Pauline Picard

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have supported the Bloc Quebecois motion, thus approving the claims made during the march of women. Unfortunately, that support did not translate into concrete measures in yesterday's mini-budget.

How can the Minister of Finance not provide anything for daycare services, social housing, employment insurance and old age security, considering that they are part of the demands he claimed to support earlier this week?

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, before answering my colleague's question, I would like to tell him that we are sorry he is leaving the Bloc Quebecois, but this is his decision.

He has worked with us for seven years. I can tell the House that I have worked with him on some issues and that he is very professional, he wants to get things done, he is a hard worker and he has integrity. I think his constituents will miss him. All the Bloc Quebecois team will miss him.

I would like to thank him for everything he has done during these seven years for his constituents, for his riding and for Quebec's interests.

I do not have much to add to my colleague's question because he has answered it himself. Yes, there might be a suspicion that some people will be cheated. Perhaps the question I could ask—I do not know who could answer it—is, when the government sends a $125 cheque to help people with their heating bill, why will everyone get a cheque?

Let us say that a single person lives with his or her mother, for instance, or with a student or a roommate who is working and that the person who signed the lease receives the $125 cheque to help with the heating bill, will the roommate also receive $125? This second person does not pay the heating bill. We are totally confused. All those who get a GST tax credit, whether they have an oil heating system or an electric heating system, will get $125, while this cheque is supposed to help those whose heating bill actually doubled. This is all very confusing.

The same holds true with the figures, which can be fiddled with. This is really confusing. As my colleague said, we can assume that there will be some slightly shady characters who will try to collect this cheque.

Something must be done, and the government must think twice before doing this. I think that if this cheque is going to be given to people to help pay their oil heating bills and if the government is going to refuse to take steps to lower fuel prices in Canada, the government should look into who will get a cheque to ensure that it really goes to pay the oil heating bills, as these bills have doubled.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that it is obvious to everyone that the government had one thing and one thing alone in mind when it brought down this mini-budget, and that was the upcoming election. All economists and editorial writers today would agree.

With the staggering, not to say exploding, surpluses at the disposal of the Minister of Finance, we were expecting that he would do something for those who were really responsible for helping put the fiscal house in order, those whose efforts have made the last three years of zero deficits possible and are still being gouged by the federal tax system, those who are the reason the Minister of Finance can stand here today and boast about surpluses.

We thought that the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would be low and middle income families, not families at the top end of the scale who can take advantage of tax loopholes not those earning $250,000 and up, not millionaires and friends of the Minister of Finance.

This year he dares to say that the surplus will reach $6 billion only, whereas close to $12 billion is already sitting in the federal government's coffers. This is more than double his forecasts for this year. He could have done twice what he is doing now.

He could have helped the most disadvantaged, low and middle income earners, the folks who pay EI premiums, and the small and medium size businesses which are now footing the bill for tax cuts for the rich.

He could also have helped the unemployed men and women who are not receiving any EI benefits because of the drastic cuts made in the system and because of the tighter eligibility criteria.

It is the families in rural areas, young people, women and seniors who are paying for the income tax cuts of the rich.

The government wanted to upstage the Canadian Alliance before the election call and woo its voters. The government seized on the idea of the flat rate proposed by the Canadian Alliance, which was strongly criticized because it favours the millionaires, and incorporated it into its mini-budget.

It took the $100 billion in surpluses from the pockets of low and middle income taxpayers, off the backs of the unemployed, women, young people, the sick and the disadvantaged. It is totally indecent.

Do not get too excited about the tax cuts because we are not going to get them right away—only in a year and a half. It could have presented the same budget in February, but the wealthiest in society will not really feel the effect of this mini-budget for a year and a half.

According to the information in the Minister of Finance's economic statement and budget update, a single parent family with an income of $250,000 or more will enjoy a tax cut 40 times greater than a family with one dependent earning $30,000. In the case of an income of $250,000 the reduction represents $20,000 net in income tax, and in the case of an income of $35,000, it represents a mere $500, when there is one dependent involved.

The government is giving millionaires a $20,000 cut in income tax and middle income and disadvantaged families a $500 cut. What is even more disgusting is that the government will give the most disadvantaged families a government cheque for $125 because of the current oil crisis. This is really disgusting.

The minister kept telling us that people earning $35,000 did not pay taxes. We questioned him on several occasions, because we knew that these people were in fact paying taxes, but he kept telling us that they did not.

Oddly enough, now he admits that they do pay taxes, since he just told us that they would be paying less. If this is not trying to fool people, I do not know what it is.

This budget also shows that the government continues to accumulate surpluses shamelessly because, as I said earlier, the tax cuts will occur in one and a half year. Once again, the government continues to fiddle with the figures by using tax deductions as tax cuts. This has to be seen. Members should take a look at page 97 of the minister's economic statement, where a chart shows that the employment insurance fund is being used as a form of tax relief.

The government is dipping into the surpluses of the EI fund to grant tax cuts to high income earners. Moreover, it is fiddling with the figures and using the child tax benefit.

The GST, a tax that should not exist when a government is enjoying such surpluses, is part of the tax relief scheme. Even the auditor general condemned this dubious practice and told the government not to resort to it again. The government then brought down a mini-budget and again fiddled with the figures to create a smokescreen. It hid the real figures because it was afraid to have a real debate on the real issues.

I currently am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. I was at the in-camera presentation of this mini budget, before the Minister delivered his speech in the House. Out of curiosity, I immediately checked where was the support promised to women's associations that met with the Prime Minister last week.

These women had 13 basic claims. They met with the Prime Minister who told them to wait and see what would be in the mini budget. That was the first thing I did. Believe it or not there was nothing and even less than nothing.

There is nothing for low income single mothers who should pay no income tax, nothing for social housing and nothing for the former older workers of the Celanese plant in our region, which has closed down. These people contributed to employment insurance for 30 and 40 years. They were given a severance cheque, which they were told was a gift that they should use, and later we would see if they were entitled to employment insurance benefits.

These people, aged between 55 and 57, will have a hard time finding a job because, as we know, entrepreneurs and employers do not hire people of that age, whom they no longer trust. This government had a duty to establish a program like the modified former older workers program.

There is nothing in there for the former workers in Drummondville, Jonquière or other areas who suffer the hardship of plant closures.

There is nothing for employment insurance, parental leave, foreign aid or for ordinary people who paid for those surpluses. Nor is there any basic financing provided for associations working with women.

The government cut all forms of assistance and core funding to these women's groups when it asked them to submit projects. It assesses the merits of each project and then tells the women that it will be sending a cheque with a maple leaf.

The women who work in these organizations put in between 70 and 80 hours a week to come to the rescue of other women faced with some very basic needs. Instead of spending their time helping other women, they now have to develop projects to find the money they need. They would not always have to look for money if the government had taken its responsibilities and extended core funding to help these organizations.

I want to remind the House that these groups that help women in need are the keepers of the fundamental values of our society. When a government has been able to generate a surplus on the backs of low and middle income taxpayers, as this one has, one of its priorities should be to meet the demands of women's groups; it has a duty to do so. I imagine the government will pay for this on November 27, the night of the election.

The Prime Minister laughed at them. Women's groups got slapped in the face by the government. The Prime Minister knew full well that women would get nothing from the budget update. He does not care at all about the demands of women. This government is laughing. Women's groups are of no interest to it.

Yet it is the women who raise children and support society, but that is not of any interest to the Liberals. They prefer the people earning $250,000, those who have easy lives, those who have no trouble getting around the taxation system in order to pay less tax, and those who have no trouble keeping a roof over their heads. They prefer to give presents to these people instead of going with the real priorities.

It is indecent to present a budget like this one. There is nothing for the provinces as far as health is concerned. A transfer has been made, $21 billion put back in the Canada social transfer, and now they are patting themselves on the back for that. Yet this is just the money that had been cut from the provinces. It is not even the government's money. Ottawa's money is the taxpayers' money and it must be returned to them via the provinces for health and education. Brutal cuts were made and now the $21 billion is being given back to the provinces.

Today, in spite of the accumulated surplus, they cannot even index the Canada social transfer. The provinces still have a great deal of difficulty delivering services in the health sector because of the aging population, the high costs of the new technologies and the high cost of drugs.

The provinces are still having serious difficulties and there is not an ounce of compassion being shown toward them. They are being given back the $21 billion that had been cut and ought not to have been. With the surplus, as we can see, the provinces are being dragged down, are being strangled. The provinces are being made to bear the brunt of the burden; they cannot deliver all of the health services they would like because they cannot afford to, while the federal government is busy congratulating itself. This is disgusting.

There is no reference in this budget either to the indexing of funding to universities for post-secondary education. This is at a thirty year low. Nothing is said about that. They are patting themselves on the back about their $100 billion surplus.

There is absolutely no indexation of the Canada social transfer for health and the youth. The budget provides a one-time allocation for heating costs. What a sham.

At present, a single elderly woman who has only her pension cheque to get by on is living under the poverty level. A recent study has shown that 47% of single elderly women are living under the poverty level. Those who have an oil furnace will get a small $125 cheque, with the all important maple leaf to boot, when their bill has in fact doubled.

In 1999 the bill was between $500 and $600. This year it will be over $1,000, $1,100, or $1,200. In colder areas, bills will be even higher. Yet the government claims to be giving a generous gift, a $125 cheque. That is absolutely unacceptable.

In the budget, senior citizens living under the poverty level are also ignored. There is nothing in this budget for these elderly men and women who have a made a contribution to our society. The government should make them one of its priorities.

What will low income single mothers who spend 30% of their income on housing do when their heating bill doubles? Will they deprive themselves of food toward the end of the month or freeze in their homes? The $125 cheque from the government will not be a big help. One hundred and twenty five dollars does not even cover one grocery bill for a single parent family with two children.

The Liberal government has reduced the income tax for the rich and the friends of the party. It has done just like the minister who cannot understand that, because he has his ships built somewhere else. He could not care less. That is also the reason why there is nothing in this budget for shipbuilding yards; nothing for the one in Quebec City and nothing for the other yards across the country. He does not care. He has his ships built elsewhere, just like he pays his income tax elsewhere.

These surpluses do not come out of his pockets. It comes from the taxpayers, from the unemployed and from the workers who contribute to the employment insurance program.

This right wing budget is an insult to all Canadians. It is a budget that ignores the least advantaged members of our society.

The minister could have done a lot more. We have been putting forward the figures he is proposing now for a long time. We have been doing so for years. We have been telling him for at least four years that he will have all those billions in his coffers. He has always laughed at us.

While our figures match now, we in the Bloc Quebecois do not have the same priorities. If I had more time, I would give you a list of our priorities. With $147.5 billion, our priorities would target women, the disadvantaged and the low and middle income earners. For the government, it is the opposite. While we concentrate on those with an income of up to $80,000, for the government that is the level at which tax reductions start.

We would also invest in tax reductions, and we will discuss our true priorities during the electoral campaign.

[World March Of Women, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the world march of women, groups of women have joined together to ask for the equivalent of $2 per woman and girl as funding for their organizations.

The government, which is floating in billions of dollars in surpluses, has reached the hour of decision.

Will the Minister of Finance agree to give these women the basic funding they are asking for in support of their action?

[Supply, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil for her excellent speech.

What struck me in the demands put forward by women's groups is something that could now become an issue during the election, that is, the core funding of organizations.

Since the government took office it has backed away from a commitment toward the women's groups that fight daily for the most deprived of women as well as for all the women of Quebec and Canada, groups that defend women's rights and speak out against poverty and violence against women and children.

I would like my colleague to speak in greater detail of how the government has backed away from this commitment since it took office. I would like her to tell us what solution the Bloc Quebecois is proposing so that these women's groups can work without having to set up projects and that the money needed for the fight against poverty and violence is made available. This is a minimum. I would also like my colleague to tell us in detail about this core funding problem.

[World March Of Women, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, from October 9 to 13, along with hundreds of women from 120 cities and towns in Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be taking part in the World March of Women to call for an end to the poverty of and violence against women.

As we embark on a new millennium, all governments should be making it a priority to get involved in this worldwide movement for the equality of women, which includes 5,000 women's groups from 157 countries.

We invite Quebecers to sign the online card supporting the World March of Women, which can be found on the website of the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

“Our struggle is without borders, so take your sister by the hand; transform life; build equality”, so goes the March of Women theme song.

May this message of hope be heard around the world, so that our daughters and their daughters can look to the future with confidence and serenity.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This bill is very lengthy one that runs to 900 pages. It is also very complicated.

Some of its provisions state that the minister, one person, has the final say on certain operations. When we read the bill, we notice that there are many provisions where the minister can decide arbitrarily, on a whim, when it suits him. He decides to accept or not. Nobody knows what his criteria are. We know nothing. He does not say nothing. He is assuming the right to be the only one to decide.

That is what the government did with Bill C-20. It has ignored Quebecers and our institutions and wants to be the only one to decide the future of Quebecers.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

If things are going well in Quebec, it is because there are some Quebecers who have taken charge. His government is, however, still trying through every means possible to create problems for us and to centralize everything, because it wants to have all the power. There is no way we will allow that to happen.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

I would point out to the Minister for International Trade things are not as fine as all that. He need only look at his former department, Human Resources Development.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

The federal government, this Liberal government, has set itself the additional duty of centralizing everything.