Benoît Sauvageau

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain is absolutely right. It is quite the paradox. A $9 billion surplus was accumulated and set aside. A $45 billion surplus was taken from the employment insurance fund to pay down the debt. As the hon. member was saying, this surplus came from premiums paid by those who earn up to $39,000. In other words, those who earn more than $39,000 pay EI premiums up to $39,000 and that is all.

People who have the means should have to pay more to the employment insurance plan if it is to be a fair plan. People who earn $18,000, $25,000 or $30,000 certainly should not have to pay down the country's debt. This debt should have been paid down through budget cuts, not by increasing departmental spending by 30% or 40% over the past 10 years.

As the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain was saying, it is the small contributors who had to pay down the debt by contributing to the EI fund. There is worse to come. My colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain has been working on this very important case for many years and he knows that in addition to having stolen $45 billion from the public, the government has stolen millions, even billions, from the Guaranteed Income Supplement by denying senior citizens money to which they were entitled.

To make his budgets look good, for the Prime Minister—the former finance minister—to be able to go around saying that the books are balanced, this government penalized senior citizens by denying them the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It paid down the debt with surplus EI premiums. Today, it comes here rather boastful and expects gratitude, but it is the most disadvantaged in our society who have paid and left us in a better financial situation.

We think this is unbelievable and unacceptable. We will keep saying so to make sure that in the future this money will go to those who are entitled to it and who have contributed fair and square. We are talking about the disadvantaged, poor families, people like Magalie Lebrun who decided to have children and start a family, and people who came before us and are now retired.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. It is an honour and a privilege for me to do so. I do not mean the former Prime Minister, who was in power from 1948 to 1957, but the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent. My colleague who represents that riding will also speak in this 20-minute period in response to the Speech from the Throne.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to support the Speech from the Throne as amended. Since this is my fourth time being elected, it is the fourth time that I have the privilege and opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne. As I said to reporters in my riding, this speech is quite exceptional. I think you have experienced the same thing, Mr. Speaker, during your political career. Coming to this minority government and being able to truly negotiate and amend the throne speech in a concrete, conclusive and significant manner is a solid way of increasing and enhancing the role of MPs and all political parties.

All the parties, the New Democrats, the Conservatives and ours, have sat in opposition, in the traditional sense. Journalists and analysts used to wonder what the point was in having opposition MPs, since they could not really effect change. I believe the past two weeks have shown the entire population that, regardless of the political party they voted for, the MPs who represent them in the House of Commons each have an extremely important role to play, especially in a minority government.

The Bloc Québécois' amendment to the amendment significantly changed the throne speech, as regards both recognition and respect of provincial jurisdictions, more specifically those of Quebec, and the recognition of the fiscal imbalance. Had the Bloc Québécois not been here in Ottawa, the Liberals would certainly not have woken up one day saying they wanted to add all this to the throne speech. These major changes also relate to the agreement reached by all political parties to change the employment insurance program, to the tax cuts for middle income families, to the implementation of a system to calculate surpluses or prepare financial statements more conclusively and to a vote on the missile defence shield plan. These are four issues in which I will be taking a particular interest. The Liberals would not have spontaneously written a throne speech that would have included these important issues for Quebeckers and Canadians.

The Liberals delivered a speech that was reminiscent of the days when they formed a majority government, a speech full of pious pronouncements and vague rhetoric. They used to tell us that, because they were a majority government, the Speech from the Throne would be passed and that we would just have to put up with it. The fact that they now find themselves in a minority situation has forced the Liberals to look more closely at what they were writing and to make corrections, first to honour the promises they made during the election campaign—time will tell whether they will act on their commitments—and also present to the public a throne speech that has more substance.

The amendment presented by the Conservative Party and supported by the Bloc Québécois and all members—indeed, it was unanimously passed—includes the following:

1. An order of reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities instructing the committee to recommend measures that would ensure that all future uses of the employment insurance program would only be for the benefit of workers and not for any other purpose.

The first point of the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party is very important. A total of $40 billion was taken out of the EI fund to pay off the debt and get rid of the deficit. The Liberal Party also has a debt, but that is another story. The Liberals used the sponsorship program to try to pay off part of their debt.

If it is recognized in the throne speech that all future uses of the employment insurance program would be for the benefit of workers only and not for any other purpose, then it would be perceived by all as a major victory.

Unfortunately, this huge victory came only after all the promises the Liberals made in 1997 when they travelled to the regions and said “We will change the unfair employment insurance system”. In 2000, they came back with the same promise and said “We will change and improve the EI system.” The only references to this issue in the throne speech before the amendment reiterated the things we had heard in 1997 and 2000, in other words, the government would have continued to plunder the EI fund to replenish the consolidated revenue account and bail out the country.

So, this is an important point for the unemployed, the workers and employers, all of whom contribute to the EI fund.

The second point of the amendment urges the government to consider the advisability of:

Opportunities to further reduce the tax burden on low and modest income families consistent with the government's overall commitment to balanced budgets and sound fiscal management.

There is absolutely no doubt that we, along with all the other parties in opposition, do not want to see the government end up with another deficit, which our families, our children and grandchildren will have to pay off some day. However, when a government amasses a surplus in excess of $9.1 billion, it might give some thought to disadvantaged families, and perhaps give Quebec the $700 million it is short in connection with parental leave.

Speaking of parental leave, I am going to read a letter from a mother. I will give her name and read parts of her letter, and I will tell you how an amendment like this one could have improved the situation of the men and women in each of our ridings. Magalie Lebrun of L'Épiphanie writes:

I am 26 years old and I just had a baby girl on August 26, 2004. My partner and I are both middle income earners. I trained in early childhood education at a CEGEP and am working toward a certificate in early childhood educational reinforcement through the Université du Québec à Montréal. Since the baby was born, I have been on maternity benefits...I took precautionary withdrawal from work.

...How come my earnings have been halved? ...

I am sure we are not the only ones in the same boat. We are too well off to get any help, but too poor to manage. It certainly is frustrating when you compare our situation with the way things are done in certain parts of Europe, where families are really encouraged and helped. It is society's choice, and I am glad of that, but how can anyone have children when we know that we will be up to our ears in financial problems afterward? Writing this will not have any effect on my own situation, I am sure, but at least it has given me a chance to tell you how unfair I feel this all is.

That is a letter from a woman in my riding. How many women and how many modest families could write us letters like that? How many families, living in modest or barely decent conditions, are saying to themselves, “Writing to my member of Parliament will not have any impact”?

Our role here in the House of Commons is to follow up on this letter and help these families living in difficult conditions, because what we want in our society is to have a family policy and to help young families. But we have to stop talking and get into action.

Consequently, the second amendment proposed by the Conservative Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Québécois, to reduce the tax burden on low and modest income families is necessary in order to respond to situations like this one seen daily in all our ridings.

In order to reduce the tax burden on these families, we must have budget forecasts that hold up. When the government tells us that the predicted surplus for 2003-04 will be $1.2 billion, and at the end we find there was a surplus of $9 billion, is that not a difference that could have been used to help families like this?

That is why the third amendment calls for an independent committee to provide more precise estimates of surpluses, and we will decide together how to allocate them in accordance with the second amendment and other factors.

I would like to point out one victory, perhaps not the most important, but a very important one, in these amendments to the throne speech. It is the fact that the House of Commons will be able to vote for or against Canada's participation in the missile defence shield and participation and coordination with the American government.

It is well known that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to taking part in the missile defence system. We are asking, and have been asking for a long time, for the opportunity to hold a vote here in the House. The government has always refused.

Now, we have succeeded in amending the Speech from the Throne to ensure that there will be a vote in the House on whether or not Canada participates in the missile defence shield.

For all these reasons, I believe these amendments to the throne speech make winners of the opposition parties and the people of Quebec.

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to say that if the interpreters' microphones are not working, I should stop again.

Still, I wanted to give you a few quotes from the hon. member for Outremont, the former member for Shefford. Change your riding; change your party. No, he stayed in the same party; well, yes and no.

Are the interpreters' microphones working? I am told they are okay.

This hon. member for Outremont and Minister of Transport who gave us one good quotation has given us more. Before the election campaign began, he told us there was a smell of rotten fish in the Liberals' refrigerator, and that—

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, normally, if the microphone is on, interpretation is on. I will carry on—

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what one might think, it is always a pleasure to hear that there is no interpretation, because it means that there are members listening.

After this brief interruption, this “interpretation break”—

[International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act, October 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-4. It is, of course, always important to refocus the debate and to give some explanations for the benefit of our listeners. People who watch our debates should know what Bill C-4 is about. It is also important for members of Parliament to know that we are a part of the discussions.

I therefore note that Bill C-4 is an act to implement two international agreements. The first is the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the second, the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment.

Bill C-4 deals primarily with these two international conventions. We live increasingly in an era of globalization. The purpose of this act is to bring Canada into line with other countries of the world as far as aerospace policies are concerned.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to adapt federal legislation to the requirements of the convention. This bill includes the following five aspects.

The Canadian aircraft registry has been dropped and replaced with an international registry. My colleagues have clearly expressed how, in the international construction scheme, an aircraft engine could be bought in one country while the fuselage was made in another country, and so on. We get to a point where we do not know who owes what to which country. In this way, by keeping an international registry of aircraft properties, it is much easier for aircraft equipment companies and for investors. This is to the benefit of all.

The purpose of this bill is also to amend the Bank Act, particularly to replace the references to the national registry with references to the international registry. The changes and improvements have to be adopted and implemented. Another purpose of the bill is to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to harmonize the payment order lists for the secured creditors or the mortgages with the requirements of the international convention. A little more is involved for an aircraft than for a house.

This bill also seeks to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure that a company cannot give as a guarantee something that is already used as an international guarantee. In the wake of September 11 events, we witnessed the problems experienced by some airlines. We do not want these carriers to be able to use loopholes in the legislation and have two or three loans, two or three guarantees for the same aircraft.

Finally, Bill C-4 seeks to amend the Winding-up and Restructuring Act for the same purpose, namely to comply with international agreements.

I want to express the views of my constituents, as my colleagues have done. In Quebec, what does this mean? We are Bloc Québécois members. My friend, the NDP member, said that our speeches deal primarily with Quebec. I hope he is not surprised by this. I remind him that our party's name is the Bloc Québécois. We protect the interests of Quebec and we promote sovereignty.

The Quebec aerospace industry generates annual sales of $14 billion. It employs 40,000 people. This is close to half of all high tech jobs in Canada. Quebec produces one third of the world's civilian helicopters. The civilian helicopters made in Quebec to be sold do work, contrary to the submarines bought from Great Britain, which sink while en route.

Bombardier is one of the primary employers in Quebec's aerospace industry. This makes a lot of our Conservative friends cringe, because their party is not represented in Quebec. The others are Pratt and Whitney, and Bell Helicopter. Out of 250 companies in that industry, 240 are small or medium size businesses that act as suppliers for large companies. This means that there are 10 large companies out of these 250, while 240 are either subcontractors or small businesses that act as suppliers for these 10 large companies. Together, these 240 small and medium size businesses account for 10% of the total sales of Canada's aerospace industry.

That is why the Minister of Transport and member for Outremont stated in one of his famous and magnificent rhetorical flights that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automobile industry is to Ontario. If that is true, let the federal government give the Quebec aerospace industry the equivalent of what it gives to the automobile industry in Ontario.

If Dennis Mills, a former member from the Toronto area, were in the House today, maybe he would tell the hon. member for Outremont what he said during the election campaign or just before, that “the hon. member for Outremont should either filter his thoughts between his thinking and his speaking, or do what he says.” I will quote more pronouncements by the hon. member for Outremont to show how Dennis Mills could sometimes be right.

The Minister of Transport said that the aerospace industry was the equivalent in Quebec of the automobile industry in Ontario. As my colleagues made it their duty and their pleasure to point out during the election campaign, there was no debate or vote in the House of Commons. The government went to southern Ontario and announced that, since the automobile industry had problems, it would get $500 million. The GM plant in Boisbriand had just closed down, and no funds were available then, but that was not important. The automobile industry in Ontario would get $500 million. If the majority of electors there were to vote for the Liberals, if their votes were needed, the government would hand out $500 million because things were not looking as good.

I ask the Minister of Transport once again: if aerospace is to Quebec what the automobile is to Ontario, why does he not provide money?

The Minister of Transport says one thing and does another, which means that he does not help Quebec's aerospace industry at all or only barely. Since he has been away from Parliament and government for a while, I advise him to take a look at what has happened in Canada ever since he first sat, as Minister of Transport, of Industry, or in some other capacity.

The Minister or Transport should know why we should invest in Quebec. He could take a look at the sectors of activity where the federal government has invested outside Quebec. He could accompany the Industry Minister in the Maritimes and stop in Newfoundland. He would see the billions of dollars invested in the Hibernia platform. The federal government helped them out by the billions of dollars. The Minister of Transport would surely be astounded to see what has happened in Newfoundland with federal help, and also in the Maritime provinces.

After Newfoundland, he could visit Ontario's nuclear energy industry, where the federal government has invested billions of dollars. Because there was no hydroelectricity, they developed nuclear energy. As he aptly said himself, the transport minister could look at the automobile industry in southern Ontario, where the government invests billions of dollars.

If he wanted to deal with these issues, the transport minister could go to downtown Toronto to see how much money the federal government has given to GO Transit for the development of public transit, such as highways, the subway or buses. The federal government provided this money.

In the meantime, how much did it give to Quebec? Nothing. Not a penny. If he moves west, he will see that the federal government has invested billions of dollars in the oil of the Western provinces. He could say that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what oil is to Alberta. He could say that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the nuclear industry is to Ontario. He could say that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what Hibernia is to Newfoundland.

On each count, we could tell him, “The funding is not there like it is, for example, for Hibernia in Newfoundland, for nuclear energy development in Ontario, or for oil discovery in western Canada”.

[150th Anniversary of L'Épiphanie, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 9, I had the great pleasure of attending a period fancy dress ball to mark the 150th anniversary of the towns and parishes of L'Épiphanie. Some 200 people, dressed in their finest attire, made a room already magnificently decorated all the more stunning. This wonderful evening was the result of the hard work and creative imagination of an extraordinary team of volunteers under the direction of Donald Bricault.

This period ball ended an exceptional year of extremely successful events. We have to applaud the remarkable effort of the 150th anniversary committee and especially thank its president, Daniel Archambault.

On behalf of the community, I would like to thank all the volunteers for their involvement and dedication. You met the challenge; congratulations.

Chicoutimi

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-11.

Before I do, I would like to do what needs to be done during a person's first speech after the opening of a new Parliament: thank those who sent me here. I thank the people of the riding of Repentigny, the many campaign workers and the people who have supported me since my first election in 1993 and continue to do so. I would also like to welcome some new municipalities to my riding, namely the two L'Épiphanies, L'Assomption, Le Gardeur and Saint-Sulpice.

It is important, and appropriate as well, to provide a little background, a brief review of how and why we find ourselves today with Bill C-11 before us, one of the first bills to be introduced in this 38th Parliament.

As the President of the Treasury Board has said, this bill originated with the member for Bourassa, among others, as Bill C-25. Amendments have been made, and a degree of open-mindedness on the part of the Liberals may be seen. Improvements are still needed, however.

As we are all aware, the roots of Bill C-25 lie in the sponsorship scandal. During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts we, unfortunately, heard public servants testify that they did not make public what was going on in front of them, for fear of reprisals.

Perhaps in a few months, or a few years, we will find out that other public servants were hesitant to speak out about the firearms scandal. That program was slated to cost $2 million or $3 million, and now is up to $2 billion. This is even more scandalous than the sponsorships. Perhaps this bill will make it possible for public servants to tell us what really went on.

I believe there are good intentions behind Bill C-11. Its purpose is to enable public servants to disclose wrongdoings when they become aware of them in the performance of their duties.

When the bill goes to committee, however, it will be very important to examine whether it will really meet its intended goal: to make it possible for public servants to disclose acts and omissions within their position or work unit.

It is important to know how Bill C-11 will differ from the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace—a policy that already exists. Too often the Liberal government tries to reinvent the wheel. When something does not work, the government sets out to reinvent something new.

What does Bill C-11 add to the Treasury Board Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace? In committee, we will have to come up with a meaningful answer to this question to avoid simply creating something new again that falls short of the expectations for this bill.

My colleague from the Conservative Party of Canada was quite passionate in expressing our disagreement with certain aspects of this bill. He disagrees with it and so do we. However, we will give this minority government the benefit of the doubt and see whether the Liberals will listen to us at committee and be open to making a few amendments, as far as the legislative process allows.

We also have a serious problem with the fact that the third party—in this case the person ultimately responsible for receiving complaints and disclosures—is the President of the Public Service Commission.

I would point out that two complaints from the Treasury Board and National Defence were deemed admissible in connection with a serious breach in the application of the Official Languages Act within the public service and National Defence.

At that time, the Public Service Commission did have a president. We have seen how, even though there was someone responsible, the Canadian government, the public service, could ignore the rules and administrative procedures and contravene certain acts and regulations.

As my Conservative colleague was saying and as we have been saying concerning Bill C-25—this is not a new position for the Bloc Quebecois—we think it is very important for the designated third party to be independent; it cannot be the president of the public service, or like Howard Wilson, a phony ethics counsellor who has coffee with the Prime Minister to tell him whether he agrees and what it is he agrees with.

We want the person in such a position to be truly independent. Look at the credibility Sheila Fraser has when she presents her reports and the credibility she enjoyed when her report of February 10 came out on the sponsorship scandal. She is an independent officer of the House.

Look at the credibility of Dyane Adam, when she presents her reports once a year—now three times a year, if I am not mistaken—because she is an independent officer of the House.

If the Liberals really want to make this a credible position; if they really want to honour part of the promise in their 1993 red book to restore confidence in the public service, elected officials and the government; then they must establish an independent position of commissioner with this bill. We said this about Bill C-25 and we say it again, and so do the Conservatives.

If they do not want to do this, they must give us rational arguments and explanations. If they refuse, they will be sending the following message, as my Conservative colleague said, to the people: we want to look as if we are solving the problem to get it out of the way, and people will forget about it when something new comes along.

We feel there must be an officer of the House, someone appointed by and responsible and accountable to Parliament, like the Auditor General or the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I wonder about certain aspects of the bill. Take clause 8. I see the President of the Treasury Board is listening attentively. So, we might even be able to get some answers for the beginning of the committee's work: subclauses 8 (c), (d) and (e) read as follows:

This Act applies in respect of the following wrongdoings:

(c) a gross mismanagement in the public sector;

(d) an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life [...];

(e) a serious breach of a code of conduct [...];

Why were the terms “gross”, “substantial” and “serious” used in each case? If I am a public servant, is the fact, for example, that Jean Carle buys for $165,000 worth of golf balls with Jean Chrétien's initials on them serious or not?

For a public servant, is the fact that we buy all our sweaters from Jean Lafleur of Communications Lafleur serious or not? What is serious in a wrongdoing that should be disclosed to a supervisor?

The President of the Treasury Board will have to tell us, at least in committee, what is deemed to be serious. All wrongdoings that can be disclosed by a public servant under clause 8 will have to be serious. What is serious? It will probably be up to the line supervisor, who will unfortunately be the culprit, to decide whether the wrongdoing is serious or not.

I saw some pretty serious stuff in the sponsorship scandal and I hope that everyone would have agreed that these were serious wrongdoings.

We also feel that, in its present form, a second aspect of the bill is flawed. I am referring to the requirement to exhaust other procedures.

Bill C-11 provides, and I quote:

24.(1) The President of the Public Service Commission may refuse to deal with a disclosure if he or she is of the opinion that:

(a) the public servant has failed to exhaust other procedures otherwise reasonably available;

This means that a public servant who is not an expert in parliamentary procedures—in the case of Bill C-11, for example—who contacts the President of the Public Service Commission—if he is the one in charge, although we do not want this to be the case—will be told to go back to square one. It is already difficult enough to disclose a wrongdoing, so if this is the route disclosure will take, we will insist on getting some clarification on clause 24(1).

I will conclude by asking this question: What about the public servant who files a complaint under this procedure? Do we let that person continue to work with his colleagues? Perhaps there should be some transition measures. Will the union be able to continue to support the public servant who made the disclosures? The bill is silent on this issue.

The government will have to explain in committee why the armed forces and the RCMP are excluded from the application of this bill. We think they should be included.

In conclusion, we support the principle of referring the bill to a committee. We hope that the Liberals will act in good faith and with an open mind. We want to amend this legislation which, in its present form, is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois.

[Public Service, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Parks Canada employees have reached an agreement in principle with the federal government. Since there is one conciliation board report for each negotiating table, does the government intend to use the reports from the various tables as the basis for settling this strike by the Public Service Alliance?

[Public Service, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, public servants have been negotiating the renewal of their collective agreement for some months now. Progress has been so slow that over 100, 000 of them decided to resort to strike action effective 12:01 this morning.

Can the President of the Treasury Board indicate to this House what steps he plans to take in order to settle this Public Service Alliance strike quickly?