Odina Desrochers

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the current parliamentary secretary, I am almost tempted to invite him to run in Quebec, because he talked only about Quebec. We are talking about Canadian situations. As a sovereignist and a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I am talking about a Quebec situation. But to hear him, I think that if there is ever a seat available in Quebec, I would strongly suggest he run in Quebec. He talks only about the Parti Quebecois.

Yes, perhaps there were cuts. But as I was saying earlier, if the Quebec government was forced to make cuts, it is due to this government's strategy to suffocate Quebec and take away its autonomy.

It is not complicated, I am going to do some quick math. The government took $100 from us with cuts to the employment insurance fund, and since it has been running surpluses, it gave us $20 back; and it thinks we will be happy. We are out $80; I think this is not hard to understand. The government took $100 and gave us $20 back, and it thinks we will forget that we are still short $80. We use hard facts, calculations and columns to understand. All the government does is forget the past. Everything has to be erased.

I keep coming back to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who is going around saying that everything in this Parliament is going to change. In that case, all the Canadian taxpayers and all Canadians will have to forget the financial massacre he led and orchestrated as former Minister of Finance. He was responsible for creating foundations, cutting transfer payments and grabbing money from the employment insurance fund.

Quebeckers and Canadians will remember. The government members opposite are responsible for the current situation. And they are to blame if the municipalities are suffering.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will also be following the recommendations made by my colleague and vote against the Canadian Alliance's motion for the reasons she gave. I would add that all of the efforts made in this House are for naught.

The fact is, this government is in transition. No one is making decisions. Yesterday or the day before, the member for LaSalle—Émard arrived in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and said basically what the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has said.

This government has no captain at the helm. The ship is drifting, but I am not referring to one of those that belong to the former Minister of Finance. They are in other countries, in tax havens. While the member for LaSalle—Émard was Minister of Finance, he was vehemently opposed to eliminating tax havens in the West Indies. We know why.

I will be curious to see if the member for LaSalle—Émard will act like a real taxpayer and shoulder his responsibilities when he finally becomes Prime Minister. When you are a taxpayer and you run a corporation, you have to pay taxes. When you do not pay taxes, you are not a good corporate citizen. You are not shouldering your responsibilities. If all Canadians behaved like the member for LaSalle—Émard, what kind of administrative mess would we be in and what would happen to Canada's economy?

I would like to say to the member opposite—who spoke earlier and who made comments about the Parti Quebecois—that it was Yves Séguin, the current finance minister in the Charest government, who clearly proved that the fiscal imbalance exists. Earlier the member mentioned the fact that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction and that that terribley PQ government, the terrible separatist government, as they put it, had cut funding to municipalities.

That is what is called nation building. It is the way the Liberals behave in order to smother Quebec. It is easy. They cut off the money at the source and the Government of Quebec finds itself with a shortage of funds. It had to make difficult choices. In making these difficult choices, it had to make cuts with respect to municipalities. It also had to make cuts in highway maintenance. The money is in Ottawa.

It is well known that the excise tax was originally introduced to support the creation of Petro Canada, which, as far as I know, has been sold to private investors. I think perhaps 25 or 30% remains in public hands. I do not follow the ups and downs of Petro Canada on the stock market, but there is no longer any reason for the excise tax. About $4.758 billion has been taken for no reason from the taxpayers' pockets. Now, we have to deal with it, because this government specializes in taxes. Since it does not want to eliminate the excise tax, it should take the money and invest it in the provinces. The money does not belong to the federal government.

A short while ago, the parliamentary secretary said that Quebec and the provinces do not treat the municipalities very fairly. Nevertheless, the figures are clear: 117% of the fuel tax is directly invested in highways, and, of the $4.750 billion, $2.5 billion goes to highways. That is a fiscal imbalance.

I smiled when I read the Canadian Alliance motion. Since the Alliance has been here, its members have specialized in saying that there are too many taxes and they should be eliminated. Now, they take one tax and want to turn it into a new one and make it a provincial responsibility. That does not work.

The Canadian Constitution is clear. But the hon. members across the floor are messing around with its interpretation. When it suits the federal government, the Liberals say, “That is a provincial responsibility”. Look how they operate with softwood lumber. Look how they operate with gasoline. When things go badly, they say it is the provinces' fault.

Things are going badly in the provinces because the federal government is not doing its job. Generally, a confederation ought to cooperate, subordinate, coordinate the federations. What we have is not a confederation but a centralist Canadian federation, a product of the dream of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The people in government, along with the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, are suffocating Quebec, taking away its responsibilities. What is happening is that there are difficult choices to be made. Those who are really responsible for the financial chaos in Quebec are the people across the way. Those who are really responsible for the pitiful state of our highways—with which I am familiar, since I live in a very rural riding—are in government.

We have the infrastructure program, clear agreements. But when those clear agreements come here to Ottawa, we are all very well aware of how they get fiddled about with at Economic Development Canada, of all the red tape, of all the delays there are. Who is responsible? Always the Canadian government, which is not doing its job.

There is a surplus and there is fiscal imbalance. The solution is clear. They merely have to hand the money over to us, to the provinces, and we will administer it. When we have the money to which we are entitled, we will be in a position to meet the expectations of the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction. That is clear.

It seems to me that the federal Liberals can no longer lay the blame at the feet of the terrible separatist government, as the parliamentary secretary was just doing. They are no longer in power. Now it is the provincial Liberals, with Yves Séguin as Minister of Finance, he who has been openly critical of the fiscal imbalance. So where can the blame be laid? They will have to talk to each other. I would imagine there would be a certain degree of accommodation between two groups of Liberals.

I am looking forward to seeing the present Minister of Finance tell Yves Séguin, “Dear Yves, I know there is a fiscal imbalance. Now that the minister is no longer a PQ minister, I can acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance.” They have no choice. That is the reality.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, however, the problem is that there is no longer anyone in this government making decisions. There is a Prime Minister who is coming to end of his mandate, and a future Prime Minister who says all manner of things all over Canada, but who is often conspicuously absent when there are crucial votes. Take yesterday's vote on Bill C-24 as an example. This cuts very close to the partisan heart of the member for LaSalle—Émard, and he was not there. So what are we to do?

This government is in transition, and is having trouble governing. As I was saying, the Liberal government's ship is drifting, unlike the ships of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. Currently, the Liberal ship has no rudder. There is no one at the helm and it is listing. The Liberal government's ship must be prevented from entering the St. Lawrence or it could run aground on the north or south shore. It would not even be able to find the channel. The channel is the central canal where there is sure sailing. But this is not the case.

I hope that, over the next few months, once we have a real Prime Minister, a real Minister of Finance and a real cabinet, they will acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and give the provinces the money they need to meet the real expectations of the municipalities.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite takes pleasure in using the Constitution whenever it suits him. This government has made a specialty of interfering in provincial jurisdictions, but when the time comes to take its leadership role, then it invokes the Constitution.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance see it as normal that the Canadian government collected $4.758 billion in fuel taxes, but only spent $119 million on roads? That is what I call fiscal imbalance. Am I right in thinking that the role of the central government is to distribute money to the provinces, not crumbs?

I would like to hear him on that. Does he find it normal that his government collects nearly $5 billion but gives back only $119 million to look after roads? Is that normal? Is that equitable? Or is it just a typically Liberal thing to do?

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things.

First, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade adopted a motion to give Taiwan observer status. Second, 161 members signed a petition along the same lines.

With the open-mindedness that the member boasts of, how does she feel, as a democratic person, knowing that she is contributing to reversing a decision taken in committee and reversing a decision taken by 161 members who signed a petition?

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the secretary of state a question about two things.

First, we are well aware that a motion recommending that Taiwan have observer status was adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Second, 161 members signed a petition along the same lines.

Given that she seems to be telling us that she is very democratic and open-minded, how does she feel now, in the House of Commons, about rejecting a motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and a petition signed by 161 members? How does she explain this inconsistency?

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I repeat the question asked by my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. When it comes time to vote, it will be impossible to vote half in favour and half against the motion.

My question is very clear. The vote is tomorrow. What is the position of the hon. member for Yukon? Is he for or against the Canadian Alliance motion? It is simple.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there cannot be compromises on this issue. This is a fundamental issue that has already been passed by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It was supported by 161 members and by a majority of the members of the Bloc Quebecois. We cannot turn back.

If the government rejects this motion, it will have to bear the responsibility for the vote, for not being open on an important situation, a situation that is critical for humanity: health.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that is the type of question that angers me. This is not an economic or political issue; we are talking about health, compassion, humanity and keeping an open mind and being understanding.

This type of question just shows how the Liberals view this important issue. All that interests them is the economic and political aspect, and they could care less about health.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the way I feel. If the world granted Taiwan an economic and political status with the World Trade Organization, which set a good precedent for Taiwan, then why not simply take this example and apply this precedent in this case? If we acknowledge that Taiwan is part of the World Trade Organization for economic and political matters, why would we not grant Taiwan similar observer privileges at the World Health Organization?

Which brings us back to the whole issue of health, humanity, awareness and compassion. We will see how the Liberals act when we are called to vote on this important issue in the House of Commons.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight in this important debate on the entire issue of the World Health Organization.

A few moments ago, my hon. colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes referred to the questions asked in 2002 by Antoine Dubé, the former member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. At that time, in 2002, we were not facing the current situation, namely, confronting this disease that has now struck all over the world. Even the people of Toronto got bad news on the weekend.

I would like to say that this debate is not about economics or politics. It is about health. When we talk about health issues, politics and economics must take a back seat.

I have heard the representatives of the Liberal government start in with petty politics. Just now, I heard the secretary of state lecture us about the constitution, an amazing history lesson that had nothing to do with the motion put forward today by the Canadian Alliance. When that same secretary of state said he was in favour of Taiwan being granted status with the WHO as long as it was China that sponsored Taiwan for membership, I found it hard to believe how little these people read.

I have here a recent news story, written by a Globe & Mail journalist on May 20, 2003, saying that at the annual assembly of the World Health Organization last week in Geneva, the lobby from totalitarian China was adamant that Taiwan should not have observer status at the WHO.

The Liberal government and the current Prime Minister pride themselves on being open, democratic and attuned to all the world's problems. Today, when the Canadian Alliance puts forward a reasonable motion, we have to sit here and listen to a rehash of an old constitutional argument focussing on politics and economics, with nothing said about the essence of this motion, which is health.

I would like to say—and I direct my message especially to the Liberals over there—that incredible efforts have already been made, particularly in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where, despite dissent, we obtained a victory. We recommended strongly that Taiwan have observer status at the World Health Organization.

I also have a letter here signed by Thomas Chen, representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. He informs us that, currently, 161 members of this House—including the vast majority of Bloc Quebecois members, I am proud to say, and the vast majority of the Alliance too, I believe—signed this petition demanding that Taiwan be given observer status at the WHO.

The chair of the Canada–Taiwan ParliamentaryFriendship Group, the hon. member for Scarborough East, said the same thing. He was able to make the distinction between an economic debate, a political debate and a debate on health. I think he was one of the 161 signatories. I strongly urge him to find out which members of his party signed this petition so that when the question is put, the House can confirm the work already done by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At that moment, it would be clear that, in this Parliament, there is consistency in action, meaning consistency with regard to the actions of a committee and those of the House of Commons itself.

I think that, now, given the crisis that the world, China, Taiwan and, once again, Toronto are facing, foreign observers are looking at what the House of Commons is doing; they are hoping that the Canadian government will show openness and understanding. They are not hoping solely for an economic and political debate devoid of humanism and compassion, given what Asia, particularly China and Taiwan, is currently experiencing.

When I see that the Liberal government is once again using “mainland China”, as they say in English, as a model, I find it very difficult to trust this government, which has already been taken to task about transparency and the free flow of information. It is clear that, over there, the State controls almost all the information to the media. But, it is impossible not to be concerned here, when we see the statistics China is releasing. No one can go to China to check and tell us otherwise.

It is likely that the crisis in China at the present time is far more significant that it seems; no one really knows. In order to protect Taiwan and other countries, then, it is important for Taiwan to have WHO observer status. This is a highly technical matter, a matter of organization. When individuals or countries are part of an organization, even if not able to speak, they listen, they know what is going on, instead of just having the facts reported to them. As a result, when they come out of a meeting, they are in a position to give an opinion and to act.

What the LIberal government is doing at this time is trying to push Taiwan aside. But when it is a matter of economics, of policy, of money, there is no problem. Taiwan even has status within the World Trade Organization. Yet what in this world is more important than health?

This then is the message I am sending once again to the Liberal government: when the Liberal members have to vote on the Canadian Alliance motion on the importance of Taiwan having observer status at the World Health Organization, I trust that they will be guided by concerns of health, humanity, compassion and open-mindedness and will say, “Yes, Taiwan”.