Richard Marceau

[Petitions, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two separate petitions. In the first, the petitioners are calling for an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act so that rural mail carriers may be entitled to collective bargaining. I am pleased to table this first petition.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, on behalf of 2,400 people from the federal riding of Charlesbourg, a petition calling on parliament to take all the necessary measures to identify and recommend, as soon as possible, effective ways of fighting predatory gasoline prices.

I am tabling this important petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Employment Insurance, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at its recent convention, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a resolution calling upon the federal government to immediately amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to remove the intensity provisions.

Now that even her own party is condemning her program, will the minister yield to the evidence and abolish the infamous intensity rule which penalizes seasonal workers?

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again take the floor today, but on a different topic, namely Bill C-24.

I am especially pleased since today is the birthday of my father-in-law, Paul Jacobson, and he is surely watching CPAC, the parliamentary channel. I salute him.

I would be remiss if I passed over the comments by the member for Kings—Hants just before Oral Question Period. He praised the Government of Quebec's fiscal policies, rightly so I might add, mentioning the benefits of the policies the PQ government has put in place to attract high-tech industries, among others, to Quebec. We know that the City of Montreal and his region, of which we have a proud representative in the person of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, is now one of the centres of the new technology, not just in Canada and North America, but worldwide, of course.

I would be remiss if I did not mention what the member said, and quite rightly, about the fiscal policies of Bernard Landry, one of the greatest finance ministers Canada or Quebec has ever had, provincially or federally.

Obviously, Bill C-24 is a bill which we vehemently oppose. One of the main problems—I would even say the main problem—of the Canadian federation right now is fiscal imbalance. While the federal government is swimming in enormous surpluses, and the Minister of Finance talked about surpluses of $95 billion over five years, our view, which is shared by most of the experts—the member for Sherbrooke agrees with me—is that it will be more like $137 billion to $140 billion.

The tax imbalance is such that while the federal government is enjoying huge surpluses, all the provinces have trouble just keeping their heads above water. Ottawa and the provinces have needs to meet. For example, because of the ageing population, we know that expenditures can only increase in the health sector.

But, since 1993, the federal government has been cutting the transfers to the provinces for health. What is the result of these cuts? The result is that the provinces are feeling the crunch. Then the federal government acts like a saviour and says “Here, we will give you more money, but we are the saviours of Canada's health system”, when, in fact, it is the federal government that axed health all across Canada. It is only through the heroic efforts of all the provincial governments that we are managing fairly well. But the primary source of the problems in health is the federal government.

We could go on like this in several areas. Worse still is the fact that the federal government's surpluses were generated not only at the expense of the provinces, as I pointed out, but also of the poor. For example, six out of ten people no longer qualify for employment insurance.

Yet, the term insurance implies that if we have a problem, we are protected, we have a safety net. But no, the federal government organizes things so as to get the money out of the most disadvantaged, the unemployed for instance, to fill up its pockets and then to use their money for purposes other than those intended.

When most Canadians and most Quebecers look at their pay stubs, they can see that a certain amount has been taken off in the employment insurance column each month. Anyone looking at it can say to himself “If I lose my job, I should be able to access employment insurance”, but no. No, because this government is stealing from the unemployed to fill its coffers with money that ought normally to go back to them.

We find ourselves therefore in a somewhat unbelievable situation in which transfers to the provinces are being cut, in which the provinces are doing their best to deliver the services for which they are responsible, and then Ottawa comes along saying “Come now, dear provinces, I can give you some more money, but you will have to adhere to this or that national standard”.

The Canadian federation is more centralized than ever, and one symptom of this massive centralization is the agreement on social union which the provinces, with the exception of Quebec of course, the only one to stand up for itself, felt obliged to sign.

This is serious. The provinces are obliged to sign off, to abandon huge chunks of the sovereignty in order to get their hands on some few million dollars temporarily. Unfortunately for them, they have been bought off. That is what has happened. Only Quebec had the honour, the dignity and the courage to stand up for itself and to say no, but that is the way Canadian history has always gone.

There have already been other instances of this type of dirty financial dealings by the federal government. For example, there is the harmonization of the GST with the QST. We know that the Government of Quebec had harmonized its sales tax with the GST. A few months later, the maritime provinces reached an agreement with the federal government and were compensated for harmonizing their sales tax with the GST, something the Government of Quebec was not. This is another example of the perverse desire of this government to see that Quebec does not get its due.

For example, in order to compensate the Atlantic provinces for the financial losses they will suffer by harmonizing the sales tax, the federal government paid $961 million in compensation to them. This aid represents $423 per inhabitant. In Quebec, this would mean a figure of $3.1 billion.

This is not what Quebec is asking. The Government of Quebec rightly said that it would accept $2 billion. However, if the criteria used with the Atlantic provinces were used, the Government of Quebec would be entitled to ask for $3.1 billion.

The Government of Quebec asked for $2 billion in compensation. The harmonization cost everyone a lot, not only the Government of Quebec, but businesses in Quebec as well.

The reform of the QST occasioned by the harmonization, resulted in significant financial costs that necessitated increases in corporate taxes and the retention of certain restrictions on refunds of taxes for corporate input.

Quebec businesses have not benefited and are still not benefiting from the harmonization with the GST, because, once again, of the ill will of the federal government. The federal government's compensation to the maritimes adds to the economic and fiscal competition these provinces represent for Quebec, since Quebec does not receive comparable assistance.

In addition, Bernard Lord's predecessor in New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, who is of the same political stripe as the government, took out full-page ads in newspapers and economic reviews in Quebec inviting companies to set up business in New Brunswick, saying that his province's fiscal policies were competitive and that they would be better treated than in Quebec. Of course, because, among other things, they are entitled to compensation from the federal government, while the Government of Quebec is not.

Quebec taxpayers subsidized, as it were, the Government of New Brunswick's attempt to steal jobs from Quebec. It is a completely ridiculous system. It is utterly surrealistic, but it is the way Canadian federalism works. This is just one example of why we want to get out and are fighting to do so.

In addition, at the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois, the government said “Perhaps we are not right. We think we are, but we are prepared to submit the dispute to arbitration”. The federal government and the Government of Quebec could have jointly appointed an arbiter, a judge, call him what you will, to determine who is right. The government completely refused this overture from the Bloc Quebecois because, of course, it knew that the request from the Government of Quebec, and the Bloc Quebecois in particular, because it was the Bloc Quebecois that introduced the idea, was right. It was reasonable and it was right.

I am delighted to see the Liberal member nodding his approval. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I tell him “Ask the Minister of Finance to submit the dispute to an unbiased person. That is what he should do instead of pitting the Quebec government against the federal government”. I would bet, I was going to say $1,000, but thanks to the Bloc Quebecois, $1,000 bills are being withdrawn.

I would bet $100, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec government would be proven right. I do hope that you will accept the challenge, which I throw out in all friendship, to you and to the two members who are hanging on my every word, because they, too, know that the request of the Bloc and of Quebec is legitimate.

I ask them to put pressure on the Minister of Finance to have him submit this issue to arbitration.

Another issue on which the Bloc has worked hard concerns the increase in the price of gasoline. Such issues show how a party sticks to reality and listens to people. The Bloc Quebecois has launched a vast campaign throughout Quebec to help consumers affected by the drastic increase in the price of gasoline in Quebec and Canada last winter.

Like my colleagues from Témiscamingue and Sherbrooke, we ask that the federal government temporarily waive the excise tax of 10 cents per litre on gas and 4 cents per litre on diesel fuel until such time as the price of gas has returned to an acceptable level.

Whether we lower the taxes or not, this increase in gas prices will have been very costly for Canadian and Quebec households. Anyone who has a car—and most people need one—or has to buy heating oil for their house, their apartment or their condominium is affected by that increase. The federal government took advantage of that increase to fill its pockets, raking in 10 cents per litre of gas and 4 cents per litre of diesel fuel.

Many times, the Bloc Quebecois asked repeatedly that the federal government waive the application of its tax but, again, it preferred to rake in the money instead of giving it back to the Canadian and Quebec taxpayers to whom it belongs.

Those who drive to work or heat their homes are affected. But, heartless as it is, the federal government decided to ignore the request of the average citizen defended by the Bloc.

I personally circulated a petition, which was very popular in my riding. It was circulated to gas stations, community groups and several people. It is incredible how sensitive people are where their money is concerned.

Why give tax breaks when they do not mean anything? Why should the government say that it is reducing taxes for Canadians, as the Minister of Finance is bragging about, when it is raking in more money with the increase in gasoline prices? It does not matter whether the money comes from the right pocket or the left pocket, it still comes out of the same pair of pants.

Again, this shows how this government is completely out of touch with reality, and it is just one more reason why we will strongly oppose Bill C-24. I call upon all my colleagues, including the two Liberal members who are here, to put pressure on the Minister of Finance to get him to listen to Quebecers.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will ask you to make sure that there is a quorum for the next speaker.

That quorum should be made up of Liberal members. Out of respect for the next speaker as well as for the Chair, I ask that members be called in.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, albeit somewhat surprised, to address Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.

As we know, tourism is a rapidly expanding industry all over the world. This is a result of globalization, because as transportation modes become faster and more accessible, people who previously did not have access to international tourism are now deciding to visit various countries, and this is of great benefit to people the world over.

Tourism is also important for various regions of the country, particularly the federal riding of Charlesbourg, which will soon be called Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, after the senators have heard me. I cannot understand why they have summoned me to talk about the name of a riding, as they are not elected, but this is another matter. As I was saying, the federal riding of Charlesbourg is one of the nicest ones in Canada.

It includes eight municipalities and most of the green belt around Quebec City.

From Saint-Gabriel-de-Valcartier in the west to Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval in the east, this greenbelt is one of the finest assets of the tourist industry in Quebec and Canada, an industry that is in full expansion.

People from all over the world, particularly Europeans but also many Asians, want to come to Quebec and to Canada to see our wide open spaces and to commune with nature, because they often live in countries which, unfortunately, are not as fortunate as Quebec in this regard.

The greenbelt around Quebec City is located just a few minutes from downtown, from the Old City, which is one of the finest world heritage sites. It is only a 15 minute drive on highway 73 from the Old City, with its atmosphere that goes back to the 17th and 18th centuries—my colleague from Québec East agrees with me—to the wilderness. People around the world are increasingly aware of this.

I have had a pamphlet published which I will bring for distribution on my trips abroad. In a few weeks I will be going to Australia to promote the federal riding of Charlesbourg for investors and vacationing tourists.

In my riding of Charlesbourg, tourism has been targeted as one of the most important themes of economic development. Tourism can be seen from different angles.

We have the park along the Jacques-Cartier River, which is really exceptional, with its deep canyons. I formally invite members to visit the canyons in this park. They will be stunned by their beauty. Activities include boating, kayaking, climbing, hiking or picnicking. This is an exceptional site, and I want to point out the excellent work done by Marie-Michelle Parent to develop the park.

There is also the Stoneham ski resort, which is in full expansion and will also be a major tourist attraction for my riding and the whole Quebec City area.

Another ski resort is Le Relais. This excellent resort, which is drawing more and more people, is also just 20 minutes from downtown Quebec.

Work is underway on the Trans-Quebec trail, which is intended to be a northern version of the famous Appalachian Trail in the United States, and which will help us discover, in Quebec, and Charlesbourg in particular, some of the most breathtaking landscapes that a hiking enthusiast may see. In the wintertime, activities such as snowshoeing, skiing and snowmobiling are possible.

The federal riding of Charlesbourg is exceptional for tourism. One of the main attractions in that riding could be the Charlesbourg zoo, the development of which has been considered a priority by social and economic stakeholders in the greater Quebec City area. I notice the chief government whip is nodding in agreement and listening to me intently.

All the stakeholders in the greater Quebec City area have asked the federal government to invest in the Aqua-Zoo project—the aquarium in Sainte-Foy and the zoo in Charlesbourg—as an important tourist attraction. The Government of Quebec has made a firm commitment to help finance that project, but, unfortunately, the answer from the federal government is late in coming, as always.

I invite the Minister of Revenue, who is responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, to announce very soon that the necessary investment will be made to revitalize the Aqua-Zoo.

This is just an introduction to show the importance of tourism to us, in the Bloc Quebecois, and to myself, as the member for Charlesbourg.

Unfortunately, Bill C-5 does not meet the many demands and the many needs of that growing industry, as I was saying earlier.

The federal government is at war with the Government of Quebec and wants to impose at all costs its vision of a united Canada, or should I say of a standardized Canada from coast to coast. Bill C-5 is just one element of this shameful project on which millions and millions of dollars are spent. Bill C-5 is just aimed at increasing the federal government's visibility. Its sole purpose is to buy the loyalty of Quebecers, whether as individuals or as members of organizations. The backdrop to all this is an incredible fiscal imbalance.

The federal government has already announced a $95 billion surplus over the next five years. Bloc Quebecois members and the rest of the House know only too well that these surpluses will be more on the order of $137 billion to $140 billion over five years, while the provinces—all of them, not just Quebec—are having trouble keeping their heads above water.

The federal government has decided to use the huge surpluses it has built up on the backs of the provinces, on the backs of the most disadvantaged and the unemployed, so that it can increase its visibility and invade normally provincial jurisdictions.

Let us be clear that everything this government does is dictated by the desire to stop the rise of the sovereignist movement in Quebec. It is afraid because it is only too aware that the next time Quebecers are asked whether they want their own country, the majority will answer yes. There is one objective behind all the government's actions and that is to put a stop to the inexorable growth of the sovereignist movement, whatever the financial or social cost.

One might wonder why it came up with this particular bill, Bill C-5, when most provinces, and especially Quebec, already have infrastructures, well developed tourist networks and strategies much better suited to their own situation than Bill C-5 could be.

I must wrap up my remarks because time is unfortunately running out. The Bloc Quebecois is firmly opposed to the federal government using Quebecers' tax dollars in order to promote in all areas, including tourism with Bill C-5, its vision of a Canada that is united from coast to coast in order to stamp the maple leaf on everyone's forehead when that is not what Quebecers want.

We are strongly opposed to this bill and never—this government had better listen up—never will Quebecers be bought with their own money, never will they allow their vote to be bought by such a pathetic government.

[Minister Of Canadian Heritage, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on May 1, the Minister of Canadian Heritage went to the ridiculous lengths of promoting “Canadian” culture in Boston with a beer ad. How clever.

How can Quebecers define themselves within this selection of Canadiana when the beer in question is not even sold in Quebec? Molson long ago grasped the specific nature of Quebec and serves us la Laurentide.

We in Quebec have a real department of culture, not one for heritage. What we fear is not comparison with the Americans but assimilation with the Canadians.

In Quebec, when we say we are bilingual, that does not mean we just know a few pick-up lines. Our objective is to make Quebec known throughout the world, not to go to other countries and put our foot in our mouth every chance we get.

Above all, when we in Quebec want some pro-Quebec advertising, we do not hire an American.

My name is Richard and I am a Quebecer.

My name is Richard and I am a Quebecer.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to take part in this debate on the third reading of Bill C-22. I can see that all my colleagues and the pages are eager to hear my remarks and are deeply interested in this debate, which has a major impact on Canadians and Quebecers.

First of all, I cannot help but deplore, once again, the fact that the committee had to rush its examination of the bill.

We heard the last witnesses on Wednesday night at 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m., and we had to sit the next morning at 9 a.m. to begin the clause by clause review of the bill. It is easy to understand that, after hearing interesting evidence, very intelligent and well documented evidence, members should have been given a little time to weigh this evidence and come up with amendments.

Unfortunately, this was just before our two week recess. We had some time to digest all of this, and we came up with amendments that passed. I hope this will serve us a lesson to ensure that, if we really want to give witnesses who appeared the credit, I would say, that they deserve, the least the hon. members could do is take the time to assimilate and to re-read their testimonies. The quality of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-22 was particularly impressive.

I would be remiss if I did not tell members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois has probably the most intelligent, balanced, concrete and imaginative anti-crime agenda of all political parties represented in the House. It is an anti-crime agenda that does not fall into populism, into demagogy, and I think we can see the result with Bill C-22.

I would remind hon. members that the 1997 election platform of the Bloc Quebecois—I know this is almost bedtime reading to you, Madam Speaker—provided for and clearly asked for such a measure to fight money laundering.

Indeed, as early as 1997, even before the federal government introduced Bill C-22 and its doomed predecessor, Bill C-81, the Bloc Quebecois was already working on this issue, holding numerous intensive meetings with different crime fighting agencies. This is only one example. We could give others.

For instance, I introduced a bill to take $1,000 bills out of circulation. The federal government decided to listen to the Bloc Quebecois and to take them out of circulation to fight money laundering.

We spent a full opposition day trying to get all the parliamentarians in this House to agree to have the Standing Committee on Justice look into the problem of organized crime in Canada. It is a third victory for the Bloc Quebecois.

These three victories are quite impressive. I would be remiss—and I am pretty sure that all the members would hold it against me—if I overlooked the relentless campaign against organized crime that the member for Bagot is engaged in, despite all the risks involved, particularly in his region where farmers live in fear, terrorized by criminal groups who grow marijuana in their corn fields and other fields. It deserves the support of all members of the House.

Those were four specific actions taken by the Bloc, and we claimed victory on three of them. Of course, when we hear the clever and convincing arguments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, it is hard to imagine that the House would decide not to follow the lead of the Bloc on this matter.

Coming back to Bill C-22 per se, and I repeat that it was an original idea of the Bloc, it is important to mention that it is indeed an obligation, as the parliamentary secretary for the minister of Finance said, an international obligation for Canada to fight this worldwide phenomenon known as money laundering. Canada meets its obligations in this regard.

On the whole, this is a good bill. The amendments proposed, again, by the Bloc Quebecois bring some pretty major improvements to the bill. I see a number of people agreeing with that. The regulative jurisdiction is one of the main problems of this bill. It was extremely broad, and one can understand the logic of all that.

The centre that will be created under this bill will have to be flexible. Indeed, considering the ever changing new technology, it will have to be able to adjust very quickly. This is why the regulatory power is very broad.

We wanted to ensure that not only would the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act apply, but also that parliamentarians would be properly informed about the centre's operations. This is why I moved Motion No. 8, which was carried with an amendment, but which still ensures that the policies and benchmarks set by the centre are known by members of the House, who are ultimately accountable to the public.

This bill deals, among other things, with the issue of privacy. Given today's technology, that issue can raise some concerns and this is understandable. It is therefore important to give elected members of the House, who are the only ones accountable to the public, at least an opportunity to understand and the authority to ask what is going on in a centre that could potentially have excessive powers.

I congratulate the House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois, which promoted the idea of fighting money laundering and of reporting suspicious transactions over $10,000. This great victory for the Bloc Quebecois is made even sweeter by the fact that several of our amendments were accepted by the House, and for good reason.

Again, the House showed great wisdom in supporting the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I congratulate the House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois for its excellent work in the fight against crime.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we agree with the spirit of Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, but we wish to make a slight amendment so that it is not parliament as a whole but the House of Commons which has authority over such matters.

I therefore move:

That Motion No. 9, in paragraph b ), be amended by replacing the word “Parliament” with the following:

“the House of Commons”

In addition, I move:

That Motion No. 11, in paragraph b ), be amended by replacing the word “Parliament” with the following:

“the House of Commons”

I believe these amendments improve the bill by stipulating that elected representatives, members of the House of Commons—we all know the esteem in which the member for Sarnia—Lambton holds the other House, and I am sure he will agree—oversee the process and not people appointed to the Senate.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am perhaps mistaken but I thought we were debating only Motion No. 8. If that is not the case, I wish to move amendments to Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the Liberal Party member. If the question is not just on Motion No. 8, I wish to continue to avail myself of my right to speak.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendment that was moved, which was then amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is to ensure that parliament has a good idea of the rules and policies adopted by the centre so that it can better play its role as guardian of human rights and freedoms.