Odina Desrochers

[Bill C-20, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like all the people of Quebec, the people in the riding of Lotbinière are outraged at this latest attack by the federal government on the democratic institutions of Quebec.

Bill C-20 resembles the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982. The same federal politicians have once again decided to thwart democracy in Quebec. But nothing will prevent Quebecers from continuing their pursuit of sovereignty.

In 1918, the Right Hon. Joseph Napoléon Francoeur, the MLA for Lotbinière at the time, already had what the people of Quebec needed. In his now famous motion, he said “This House is of the opinion that the Province of Quebec would be prepared to agree to break away from the Confederation set up in 1867 if, in the other provinces, it is felt that Quebec is an obstacle to the Union, and to the progress and development of Canada”.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this most important debate. First of all, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

After reading the report stemming from the prebudget hearings, which was tabled in the House, one can tell that a great deal of ambiguity remains concerning the direction the Minister of Finance intends to take with the budget to be tabled on or about February 22 or February 29, 2000.

Every year, the Bloc Quebecois brings out statistics to support its criticism of what I always refer to as cooking the books, something the Minister of Finance is indulging in with increasing frequency.

For several years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a number of things, and I think that the Bloc Quebecois is the party that best defends Quebec's interests. We have called for tax cuts, a return to a real EI system, and the return of social transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces; we have called for support for productive projects, moderate debt reduction, and significant efforts to combat poverty.

This is the gist of what the Bloc Quebecois puts forward annually at this time of the year, when the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance presents the committee's report.

In Lotbinière, as everywhere else, we took part in this democratic process, in order to find out what the people of Lotbinière wanted. Like all taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada, the people in my riding want lower taxes, but not along the lines the Minister of Finance is suggesting. We want tax cuts for those who contributed most to helping the federal government eliminate the deficit.

This means a tax cut targeted at the middle class. As for middle class, let me explain what I mean. Statistically, middle class in Canada means those earning between $30,000 and $70,000 a year.

In a riding like my own of Lotbinière, or like Jonquière or any others with the same characteristics, semi-urban, semi-rural, the middle class is not earning between $30,000 and $70,000 a year; often it is earning $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000.

These people often work 40 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $8, $9 or $10, and have a lot of trouble making ends meet. They are also greatly affected these days by the price of gasoline.

When travelling throughout Quebec, people probably notice that the price of gasoline is quite high in urban centres like Quebec City and Montreal. However, if they travel 100 or 150 kilometres to regions like Jonquière, Rimouski and Abitibi, they will see that the price of gasoline in these areas is very high. What does that mean?

Ever since inflation started to skyrocket in the mid-seventies, the price gasoline has had a major impact on the price of consumer products. When the price of gasoline goes up, the trucker who delivers the goods has to increase his rate. Once on the shelves, the goods have to be sold at a higher price, and the consumer who buys them also has to pay more for gasoline.

This is a real problem for the regions. In the budget being prepared for the year 2000, it is anticipated that the government will include no measure to help these people, even though we are now facing this indirect inflation created with the complicity of the oil companies.

I will come back to this issue, because in the year 2000, as the regional development critic for the Bloc Quebecois, along with my hon. colleagues, we will be taking major action, including in the energy sector, which will be discussed at some length.

We would not want to relive the situation we experienced in the mid-1970s when inflation soared. We know what it did to the economy of Quebec and Canada.

I would also like to talk about an issue near and dear to my heart which, once again, goes unmentioned the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Finance, namely employment insurance reform. Over the last few weeks, I have been leading an awareness campaign in the riding of Lotbinière, inviting people to sign a petition condemning this situation.

Right now, within the riding of Lotbinière, there are two different rates. The first one is 6.2%, which means that people have to work 660 hours to be eligible for benefits. At the other end of the riding, the rate is 11.2%. This means that people need only work 490 hours. In the same riding, there is a difference of 5%.

When people come to see us in our riding offices, it is difficult to explain to them the injustice that comes from the fact that the rate is based on the place of residence. This means that, if two persons work for the same company and that company closes down or experiences a slowdown, one person may be eligible for benefits and the other may be penalized.

With the same rates, with the same rights, because of the complexity of the map drawn by the Department of Human Resources Development, some people in my riding are severely penalized.

As recently as this week, someone who thought he would be eligible for benefits with his 635 hours learned that the rate had changed. It came down to 6.2%, and that person left with the sad news that he needed 660 hours to be eligible for benefits. So he did not have a choice, he had to turn to income security.

Sometimes the government is proud of the fact that the number of people receiving employment insurance benefits is going down. This is to be expected, because when unemployed workers no longer have access to employment insurance, that have to turn to income security. In the statistics, these people are no longer considered to be part of the labour force. They have been dropped from the statistics.

Statistics are to be used with caution. Yes, the economy is getting stronger. However, we must not forget the terrible consequences of the employment insurance program. A lot of people have to rely on income security now. It is a problem we have in the riding of Lotbinière and in most Quebec ridings.

I want to thank all those who helped me with this initiative in my riding, including the Caisses populaires that circulated the petition and the municipalities that sent resolutions supporting my initiative. Hundreds of people are still signing the petition condemning this social injustice.

During the holidays, we will take a break, but in the year 2000, we will be back at it and we intend to hand over to the Minister of Human Resources Development a comprehensive report to make her aware of the social injustice affecting the people of Lotbinière.

The regions are also faced with problems at the municipal level. When the new governor general delivered the throne speech, we all expected the federal government to announce immediate measures to help the municipalities. The President of the Treasury Board herself told us that they had a project in mind and she believed negotiations were under way.

Anyway, to sum it up, a project might be announced in November or December 2000. There is a desperate need for action now. This measure should already have been announced. Memorandums of understanding should already be under negotiation. Also, financial support for the municipalities should be included in the February 2000 budget.

We know that the municipalities have to upgrade their infrastructures and that we previously had three party agreements between Quebec, Ottawa and the municipalities that worked just fine. The federal government now has a surplus. I think it is important that the surplus go to areas where the people feel it is most needed: to help the unemployed, to support municipalities and to restore transfers for health care and education.

Our colleagues in the National Assembly, the health and social services minister, Mrs. Marois, and the education minister, François Legault, are having a lot of trouble running their departments because of all the cuts the federal government has made since 1993. Representatives of the federal government say that it has increased transfers. This is a joke, it is utter nonsense.

The government cut less than it was supposed to be. We know that this government is quite good at marketing. These people are trying to show us how good their government is.

I repeat that the government should reduce taxes to help the middle class, come back to a real employment insurance program, fully restore the social transfers to Quebec and the other provinces, support the positive projects of the municipalities and especially put significant effect into the fight against poverty.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. colleague from the NDP, who made a sad assessment of the current Liberal government's record.

I would like him to say more on the social transfer. Quebec is having a lot of trouble. The minister, Pauline Marois, is trying in every way possible to find the money needed to provide adequate health care to the people.

I would like to know if the member from the NDP believes that these problems are in large part due to the Liberal government's mismanagement since 1993.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

I therefore ask for unanimous consent to table this document that will enlighten the House of Commons.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been making confusing and sometimes provocative remarks.

This follows the announcement made by the Prime Minister, who just introduced a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights.

I would like to table a document from a real party, which has always defended Quebec's interests and of which I am very proud, namely the Parti Quebecois. This document is entitled

Travailler pour la souveraineté, pourquoi—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, namely Bill C-20, sponsored by the minister for interference with the provinces' and Quebec's jurisdictions, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten the House.

It is an article from the June 8 issue of Le Devoir —

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will clarify matters for the House.

It is an article—

[Republic Of Palau, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on November 9, 1993, in their eighth referendum, the people of the Palau Islands, a former U.S. protectorate, chose sovereignty by majority vote.

The question put to the Palau people was as follows: “Do you approve of free association as proposed by the free association pact?”

On the ballot, along with the question was the information that the majority required was 50% plus one.

On October 1, 1994, the pact of free association was signed with the United States, and, on December 15 of the same year, the Republic of Palau joined the United Nations.

The Prime Minister and his acolyte in intergovernmental affairs, rather than deny the commitments they made in 1995 and propose positions that are undemocratic, should realize that sovereignty partnership is the way to the future for Quebec and Canada, and the threat to twist the principle of voter equality will simply damage Canada's reputation abroad.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-13 at second reading stage. That is fortunate, because this bill needs a lot of amendments to be more in tune with the reality of Quebec and with the Constitution of Canada.

First of all, we know that health is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As my hon. colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was saying yesterday, I am in favor of Bill C-13 in principle. However, I have some reservations as to its present wording.

Ever since I came to the House of Commons, I have had great difficulty trusting the Liberal government. In the beginning, we always hear the same cassette and see the same scenario. The government puts on a great show of democracy and says that it respects the Constitution. That is what we hear from the politicians opposite and that is the tone we find in the Speeches from the Throne, both the one delivered in September 1997 and the latest one delivered in October 1999.

Actually, what is the federal Liberal government doing? It makes itself look good in the media, then interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Every time a minister stands up and tries to make us believe that the government respects the provincial jurisdictions, something just does not sound right.

I have difficulty understanding what federal Liberal ministers and members are saying. I remember the bad experience we went through when the social union framework was discussed. Fortunately, the Government of Quebec did not ratify it. We know the federal government will use this document to try to justify its having jurisdiction in certain areas when it goes to Seattle next week for the start of the World Trade Organization negotiations.

I also remember the sorry outcome of this social union framework. For health care, Quebec got $55 million, while Ontario got $1 billion. Because of this social injustice, Quebec is going through a difficult period in the area of health care.

One does not have to look very far. The numerous media reports on that subject clearly show the problem comes from Ottawa, because the money is in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance brags about having managed to eliminate the deficit, but any accountant could have done the same. It is very easy to grab the money and cut transfers to the provinces.

It is also very easy for a government to have a budget surplus when it dips into the employment insurance fund, taking money that was paid by workers and employers, as well as into the federal employees' pension fund.

What the Minister of Finance did is no miracle. These cuts, totalling $7 billion, are hurting Quebecers. They are hurting seniors.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet retirees. These people are often isolated and alone. They are worried and they are stressed out by the idea that they will have to wait a long time before getting test results. They have to be very courageous when they have to go to hospitals and to emergency clinics. All this is caused by the Canadian government.

I now want to get back to Bill C-13. If the federal government's intentions were so good, why did it do what it is doing with the Canadian institutes of health research? Why did it choose this approach? Because it is again taking the centralizing approach that implies Canadian standards. Once again, it ignored totally the situation in each province, including Quebec.

The situation is completely different in British Columbia, in the prairies, in Ontario, in Quebec or in the maritimes. When the Canadian constitution was ratified, the Fathers of Confederation decided that health would be a provincial responsibility. The closer the level of government is to the people—the provinces are much closer to the people—the better it can manage health care fairly. This is not the case at present, because we do not have enough money.

Let us look at the consequences. I will quote a few statistics. For example, Quebec's current health and social services minister, Pauline Marois, is short $1 billion. This represents 20% of the cost of running all the hospitals in Quebec, accounts for the closing of half the hospitals in the Montreal area—and I am convinced the statistics would be the same, a little lower maybe, for hospitals in the Chaudière—Appalaches region—and is equivalent to the cost of caring for 370,000 patients.

As we know, the Government of Quebec is involved in negotiations at the present time. What does one billion dollars represent? The salaries of half the nurses in Quebec—and that is a lot of money—or the cost of running all the CLSCs. In his reform, Minister Rochon wanted to bring all primary care into the CLSCs.

We are short of money. This is twice the cost of all services to youth. This is the result of the federal government's social agenda and this is the situation in which the Government of Quebec finds itself, $1 billion in the hole.

With Bill C-13, this government is trying to make us believe that it is going to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. That is a joke, considering the way the Liberal government is acting.

There is a need for Bill C-13, because if we are to make progress as the years go by—and we are on the verge of the third millennium—we need money to support all those involved in research, particularly those who are seeking preventive solutions. That is the good thing about Bill C-13.

But when we see this government once again wanting to appropriate jurisdictions, although it is trying to make us believe that it is going to respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, I have a big problem with that.

I agree with the principle of the bill, but it needs a lot of changes. One need only look at the powers assigned to the governing council of this new federal body and the way the federal government behaves toward the provinces.

I trust that when the debate on second reading of this bill is over, we will be in a position to be listened to properly when it goes to committee. I trust that the Liberal members who will be around the table will listen attentively and will, once and for all, respect the Canadian constitution.

They are very proud of the Canadian constitution, but they have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to understanding it, reading it and, in particular, respecting it.

Finally, there will be the recourses provided by third reading. Bill C-13 is good for research and for all those who want to advance medicine in Quebec, but the tools for so doing must belong to the province of Quebec, since it has jurisdiction over health.

The tools and the regulations relating to Bill C-13 must be clear in order to avoid having the federal government once again make use of a new institution in an attempt to standardize from sea to sea something as basic as this.

I hope they will listen, because we agree with the principle, but major changes relating to the mechanisms for implementation of Bill C-13 are needed.

[National Highway System, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to the Reform motion before us today, asking that a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline be directed to joint federal and provincial programs.

My Liberal colleague opposite said that the government had no money to intervene immediately, but he seemed to have forgotten that it already has a surplus of several billions of dollars.

However, my speech will not deal with the Reform motion per se, but rather with the high gas prices people have to pay these days. If I were to move a motion, it would be to reduce this tax to deal with a glaring problem people have today, namely that if the price of gas keeps on rising as it has, soon they will no longer be able to drive their own cars.

In a riding like mine, Lotbinière, and in several other ridings throughout Quebec, a car has become a necessity since, over the past few years, inter-city bus networks have been dismantled one by one, with the result that there is no longer any link between smaller municipalities or with the major centres around the riding of Lotbinière. If we lower taxes, therefore, it should be with the consumers in mind.

As far as the issue of roads is concerned, it should be dealt with through the infrastructure program soon, not only in December 2000. In the throne speech, the government made several commitments, but they are all for the long term. The strategy of the Liberals across the way reeks of electioneering. Everything is being delayed until the end of the year 2000, so there will be goodies left for the budget in 2001, because we know there will then be an election campaign.

People have a good memory, and I hope they will keep it until the next federal election. This government's approach to everything is to keep people waiting, waiting for the programs announced with regard to mothers and parental leave, waiting for the infrastructure program.

As for everything announced in the Speech from the Throne, nothing has yet taken concrete form. The budget for the year 2000 will be more or less a rehash of the one for 1999.

We will have to wait for the 2001 budget to really find out what the intentions of this government are. The unemployed will also have to wait. The young people will have to wait. Everyone will have to wait, with this government. I am going to come back to the matter of reducing taxes, however.

In the present surplus situation we are in, it is high time the federal government started thinking about the consumer. It is high time the Liberal Party started thinking about the middle class.

According to Canadian statistics, middle class incomes are between $30,000 and $70,000. That is not the case in my region. That is not the case in my riding.

Some members of our middle class earn only $18,000, $20,000 or $25,000. Hardworking factory workers nearly faint when they see what they have to pay at the gas pump. Nothing has been done by this government to try to get this back to normal either.

Over the summer, gas prices were like a yo-yo. They could be 61 cents in the morning and 68 cents in the afternoon. They were as low as 59 cents and as high as 70 cents. And nobody really understood why the oil companies were doing this.

If the Liberal government wants at all cost to take humanitarian action that will help consumers, it should reduce its excise tax. It should indeed reduce its gasoline taxes so that consumers can continue to use their own vehicle.

It is distressing to have people come to your office saying “Listen, if this keeps on, I might be able to use my car for two or three weeks or a month, but if the price of gas continues to climb, I won't be able to”.

What will people do? They will feel isolated. They will feel deprived of a vital tool, one they use every day.

The situation I am referring to must exist pretty well everywhere in Canada as well, in regions similar to my own, in ridings that are half rural and half urban.

Why is the government not acting? It has the surpluses to respond to the Reform Party's motion. It should announce its infrastructure program right away and not do as the President of the Treasury Board did yesterday, put things off again to December 2000.

In the meantime, vehicles are breaking down, and we are having a hugely difficult time keeping a decent road system in Quebec and in Canada. When I hear the government say that roads come under provincial jurisdiction, I am glad that it is beginning to understand the constitution a little better.

But although it can see the difference when it comes time to invest money in roads, I would like it to be as discerning with respect to health, education and social programs. The hon. member should talk to his caucus and persuade it to get out of exclusively provincial jurisdictions and, while he is at it, ask the caucus, the Prime Minister and cabinet to immediately restore the transfer payments they have cut since 1993.

Here too I am almost certain that, if provincial governments had available to them all the money cut from their budgets, if they had all the money they needed, they too would come up with the necessary funds to invest in a decent road system.

What we are seeing with this government is that, when it comes to consumers, the middle class, and the unemployed, their memories fail them and we are left hanging. So, yes to tax cuts but for the benefit of consumers. As far as roads are concerned, with the present surpluses, let the infrastructure program announced by the President of the Treasury Board be implemented now.