Yvan Loubier

[Canadian Economy, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Finance makes all sorts of smart aleck remarks, but he failed to mention earlier that, in light of the increase in interest rates by the Bank of Canada and the latest figures on the downturn, financial analysts are the ones currently demanding that the minister take action to stabilize the economy.

Will the Minister of Finance still be a smart aleck when, in a few months, we are facing a full-blown recession because of him and thousands of jobs are lost because he failed to listen to economic indicators today?

[Canadian Economy, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we just went through three consecutive months of economic slowdown. The composite index shows a zero rate of growth for August. Companies' backlogs of orders are dwindling. Bankruptcies are on the rise. Employment in commercial services is down. Forecasts for 1999 are being revised downward.

How many more indicators of this type does the Minister of Finance need to get his head out of the sand and to quickly table a special budget providing for tax cuts and an increase in social transfers to the provinces?

[Canadian Economy, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, quote for quote: the Governor of the Bank of Canada said this morning that he had underestimated the effects of the monetary crisis. I think the minister should take note. The minister was asked to table a special budget providing for tax cuts and increased social transfers as soon as Parliament resumed.

Does the minister realize that, if he does not act now, he will be party to a recession in Canada within some ten months?

[Canadian Economy, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as all the private sector analysts are lowering their forecasts for Canada's economic growth and Statistics Canada is telling us that once again, in the month of August, the situation worsened, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are the only ones saying that everything is fine.

Rather than rejecting all suggestions about stimulating economic growth and ruling out all possibility of recession in 1999, should the Minister of Finance not agree to the idea of a special budget providing for tax cuts and increased social transfers?

[Request For Emergency Debate, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask that the House hold an emergency debate on the use made of budget surpluses and the management of the federal debt. Several economic indicators are disturbing and lead me to believe such a debate is really necessary.

Since August 4, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the Minister of Finance table a special budget to deal with the various problems the Canadian economy has been confronted to in recent months.

First, the recent hike in interest rates by the Bank of Canada, following the ups and downs of the Canadian dollar on international markets, is a key factor that may have a very significant effect on this country's economy and consumer habits if we are not more careful and if expansionist economic policies are not promptly put forward by the federal finance minister in a special budget.

Second, the drop in the Canadian GDP over the past three months, together with an inflation rate that remains below the targeted range, clearly show that the Canadian economy is facing serious difficulties, which have led all analysts to a downward revision of the 1999 growth forecast.

This alarm bell calls, in our opinion, for vigorous and immediate action, if we do not want to find ourselves in a recession within a few months.

For all these reasons, I believe an emergency debate is required. The government must explain and justify its choices, which are contrary to the priorities of the people of Quebec and Canada as well as to the commitments made during the 1997 election campaign and in the budget tabled in February 1998.

The situation is deteriorating a little more every day, and that is why the government must immediately account for its management and take the urgent actions required.

I therefore ask that you give favourable consideration to my request for an emergency debate.

[Budget Surpluses, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with $20 billion going towards the debt, the Prime Minister is telling us that he accords greater importance to the millionaires of Bay Street and Wall Street than to those who are ill.

Does the Prime Minister not think that the economic slowdown and the effects of the sharp decline in the value of the Canadian dollar are sufficient reasons to bring down an emergency budget regarding the use of budget surpluses and management of the federal debt, not for millionaires but for those in this country who are ill?

[Budget Surpluses, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a statement to the House on February 19, the Prime Minister reminded us of the promise he made during the last election campaign to devote half of any budget surpluses to social programs.

Last week, we learned that, so far, all the surpluses have gone towards paying down the debt, and that nothing has been put towards social programs or reducing taxes.

After going back on his promise to scrap the GST, after going back on his promise to introduce pay equity, is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to break his promise to use half of the surplus to help the health sector?

[Contraband Tobacco, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in five years this government has done nothing to fight contraband, to eliminate this black market estimated at $6 billion a year according to the auditor general.

It is a lot easier to take money from the employment insurance fund, to take money from the unemployed and the sick, than to fight contraband.

There is a simple solution to that problem. Will the minister apply this intelligent solution proposed by Quebec, a practical solution that would allow the government to recover millions of dollars in uncollected taxes on contraband cigarettes?

[Contraband Tobacco, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Government of Quebec announced that it would replace the QST with a specific tax collected at the source by manufacturers and wholesalers, which would go a long way toward solving the cigarette contraband problem on native reserves and would allow the Quebec government to recover lost revenues from uncollected taxes.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the federal government intend to harmonize its policy what that of Quebec by replacing the GST with a specific tax collected at the source on tobacco products?

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on remarks made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and member for Ahuntsic, which did not sound right to me.

For instance, she said that, at the federal level, judicial appointments were not political appointments. I will remind her that these appointments are made by a committee of seven members, four of whom are appointed by the Minister of Justice, and that the majority prevails. So the minister can make appointments with the support of four out of seven committee members, which form a majority since all it takes is 50% plus one—as members need to be reminded once in a while. Therefore, judicial appointments are political appointments.

In addition, the parliamentary secretary cited some figures on Quebec which are not quite accurate. With respect to judges' salaries, I will remind her that, when he was elected premier of Quebec in 1995, Lucien Bouchard ordered a 6% salary reduction for all government employees, including judges. This means that judges' salaries have been reduced by 6%.

Contrary to what the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, and this is my third point, the fact that a huge increase—a 13.8% compounded increase over two years—is recommended in a report does not means that it must automatically be approved.

The Blais report recommended that the salaries of members of Parliament be raised, but everyone on this side of the House said no. That is what the report recommended, but we said no. Why? Because we find it indecent to be talking about raising judges' salaries by 13.8% over two years, retroactive to April 1, 1997, when, on the other side of the House, since the Minister of Finance tabled his second budget, in 1995, there is a plan under way to cut back transfer payments to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education and health. By 2003, $30 billion will have been taken away from the recipients of social assistance, the sick and the students in higher education.

Furthermore, those on the other side of the House are happy to steal an accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund, which will reach $25 billion by the end of next year and which comes from the excessive contributions of employers and employees. The Minister of Finance is blithely dipping into it. He will continue to take up to $25 billion by the end of fiscal year 1998-99.

After all the sacrifices required from the population, all the theft from funds that do not belong to the federal government, it now wants us to agree to compound salary increases for judges of 13.8%.

I find the way the parliamentary secretary put it to us indecent, saying that such a monumental increase in judges' salary was needed to ensure quality candidates. With their annual salaries between $170,000 and $230,000, I imagine people are knocking the doors down in an effort to get a judge's position.

I would remind the House that salary increases are awarded in large measure to reflect changes in the cost of living. The cost of living is reflected in the consumer price index, and in the past three years the rate of inflation has moved between 2% and 1%. This means that the 13.8% salary increase given to judges over the next two years is 13 times greater than the current inflation rate of about 1%.

This makes no sense at all. How can we justify such a decision to people who have been subjected to indirect tax increases totalling $23 billion over the last three years? How can we explain to them that, with all the sacrifices they made in the areas of social welfare, post-secondary education and health care, with the minister having failed to index the tax tables—there was an increase in tax receipts, and that is an indirect form of tax increase—judges will now be getting a 13.8% increase? How can we justify maintaining the status quo while judges' salaries will be increased prodigiously, at a compound rate?

It is totally unacceptable. I add my voice to that of my distinguished colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who did the right thing in bringing this scandal to light. It makes absolutely no sense to present things in this fashion, especially with the kind of arguments we just heard.

Lucien Bouchard, Premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Quebecois, has understood that. That is why, two or three years ago, Quebec ordered a salary decrease rather than a freeze or an increase. It is only logical.

When one asks people to make sacrifices and makes budget cuts to reduce the deficit and create annual surpluses, as the finance minister did on the back of the poor, one does not give judges a 13.8% salary increase. It is totally unacceptable, and we will all fight against that.