Pauline Picard

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate with a barely contained sense of joy. With your permission, I first want to extend greetings to the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm, who have chosen to be represented in this House by members whom I congratulate, who will truly defend the interests of their constituents and the interests of all Quebeckers.

This is only the beginning. The Liberal government, in its arrogance, has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

Year after year, prebudget consultations allow the powerful Standing Committee on Finance to meet with many groups and individuals, both here on the Hill and during a cross-Canada tour.

There is nothing surprising in this report, except for the fact that the Bloc Quebecois seems to have won the first round with respect to the microbreweries. The report contains a recommendation to reduce excise tax for small breweries in Canada.

My hon. colleagues and the committee chair still remember the events of last spring. This time, Canadian brewers came before the committee.

In a letter addressed to me on November 15, the president and CEO of the Brewers Association of Canada informed me of his meeting with the committee chair. The Association considers this situation to be critical to the brewing industry's viability and financial well-being.

The Brewers Association of Canada lends credence to our concerns and justifies our vigorous efforts to make the Canadian Liberal government aware of this highly detrimental situation for microbrewers.

You will notice that, just to be cautious, I spoke of a first victory in this matter. In fact, despite the efforts of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of Finance has the upper hand. The future of this sector of the brewing industry, an extremely important industry for the regional development of Canadian provinces, and particularly for Quebec, lies in his hands.

Some political observers joke that the Bloc Quebecois plays provincial politics in Ottawa. If we do not stand up for the provinces, then who will? The Liberal government's centralizing decisions have serious consequences on the provinces' future, and on the future of our constituents.

In the most recent federal budget, the Liberals pursued their ultimate goal, a Canada that evolves without the provinces and without Quebec. This is called nation building.

The report of the finance committee speaks volumes. We feel it completely ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. There are no measures to increase transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and assistance for seniors.

During prebudget consultations, several witnesses gave us their views on how to use the huge surplus the federal government piles up year after year.

Speaking of surplus, do I have to remind the House that the current Minister of Finance is a carbon copy of his predecessor, who delighted in playing hide-and-seek when it came to forecasting budget surpluses. You know where we stand on that. This is not the first time that we have criticized the current Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, for doing the exact same thing.

They underestimate revenue and overestimate expenditures. The end result is a budget surplus that is hidden away in so-called funds for economic prudence and in all sorts of funds that are constantly being renamed such as innovation funds, and what not. The truth is being hidden from us.

At some point, this will allow the government to hide things from the general public and maybe even prevent parliamentarians from expressing their opinions on what the government could do with these huge surpluses.

Such behaviour is a blatant lack of transparency. We are told that because of accounting measures and techniques, money has to go toward the debt even though there are desperate needs. Just look at the 1.5 million poor children in Canada, even though the government pledged 12 years ago to solve this problem. It still exists. If there are poor children in Canada, it is because their parents are poor.

Money could be invested in programs to support families who are truly in need and also in helping the provinces. It must not be forgotten that the surpluses come from cuts made to the Canada social transfer. So many cuts were made that the provinces ended up long on need and short on money. They can no longer meet the priorities of their citizens because of this lack of money and a growing list of needs, especially in health.

I can safely say that the Liberal performance is not very impressive. Since 1997, the forecasts by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government have been off by more than $65 billion. When one is enjoying huge surpluses, as is the case for this government, $1 billion more or less is no big deal. The government is not doing its share and, considering how it is using the surpluses, it has appropriated $65 billion.

Sixty-five billion dollars is equivalent to 65 times $100 million, or 6,500 times a $1 million jackpot. At the same time, this government candidly admits that it is not providing adequate help to low income families and even less to families with disabled children. Yet, the recent Speech from the Throne was full of nice promises. This will be the legacy of this Prime Minister, a man of many words but very little action.

The main contender for the job of Prime Minister goes even further. He was the one holding the purse strings and now he has the nerve to say that the lack of a support program for families with disabled children was unforgivable. But who was the Minister of Finance in 1994-95, when drastic cuts were made to the Canada social transfer? Who agreed to everything that was proposed by cabinet and by the Prime Minister? The former Minister of Finance. Who began to play this little game of underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures? The former Minister of Finance. So, he should not suddenly come and tell us that he finds it unforgivable not to have a support program for families with disabled children, considering that, since he was in office, the number of Canadian children living in poverty has climbed to one and a half million. He could have done something about this. He had all the tools. He could have developed programs. The public will not be fooled by the fact that he is now saying that it is unforgivable, when he is in fact trying to make political gains.

It is even worse, because people who really need help are excluded. Think about the disability tax credit. The cuts severely affected social programs. Moreover, the current Minister of Finance just cut the disability tax credit.

Even the department has admitted that 20,000 families whose net incomes are not over $20,000 cannot receive the tax credit. This is shameful, because families with incomes of under $20,000 are living below the poverty line.

According to the Conference Board figures, the federal government is going to pocket more and more of the budget surplus in future, while Quebec and the provinces face huge deficits. Why? Because Ottawa is pocketing too much money compared to its needs. That is called fiscal imbalance. This approach will inevitably take us in the direction of fiscal imbalance.

The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance has of course not commented on the brutal reality of fiscal imbalance. The federal government has the means to remedy the situation, but not the political will to do so. The ultimate objective is starve out the provinces so they can be forced to renew the social union pact and continue the so called “nation building”.

We are well aware that the government, with its centralist bent, wants to get its hooks into all the powers of the provinces. It needs all these levers in a world of globalization. It no longer respects the Constitution. Health care, for instance, is a provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. The starving provinces are being forced to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. The needs are too great and they are being forced to be accountable. Fortunately, Quebec did not sign the social union pact. This is the plan for the next budget, to present it to us saying “We have the money. We are going to impose conditions on you, because we want to build a nation.”

We know that the federal government plans to keep on helping itself to the surplus that has built up in order to invade the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The people in our ridings need to know that what the federal government is doing comes at a price. What is that price? Fifteen billion dollars. That is the amount the Liberals have spent without justification in areas that are not under their jurisdiction, multiplying the waste, the overlaps and the squabbles.

The findings of the Romanow report are an excellent example. This spendthrift government, which has no understanding of accountability, would like to manage the health care system. This government, which thinks that money grows on trees and is incapable of properly managing its own programs, would like to tell the provinces how to run their health care system. That is called mismanagement. The federal government cannot even manage programs within its jurisdiction.

We can talk about the gun program. It cost $1 billion to set it up, and it has yet to be completed. Half the objectives have not been met, and this has already cost taxpayers $1 billion. The message to the provinces is “Give us all the means and powers, and we will manage it”. This is completely outrageous.

Employment insurance is another issue that is important to me. The member for Shefford is right to hide behind the curtains. She was the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which tabled a unanimous report on creating an independent employment insurance fund. She is so influential with her colleagues and her government that the report was shelved.

My constituents shared a comment with me that I would like to repeat here. They said “Instead of strutting from one riding to the next and attending photo op after photo op, the member for Shefford should have been busy doing her job and putting pressure on her government. This would be better for her personal record.”

The Bloc Quebecois believes that employees and workers have a right to their contributions. To that end, one suggestion is for the fund to be jointly managed by representatives of contributors. This needs to be an independent fund, an independent employment insurance fund.

It will mean $3 billion less for the federal surplus, but $3 billion more for men and women who really need the money. We are talking about $3 billion per year.

This report tabled after the budget consultations contains nothing to support older workers who wind up without a job. They are often unable to find a job because of their age. On numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has come out in support of the Program for Older Workers Adjustment, POWA.

When the Celanese plant closed in the riding of Drummond, we asked questions and used every means at our disposal to inform the Minister of Human Resources Development at the time, in order to help older workers. These workers had given 35 or 40 years of their lives to the plant, sometimes more. The plant closed and they had paid EI premiums all of their working lives, for 40 years. When they needed employment insurance, the government refused outright to help them.

We asked that POWA be reinstated. What we wanted was an improved program for older workers. The program had already been tried. The government had dropped the program during its cuts, promising to come up with an improved version of the POWA. Nothing was done and there is nothing to indicate that this type of program will be reintroduced.

The prebudget consultations led to a weak report, one that gives the Minister of Finance all of the latitude he needs. One might think that the Liberal majority is unanimously behind the Minister of Finance, who will likely be a candidate to succeed the Prime Minister, if not the heir apparent.

In terms of infrastructure, the environment, international assistance and the airline security charge, there is nothing. The committee does nothing but pay lip service. We need a joint infrastructure program between the federal government and Quebec and the other provinces.

The federal government has to offer incentives for the renewable energies industry. This could be done, for example, with significant and tangible support for wind energy generation. It is not enough to run ads on television showing wind mills turning. We need more than pictures, we need more than wind, we need a support program and investments that will allow us to save the environment and create employment.

My colleague, the member for Jonquière, has already introduced a bill to promote the use of public transit. The Liberals rejected it out of hand. We are again calling for a tax credit for public transit users.

As for international aid, the Government of Canada has a pitiful record internationally. The report of the Standing Committee on Finance does not even go so far as to require the federal government to respect its international commitments. It contains no deadlines for reaching its aid objective of 0.7% of the GDP.

It is important to remember that of the 4.6 billion people who live in developing countries, 800 million do not get enough food, 850 million are illiterate, one billion have no access to clean drinking water and 2.4 billion have no access to basic services.

I still have much to say, but in conclusion, I hope that the Minister of Finance demonstrates that he is capable of being bold and that his next budget proves to be more daring than that of his predecessor.

I hope that he will acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and that he will accept to solve this untenable situation. If not, we will invite Quebeckers to support the Bloc Quebecois. We will invite the sovereignists to join forces, as they did in Berthier—Montcalm and in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, to elect members who have Quebec's development, and our interests at heart.

In closing, right now, the only real change for Quebec is sovereignty.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago, 14 young women from l'École Polytechnique in Montreal were tragically killed because of their gender. Fourteen young women shot in cold blood, hundreds of lives shattered, and everyone in Quebec shaken.

On this Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, the Bloc Quebecois is joining all the organizations dedicated to the advocacy and support of battered women in taking concrete, visible action against violence against women.

We also want to pay tribute to all the victims of such unacceptable violence and urge men to mobilize in support of women's action to eliminate violence against women and girls.

We in the Bloc Quebecois hope that the federal government will respond to the World March of Women demands and make the necessary money available, so that the many obstacles in the lives of women can be removed.

[Taxation, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the government's tremendous tolerance, which prevents it from closing up tax loopholes, is due to the fact that the former Minister of Finance, who should have been the first person to see that these loopholes are closed, took full advantage of them during all these years?

[Taxation, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is questioning certain tax practices allowed by the government. These practices cause the government to lose of hundreds of millions in tax revenues by allowing companies to take advantage of tax havens.

What is the Minister of Finance waiting for to amend these tax practices criticized by the Auditor General for 10 years now?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am tempted to say to my colleague that it depends on who is reading the report. I am well aware that Mr. Romanow is a former New Democratic premier.

In response to the 25% share, it says a minimum of 25%. That is the least it should be. Who will assure us that the federal government will go higher than 25%? In the beginning, when the program was created, it was 50%. It was not 25%. Currently, the federal government provides 14%. Now, the report proposes a minimum contribution of 25%. The government is beginning to look foolish, as I said earlier. It has always denied this. We asked many questions about this. Recently the Department of Health again said it was not true, that the figure was not 14%, but that it was now 32%. However, all of the provinces, all of the premiers, all of the health ministers, everyone who has assessed the situation and all those who have tabled reports have said that the funding is now 14 cents on the dollar, not 50 cents any more.

We should not be celebrating the fact that we have been offered a paltry 25% and have been told that this is a minimum. We know how things work around here. We are already being stretched thin at 25%. It would be very difficult to get the 50% that was promised at the outset, when the health care system was created.

As for the federal government's share of the funding, the Romanow report, from our reading of it, proposes increasing federal funding of health care services. However, these payments would be subject to certain administrative conditions set by Ottawa. That is the problem. Why attach strings to the money?

Once again, even though we have repeated it many times, health care services, or health care management, is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government has no business poking its nose into it. What it should do is return the tax money collected from Quebeckers and Canadians. That is the priority right now. These returned tax dollars must go toward health.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is the Bloc Quebecois health critic, for his very eloquent speech. He obviously knows his stuff. It is difficult for me to rise after him and to match his energy level in sharing my thoughts on the motion that we are presenting today.

I will read that motion for the benefit of the public, because we did not hear it this morning:

That the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health care.

This opposition day follows the tabling of the Romanow report. It can now be said that we did not need this report to tell us that more funding is needed for health. As my colleague pointed out, seven provinces have already released reports. These reports were prepared by competent people, who have already told us about the problems relating to funding.

Indeed, the Clair report and the Séguin commission on the fiscal imbalance clearly showed, with studies conducted by very serious firms and with supporting figures, that an additional $7 billion to $8 billion was needed to maintain Canada's health system and to respect the five major principles that were the foundations of that system when it was first created.

The federal government did not need to spend $18 million and have a large number of witnesses come and tell us that the problem with our health system is related to a shortage of money, or to factors such as the aging population. This is not the first time that this issue has been raised. We have been talking about it since the Bloc Quebecois first came here, since 1993. The problems in the health system began when this government made deep cuts to the Canada health and social transfer. There has been no new money and no increases since. We were already experiencing growth problems, because of the aging population, which requires more care, and rising costs for new technologies and drugs. In 1994, before the budget cuts, we already needed money.

We did not need the Romanow commission. We already had reports from seven of the provinces. In Quebec, we had the Clair report. My hon. colleague identified the problems quite well. We have a prescription drug plan. We have developed a network of CLSCs, which provide basic health services. We have all that. People from the other provinces and even other countries come to Quebec to see what we have done to meet our pressing health care needs.

There are deficiencies in the system at the present time. Of course, the program is not perfect. However, if we had money right now, things would be different. We have determined how to improve the programs. All we need now is the money. In his report, Mr. Romanow, for whom I have a lot of respect, clearly said what the Prime Minister of Canada wanted to hear.

Yes, the government will invest. They are aware that the system is underfunded. They are aware that they have cut our health care to the bone. They cannot keep saying “No, there is no fiscal imbalance” when everyone else recognizes that there is fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces in the health care sector. It starts to sound a bit silly. The government can no longer say that there is no fiscal imbalance where health care is concerned. It does not make any sense.

The Prime Minister said to Mr. Romanow “Yes, it is fine. You will tell the public that we know that funding is insufficient, but that we will put conditions on it”. Conditions are unacceptable to us. Under the Constitution, managing health care is a provincial responsibility. Then why have conditions?

Right now, the government wants to create a nationwide health care system. The Romanow report says that we must not end up with 13 different health care systems. This jeopardizes the existence of CLSCs and the universal system. CLSCs are the pride of Quebec's health care system. Other provinces come to see how our system works.

The Romanow report says essentially that the commissioners went to Quebec to see how the CLCS network works, and would like to implement such a system, but Quebec will have to step aside, because they want to do it their way. This is totally ridiculous.

Personally, I fail to see how creating new structures, imposing new standards and hiring public service employees will solve problems.

Putting the health care system in the hands of the federal government can only lead to disaster, and examples of mismanagement by the federal government abound. That is the point I want to make.

Just this week, the Auditor General tookd the federal government to task for wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money and for seriously crippling the delivery of several services. And this same government is telling Quebec and the other provinces what to do on health care. This is not very reassuring for the public.

Since this government took office, we have seen countless horror stories and major boondoggles. In the end, the current Prime Minister's record will be very poor, indeed.

For instance, in 1994, Revenue Canada had a huge deficit of $8 billion in unrecovered taxes. In 1995, $720 million was wasted in the construction of the bridge to Prince Edward Island. In 1996, harmonization of the GST in the Atlantic provinces cost $1 billion. In 1997, the Liberal government sold its air navigation system at a discount, when it could have sold it for $1 billion more. In 1998, there was the kerfuffle with the social insurance numbers. In 1999, the surplus in the employment insurance fund was ridiculously high; the Liberal government was going to use this surplus to finance its other activities. Need I add review of the employment insurance eligibility requirements to the list? In 2000, HRDC had its turn in the hot seat.

Last year, the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemned another despicable situation: the Liberals managed to save no less than $400 million at our senior citizens' expense. Are we to trust them with the health care system, our vested rights? Are we to expect the government to manage it properly? Those are the facts. I could go on. I had a lot more to say.

We cannot remain silent. We want this government to restore the money it cut, so that the provinces can run their health care systems properly. Since my time is running out, I would like to move an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “health care”, at the very end of the motion, the following:

“according to the priorities they have established and to provide an accounting to their residents”.

[Taxation, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain to people why she has done nothing to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars lost because of the tax treaty with Barbados, when she is so keen on us paying our taxes and does not hesitate to cut benefits for the unemployed?

[Taxation, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has denounced Canadian companies that, for the year 2000, received $1.5 billion in virtually tax-free dividends from their affiliates based in Barbados. In 1990, the amount was a more modest $400 million. Clearly, the companies have got this figured out.

How can the government explain that it has done nothing to tighten its tax controls, when Barbados did not hesitate to amend its tax rules to get around Canadian legislation?

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to the questions we have asked him repeatedly over the past several months about the urgent need to provide financial assistance to the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, the Minister of Agriculture responded that the government understood the role of veterinary colleges across Canada.

Is the Prime Minister finally going to admit that the time for understanding and studies is over and that it is now time to take action? An immediate investment of $59 million from the government is necessary to save the accreditation of the college in Saint-Hyacinthe. Clearly—

[Health, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how creating a second pharmacare program, when one already exists in Quebec, will help doctors and nurses provide better health services in the emergency wards of Quebec hospitals? The government simply cannot prove this.