House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 50% of the vote.
Immigration November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister spoke to her officials this morning.
How can the government justify refusing this visa to an Irish democrat, a man who has chosen peace, and whose leader, Gerry Adams, was welcomed here a few weeks ago, when the government went out of its way to welcome the Prime Minister's dictator friend, President Suharto, last year?
Immigration November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
We learned in the papers that a Northern Ireland parliamentarian, Alex Maskey, was refused a visa to enter Canada.
Does the minister not consider that this decision sends an extremely negative message to the supporters of democracy, a message that discredits the peace process in Ireland, which Canada officially supports?
Human Rights November 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, while Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on social condition and the legislation of seven other provinces tends in the same direction, the Canadian Human Rights Act is completely silently on the topic.
Will the Minister of Justice undertake to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to prohibit discrimination based on social condition?
Supply November 19th, 1998
I will end with a heartfelt cry to them: loosen the purse strings, move money to the provinces and everybody will feel better for it.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to dedicate my speech to the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is honouring us with his presence. I am sure that, being a Montrealer himself, he will understand.
Let us tell it as it is. If the opposition, one of the best this House has ever seen, felt the need to sound the alarm today, it is because there is an urgent need to take action. There is no doubt that, in a criminal court context—and I can safely make this statement because of your legal background—formal charges would have been laid for misappropriation of funds. Money was stolen. I think this is the least unparliamentary way to put it.
This means that the federal government maliciously and unilaterally misappropriated funds, without showing any respect for the provinces and their priorities. It went all out. If we add up all the amounts cut from transfers the government was supposed to return to the provinces but failed to do so, we arrive at a total of $42 billion.
Obviously, one might say this is inconsequential, but to say so is to behave irresponsibly and without sensitivity. We will not stand for that.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, we are asking all government members, from the most obscure backbencher to the most visible minister, including the Minister of Human Resources Development, to tell cabinet it is imperative that the provinces get back what was taken from them.
I want us to be clear. Earlier, I listened to the parliamentary secretary, who was saying that a minimum level had been set. This is like telling our fellow citizens that happiness is the absence of unhappiness. Forty-two billion dollars is missing.
Health is not a partisan issue. In fact, we always have a hard time acting in a partisan fashion. Health is not a partisan issue because we all know people in our ridings, who are growing old.
Having grey hair is not what makes a person old, that is not what I mean. In each of our ridings we are familiar with people who are ageing and in need of care. Because the federal government refused to give them $42 billion, care that ought to be delivered is not being delivered.
Of these $42 billion which we consider ought to have been transferred, the allocation to the health care transfer ought to have been $6 billion. Of that figure of $6 billion, the Government of Quebec would get back more than $1 billion, closer to $2 billion, that is $1.8 billion. In my opinion, it would not be asking too much for hon. members to reach a consensus in this House so that we may conclude today that the missing $1.8 billion must be returned to the Government of Quebec, and to all of the other governments.
Federal-provincial diplomacy is nothing to be passed over lightly. Such diplomacy goes back as far as Honoré Mercier—the hon. member for Sainte-Hubert will recall her local history—who called together the first interprovincial conference in 1888.
Something very significant, very weighty, has taken place in federal-provincial diplomacy. All provinces, with one voice, regardless of the political stripe of their government, without any partisan considerations whatsoever, all the provinces, in a block—a formation we love—joined together in what has since become known as the Saskatoon consensus, and called on the federal government to restor its contributions to health care services. The Minister of Health should bow to this demand. He should draw up the cheque forthwith, and hand over to the provinces, to the Government of Quebec in particular, $1.8 billion.
All of the provinces are calling for it. Can consideration be given to this? It is not, after all, a commonplace occurrence in our political system for all of the provinces to get together on one demand, in this case for the return of this money, as they did in the Saskatoon consensus.
There is something tragic about our situation. Every dollar not transferred to the provinces for the health system marks one more step closer to poverty for our citizens. These people do not care about that.
Where is this just society we were told about in 1968? If Judy LaMarsh were here, if Lester B. Pearson were here, if those people who helped build the Liberal tradition were here, would they not support this opposition motion? Of course they would. One cannot speak from both sides of one's mouth. One cannot claim to be fighting against poverty and, at the same time, with a total lack of sensitivity, slash transfers to the provinces.
If government members still have just a touch of sensitivity, if they still have some kind of social conscience, if they still have some dignity—this word has a meaning—they will vote with the Bloc Quebecois and will ensure that the transfers are made.
It is not easy to convince the Minister of Health. He is a stubborn man. He is a man who, when one gets to know him, is rather obtuse. I would like to quote some numbers and I would ask him to take them into consideration.
This amount of $1.8 billion, which is sorely needed in Quebec to provide services to the population as a whole, represents the hospitalization costs for 370,000 people and 20% of the operating budget of all hospitals in Quebec. It represents the cost of all the CLSCs put together. This is not an academic debate. What we are talking about today is not theory or scholarly debate. What we are talking about today is the capacity of the provinces as providers of health care to continue to serve the public.
I do not understand government members. I do not understand how our colleagues can behave as if nothing has happened when funds have been misappropriated. If today we were in a criminal court, charges would be laid. This is what one has to realize.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the member thought he could get away with it, but it will not be that easy.
According to him, this government, of which he is a member, has done a very good job of managing public finances. This is questionable to say the least. I hope the hon. member will rise. I know he always speaks the truth but the problem is he does not always tell the whole truth.
This opposition day should allow those who are listening to understand that this government has helped destabilize other governments' finances. How can anyone find it acceptable that, year after year since 1993, provinces have accumulated a short-fall of $42 billion in services that they have become unable to provide to the public?
The hon. member, who is parliamentary secretary—I know he would like to be minister but for the time being he is only parliamentary secretary—says they had no choice but to cut. They had no choice but to put their fiscal house in order.
We agree on the first part, but we do not understand why this government did it by transferring responsibility to the provinces. Will the hon. member not admit that this is a rather dishonest way to do things? The situation is this: by cutting $42 billion in provincial transfers, this government has forced the provinces to face difficulties they had not anticipated.
Will the hon. member admit that this government could have cut elsewhere, that it should have spared some sectors? Cabinet ministers should have decided to spare some sectors.
The Government of Quebec has said the same thing. You are all aware of our optimism as to the outcome of the November 30 election, but I can guarantee you that this optimism will make us work to the very end. We will take nothing for granted.
But the fact is that the hon. member could have agreed to follow the Quebec government's example and say that all social programs, all programs to fight poverty by helping people go back to work and to improve living conditions for the disadvantaged, would not be cut.
It would have been most gracious and totally appropriate on the part of this government to say: “Cuts in provincial transfers are out of the question”.
I ask the hon. member what we have been trying to find out since this morning: Can he tell us before we adjourn whether an influent member of this government will acknowledge the consensus reached in Saskatoon and immediately give some money, $2 billion, to the provinces? That is what we are waiting for.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I would not miss this opportunity to ask a few questions to the hon. member who, I think, belongs to the progressive wing of the Liberal Party. It is surely not by accident that she is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
But there is what I would call a gap. I can hardly understand the hon. member's position, not because I did not listen to her speech, not because I am insensitive, but because I think there is a basic contradiction.
To begin with, when we were young—and of course we still are—and we were learning about federalism, we were told it was a political system characterized by two levels of government, both being independent. Thus, the situation is at the very least confusing.
Given the actual state of federalism in Canada, it is possible for the federal government to completely destabilize the finances of the provinces.
The issue here is the fact that they are cutting $42 billion unilaterally, without any consultation, in a totally cavalier fashion that is almost insulting, if not downright indecent.
If officials from finance, or human resources development, or other departments were here today, they would have to agree with the Bloc Quebecois's conclusion that, since the Liberals came to power, their budgets have taken $42 billion from the provinces.
This is serious and dangerous. I think it is almost unconstitutional. What this means is that because the government shamelessly deprived the provinces of funds they had budgeted and anticipated, that they expected to find in their own budget, we are now left in a position that generated poverty and where the Government of Quebec, for instance, found itself unable to deliver all the services it could have.
Of course, one must admit—and I think my colleagues will agree—that the Government of Quebec was nothing short of extraordinary in managing the province's affairs. Deep down, you are probably thinking of the $5 day care program and the tuition freeze. But had it not been for the Quebec government's unfailing determination, it could not have avoided major impending difficulties.
What would be really interesting today would be for all the premiers to endorse the consensus reached in Saskatoon. I see my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, nodding in agreement. I hope he will be able to convince his cabinet colleagues. Usually, they listen to him very carefully. I am even told he sits quite close to the heritage minister.
That leads us to ask ourselves if we can expect the government party, backbenchers as well as ministers, to endorse today the consensus reached in Saskatoon. This consensus means that the government would immediately be prepared to authorize the Minister of Human Resources Development to transfer $2 billion to the provinces, because this amounts to the loss of revenues in the health transfer.
Job Creation In Quebec November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal prophets of doom across the country must be blushing.
Statistics Canada announced this morning that the unemployment rate in Quebec has dropped once again, and is now under the 10% level for the first time since September 1990. The good management of the Parti Quebecois has resulted in the best performance of the decade.
According to some people, having a federalist government in power would enhance the growth of employment, but that is not what the figures show.
From 1985 to 1994, the Liberals have done nothing but increase the unemployment rate in Quebec faster than the rate for the rest of Canada. The situation was only reversed once the Parti Quebecois came to office in 1994.
We have had enough demagoguery from the Liberals. Quebec is gradually recovering from the ravages caused by a submissive federalist government.
This coming November 30, the people of Quebec will show their confidence in a government that can stand up for itself.
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 30th, 1998
Yes, this is ridiculous. And it is such a great speech.
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 30th, 1998
We ask for a quorum check once more. This is a matter of integrity.
You cannot check the quorum the way you say it can be done. I am ready to abide by your ruling, but I should be able to find a basis for your ruling in precedence.