Réal Lapierre

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague, I will say this. Recently, comprehensive studies were conducted to examine the benefits from equalization in each province, and in Quebec in particular. To suggest, in the absence of any official assurances anyway, that, in its present form, the equalization system can be so beneficial to the people of Quebec is wrong.

Here is what we will be forever standing for as citizens and elected representatives of Quebec. Whether or not the formula can be amended and eventually corrected, we will never condone any interference with the prerogatives and priorities in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my saying that the Bloc Québécois was chosen by the Quebec public to represent it at this level of government will come as no surprise. We have proposed to Quebeckers that we become the defenders of two essentials. The first is to promote balanced federal-provincial policy based on Canada's Constitution, that is, respecting the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. The second is to promote good management of public funds according to the needs of all parties concerned, that is, management taking Canada's real revenues into account.

We were elected with a majority. The people of Quebec put their trust in us. They put their trust in our vision, our calculations and our judgment.

We have made the expectations of Quebeckers known to this government. Have we asked for anything so wrong, so impossible, that no favourable response, no positive measure, is forthcoming in support of the needs of people in Quebec?

We asked to have the fiscal imbalance recognized in figures and not just in theory. Private negotiations on many occasions with a number of provinces have confirmed the merits of that request. In fact, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will be receiving equalization offset payments until 2020 and initial payments of $800 million and $2 billion, respectively. To that we add the recent agreement with the Ontario premier, and we have proof that it is high time for an updated method of allocating federal funds.

As we have been saying loud and clear for a long time, the equalization system is totally outdated. Its founding principle, financial equality among the provinces, no longer meets the requirements of the situation.

These piecemeal agreements can only undermine the credibility of the principle of equalization, hence the urgency of settling the shameful differences between the provincial budgets and the federal budget, now known as the fiscal imbalance.

The money needed to maintain and improve education must be transferred quickly to the provinces and Quebec. The tax field of the goods and services tax must be transferred, unless personal income points are redistributed, and the CHT and the CST eliminated once and for all. This is no whim, but a matter of justice and fairness. It is no luxury, but a necessity.

We are calling for an independent EI fund that is not managed by political decision-makers, with eligibility criteria that are acceptable to all workers and a realistic benefit period. There is nothing in the budget for this, despite the numerous studies and analyses proving its merits. The only positive measure is the agreement with Quebec on parental leave. Is this not proof that Quebec, as we have said over and over again, is innovative, generous and a leader in terms of initiatives in Canada?

There is complete silence with regard to repaying the $46 billion misappropriated for unclear purposes. That is why it is essential, before changing the role of the employment insurance commission, to ensure that both it and the fund are independent. That is the only way to prevent such dubious practices from occurring in the future.

Does any area generate more sympathy or appeal more to the public's conscience than the environment?

The Bloc Québécois has made the Kyoto protocol a priority. In order to ensure its implementation, we called for more substantial aid for wind power, while eliminating tax incentives for non-renewable energy sources and nuclear energy. Given the current situation and Canada's commitment to the Kyoto process, is this not the least of what needs to be done?

We proposed incentives for public transportation users, by allowing them to claim their passes as a deductible. Are we asking for the moon? The increasing number of cars in urban centres is a plague, in terms of both health and public safety, not to mention all the other related problems. Here is one incentive that could have shown us just how serious the government is about getting on the environmental protection bandwagon and respecting its international commitments. This is a concrete, inexpensive and, what is more, effective measure. Instead, the government chose complexity yet again.

Who is it trying to convince that creating an emission reduction incentives agency will resolve the problem of air pollution? We have yet to learn the agency's scope, terms of reference, budget, powers and administration. We cannot support an idea that has not yet been defined. However, we would support tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.

Insofar as agriculture is concerned, the farmers caught in the mad cow disaster are still waiting for fair compensation for the difficulties they have endured. Cull cattle producers are still going through an unprecedented crisis. But there is nothing in this budget to help them escape the downturn into which they have been unjustly thrown. Regarding the issue of infrastructure and communities, we cannot support a project whose implementation would mean infringing on areas of provincial jurisdiction. So long as Quebec remains in charge of everything done within its borders and so long as no conditions are attached to the transfers, the deal for cities and communities will be acceptable.

When we look at the Income Tax Act, we are left with very little. Let us look closely at two points. The increase in the Canada child tax benefit from $1,681 to $2,000 is totally inadequate and fails to meet the needs of families. The increase in the registered pension plan and RRSP ceiling to $22,000 will only benefit the rich. How can we be expected to support measures that are clearly inadequate in many cases and in others too grandiose?

The Old Age Security Act provides for an increase in the income of older people, which is a positive. But what is going to be done about those people who failed to receive what was due to them in previous years? We will not stop insisting that their benefits should be fully retroactive. The 11-month limit that was imposed is unacceptable.

The Student Financial Assistance Act will help to lighten the burden that students bear in some cases, particularly in cases of death or permanent disability in families whose income is too low. We obviously support this measure, which will help people who are less well off deal with situations that are already difficult. However, I would like to add a caveat. At the very least, there should be a substantial increase in the transfers for social programs and post-secondary education. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister promised this during the election campaign.

Regarding the Millennium Scholarship Fund, it should be eliminated and the money for it should be given to Quebec, which would distribute it, since this falls within Quebec's jurisdiction.

This brief overview shows some of the shortcomings in the budget that they want us to support. The related issues are too important for Quebeckers. The Liberals had a fine opportunity to table a budget that would have been the envy of any modern society.

The government will have a surplus of nearly $50 billion to work with over the next three years, according to our forecasts, and we therefore had every reason to expect much better. There had to be political will, though, of a kind to which we have certainly not been accustomed by this government.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, usually when we examine a budget, we try to make a connection between the spin-offs in our regions and their immediate impact on our constituents. However, it is clear from reading this budget that the true impact on the well-being of my constituents will be felt only starting in 2007, which is in itself a slap in the face.

Immediate measures, whether they are intended for older workers laid off when their plant closed, low-income seniors or milk producers in my riding, as affected by the cull cow problem, are non existent or very tenuous. The same is true of the alleged benefits of the gasoline tax; in the short term, the tangible results can be counted on the fingers of one hand in my riding and, obviously, are almost negligible.

It is clear that the this should be an easy decision for the opposition parties to make, since, despite the Liberals' overblown promises, the goods delivered fall far short of the public's expectations.

How would the Liberal member who just bragged about the goodies in this budget interpret the support of the Conservative Party for a budget it finds lacking and is constantly slamming?

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, everyone is expecting elected representatives to be beyond reproach. It is therefore quite appropriate that decisions made by hon. members be transparent, so that members can be accountable for them to their constituents.

We must recognize that accountability in connection with the establishment of the many foundations put in place by this government is totally non-existent. The fact is that it is rather unusual to sink billions of dollars into programs without these investments being subject to external audit.

Ideally, the Auditor General is the best choice for scrutinizing the existing foundations inside and out. We are told that there are already audit mechanisms in place for these foundations, but we must recognize that they do not have as much authority as anything the Auditor General could do.

I would like to ask this question of my hon. colleague, the government member opposite, who so brilliantly orchestrated such a subterfuge. What reasons could there be for all Canadian taxpayers agreeing to the creation of a structure involving huge amounts, without those responsible being subject to even the most basic accountability?

[Patro de Lévis, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the extraordinary support provided by the people in my riding to the welfare of the community and to assure the Patro de Lévis foundation of my unqualified support for their grand relocation project.

Every year, more than 75,000 people take part in activities at the Patro de Lévis, so new facilities have become a necessity. This is why the acquisition of the monastère de la Visitation, a magnificent heritage building is such a coup. Now money is needed to bring the building up to present-day standards. A funding campaign with a target of $2.9 million will appeal to the public's generosity through a variety of fund-raising activities until November 30.

I offer my thanks and congratulations to the many people involved and the hope that the fundraising efforts of the Patro may be on a par with the great good it does for the community.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague whose riding has recently been devastated by the closing of plants, particularly in the clothing industry.

First of all, can he tell us whether he thinks the transition measures taken by the government are satisfactory? Can he also tell us if those measures have been really effective and if they will have an impact on the future of the industry in his own riding?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to point out the presence today of textile and apparel workers from the Montreal area. They are here to ensure that, together, we will find better solutions to safeguard as many jobs as possible in the textile and clothing sector.

My question for the member opposite has three parts.

First, I would like to know if my hon. colleague can confirm that, when it opened the border to textile and clothing exporters, the government of the day was sufficiently prepared for the negative effect on our own industry.

Second, admittedly, there has been considerable effort made in this field. However, can he confirm that the corrective measures now in place are sufficient to deal with the disaster this has caused among manufacturers, particularly those in Quebec?

Third, in this field as in others, are the amounts set aside for research and development sufficient and suited to the change in direction that the textile and clothing sectors must make?

[Shipbuilding, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, stakeholders in shipbuilding agree on the need for a marine policy. In this area, as in many others, the federal government gives with one hand and takes away with the other, according to Denise Verreault, CEO of Les Méchins shipyard. Individual protests have not been successful to date and will never solve the problem.

The best example is Davie shipyard in Lévis, a shining example of expertise and infrastructure, which unfortunately has filed for bankruptcy. Thanks to subsidies from the Quebec government through a trustee in bankruptcy, it is on life support, all because the Canadian government is not doing its homework.

There is an urgent need for the federal government to implement a marine policy that ensures, once and for all, that our shipyards are sustainable and able to compete on an international level.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, in answer to my colleague, I am the first to admit that adding more layers of government may not be the way we will eliminate the problems encountered in this issue.

Personally, myself, I made a payment on the weekend. I do not remember exactly which credit card it was for, but they told me that an interest rate of 28% would apply if I missed the due date. I continue to believe that more work is needed on raising awareness. There will never be policies so coercive that they could sensitize the individual consumer better than if he does it himself.

The problem is not with the existence and purpose of credit cards. Nowadays, we cannot hide the fact that they are part of our daily existence. They provide a way to operate smoothly in our society. Consequently, the real problem, in my opinion, is not that these credit cards exist. And in fact, as the hon. member mentioned, there is a wide variety of cards that give many options to all users.

The problem comes from the fact that certain people have not had the training or information, and certainly not the knowledge needed to use credit cards intelligently. We cannot hide from this fact. In today's society, people say they should have the lifestyle they can afford. It is a well-known fact that those who exceed the lifestyle they can afford run into trouble. It is exactly the same thing with the use of credit cards.

Moreover, I do not believe that adding more rules through legislation would be a realistic way to limit the damage, in the same way that even if we were to close all the casinos in one province, the real gamblers would find a way to play in a different province or a different country.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague opposite to the best of my abilities.

What, in my opinion, is problematic is that possibly the criteria used to approve people for credit cards are too permissive.

As a parent, I can admit when my children, at a particular time in their lives, were of age to obtain credit cards, they did so easily. Often, having them really encourages people to spend money.

Here is how I can see things. Since I was a teacher, I do not need to tell anyone that we constantly need to push the envelope to help students learn how to deals with various problems.

I continue to believe that, in each of the provinces—as there are doubtless an extraordinary number in Quebec—there are organizations responsible for providing information and raising awareness in various areas and, consequently, teaching people how to use credit cards wisely.