Pauline Picard

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Liberal member that, first of all, the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. Provinces know the needs of the municipalities. These are two levels of government that can work together to develop infrastructure programs and to solve their problems.

It is true that municipalities are in great need of support and money. The promise that was made was to transfer the gas tax dollars or the GST to the provinces so that the provinces could support their municipalities.

What is regrettable is that the federal government is once again interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Eleven billion dollars is a lot of money. The provinces, and workers as well, need support.

The EI fund has now reached $44 billion, yet we do not know what happened to that money. Those who need it receive only 50% of their salary, and only for a few weeks. These funds should be transferred to the provinces to help our workers, as should the $2 billion, to help our health care system and support all those who are in hospital.

To solve the problems, Canadians have to suffer devastating effects, which do not affect only municipalities. Our health care systems from coast to coast are in shambles, and the provinces have to struggle to prevent the emergence of a new order that would allow rich people to get better services than the others.

This is not what we want. I know that the government and the member do not want a two-tier system. However, since 1993-94, the government has cut transfers to the provinces to the bone. Those transfers were meant to support the health system, the sick, education and the development of programs to support the municipalities.

The government is trying to help the medicine go down a little. It is saying, “We will transfer the GST. We will help the municipalities”. However, it is not its role to help municipalities that way. It certainly can help them, but through the provinces, whose jurisdiction it is to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, those who were expecting to see a great moment in politics and the beginning of a new era with the Speech from the Throne of Martin I must have been very disappointed. Instead we had a long speech worthy of his predecessor, Chrétien IV.

The speech contains no big surprises, except for this decision to retroactively reimburse the goods and services tax to municipalities. The Prime Minister himself had already made commitments on a number of things. His predecessor had already promised a number of things as well. I will name one that we feel strongly about, that is the payment this year of $2 billion to Quebec and the provinces for health care. Thus, this government's work plan is a continuation of what has already been put forward and what has been going on since 1993.

Journalists and political analysts had to use a whole range of synonyms to ensure their texts were different from one another. We saw expressions like ambiguous speech, quiet invasions, vague game plan, mere formality, election opportunism, you name it.

The Prime Minister has not been able to embody change. In the continuity of more than 10 years of Liberal rule, the Speech from the Throne has left out the essence.

The most despicable and hypocritical thing about what we are hearing from the Liberal government and this Prime Minister is that, having caused the problems himself, he wants now to pass himself off as the rescuer. There are two terms that very aptly summarize this year's throne speech: meddling and hypocrisy.

The new Minister of Finance, who has learned his lessons well from the member for LaSalle—Émard, claims that the government's finances are tight, yet the Prime Minister is loosening the purse strings in favour of the municipalities. But, when the subject of health funding comes up, the government is incapable of honouring its commitments.

I do not know whether the Liberal member for Shefford has taken the time recently to look at what is going on in her own riding. Last week, the emergency room at the hospital centre in Granby reported a 400% occupancy rate. My question is this: Does she agree with her government's decision to fund the municipalities and not fund health?

Here is the situation: the government is committed to the tune of $11 billion for the municipalities and the environment, yet there is nothing for health. This decision comes at a time when the federal surplus for the current year might be as much as $7 billion.

Every year in the past ten, the strategy has been the same. In the budget, they downplay revenues and pad expenditures, so that in the end they end up with billions of dollars that were not forecast. As a result, they can put these billions of dollars into foundations and apply the surplus against the debt. I understand that the debt needs to be paid down, but the way things are going, it is going down all by itself.

Instead of creating foundations in order to duplicate areas of provincial jurisdiction, they should be investing more into areas where the present Prime Minister has made cuts. Hon. members will recall that, in 1993-94, there were drastic cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. There was also nothing for seniors, and they were not even informed about income supplement possibilities.

This new Prime Minister has changed absolutely nothing. He is doing exactly what this government has been doing since 1993.

In the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the author of the text has used a term he took the trouble to place in quotes. On page 2, it reads, “This government does 'get it'”. One of the meanings of the word used in French, pige, is to help oneself. The government is certainly helping itself through a variety of subterfuges, scams, smoke and mirrors. The Liberal government has been helping itself freely to public funds to satisfy its craving for visibility.

There is the sponsorship scandal, the misuse of funds we have raised more than 441 times in this House and which is the subject of a scathing report by the Auditor General.

The Liberal government forgot to mention it. It chose to gloss over the whole thing. It also forgot its promises. Before and during the election campaign, all the regions of Quebec and Canada are visited and told that funding will be allocated here and there, that there will be help for the less fortunate. It is always the same thing.

With the Speech from the Throne, we are being told in advance. Yet there is nothing about the employment insurance fund, support for developing countries through international aid, the mad cow crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, compensation for seniors who have been unfairly denied the guaranteed income supplement, or help for older workers who lose their jobs. There is nothing for the people in my riding who work for a company called Denim Swift, that is going to close its doors because of the competition inherent to globalization.

Some 600 jobs will disappear. Some 600 people will lose their jobs because of this closure. Some of these people are seniors or couples who have been working there for 25, 30, or 35 years. They are in their late fifties. There is nothing for them. The program for older worker adjustment was supposed to be reinstated. At present, there is a program that the provinces share. The major unions tell us that it is absolutely worthless and that it takes too much time to set it up. It takes months and is not worth the trouble. It does not help workers.

These workers have contributed to employment insurance for 35 or 40 years. They want the EI surplus to be used for programs that will help them cope or at least provide them with financial support until they are able to retire. After all they have given, they deserve some help.

Coming back to the throne speech, we can see that, on the sole issue of the bottomless pit that is the employment insurance fund, the Auditor General estimates that the accumulated surplus is close to $44 billion.

In 2001, just over half of the $15 billion paid into the employment insurance fund was distributed to the 2.4 billion unemployed workers. If you divide roughly half of $15 billion by 2.4 million unemployed, you get an average of about $290 a week. That is what was given back to those who lost their jobs.

For the year 2001 alone, $7 billion have just disappeared. We are being told that this sum has to be applied to the debt under various accounting principles. However, we know that several foundations have been established, but we never see where the money is going. We do not know what is going on with that. As several observers, journalists and others have said, it is robbery. The government is helping itself to the money in the employment insurance fund instead of supporting those people who need that money.

Here is my question. Do members find it acceptable that, at the same time, communications officers hired through the sponsorship program were making over $100 million, often without any real work being done?

Do members find that acceptable? People are preparing their income tax returns these days and find that they are sending a lot of money to the government. When they realize how their money is being wasted, do members think that they are happy?

I would have a lot more to say on this throne speech, but I know that I have only one minute left. I truly believe that, in the next election, people will pass judgment on what the government has done with their tax dollars.

[Health, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's withdrawal from health care funding, the aging population, the increasing costs of health care in our hospitals, and the fiscal imbalance all threaten the very existence of the universal health care system.

Luckily, there are still men and women in our communities who are concerned with the quality of life of their fellow citizens.

Today, I would like to acknowledge a significant financial contribution of $100,000 from the Cascades company so that the Hôtel-Dieu d'Arthabaska can continue to serve its population.

I salute the initiative of the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cascades, Alain Lemaire, and the participation of all the people at Cascades, and remind the House that improvements in the effectiveness of the health system are also dependent on effective funding.

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the arguments being used by the Prime Minister are pretty hard to swallow, when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says he was present when she raised the issue in caucus, that the report was on the website as far back as the fall of 2000, that he was able to obtain all the details as the Minister of Finance and Vice-President of the Treasury Board. Yet he did nothing.

How can the Prime Minister keep on saying he knew nothing of all this?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Nothing is settled, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said. Enough is enough, I say.

There is something else I do not understand. We considered Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19. No one wants them. How is it that my government colleagues and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development do not understand this? None of the aboriginals want this. How can that be? Who can answer my question?

Bill C-19 was drafted for the well-being of the first nations, but even they are saying that it does not make sense, that it is demeaning and still places them under trusteeship. Why is the government and its minister insisting on shoving this down their throats? There is a limit. When is this going to end?

I will list the primary reasons people do not want Bill C-19. It is part of a long line of measures to modernize the Indian Act, with Bills C-6 and C-7 before it. As I mentioned earlier, there is a consensus among the first nations for first nations taxation reform.

There are, nonetheless, some good points in this bill. But it was created for rich first nations from western Canada and does not meet the glaring needs of most communities. The voluntary aspect of the bill raises many questions. If a first nation does not sign on, will it be able to receive subsidies from Ottawa for its development or does it have to sign on in order to be able to borrow from financial institutions? By the same token, Bill C-19 allows the federal government to free itself from its fiduciary responsibility to first nations.

Although the minister said that the bill does not affect section 35 of the Constitution, we had to fight to have a non-derogation clause included in each bill.

Bill C-19 is an attack on historical treaties and a threat to the inherent right to self-government provided for under section 35. The bill was drafted without consultation or consent, and based on a flawed process. Therein lies the problem. It was done without consultation or consent. And we are told this is for the well-being of first nations.

I will stop here because I am out of time, but rest assured, we will vote against this bill.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

As if they were marionettes, as my hon. colleague from Jonquière says. These are people who have the right to be fully recognized. If we recognize them, we should give them their financial independence, gave them the means to develop and to improve their quality of life.

When the committee decided to visit particular communities in 1993, the focus was always on the health and well-being of aboriginal children. It is shocking to see children so poor. It is truly alarming. It moves you to tears.

If the children are poor, it is because their parents are poor. The parents are not neglecting their kids. They want to feed them and encourage them to go to school too. However, they have nothing, not even plumbing or toilets. They live in hovels. There is nothing, not even a school.

Nothing is being done about this and the first nations are told that their peoples have been recognized. The rest of the world says we treat our aboriginals well. In reality, this is not true. We have been studying these issues and promising all kinds of things for years.

In 1983, a special parliamentary committee on aboriginal self-government tabled a report. In 1988, with Bill C-15, another point of view took hold. There were other initiatives in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

In the meantime, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development carried out studies. We bothered these people; we said, “Come see us, look how we are taking care of you, we need to hear from you”.

One or two years later, a bill gets passed by the House, then the report gets shelved. It gets covered in a good inch of dust, and then everything starts all over again.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with great emotion that I rise to speak in this debate on the amendments to Bill C-19.

When I arrived here in 1993, my leader gave me the role of health critic. At that time, we were the official opposition. The health committee recommended doing a study of the health and welfare of the native peoples.

I was really shocked and I could hardly believe what was going on in some communities and among the native peoples of this vast country of Canada. One thing really astonished me, and that was what the chiefs of the first nations came to tell us in the committee. They warned the government and the committee that this was the last time they were going to be studied. Every time there was a change of government, everyone got very busy telling the native peoples they were going to help them, support them, and improve their quality of life.

At that time, I accepted the government's intentions in good faith. Of course, I was in the opposition. I also was one of the first to agree to the native peoples' demands and say that we should make things happen and not leave the report on the shelf to gather dust.

That was a warning. The first nations, and the women in particular, came to tell us that for hundreds of years people had always promised them the same thing. They had been parked on the reserves. Then, we acknowledged their existence, but dragged things out. They were made wards of the state and told that the state would take care of them. However, taking care of them did not mean just sending them cheques. First, why keep them as wards when they are acknowledged as the first nations and as a people? Why do we always want to make decisions for the native people when we recognize their autonomy? Why is there still this hand pulling the strings?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what does the Minister of Finance say in response to the report from ENAP's Observatoire de l'administration publique, which states that from 1994 to 1998 the provinces and unemployment insurance bore the brunt of the federal government's budget cuts?

[The Economy, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister likes to act superior to the other G-7 countries, saying he has no deficit. What he forgets to say, however, is that Canada is the only country that gets other people to pay off its deficit.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that he has eliminated his deficit by choking the provinces and stealing from the unemployed?

[City of Drummondville, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a Statistics Canada study on the industrial diversification of Canada's major cities shows that between 1992 and 2002 Drummondville was the leader among census agglomerations under 100,000 inhabitants. This is proof that the recovery strategy in effect since the mid-1980s has yielded dividends.

Drummondville's performance is all the more exceptional because its index surpasses those of larger agglomerations such as Ottawa, Calgary, Victoria or Windsor. Drummondville's growth rate remains steady. The year 2002 was the 11th consecutive year in which we succeeded in creating more than 1,000 industrial jobs.

Finally, the strength of Drummondville is the diversity of its economy. Few regions in Quebec or in Canada can boast of an industrial structure with so many strong sectors.

I congratulate Martin Dupont, the industrial commissioner, and his entire team for making Drummondville a place that can attract large-scale projects.