the federal decision announced in the 1995 budget of the Minister of Finance, it was initially anticipated that, by the year 2003, federal transfers to the provinces for health, higher education and social assistance would be subject to cumulative cuts totalling $48 billion. During the 1997 election campaign, that position became so untenable—and the Bloc Quebecois contributed to this by constantly attacking the Liberal Party on this issue—that the Prime Minister of Canada announced with great fanfare that he would put back six billion dollars into social programs.

What he really meant was that, of the $48 billion that he had originally planned to cut between 1995 and 2003, $6 billion would not be cut. This meant that there would still be cuts totalling $42 billion, with annual cuts of $6 billion in transfers for health, for instance. These cuts have not been eliminated.

The premiers made it clear when they met in Saskatoon, that these are the cuts they want the federal government to eliminate. The government talks about giving back $6.3 billion to the provinces to finance their social and health programs, but what the provinces want is for the federal government to cancel the cuts mentioned in the 1995 budget until the year 2003. In their wisdom, the provinces told the federal government they were prepared to accept an arrangement, whereby the $6.3 billion they are requesting to offset the cuts in health, higher education and social assistance could be paid over two years.

The discussions were not about $1 billion but rather $6.3 billion. Since then, however, the federal government has gone to great lengths to allege that this $1 billion is a big deal, that it was the amount discussed in the negotiations, and that the government has a role to play in exclusive provincial jurisdictions like health. The Minister of Finance himself, in establishing the Canada health and social transfer, which combines all three federal transfers into one, stated its purpose was to give the provinces greater freedom to use their funds as they see fit.

The outcome of the negotiations concerning the social transfer and the provinces' demands on the basis of Saskatoon tell a completely different story. The federal government is intent on having a say in every decision on how funds are allocated, in spite of the fact that these funds belong to the provinces and that it could choose to give them back to the provinces for health, higher education and social assistance.

I think that, with respect to this budget, the Minister of Finance should immediately initiate a process leading to full compensation for all cuts made since 1995, thereby cancelling the cuts in health, higher education and social assistance.

People must understand that the problems currently experienced in emergency rooms must not be blamed on their provincial government, on the Quebec government, but on the federal government, which has left the provinces broke with funding cuts averaging $7.3 billion a year.

Nor are we interested in their bleating about the misfortune of the disadvantaged and the ill, as the Minister of Human Resources Development has done, when it is the Liberals that are behind the cuts and that will be maintaining them until 2003.

The people of Quebec told us about another priority they had, a real priority, as opposed to the crass propaganda in the Liberal majority's report.

When we consulted people throughout Quebec, which we did with the assistance of all Bloc Quebecois members, they told us that their other priority was a substantial cut in personal income taxes. Not in the taxes of the rich, of millionaires, or ministers, but of low-and middle-income taxpayers. These are the folks who helped put the fiscal house in order. These are the folks who, since 1995, have been footing the bill in one way or another, either through increased taxes—over the last four years they have been paying $20 billion more in taxes than they did in 1993—or through various cuts that affect them directly.

It is low and middle income taxpayers who are responsible for the improved public finances. They are the ones who should be reaping the benefits of the lowered deficit. They should be the first to enjoy tax breaks and relief in general.

They should be the first because middle-income taxpayers—who are defined as those earning between $45,000 and $70,000—face the highest taxes of all Canadians. They are the ones facing one of the highest tax rates compared with American taxpayers. If there is going to be tax relief, it should not be for millionaires or friends of the Minister of Finance. Nor should it take the form of a tax reform that would benefit international shipping companies such as Canada Steamship Lines, which is owned by the Minister of Finance. Nor will the taxpayer be helped by giving preferential treatment to the very rich, for example by allowing them to transfer millions, if not billions, all over the world in the form of family trusts.

This will be done by enacting a general lightening of the tax burden on two groups, the low and middle income groups. This can be done by fully indexing the tax tables. It can also be done by raising the minimum threshold, or in other words allowing people to earn more before they have to start paying income tax. This would help those with low and middle incomes.

In this consultation, we were clearly given a third priority—I am talking here of the true consultation, not the one that led to a Liberal majority propaganda report, but the consultations carried out throughout Quebec by the Bloc Quebecois—and that priority was improved employment insurance.

There was unanimity on this in Quebec. If I recall, during the prebudget consultations across Canada, people were also saying “It no longer makes any sense at all to have reformed the unemployment insurance program, changing its name to employment insurance, and to have severely cut back on benefits, so much so that fewer than 40% of people paying into the fund—everyone pays now—can draw employment insurance benefits”.

There are three ways of ending up with stupendous surpluses in the employment insurance fund, as we have seen over the past three years. The first is by maintaining employers' and employees' contributions to the fund at an artificially high level. The second is to successfully reduce access to the program. The third is to reduce benefits.

These are the three objectives of the employment insurance reform, which it achieves so successfully that every year we end up with a $6 billion surplus. These surpluses are generated off the backs of the contributors, that is, employers and employees, and the unemployed.

In recent weeks, they have gone so far as to exert pressure. This has happened in a number of regions in Quebec. I have seen it in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot as well. The officials at the employment centres are putting pressure on the unemployed, on those appealing decisions on overpayments. Pressure is put on them to subtly take away their right to appeal. This action is deliberate. The unemployed are being called and told not to appeal, there is no point. There is a limit to the harassment of these people.

Do you know why they are being harassed? Because the more they harass them, the bigger the surplus there will be to swell the popularity of the future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Minister of Finance. That is awful. My colleagues and I discussed this at the latest caucus meeting. We are going to wage all-out war against these claims by a little mafia gang trying to intimidate the unemployed and take away their right to be treated fairly.

While things go awry with the employment insurance system, as things are a total fiasco, while everybody is criticizing the Minister of Human Resources Development, this gentleman is writing a book on his deep thoughts.

In response to our questions in the House, he answered all sorts of things making it clear to us that he was not on top of his responsibilities and that he did not know what was going on, but we did not know why. We thought it was a matter of intelligence. But now we know that he was writing his book, dashing off his deep thoughts.

He even had the nerve to talk about the disadvantaged in his book, when he actually had a hand in creating this situation where the unemployed, who no longer qualify for employment insurance thanks to him, find themselves marginalized. Do you know who this minister reminds me of? He reminds me of Lucius Domitius Tiberius Claudius Nero, commonly known as Emperor Nero. Nero set Rome ablaze and declaimed his sorrow as the city burned. I find it despicable.

What the unemployed see is a human resources development minister, who is supposed to be taking care of business and fixing a system that does not make sense anymore, out promoting the sale of his book and using his own intellectual resources, and probably departmental resources as well, to boost his popularity.

Under other circumstances, had he not had other responsibilities, one might have said he was provoking thought, but for a minister who has been doing a poor job since taking over his department, has been sharply criticized and is putting everyone in the street, to put his deep thoughts in a book as he did, is an absolute disgrace.

To conclude, we hope that Minister of Finance will show common sense in his budget and put any surplus to use in the interest of the public at large and not a select few.

We hope he will show respect for the unemployed and those who pay into the EI fund and show more respect than his Prime Minister did for the provinces that have had it with all this being done on their backs and having various conditions imposed on them as well.

[Privilege, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that there are two ways to leak a document or reveal its content: to do so oneself or to substantiate information contained in the report to be tabled in the House of Commons Thursday afternoon. One can substantiate, comment on or deny what is in the document.

There are also two ways to divulge matters that should remain confidential, including dissenting opinions of opposition parties. Leak it oneself, or comment on the majority report from the standpoint of one's party's dissenting opinion.

Concerning the two colleagues, whom I respect by the way, I merely quoted from an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in which they commented on the committee's report, which should not have been divulged in whole or in part. That is all I did.

As for whether I will withdraw what I said about the Progressive Conservative member, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker, because the matter has not been resolved. The article is there, the words of my two colleagues are there, and I still respectfully submit to your—