Pauline Picard

[Diane Descôteaux, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, for Diane Descôteaux, a poet from Bon-Conseil, the past few months have been quite memorable, with 10 of her poems winning awards on the other side of the Atlantic.

To name a few, she received the award of merit for unpublished works, won the Apollon d'or French literary competition, an honourable mention in the 2003 poetry competition, first prize in the classic, neo-classic sonnet category of the Millen'Arts Journal , the first Robert-Jolly award from the Société des poètes et artistes de France, and the bronze medal in classic poetry from the Académie européenne des Arts-France.

For 2004, the poet hopes her two new collections will be picked up by a publisher. For the rest, she will continue to write and keep writing for a long time.

I congratulate Diane Descôteaux for her excellent work and for the well-deserved recognition she has been given.

[Middle East, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Israeli helicopters killed the spiritual leader of Hamas in an air strike as he left a mosque. Two of his bodyguards and five bystanders also died.

This has triggered an international outcry. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the foreign affairs ministers of the European Union, who voiced concerns about the consequences of this assassination, in stating, “Not only are extrajudicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law, which is a key element in the fight against terrorism”.

We also support a motion today by four members who state that Canadian law must recognize suicide attacks as crimes against humanity.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that acts of violence by both sides must cease and urges the Government of Canada and international organizations to step up their efforts to put an end to violence in the Middle East. The road to peace starts with an end to violence.

[Taxation, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has enormous budget surpluses at hand without making any effort, while the provinces and Quebec that have to provide the services directly to the people.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, as he is getting ready to budget enormous surpluses, despite his encroachments on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, the latter are about to announce deficits even though they have made major cuts and painful choices?

[Taxation, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the governments of Quebec and the provinces are denouncing the serious fiscal imbalance in Canada, citing a new study by the Conference Board. The fiscal imbalance consists of the $10 billion surplus for next year, which will gradually rise to $80 billion in 2019.

Will the Prime Minister admit that there is a fiscal imbalance in Canada and that the only way to solve the serious problems in the fields of health, education and poverty is for the federal government to agree to correct this fiscal imbalance once and for all?

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. It will give me a chance to speak about the agricultural producers in Quebec.

Some 50% of all Canada's milk production is based in Quebec. Every one of those farmers in that 50% is affected by the culled cow situation. In the West, they say they are major beef producers, but dairy farming is concentrated in Quebec. If we talk about dairy farming, we are talking about culled cows.

At present, culled cows are no longer sufficient, in that revenues for dairy farmers are no longer adequate. When cows no longer produce milk, they are sent to the slaughterhouse to become meat, such as hamburger, for instance. This income has enabled farmers to make ends meet. This income, for example, often goes to paying down the mortgage or loans that were taken out to buy farm machinery.

It is very difficult for them. When I toured our ridings with other members from the centre of Quebec, we saw people's despair. Many young people who have taken up farming are now facing bankruptcy. Their despair and impotence in the face of this crisis is very obvious.

We keep telling them that Liberal government officials are travelling to the United States and meeting with the secretaries of state who are managing the embargo imposed on Canada, but our delegations always come back empty-handed, without any solution. What do they do on these trips? What do they talk about? The embargo has yet to be lifted, and our producers are still being punished.

I would also like to point out that the mad cow crisis occurred in Alberta, over 6,000 kilometres away from our region. When the same crisis occurred in England, which is about 100 kilometres from the French border, France was not punished.

The Bloc Quebecois has always asked the federal government to frame this crisis in a regional context. In Quebec, we were the first ones to set up a tracking system. Since 1993, we have had a system which guarantees that, should this kind of problem ever occur, we would be able to track the sick animals within the hour. Therefore, why punish a whole region because of one cow that came from a province located 6,000 kilometres away?

We really need adequate programs now. It is very important to maintain agricultural programs, because farming is the very basis of life. If people can no longer eat, they will die.

In Quebec, we have a system that is recognized throughout the world as being extremely safe—

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Champlain.

I am pleased to take part in this debate. The motion before us today brings out two realities. The first is the government's loss of control over certain spending. The second concerns what could be done with this money to help people face all the crises in the agricultural sector.

In her report, the Auditor General revealed a whole series of irregularities in the management of certain programs, such as the sponsorship program, where $252 million went to meet the Liberal government's needs for visibility in Quebec. In the same report, we find that the Liberal-connected communications firms received commissions worth around $100 million, often just for moving a cheque from one hand to the other. This was done by circumventing all Treasury Board rules.

I must also say something about poor management at the Royal Canadian Mint, which went from a profit of $23.1 million in 1999 to an operating loss of $6.6 million in 2002. During that same period, the salaries of senior managers rose by 45%. That happened without any annual reports to Parliament ever mentioning these increases, which were certainly substantial.

There was also the strange disappearance of $3 million paid out in another visibility-enhancing operation, in which Groupaction and Groupe Polygone were apparently involved. Where did that money go?

Let us now look at federal propaganda, for which there seem to be two criteria: the excessive quantity of money involved and the concentration of such spending in Quebec. Let us look at some estimates for one year, say 2001-02: government advertising, $270 million; Canada Day, $5 million; Queen's Jubilee secretariat, $11 million; Communication Canada, about $50 million; and $43 million for propaganda related to the sponsorship program.

These expenditures total $379 million. To this amount, we should add various initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage relating to multiculturalism and grants by the Privy Council to organizations such as the Council for Canadian Unity. I think we are getting up near the billions of dollars.

With respect to advertising, according to data from the Nielson Advertising firm, quoted in Robert Bernier's latest book, entitled Un siècle de propagande au Canada , in 1999, the Government of Canada was the number three advertiser in the country, behind General Motors and BCE, with advertising expenses of $97.1 million for the year.

According to information obtained through a question on the Order Paper, the federal government spent $270 million on advertising in 2001-02. Add to that its huge investments in other communications activities for establishing its legitimacy. In 2001-02, advertising and communications expenses were approximately $422 million.

Between 1993 and 2002, the budget for organizing Canada Day increased dramatically, from $2.4 million to $6.8 million. Year in year out, Quebec receives $5 million for its celebrations, or 70% of the federal budget. That is what comes of the insatiable Liberal obsession with visibility.

During that time, farmers are going through a very difficult situation and need help. In 2003, farm incomes dropped to the lowest level in three years. Cattle farmers have seen their income drop by more than one-third. Cull sells today at 30% of last year's price. Yet, the government is taking a long time providing farmers with the help they need.

The program for cattle farmers ended on December 31, 2003.

Under the cull cow program, producers are not getting any compensation for 35% of their cows. While this is going on, Ottawa is looking forward to a huge surplus of $7 billion to $8 billion, it is spending money on useless propaganda as though there were no tomorrow, and it is mismanaging everything that it gets its hands on.

Rather than putting the public service at the service of its friends, the government should adequately fulfil its responsibilities towards farmers. This is why I support the motion of the Conservative Party.

I would like to remind hon. members and the public that the Bloc Quebecois played a key role in uncovering this scandal. If Quebec had only been represented by Liberal members, this scandal would never have surfaced. Since May 2000, the Bloc Quebecois has asked over 450 questions on this issue. My colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, raised it on May 12, 2000, with a question on the use of front men at Communication Canada.

There is another example of mismanagement. I am referring to the gun registry program. The gun control legislation was passed in 1995, despite the reservations of several provinces.

Quebeckers, who were marked by the tragedy that occurred at École polytechnique, in 1989, still strongly support the program. Incidentally, the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill when it was passed.

However, the Canadian Firearms Program has seen many technical and budgetary excesses. According to the December 2002 report of the Auditor General, the implementation costs of the program, which were originally estimated at $2 million—the program was supposed to be self-funding through the collection of licence and registration fees—will be in excess of $1 billion by 2004-05, or 500 times more than the original estimate. We are talking about cost overruns that may now be at over $2 billion.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the management of this program is a total fiasco. Still, we should not compromise the objective of protecting the public by making cuts to this program. It is clear, however, that it must be better managed.

Finally, there are too many useless expenditures in Ottawa. The federal government is very rich, too rich. With so much money, it could easily fulfil its responsibilities, but it prefers to spend uselessly.

The Léonard committee set up by the Bloc Quebecois to examine government spending estimated that it would be possible for the federal government to save $5.7 billion per year, without—and I emphasize this point—cutting services or transfers to the public.

At a time when agricultural producers are starving to death, the provinces cannot make ends meet and the health system is subject to incredible pressure, the wasteful ways of the Liberal Party are scandalous.

A minority government could not take such liberties with taxpayers' money. It is up to the voters to decide if they want these wasteful ways to continue. Recent polls indicate that voters are tired of the Liberals' lax attitude.

The mad cow crisis continues, and the assistance programs are insufficient. Despite the partial reopening of the American border to beef imports from all parts of Canada on August 8, the majority of Canadian beef production is still subject to an embargo. In addition to rising costs and problems selling their cattle, producers are getting one-third less for their animals than last year.

The federal assistance package for cattle producers expired on December 31, 2003, and the government is slow in making an announcement, even with a significant surplus.

Producers of cull cows, an industry mainly in Quebec since the ridings in central Quebec represent 47% of all dairy production, have seen prices for their animals drop yet again. Last week, cows were selling for 18¢ per pound at auction, 70% less compared to last year. However, the federal cull cow program compensates these producers for 65% of their cattle only. They have to absorb the remaining 35%. That is what they are being told.

The money needed from Ottawa to provide cattle producers with temporary emergency assistance is approximately $300 million. This is more or less equivalent to the funds invested in absolutely nothing through the sponsorship program.

If the government has the money to satisfy its hunger for visibility, it can find the money to help our producers through the crisis affecting this important industry.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on his excellent speech. In my opinion it was very pertinent. The people listening will certainly have recognized how one ought to act if one is seeking transparency in the handling of public funds.

I am particularly happy to take part in this debate on the NDP motion. I am happy because in the past, I also introduced, with a colleague, a bill along the same lines.

When trying to be transparent, one concern must be the criteria for investment. Workers who entrust their savings to pension funds have the right to know where their money is going.

This is why I think pension fund administrators should, in their annual reports, present the social, ethical or environmental considerations that they have taken into account before making their investments on the financial markets.

Must pension plan boards be compelled to make socially responsible investments? I think they must. I believe it would be a very good idea if we could, at the very least, oblige the administrators to adopt a policy like this themselves and let their contributors know about it.

Concretely, half the money traded on world financial markets belong to small investors in pension funds. This represents, Canada-wide, some $600 billion, about $90 billion of that for businesses under federal control. That is the money of workers, and it has become one of the major engines of globalization. These investors hold considerable influence in their hands with the potential to bring about sustainable development anywhere and everywhere on this planet.

An ethical investment policy would encourage businesses to provide broader progress reports than a mere financial report, because it introduces the concept of a three-fold approach to accountability: a financial statement coupled with a social and environmental statement. This new approach can very readily be integrated with the company's general strategy.

Institutional investors, pension funds in particular, carry considerable financial clout. Half of the shares of major Canadian corporations are owned by pension or mutual funds. In Quebec, the assets of complementary pension funds are estimated at over $100 billion, some $30 billion of that in the government and public employees pension plan.

In Canada, we find that pension fund administrators, lacking a precise definition of their fiduciary obligations, feel they do not have enough latitude to take social responsibility into consideration in their decisions.

Because the only demands upon them concern the financial aspect, these fund administrators must be capable of proving they have invested well from the financial point of view, regardless of where they have invested. For example, they may have invested in companies that use child labour. This is important, and this is what we are opposed to. The funds of the public, the pension funds of small investors, which the government has in its hands, must be invested in businesses that are not involved in human rights violations.

As I said, some governments have already adopted changes to their legislation to facilitate the introduction of non-financial criteria for their investment policies, particularly ones to enhance accountability on this aspect. This is the case in the United Kingdom, Belgium and France.

In Canada at present socially responsible investments, that is investments for which at least one of the three approaches to ethical investment is applied, apparently total around $50 billion, close to $5 billion of that in ethical funds and another $5 billion in union funds such as the CSN or the FTQ.

The federal government's role in promoting corporate social responsibility is to lead by example. In fact, when it purchases goods and services, the government supports economic development or is responsible for managing capital entrusted to it. We may wonder if it would be appropriate for this government to compel the companies it does business to apply socially responsible principles.

Even if I agree that retirement fund boards and administrators are responsible for determining to what extent retirement fund investments will be based on criteria to ensure social responsibility, I believe that the state can act to ensure that these choices are more transparent.

In the United Kingdom, Germany and France, retirement fund administrators or trustees are already required to make public the investment policies behind their pension plan investment policy. Observers believe this is a step in the right direction.

In Quebec, under the previous government, a parliamentary commission considered this issue. When will the federal government decide to act? No one knows. Consequently, we hope that government members will vote in favour of the motion by our NDP colleague.

In conclusion, investments can be made according to criteria that promote constructive corporate behaviour and balance between profitability and social responsibility.

Socially responsible investment means, first and foremost, that workers must be made aware of how their money is being invested. As a result, they need access to relevant information about the purpose of investments being made on their behalf.

While finance minister, the current Prime Minister said he supported the principles underlying the NDP motion. Now he just has to turn his words into actions.

[Equalization Payments, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to get down to real business. How can he expect us to take him seriously, when this very morning the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance refused to apply retroactivity, in the event that the equalization agreement is renewed several months past its expiry date, thereby depriving Quebec and the provinces of financial resources, which they need precisely in order to get down to real business?

[Gaston Jacques, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like many Quebeckers, Drummondville airman Gaston Jacques gave his life in defence of his country during World War II.

On May 22, 1944, he and his crewmates were shot down by the Germans.

His family was to never hear of him until a history buff, a woman from Ontario, set out to look for the family of Gaston Jacques.

Some 60 years later, the Jacques learned that their lost brother is buried in a Canadian cemetery in the Bretteville area, in France.

The Jacques family has also just learned that, next year, a memorial to the sacrifice of Gaston Jacques and his crewmates, who died to liberate France, will be erected on the site where Gaston's plane crashed, in Sées.

I therefore pay tribute to the memory of Gaston Jacques, a war hero from Drummondville.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me a few seconds to respond to the member.

I find that kind of reaction somewhat disappointing and humiliating. I did not complain. Nothing could be clearer; the public which is noticing it and saying it.

Only those who close their eyes to what is going on in and around their own region make these kinds of comments.