Odina Desrochers

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

This partisan document once again follows along the main thrusts of the September 1997 throne speech. There is continuity here: it is a document continuing centralization and non-respect of Quebec's jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister and his so-called strategists have taken each of the themes of 1997, changed their titles and added paragraphs. A fine makeover, with the maple leaf in the background.

The Liberals' Canadian policy is clear, as is the Canadian model they are defending. It involves spending budget surpluses in areas of provincial jurisdiction, avoiding problems at the federal level, such as employment insurance and air transport, and presenting a long shopping list with items that could create new federal-provincial friction.

The editorial of Le Devoir of October 13 provides in this regard: “It would be good news for once to hear that the federal government wanted to honour the principle underlying all federal regimes, which is the sharing of jobs and jurisdictions and proposed to its partners that the provinces come up with a consensus on joint policy. New real desire remains to be proven, however, especially since the speech includes a number of projects that could rapidly become irritants”.

This centralizing recipe now includes a social union sauce, which could well further spoil relations between Ottawa and Quebec City.

I smile at the thought of Liberal ministers and members talking partnerships, agreements with their partners. How could we be expected to believe such a philosophy when the government itself cannot respect jurisdictions and is continually encroaching on their jurisdiction?

The day after the throne speech, the federal government received several warnings that it was heading off on the wrong track. I quote from La Presse of October 13 in this regard: “The Conseil du patronat is expressing concern over federal government spillover. The Quebec university students association went so far as to accuse Ottawa of invading provincial jurisdiction in the field of education”.

Examples include the case of the national plan on skills and learning for the 21st century, future health research institutes and the five year infrastructure program.

On this issue, the federal government has made a commitment, but we will have to wait until the end of the year 2000, not the end of the current year. Yet, during the prebudget consultations, all the municipalities of the electoral district of Lotbinière asked me to urge the federal government to take immediate action.

Another vague promise, with no specific funding, and we will have to wait for the 2001 budget to know the specific commitments of the federal government. I have made a diagnosis of this government. It is suffering from a new political condition called acute wait and see syndrome. The government makes a promise and then waits. It makes a promise now, but only for 12, 15 or 24 months from now. In the meantime, those who need the money suffer.

Let us now go back to employment insurance. Considering that 60% of the unemployed currently do not qualify for benefits, what do we find in the throne speech to give some hope to these people? Not much. Yet, when the federal government talks about fighting poverty, it should give priority to the employment insurance program, which is one of the causes of poverty and one of the main reasons why people are leaving the regions of Quebec.

What have the Liberals done to help regional development? They have come up with minor partisan measures and they made a big deal about some small subsidies, as they did last month when they sent a delegation of five federal ministers headed by the new minister of patronage, assisted by the new secretary of state for professional sport—I mean amateur sport, but given his recent statements, I am more and more convinced that his job is geared primarily to helping professional sports.

But let us go back to unemployment and regional employment insurance rates. This is an absurd situation which jeopardizes the very foundation of the employment insurance program.

In my riding of Lotbinière, the regional rate set for the regional county municipality of Lotbinière is very detrimental to the people there, compared to the riding's other RCMs. Having two regional rates create two classes of unemployed in the riding. People constantly contact my offices to condemn this social injustice.

The Corporation de défense des droits sociaux de Lotbinière, social and economic stakeholders and the unemployed will mobilize in early November to convince the new Minister of Human Resources Development to correct the mistakes made by her predecessor.

Once again, I would like to explain this administrative nightmare. The rate, which is determined arbitrarily by Statistics Canada and considered to be realistic, means that one must work 630 hours to be eligible for benefits for a period ranging from 17 to 40 weeks.

In the other RCMs in my riding, the regional rate is 11.2% and the number of hours required is 490 to be eligible for benefits for a period ranging from a minimum of 23 weeks to a maximum of 45 weeks. It is a gross injustice for the RCM of Lotbinière, since the socio-economic profile is the same for the whole riding. Therefore, setting a single employment insurance rate for the whole riding that is in line with our true socio-economic profile is of the utmost importance.

Businesses are also penalized by this regional rate, since they do not have access to the same federal subsidy programs as businesses from other areas in my riding.

In the Speech from the Throne, the federal government expressed its intention to make the Internet accessible to everybody. First of all, a lot of parents cannot even afford to buy a computer. Second, in our opinion, the CRTC should ensure that all Canadians have access to an individual telephone line so that they can connect with the Internet. Right here at home on the eve of the third millennium, certain regions in Quebec and in the rest of the country still do not even have the basic services necessary to access the Internet.

This government is completely cut off from the daily lives of people in our society.

This government has not changed since the beginning of the 36th Parliament: it remains a centralizing government, now pushing its social union agreement, a government that stops at nothing except tackling the problems that come under its jurisdiction, some examples being EI, the airline industry, and provincial transfer payments.

But it is in a big rush to get its hands on our money. The budget surpluses belong to all taxpayers, not just the Minister of Finance, who fiddles with the books and conceals the real state of the country's finances.

The Minister of Finance already has the necessary leeway to announce immediate tax cuts for middle income taxpayers, those whose hard-earned money paid down the federal deficit, unemployed workers, youth, the sick and the poor.

In short, my conclusion is very simple: the federal government has money to spend in fields of provincial jurisdiction, but not a cent when it comes to problems for which it is accountable. That is the Canadian way of the Liberal government as I see it.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what is amazing with this government is that it has a lot of money.

What is even more amazing, however, is that it does not have money for this year or for the year 2000. This government is suffering from the wait and see disease. We have to wait. And what about people who are waiting for the government to do something?

I ask my colleague opposite if he could make representations within the Liberal caucus to get the government to bring forward the implementation dates with regard to both parental leave and the infrastructure program. This is another ambiguous issue. The government says that studies will be conducted between now and the end of the year 2000 and that maybe, in the 2001 budget, it will be able to respond to the request made by municipalities.

I ask my colleague opposite to be clearer and more precise than the Prime Minister of Canada was yesterday.

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-502, the purpose of which is to permit mechanics to deduct from their taxable income the cost of tools they are required to buy to practice their trade.

In visiting my constituents in the riding of Lotbinière, I often hear from mechanics and employees in car dealerships about how it is unfair that they are not entitled to this deduction.

Earlier, the hon. member opposite told us that the Standing Committee on Finance had looked at this matter and immediately acknowledged the problem. This is what the committee had to say:

The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act already apply to artists, chainsaw operators and musicians.

To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an impediment to employment, especially for the young who might choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the present tax rules.

This was the December 1997 prebudget tour report, which the Liberals contributed to. However, they have a lot of ideas and consider many subjects. They analyze, but action must wait.

I would like to give some statistics on the automotive industry. Independent business alone employs over 150,000 professionals to maintain and repair automobiles, including some 25% in Quebec, representing some 40,000 individuals, who are affected by this problem.

The media often debate important issues involving automotive manufacturers but short shrift is given vehicle maintenance and repair professionals who, unfortunately, are forced as a condition of employment to buy their own tools and to maintain them in perfect working order, and to pay insurance costs on top of the cost of buying and maintaining them.

This is a heavy financial burden because, in addition to normal wear on tools, technological advances require these technicians to constantly invest in new equipment.

Here are few statistics. An apprentice automobile mechanic must spend between $2,000 and $5,000 to buy the tools necessary to his trade. This same mechanic, who cannot work without a set of functional and modern tools, will have to spend in the first 5 to 10 years over $15,000 on tools. If he specializes, he will have to spend between $30,000 and $40,000. This is a far from negligible expenditure, justifying in our opinion the request we are making today that this be tax deductible.

Let us look at this a little more closely. Mechanics in Quebec and Canada live in an unfair situation and it is high time that the parliamentarians in this House do something about it.

The bill being debated this evening is intended to enable people employed as mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools they provide if they have to do so as part of the conditions of their employment. More precisely, the deduction could cover the cost of renting these tools; costs related to their maintenance; related insurance; the full purchase price of tools under $250; and, subject to regulatory adjustment of this amount reflecting inflation and the capital allowance cost, tools of more than $250.

I am convinced that this measure would make tax equity possible for these people, who richly deserve it.

Another problem raised, which we should also look at in relation to this highly unfair situation, is the matter of the next generation of mechanics. This is food for thought for our Minister of Finance and our Minister of Revenue. Here we have a sector of employment not to be overlooked as an opportunity for young workers, particularly when there is so much youth unemployment.

The government has a duty therefore to look seriously at this matter. It must not use the excuse that if it allows this deduction for mechanics other trade groups will be calling for something similar. That is the usual evasive tactic used by the Liberals across the way.

They hide. They are frightened. They sidestep out of fear of creating a precedent but precedent has been set long ago with this government. We need only think of the Employment Insurance Act and, more recently, the legislation that is going to allow the government to get its hands on $30 billion from the pension funds of public servants, RCMP employees and Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

Getting back to the mechanics' demands, as I have demonstrated, the cost of their tools is astronomical. I would remind hon. members that a tool of the trade is a tool of the trade, whether it is the virtuoso's violin, the logger's chainsaw, or the various tools used by a mechanic.

I will review the precise objectives of this bill. First, the bill's purpose is to ensure that mechanics receive equitable tax treatment that is identical to that received by farmers and commensurate with that received by chain saw operators, artists and musicians.

Second, the bill is intended to alleviate the financial burden imposed on mechanics, whose terms of employment require them to buy their own tools.

Third, the bill would offer a solution to the serious shortage of manpower in the automotive trades. Enrolment in apprentice programs would go up and more mechanics would be able to continue in this line of work.

Fourth, the bill seeks to create jobs for young unemployed Canadians and Quebecers, because talented young people are beginning to realize that a career in the automotive industry is increasingly within their reach.

Fifth, the bill would permit mechanics to continue providing the public with the customary level and quality of vehicle repair and maintenance services, which will be to the benefit of all car owners.

For all these reasons, I feel that the bill would be good for the economy and job creation. The Bloc Quebecois and I are in favour of the measures I have just outlined.

It seems that the majority of members on this side of the House are aware of this completely unfair situation, which is penalizing people who do a lot for our society. Is there anyone nowadays that does not need a mechanic? People pay a lot for a car and want good service for it. This takes skilled people who do a good job, but these people need help with their tax load.

In my view, a tax break for those working in this sector is essential. It is something parliament should address. It is a situation that is hard to understand because other sectors have already been given a tax break.

In fact, it is typical of this government to have a double standard. It is always difficult to clarify matters.

The member opposite said earlier that what we are asking for will complicate the system, but I say that it will clarify it. It will give hard-working, honourable people the deductions that will allow them to do a better job, provide better service and be happier in their work.

That is what I wish for them.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that Quebec City was very disappointed. However, given the operating style of the government, which does not honour its objectives and which meddles in Olympic matters, it was not surprised to lose its candidacy.

What proved that it would be lost was the intervention by the Minister of Canadian Heritage a few days before the ballot to prevent the release of the results. This was the definitive proof that they already knew Vancouver would be the candidate and it was out of fear of losing votes in elections in Quebec—Quebecers are very proud—that she hid this information. This is the way the government works.

Quebecers are not fools. They know the government. They accept the decision, but they know where the Liberals come from.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not familiar with the memorandum of understanding that was in place between Quebec and the Jeux du Québec organizers. However, knowing the honesty and objectivity of the Government of Quebec, it certainly did not propose a propaganda protocol of the type the other party has become a specialist in.

A maple festival was held in my riding. Plessisville had a Canada Place tent imposed upon them. That is propaganda.

The government is a propaganda specialist. That is all I have to say to those on the other side of this House. They are not familiar with the issue. They do not know what was in the memorandum of understanding between Quebec and the Jeux du Québec organizers. Before they rise to speak they ought to get their facts straight.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it is the member for Bourassa himself who made the connection and who asked us for evidence. I brought this evidence here this afternoon. Two hockey clubs have contributed to the electoral fund of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not understand why he does not feel concerned about the situation, because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now, let us talk about the Molson Centre, which received half a million dollars to put the maple leaf on the ice. This is another nice gift from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Under the circumstances, it is really degrading to see how these people are defending amateur sport.

I can imagine the disappointment of the chairman of the subcommittee when he saw his report put aside, after having worked for weeks and weeks on the issue of amateur sport. Unfortunately, the heritage minister did not listen to him.

The only thing he has learned is that while the Canadian heritage minister was abroad her parliamentary secretary tabled, on April 28, 1999, the government response of the report and forgot all about the contents of the subcommittee's report.

I know a lot of members opposite cringe when they are told the truth. It rubs them the wrong way. Maybe they will have more to say to sports fans tonight, but I do not need these fans to speak my mind in the House.

When the heritage minister asked the Canadian Olympic Association to postpone the announcement of the city that would be the Canadian candidate for the Olympic games in 2010 so as not to hurt Mr. Charest's chances in the last Quebec election, she broke the Olympic charter. And I know what I am talking about, having worked with the organizing committee of Quebec City for the 2002 Olympic Games.

The Liberal Party and the hon. member for Bourassa have become experts in political and media manipulation, in propaganda campaigns and misinformation every day, every month. They are at it again today.

In conclusion, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion of my colleague from Longueuil votable.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think these are points for debate, and if the member for Bourassa is uncomfortable with what he told sportscasters, it is not my problem.

A few moments ago, the member for Bourassa—and this is true since he was in the House—bragged about having met with each of the federations, but he forgot to mention that he has also met with the majority of hockey club owners in Canada.

In fact, the member for Bourassa feels a lot more at home in the front rows of professional hockey club arenas than in the front rows of those who defend amateur sport. This is understandable since two hockey clubs contributed directly to the Liberal Party of Canada's election fund in 1996-97: the Calgary Flames contributed $4,433, and the Ottawa Senators contributed $6,235. And at the Molson Centre—

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Longueuil.

The motion reads as follows:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

I am delighted at my colleague's initiative because, since the report of the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada was tabled, there has been no initiative from members opposite except the April 28 announcement by the Minister of Industry, who said he was calling the first meeting of all professional sports stakeholders to try to find out the status of hockey club franchises and Canadian teams here.

What does the report say? It says no to any additional funding for amateur sport, but yes to any activity that will ensure the federal government's visibility, and maybe to professional sports demands.

Let us take a look at professional sports, particularly the hockey millionaires who are doing nothing to help their teams survive. These millionaires play well one year and gather impressive personal statistics and then they completely forget about their teammates.

We can take, for example, the most arrogant of all players, the star of Colorado, who hit pay dirt and recently criticized his teammates following a defeat. For most of these millionaire hockey players, there is no loyalty to their team or to their fans, no commitment to the community, except for some rare players—and we all remember the unfortunate incident with the Ottawa Senators' No. 19. The owners give in to their players' every whim. They build huge sportsplexes and then come to Ottawa to complain about being broke.

Let us talk about the wages. In 1970 the earnings of a hockey player were four times those of an ordinary worker; in 1980 they were eight times; in 1990 ten times; and in 1996 38 times those of ordinary people. No serious business granting these kinds of salaries to its employees would stand a chance of surviving. It would be doomed to bankruptcy.

We all know what is going on in Pittsburgh. Tampa Bay is short $20 million. Most of the handful of Canadian teams, including the Sainte-Flanelle, otherwise known as the Montreal Canadiens, are losing money.

These people come to Ottawa to complain about their situation. Then we have to listen to the hon. member for Bourassa, who buys the principles of this false crusade. In fact, the hon. member for Bourassa takes part in numerous radio sports hotlines in Montreal and Quebec City, where he only talks about professional sports and completely ignores amateur sport. His behaviour is unacceptable.

[René Lévesque, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the presence of several dignitaries, including Premier Lucien Bouchard, Corinne Côté-Lévesque and former PQ ministers, a bronze life-size statue of René Lévesque, the politician who played a pivotal role in the history of Quebec, was unveiled.

Mr. Lévesque was one of the principal architects of the quiet revolution and, in 1968, he founded the sovereignty-association movement that would lead to the creation of the Parti Québécois. Elected premier of Quebec in 1976, and returned to office in 1981, he and his government were responsible for major reforms, including the farmland protection legislation, Bill 101 and the electoral reform legislation.

We join with all Quebecers in paying tribute to the force behind the greatest political movement in Quebec; the movement that will carry us to sovereignty.

Despite the referendum defeat of May 20, 1980, René Lévesque never lost faith in the people.

We heard Mr. Lévesque loud and clear and we too say “À la prochaine”.

[Astronaut Julie Payette, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like many Quebecers, it was with much pride and emotion that I watched the space shuttle Discovery head skyward yesterday with Quebec's first female astronaut, Julie Payette, on board.

Space has fed the imaginations of many adolescents. Like many others, I dreamed of seeing a launch.

By taking her place on board Discovery , the astronaut from Quebec is not just realizing her dream, but is ensuring that her name will go down in history.

Over the next ten days Julie will help to assemble the international space station.

Yesterday morning, I relived the strong emotions I felt 17 years ago, on June 27, 1982, when I had the opportunity of being at the Kennedy Space Centre for the launch of the fourth Columbia mission.

Bravo Julie. All of Quebec is behind her and our thoughts are with her in this adventure which transforms imagination into reality.