Odina Desrochers

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House in 2003, I would like to wish a happy New Year to all my constituents in Lotbinière—L'Érable and to all Quebeckers.

Once again, I rise in this House to talk about the report of the Auditor General. As you probably know, last December, a bombshell was dropped when the media and the public learned that the cost of the gun registry would reach $1 billion.

In fact, this afternoon, the public accounts committee as well as my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party were told that, depending upon their availability, at least two ministers would appear before the committee on February 24, to explain the situation. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as we know, examines why there are so many discrepancies and why the Auditor General feels the need to criticize certain situations.

The current Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board will therefore have to appear before us on or about February 24 to explain why the costs have gone from $2 million to $1 billion. We had been told that the costs would be $117 million and that users would pay $115 million. We know now what the costs are.

When the Auditor General tabled her report, the employment insurance fund was mentioned once again. The problem of the fund—as you know—is the result of a Liberal invention that allows the Minister of Finance to rack up surpluses every year and to shift them into the consolidated fund. Thus, the debt is being reduced, but with money belonging to small and medium businesses and to workers, which is inconceivable.

This is the third time that the Auditor General has asked the current government to legislate and to try to bring more equity into the current employment insurance plan.

Also, when we talked about the Auditor General's report that was tabled last December, we also mentioned the many reports that are required from first nations for them to receive money. All this leads to a bureaucracy that is extremely costly, which is detrimental to the first nations.

When I asked the question to the Minister of Finance last December, I was trying to find out when the federal government would put an end to this waste of money all over the place. I am thinking in particular of the waste in the gun control program and in the employment insurance fund. We also talked about the 20 million social insurance numbers that have gone missing.

So, this government is behaving somewhat like an amateur; it is improvising. Who has to pay, in the end? It is the taxpayers and the low income earners. This is why members of the Bloc Quebecois have risen many times in the House and tried to get some explanations.

Tonight, I am asking the question once again: when will the federal government put an end to this waste in the gun control program and in the management of the employment insurance fund and at Indian Affairs? Let us not forget that each time the Auditor General tables her report, she questions the accounting methods used by the Minister of Finance. This government creates foundations to try to invest money without the foundations being accountable to the House of Commons.

[Brigitte Saint-Vincent, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Brigitte Saint-Vincent was chosen woman farmer of the year for 2002 by the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec at the 15th soirée Saturne in Saint-Hyacinthe. Brigitte, at 34 years, is the youngest recipient of the award and the first woman from the Beauce region to win.

At a very early age, she took part in animal shows and her work on her father's farm led her to become one of the first women horse and cattle judges in Quebec. She holds a Bachelor of Animal Science from Macdonald College, and judges across America and Europe. She was also the first woman to judge the finals for purebred beef cattle in Brazil.

A great horse lover, she is also a certified instructor with the Fédération équestre du Québec and owns a horseback riding school in Saint-Cuthbert.

On behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois I would like to congratulate Brigitte Saint-Vincent for this title as an ambassador for agriculture. I am proud that young women like Brigitte are so motivated and active within the agricultural sector.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond with respect to the Union des municipalités du Québec. Its president is Francine Ruet-Jutras, the mayor of Drummondville and a recognized sovereignist. I would be surprised if she had said such a thing at the assembly of the UMQ. This proves once again that the hon. member for Yukon would do well to get away from Parliament Hill and pay a visit to Quebec to see how things are done.

As for his sixth principle, it is difficult enough to operate under the current Canada Health Act. Do not think for one moment that the Bloc Quebecois is going to promote this principle. In any event, health comes under provincial jurisdiction. This is Quebec's business. Ottawa needs to stop interfering because it is none of its business.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, first, where my hon. colleague opposite obtained the information he just gave me? I have never heard that the Quebec government took steps to repatriate sums of money.

It is not difficult. The cuts that this government forced on the provinces have made life difficult for all Canadian and Quebec municipalities. This government continues to slash provincial transfer payments. The Canadian Constitution—I hope that the members are familiar with it, because it is their Constitution—states that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction. That said, how are the provinces supposed to meet the needs and expectations of municipalities, when the federal government continues to slash provincial transfer payments?

This shows a clear lack of responsibility by this government, which says all the time that Canada is beautiful, that this is a great country. Perhaps this is how the media reports it when the Prime Minister or current ministers talk about it. But, in reality, all Canadian municipalities and Quebec municipalities are being penalized. There is also the infrastructure program, which it is hard to squeeze money out of, and there are constant squabbles where Quebec agrees and the other side, the bureaucracy, constantly puts up roadblocks.

If people expect that, under the leadership of this Liberal government, economic growth is going to happen in the municipalities, I think that we are not on the same page.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Like the mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay, these people are blaming the Government of Quebec, and telling people “If your taxes go up this year, it is a result of the responsibilities imposed upon us by the Government of Quebec in connection with the merger.” This sort of talk is dishonest.

Now we see how all these Liberal mayors in Quebec are getting ready to come begging on their knees for money in the House. Once again, creating a department of urban affairs would enable the federal government to interfere in areas that are exclusively the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has been given the mandate to cut her budget by 15%. Out of a budget of $85 billion, that means about $10 or $12 billion would be cut, which is unacceptable.

On this side of the House they are calling for the return of the POWA program. The population is aging. This is a program to train people for other jobs. There is a crying need for it in Quebec. The needs are pressing. This morning we learned that POWA will be no more. There will be no more progressive measures to help with training, to enable our workers to acquire skills for other jobs, to prepare them for retirement, to prepare their replacements, to prepare our young people.

I would like to tell a little story. Let us take the case of a young person who is taking over for a seasonal worker; the region where this seasonal job is located is not important. This seasonal worker must work 400, 500 or 600 hours to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Seasonal work is common in many regions of Quebec. When this person leaves his job, if a young person replaces him, the young person needs to work 910 hours before qualifying for unemployment insurance. So, what do young people do? They leave the regions and move to the big cities. They try to get unemployment insurance by working 910 hours.

One of the main causes of this exodus of young people to large communities is the current Employment Insurance Act. Young people are not able to receive the support needed to learn, to get training and to find jobs in the regions, and unemployment insurance is still being cut. There is no news, either, on the disability tax credit.

The report was not that complicated. Next year, instead of touring across Canada and disregarding what it hears, it would be much simpler for the government to take the Liberal Party of Canada's program and simply ask if people agree with that. The former Minister of Finance always used the Liberal Party's program as the basis for his budget anyway.

This budget is really a road map for the Prime Minister legacy. It represents what we could call the current Prime Minister's legacy. I do not think this legacy will involve telling his government to restore all of the health and education transfers. That would surprise me.

I suspect that the legacy of the current Prime Minister, with his centralizing mentality and philosophy, will be to once again barge into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This is harmful. What is even more harmful is that regardless of who heads the party, regardless of who leads this Liberal government, this centralizing philosophy, and this lack of respect for Quebec will endure.

Despite everything, I would like to convey to all of the members of the House my best wishes for a happy holiday season.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am currently responding to the work of the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, which wants to cut off part of my riding, the part that corresponds to the word “L'Érable”. This means taking away 50% of my riding. I hope that these few comments I am making now will make them aware of the importance of belonging.

This is the last time in 2002 that I will speak in the House. As regards the comments that I would have liked to have made, it would have been nice to say that I was satisfied and that I found some positive aspects about this prebudget tour. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything positive in this report.

Personally, when I look at what these people contributed to the report on the prebudget consultations, I feel that it was a complete waste of time and an insult to the people who were consulted. I personally made the prebudget rounds twice, from one end of the country to the other. Everyone had the same expectations, it was always the same question, how is the federal government administering its budget?

First there was the reign of the current member for LaSalle—Émard. Right now, his interests have shifted from finance to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I understand that what he did, he did for his party. I cannot think of any business that would have kept an accountant whose forecasts were as far off the mark as those of the member for LaSalle—Émard. A 300% margin of error is pretty big.

I have always said about the member for LaSalle—Émard that he massages the figures, manipulates them. By this I mean that all the former Minister of Finance did was make dire predictions and say how bad the situation was. Then, we would later learn through the media that there was a big surplus.

I really do not think the situation is going to change with the current Minister of Finance, the departure of the current Prime Minister and the arrival of the new one. I think the way this government operates is a good reflection of the philosophy of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not complicated: it consists of strangling Quebec. It consists of strangling the unemployed and making cuts.

In this connection, this morning I heard a parliamentary commentator on the government radio network report that the Prime Minister had asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to slash another 15% from her budget. What does that mean? It means fewer employees in the department's regional offices, it means all of the so-called discretionary programs, which are often there to help community groups and the most disadvantaged, are going to be slashed. Why? To give some leeway to this government for the creation of a program that will end up being administered by a foundation. It will ignore the Government of Quebec and deal directly with the municipal level.

This morning I also heard the comments by Hull mayor Yves Ducharme, a good Liberal. Let us listen to what he had to say. This is the same mayor who, last year, was promoting the merger of Hull, Aylmer and Gatineau, into what is now called the City of Gatineau. This morning, that same mayor was laying the blame on the Government of Quebec.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

He is massaging the figures.

[Maple Syrup Producers, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 87 maple syrup producers in Quebec got a raw deal when a distributor went bankrupt. In addition to not getting paid for their 2000 harvest, these producers are now being forced to reimburse advances given by the federal government under the Advance Payments Program. The Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec estimates the amount of uncollected money to be approximately $2 million.

Does the minister not believe it is time to support the federation, rather than strangling these Quebec producers by forcing them to reimburse subsidies when they were never paid for their syrup?

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this comment, because it shows both realism and perceptiveness. It fits exactly with what we are experiencing in Quebec at the present time, and in the rest of Canada, as far as this EI fund scandal goes, this scandal of excessive contribution rates, this misappropriation of the funds of the workers and small and medium businesses to pay down a debt. I will not start repeating everything the Auditor General has had to say since the beginning of the year, for it would take me hours and hours.

Already in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm, the people of Quebec have indicated clearly that they want nothing to do with the Liberal government.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to comment on such incoherent remarks, because they make no sense. He told me “Fund, fund, fund”.

The only fund that I see is the virtual fund, the fund into which the Liberals are dipping to pay down the debt. I call this a virtual fund because, as my colleague said, there is no fund. It is gone; it has disappeared.

To the member who is trying to tell me that Bloc Quebecois members are not sensitive to the plight of the disabled, I say that my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre, toured Quebec precisely to see things firsthand, and she has found once again that this government is targeting society's poorest.