Odina Desrochers

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we are not surprised at the way the Liberal government is now presenting Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

How is the government laying out Bill C-32? True to itself, it is once again taking the way of duplication.

In theory, Bill C-32 recognizes that the environment is a responsibility that is shared between the federal government and the provinces, but in fact, it does not devolve any power to Quebec or other provinces, it flies in the face of a true harmonization with all levels of government in environmental matters. The intent of Bill C-32 is to strengthen the primacy of the federal government as far as environmental protection is concerned.

This scenario is typical of the behaviour of the Liberal Party of Canada since its re-election in September 1997. It also fits in nicely with the speech from the throne that was read at the time to outline the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada and the present government.

Just as it happened in education and health care, the federal government is once again intruding in an area of shared jurisdiction.

When one looks at Bill C-32, one understands why our party decided to propose so many amendments. We worked very hard in committee. There were 60 sittings, many amendments were put forward and about 160 were adopted. That explains why there are now huge inconsistencies in the bill and many provisions that do not square any more.

There must be a large number of lawyers hoping that the bill will pass. There are so many clauses where the wording is not clear and where there are inconsistencies between what was initially proposed and what the clauses read now that we will see a battle such as we have never seen between the federal government and the provinces.

Our party has put forward a series of amendments aimed at correcting these inconsistencies and getting the federal government to understand the intents of a real environmental policy. A real environmental policy is not developed with centralisation tactics like the ones we have been seeing since this bill was introduced, but rather with harmonisation and consultation.

As I was saying earlier today, this government is trying to show us that it is consulting, listening and negotiating but, basically, it is always true to what it promised and to what it has been saying and what it has been doing for two years.

So, what are we to do? We are here to fight for Quebec's interests and the interests of Quebec's environment. Therefore we have to work hard. In clause 2, the federal government used the phrase “endeavour to act” instead of just “act”. I am concerned when I look at what has been happening in the last two years when the federal government says it is endeavouring to do something. I would much prefer to hear the word act, which means that something is actually being done.

When the government says that it is endeavouring to do something, this is a way for it to shirk its responsibilities and abover all to meddle in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

It was also decided to create an advisory committee to manage environmental issues. The members opposite are really good at coming up with all sorts of committees. In the last two years, we have witnessed the establishment of the Canada Revenue Agency, and more recently that of another board whose objective will literally be to grab $30 billion dollars out of the pockets of retired public servants, members of the RCMP and armed forces personnel.

I am a bit scared when I hear that a committee will be struck. What scares me most is when I hear that this committee will advise the two federal ministers and that it will take the federal minister's place to hear the provinces' claims.

With this new measure, the federal government will be able to do as it pleases, as usual, while pretending to be waiting for an answer from the provinces or consulting, and adopt really centralizing directives. If Bill C-32 is passed as amended by the committee after many sittings, Quebec and the other Canadian provinces will end up losing some of their jurisdiction.

It is difficult to believe the government when it talks about harmonization because, in the last two years, it has always been confrontational, in its dealings with the provinces.

The federal government is acting this way because of the upcoming WTO negotiations.

It must try to prove that Canada is a powerful country, but it is not. It is a divided country where there are many squabbles, because some people do not respect the constitution and constantly interfere in provincial jurisdictions. This will give Canada a very bad image when the WTO negotiations start next December. Let us face it, the other countries at the table will know what is going on in Canada.

The government tries by any means at its disposal to grab as much power as it can so as to get the most for Canada in the negotiations. However, before dealing on the international level, it should respect its own constitution, respect the provinces and above all consult them before submitting legislation like Bill C-32, which is now before the House.

Have we not talked enough about Bill C-32? It has been a long time since another bill was debated for so long: 60 sittings, 580 amendments proposed, 160 of which were adopted. As a result, the bill we have in front of us is completely different from the first draft. The only thing that stayed the same is that it promotes confrontation instead of harmonization. We also know that there were no consultations but the same old very strong tendency of the federal government to impose its views on the provinces, particularly Quebec.

This is why I once again ask the government and the hon. members across the way to take the time to read the amendments brought forward today and to realize that they are so important that, if they were adopted and included in Bill C-32, we would have a bill harmonizing relations between the federal government and the provinces. I very much hope that this will happen.

[Astronaut Julie Payette, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like many Quebecers, it was with much pride and emotion that I watched the Discovery head skyward 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 today, 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. This morning, I relived the strong emotions of—

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-32.

First of all, this tactic by the Liberal government looks to me like another move towards excessive centralization. The Liberals' approach is to do what they said they would in the September 1997 throne speech. They are relentlessly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, they are revealing their incompetence when it comes to the national environment.

Let us take a brief look at the history of this bill, which started out as Bill C-77, died on the Order Paper during the Liberals' first term of office, and returned in 1998 as Bill C-32.

This is a bill that was not too bad originally but that turned into a disaster went it was referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The bill was studied over the course of 60 sittings, a precedent in the history of parliament. During the clause by clause study, 580 amendments were introduced.

The committee passed 160 of them. Had it passed constructive amendments, those consistent with the Canadian Constitution, Canada's Constitution, their efforts could have been called productive. But all these amendments and efforts produced was a completely unrealistic bill full of holes.

I have no idea where the Liberals get their concept of environment. Is it a virtual environment? One thing is sure, and that is that it is difficult to enforce it in real life in Quebec and in Canada.

The government wants harmonization with the provinces. Under the initial version of Bill C-32, the government was going to act. The word act implies action and taking decisions. When we got to committee, the Liberals said they were unable to act, but would make an effort to do so.

I am extremely worried when I see this government wanting to make an effort to do something to harmonize with the provinces. I have a very vivid recollection of the sad business of the social union. The Canadian government made an effort to reach agreement with the ten provinces.

We know what happened: the coalition fell apart, only Quebec stood its ground. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-32.

The government found another way of delaying things in that it now wants to create an advisory committee. Again I have to express my concern in that regard. If we look at this government's way of consulting, I sometimes wonder if it even takes the time to read the briefing notes. We only have to look at what happened with regard to agriculture.

From September to December, all the interested parties were heard in preparation for the upcoming WTO negotiations. I do not know if there is a communication problem between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade, but the whole process was started again from scratch. They have trouble reading and understanding.

When the government talks about establishing a national advisory committee, it scares me. Let us take a closer look at what this committee will do. It will advise the two federal ministers on regulations to be made, on the management of toxic substances and on other matters of mutual interest.

The provinces will advise the federal minister—listen carefully—through the national advisory committee. A tradition exists, but, once again, it has been broken by this government. As we saw in the case of the millennium scholarship fund, the government wants to designate public servants or someone from the private sector to negotiate with elected representatives.

Usually in politics, regardless of the level, negotiations take place among elected officials. They speak to each other. But this government has a way of setting up new levels. It has a hard time understanding. Its operations are so complex and complicated we can understand that it is establishing another committee.

With this committee, then, this government will have another tool with which to totally ignore Quebec and provincial responsibility for the environment.

Pollution prevention becomes a national objective. The new legislation also creates a national centre. The farther we go in Bill C-32 the more we see the word national, and the more we see provincial responsibilities shrink. This is why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-32 and asks the government if it really wants a partnership.

The representatives of this government have a hard time consulting, listening and negotiating. They do not know the meaning of partnership. They know it will only be pseudo partnership. But the truth is this is a centralizing government, that ceaselessly meddles in provincial jurisdictions, whether it be the environment, education or health. Since this government's return to office, that is since the 1997 election, all its actions have focused on centralizing, have served to trample on the provinces.

This is an arrogant government. It ignores the reality. It has difficulty reading and understanding the Canadian Constitution. I am at times tempted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the Liberals a copy of the Canadian Constitution so they may truly see which areas are under provincial jurisdiction and which are under federal.

I want to make it clear that my colleagues and I will hound this government so that it understands Bill C-32 is unacceptable and constitutes another intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We will do everything to defend this jurisdiction, Quebec and the environment.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, before going into Bill C-78, I would like to say that I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the behaviour of my colleagues across the way who, just hours ago, proposed a time allocation motion, a highly undemocratic gesture, moreover. That revolts me, to start with.

It revolts me also to see that these people are capable of finding positive aspects to the dirty deal they are now handing to government pensioners.

This government deliberately attacked the unemployed a few years ago. It misappropriated the funds in the employment insurance fund, the surplus that had come from the unemployed and from employers, with not one cent coming from the federal government. Using all kinds of tactics, however, the Minister of Finance managed to get his hands on $25 billion.

This Minister of Finance is so money-mad that he has now found a new source of supply. This time he is going after his own employees, those who helped keep the government running properly, those who have helped ensure the country's security—I refer to the RCMP—and those who made a contribution within the Canadian forces.

These three pension funds total $30 billion, which the government wants to get its hands on, possibly for the purpose of again giving Liberal ministers a chance to create programs that will offer an opportunity for flag-waving and will, more importantly, stir up trouble with the provinces. That is their specialty.

They are very honest. In fact, they said very clearly in the September 1997 throne speech that they were increasingly aware of the fact that they needed money. Why? The Liberal ministers are certainly concocting other programs to show how good this government is and how sensitive it is to the current disaster, with the unemployed, young people without work and people who do not have access to adequate health care services because of the cuts in funding.

With the $30 billion, the federal Liberals are preparing, for September or October, another marketing blitz and propaganda campaign to demonstrate how good a government they are, but once again, opposition members, particularly members of the Bloc Quebecois, are being vigilant. We know what they are up to.

More and more, the government is shirking its responsibilities. Not too long ago, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency was established, and it will allow the Minister of National Revenue to shirk his responsibilities. Questions will be asked of the minister responsible for this agency in the House, and I already know what the answer will be “I will investigate. I will ask the agency. I cannot interfere, because it is an independent agency”.

This is false. It is not an independent agency.The people who were chosen, as all those who will be appointed to the new public sector pension investment board, are good Liberals. I will give some very important criteria that will be used by the Liberal government to create what we call a possibly objective board of directors.

First criterion: they will check to see if these people are Liberal members with a paid up membership. Second criterion: they will check to see if they are good friends of the Prime Minister. Third criterion: they will look at their financial contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada. And, above all, they will check to see if these people are prepared to commit, unconditionally, to follow the Prime Minister's orders.

I am convinced that these are the four criteria that the government will use to appoint the board of directors of the new public sector pension investment board.

When we ask questions to the ministers opposite about this investment board if, unfortunately, it is established, they will hide behind the fact that it is an independent body. But this board will not be independent.

Now, all agencies are controlled by the Privy Council. This is where the real power lies. It is not in this House. The power is with the Privy Council, with the Prime Minister of Canada, the special advisers, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board. These people do all sorts of things, at the expense of the poor in society.

I find it totally unacceptable to go after one's own employees, to hit people who have been working hard for 20 or 30 years. Today, the government will reward these people by taking unilateral action, by taking $30 billion directly from them.

The government is trying to tell us that this is an honest proposal. I have a lot of trouble with this word. Yesterday I looked in the Larousse dictionary for synonyms that come close to what we cannot say, but I was not successful. It is a bit like a swindle. With this bill, the government is trying to show that it is being good to its employees. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to go back to the very democratic incident of this morning. This bill affects many people, some of them retired. We have many comments to make, but this government has become an expert at imposing time allocation. When we want to speak the truth, we are gagged and forced to speed up the process. Why? Because the government is going to need money again in the fall because there is no longer a surplus in the EI fund. It has cleaned out the fund, and new money will be needed, this time for other partisan programs and propaganda.

I have travelled extensively, and I have seen the image that Canada projects, particularly at agricultural shows. All the countries focused on their products. Canada's image in Paris especially was something else. There were so many Canadian flags that it was hard to see the products. All the other countries knew that what matters is the products and the market. When Canada takes part in an event, the dominant image is maple leaves. The names of vendor companies or organizations appear on the leaves.

One of the visitors asked me “Is this the Canadian pavilion?” I said no, it is just exhibitors who happen to be together inside the Canadian pavilion. Members can imagine the kind of image we are projecting on the international level. We are moving towards globalization and we should be promoting our products and all the provinces, and what do we see, when we get out of Ottawa? The maple leaf propaganda of the Liberals.

At the beginning of my remarks, I expressed some reservations about the actions of my friends opposite. To conclude, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That all government members, since the government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on this bill to establish the public sector pension investment board.

It is another measure designed to allow the Liberal government to take money from taxpayers. This government is very consistent. It always has a scheme to appropriate funds, and the one who designs these schemes is the Minister of Finance. Members will recall that, in recent months and recent years, it was the Minister of Human Resources Development who designed a scheme to take money from the unemployed. This resulted in a surplus of some $26 billion.

We know what the federal government did with these $26 billion. It created programs to interfere, once again, in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

This time, the Minister of Finance has called on another one of his accomplices to help him, and that person is none other than the President of the Treasury Board. He has asked him to find another way to grab funds. This scheme will allow the Liberal government to get its hands on $30 billion, and that money will not come just from anywhere: $14.9 billion will come from the public service pension plan, $2.4 billion from the RCMP pension plan and $12.9 billion from the Canadian forces pension plan.

The most frightening thing about this scheme is that, once again, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board did not hold any consultations regarding Bill C-78.

What do we see in this bill? We see that the President of the Treasury Board has ignored his commitments, just as the Liberal government has been doing since it came to power in September 1997.

How is the board going to be managed? Members should listen to this: the Liberal government, through its ministers, will appoint board members. First the chairperson will be appointed by the President of the Treasury Board in consultation with the other departments concerned.

The consultation will not take long, all they will have to do is check whether the nominee is a card carrying Liberal, how much he or she contributes to the Liberal Party coffers, and whether he or she approves the Liberals' mistreatment of the poorest of the poor. This is the main criterion.

Two members will be appointed by the President of the Treasury Board on the recommendation of the advisory committee. One will represent public service employees. Again, very partisan appointments, which will not represent the interests of the parties concerned by Bill C-78.

Then there will be a member chosen by the minister among pensioners.

Again, they will check whether the nominee belongs or contributes to the Liberal Party. This is how the government goes about making appointments.

In short, this means the government is once again poised to create a new Liberal commando that will take all necessary steps to attack the surpluses in three pensions funds.

It is very sad to see how the government has been operating lately. Furthermore, it is giving a bad example because, if it is going to unilaterally take money from pension funds of the three plans I have mentioned, there will be people in the private sector who will be encouraged to do the same, which could put at risk the surpluses in the pension funds of several dozens of employees. The federal government's action could have bad consequences for workers in Quebec and in Canada.

There is nothing much positive in this bill. We see once again the government using its old methods to take money from the poorest. Federal Liberals were very successful at this with the employment insurance fund, and they are ready to do the same with this bill to establish the public sector pension investment board.

How can we get federal Liberals to listen to reason? How can we make the people opposite understand common sense?

The more we move into this arrogant system, this authoritarian system that does not respect anything and that develops a more and more centralizing government, the more we see it ignores all jurisdictions, all institutions and all things that were established in the last 10 years.

To take the money it wishes to have at its disposal to implement more partisan programs, the government is prepared to do anything. It is prepared to invade all areas of provincial jurisdiction and private sector areas to raid billions of dollars.

If the President of the Treasury Board does not support the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, then my party will certainly reject out of hand the establishment of this public sector pension investment board.

We will vote against this bill, unless the government takes the time to go over our amendments. Given the way the Liberal government is behaving, the way it respects democracy and listens to the people, I fear that Bill C-78 will give them even more power to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers, of people who have worked hard and have served the government for many, many years.

To reward them, the government is taking money they have earned through their hard work and using it for some unprecedented propaganda, probably some programs to demonstrate once again how generous the government is, when its generosity is only about appointing its friends to manage this new board and extending a helping hand to Liberal supporters.

There was no consultation. Board directors will be appointed by ministers. Bill C-78 has me very concerned and I will definitely vote against it.

[Quebec Economy, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, between 1991 and 1997, Quebec's exports, primarily to the United States, in the manufacturing sector, excluding automobiles, grew by 120%. At the start of the decade, exports represented 21% of Quebec's GDP. Today they have reached 36.4%.

The phenomenal increase in Quebec's exports can be explained by business people's openness to globalization. Secure access to the U.S. market, strengthened by the free trade agreement and the rapid reduction of customs tariffs, have encouraged Quebec businesses to turn to the U.S. market.

Quebec, one of the main forces behind the free trade agreement, expresses its dynamism daily in meeting the challenges of market liberalization.

To better ensure our place in the world and to give the economy of Quebec room to expand internationally, only one avenue is open: sovereignty for Quebec.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

When NATO decided to intervene with the air strikes, it may have been a bit off in its estimate of how long it would take to annihilate the Serbian military forces.

Judging from televised reports, the context in Kosovo is one of a small mountainous province with very winding roads. The Serbs know Kosovo well, as they have now been there close to a year.

If we are thinking of sending over ground forces, we will need to be sure there are good guides available. We must be sure that these forces are able to make the Serbian president see reason.

I believe that, at present, NATO has taken the right steps by wanting to weaken the military arsenal of the Serbian president. If I understand the historical situation properly, Serbia currently possesses the military arsenal of the former Yugoslavia.

Members will recall that, when Yugoslavia broke up after the demise of Tito, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina became independent and Serbia, taking advantage of its military arsenal and all the military might it had at its disposal, began to attack Croatia and Bosnia. Now it is Kosovo's turn.

This is more than a question of conflict. It is a question of a man making use of his power, a man with no respect for democracy, and particularly no respect for the people with whom he lives.

I have already spoken of the time I spent in Mostar, and how impressed I was to see so many cultures cohabiting. Now, however, the President of Serbia has decided, under the pretext of false nationalism, to change the rules of the game.

If ground forces have to be sent in, Canada will definitely have to play a leadership role so that the co-operative effort will be more seriously planned than the improvisation that has been going on since the conflict began.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to represent Lotbinière in the House of Commons on June 2, 1997, I would not have thought that I would be asked to speak in the context of a world conflict.

We all recall operation desert storm in which the UN intervened in 1991 to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

Today, April 13, 1999, at the dawn of the third millennium, another dictator, the Serbian president, is threatening peace, this time in Europe. For more than ten years, the president of Serbia, on pretext of defending the Serb minorities, invaded and fought a war in Bosnia, Croatia and, now, Kosovo.

We will recall the images of the war in Sarajevo the media broadcast to the world at the opening of the Olympic winter games in Lillehammer in 1994. The TV networks, in order to raise world awareness, showed the images of a jubilant people celebrating at the 1984 Olympic winter games.

Ten years later, the traditional fireworks had given way to the fireworks of Serb shelling and the bombs that destroyed 300 historical monuments in Dubrovnik, a city recognized by UNESCO for its historical beauty, and the city of Mostar, which I had the pleasure of visiting in 1988. It was a surprise to the tourists to discover such cultural variety in this lovely corner of the country.

It was impressive to see, in the same skyline, the minaret of a muslin mosque and the steeples of a catholic church and the onion-domed towers of an orthodox cathedral. Bosnians, Croats and Serbs were living together in peace. A few years later, this spectacular city was the target of Serb bombings.

I shudder when I see the images of suffering and destruction in this country, which we have been seeing on TV for the past three weeks. Long lines of Kosovar refugees fleeing their homeland, pursued by Serb soldiers, unfortunately remind us of the horrors of the second world war. Nobody would have thought Europe would have to endure the madness of yet another dictator.

Sixty years later, on the eve of the year 2000, NATO is faced with another warrior president, who harbours much hatred for a whole people, the people of Kosovo.

In 1993, acting in another professional capacity, I had the opportunity to chat with Martin Gray at the launching of one of his books. He told us he feared the worst for the Balkans. The decline of human values and the escalating ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia were of great concern to him.

Referring to the horrors of the second world war he said “I saw men acting like animals, attacking women and children and decimating whole families”. Indeed the Kosovars, who are seeing Serb militiamen with such hatred in their hearts, are living through the same nightmare as Martin Gray and his loved ones.

If there is anyone who can bear witness to genocide, it is Martin Gray. If there is anyone who saw a barbaric army destroy his fellow citizens, it is Martin Gray.

In spite of the messages of this proponent of peace and of the numerous reports reminding us of the atrocities of World War II, we waited. Our military action was limited and we let the Serbian president implement his sinister plan.

Sure, peacekeepers were sent to Bosnia to maintain peace, but it was too late. The damage had been done. Cities and villages had been destroyed. Tens of thousands of civilians had been killed. And yet, President Milosevic is still free.

How could NATO and even the UN have been so tolerant when faced with such a hellish situation? Journalists, military strategists and historians wonder about the effectiveness of NATO's military operation.

How could NATO not see the threat to Kosovars? How could NATO be indirectly responsible for the massive exodus of Kosovars? How could NATO not see the genocide planned by the Serbian president?

While NATO was trying to find a peaceful solution to the situation in Kosovo, the Serbian army was preparing to invade that region. While NATO was threatening Serbia with sanctions, the Serbian army was crossing the Kosovo border. Finally, when NATO began its air strikes against Belgrade and other military targets in Serbia, Serbian troops resorted to force and barbarity to force people to leave Kosovo.

This is the sad scenario that led to the current situation in Kosovo. Yet, NATO, with the support of American and western media, boasted about this military operation and about the merits of its powerful military arsenal, including Canada's F-18's.

The world let out a sigh of relief when the American president, Bill Clinton, announced that air strikes had begun against Serbia. Twenty days later, NATO has still not convinced the Serbian president to listen to reason, Kosovo is empty, and Kosovars are suffering terribly.

NATO countries have made a concerted effort to help the hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees who were expelled from their native land by the Serbian army.

But, in the meantime, where do the Serbs stand? The president, his military leaders, and his numerous supporters throughout the world remain unmoved in the face of all this injustice, suffering and human misery.

And what is Canada doing? It has taken the humanitarian step of opening its borders to Kosovar refugees. Now it must demand that NATO force the Serb president back to the negotiating table and get him to accept the following conditions to right the wrongs done to Kosovo: sign the Rambouillet agreement; pull the Serb army out of Kosovo immediately; facilitate the return of the Kosovars to their homeland; help rebuild Kosovo; and agree to the presence of a peaceful NATO or UN military force.

Enough is enough. NATO must also examine the presence of the Russians in the Kosovo peace process or find a foreign envoy able to stand up to President Milosevic. It must continue its efforts to liberate Kosovo and once again reason with the current president of Serbia who, in addition to persecuting the Kosovars, is using this war to increase his popularity among his fellow Serbs. Once the war is over, Milosevic will be accountable to humanity.

NATO must not repeat the mistake made by the UN in 1991 when it decided not to arrest President Saddam Hussein. Everyone knows what happened next. NATO must therefore step up the air strikes until the Serb president puts out a white flag.

[Dairy Producers, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week the WTO ruled in favour of the United States and New Zealand in the matter of milk exports, which is contrary to the interests of Quebec dairy producers.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Does the federal government intend to appeal the decision by the WTO, or is it going to lower its arms and drop Quebec dairy producers?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and that implements certain other measures announced in the 1998 budget.

I would mention right off that it is very difficult for the Bloc Quebecois to support Bill C-72, because we realize once again that the government's priorities are not in the right place.

There are certain aspects of it worth keeping, but the bill does not resolve the situation of Quebeckers entirely.

Although I have been here only since June 1997, I realize that the same thing happens all the time on the other side, regardless whether the year is 1997, 1998 or 1999.

Yesterday, I was invited to comment on the 1999 budget. Often the agenda of the government across is hard to follow. They are trying to bring us back to 1998 provisions, when the fact of the matter is that, whether it be 1997, 1998 or 1999, it is always the same thing.

This government used the money in the employment insurance fund, cut transfers to the provinces and, through all sorts of little indirect taxes, managed to bring its deficit down to zero.

However, if this government had wanted use the surpluses at its disposal in a more logical way, not just now but also in the 1998 budget, we would find much more interesting measures for Quebeckers and Canadians.

For example, last year, in 1998, the budget did not provide anything for the unemployed, the students and the sick. These people thought that this year, in 1999, the Minister of Finance would announce measures that would be much more fair and just, measures that would allow them to breathe a little more easily.

Last year, the unemployed, the sick, the young, the students and the poor realized that, perhaps, one more effort was necessary to enable this government to achieve a zero deficit.

Incidentally, it is difficult to understand how this government plans its budgets. I do not know of any Quebec or Canadian business that would remain in operation with such forecasts. It is easy to predict a zero deficit in 1998, 1999, and again in the year 2000. But then, what does the Minister of Finance do with his officials? He fiddles with the figures. To fiddle with the figures means to manipulate them on all fronts. First, the government claims there is hardly any surplus in the employment insurance fund. But this year, in 1999, surpluses will reach $26 billion.

Last year, they were also very high and I am almost certain that, in the document tabled this morning by the Minister of Human Resources Development on the current status of the employment insurance program, we will find things that need to be corrected.

Since it came to power, this government has been trying to create two classes in Canadian society: the rich and the poor. The worst of it is that the money of the least well off is being used to benefit the most well off. For several years now, whenever there have been tax breaks, the Bloc Quebecois has asked that they be targeted so as to help those who have paid down the deficit recover some of their money. But this is not what has be happening. It is not what happened in 1997 and 1998 and it is certainly not what happened in 1999.

The EI fund belongs to unemployed workers and employers. This government has not put one red cent into it. What is it doing with the money in the EI fund? It is siphoning it into the consolidated revenue fund, not just to be able to hand it over to the richest members of society but also to use in its forays into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The examples are numerous. Well we remember the September 1997 throne speech where it was already apparent that this propagandist government was prepared to interfere in provincial affairs.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told the House that our constitution was one of the most decentralized in the world. They are working daily to take this increasingly unitary Canada and use the constitution to centralize the government. Why? Because they are going to negotiate internationally. International law will play a role.

The people on the other side of the floor, and those in English Canada, do not understand the globalization issue. But we know very well that if they turn up at negotiations without having remedied that lack of understanding, they may be told “Put your own constitution in order; put your own affairs in order; respect your partners and then we will start negotiating”.

Every day this government is involved in meddling into areas of provincial jurisdiction, so that it can show internationally that it is now a central government with a constitution that allows it to do so.

This is how all of its actions are carried out, and this is why, within the framework of a bill such as Bill C-72, we find only minor measures, mere crumbs thrown at those who need help.

Getting back to employment insurance, is there anything more distressing in life than losing one's job? With the restructuring and readjustments that are going on in many companies, people are losing their jobs and need retraining. They need a chance to catch their breath. But when they turn up at the Human Resources Development offices, they are not sure whether they will get any EI benefits. The concerns of our unemployed are increasing. We know that only 40% of workers who pay into the plan are entitled to benefits. This is a matter of concern.

What is even more disgusting is that the little people are making sacrifices, the least well off, the unemployed, the single mothers, the students, and now they are seeing the money going instead into the Canadian government's consolidated fund, from there the Minister of Finance can distribute it anywhere and everywhere.

Bill C-72 is silent on the millennium scholarships. Yet, that program was announced in the 1998 budget. We know it will soon be implemented. What does that mean for students in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?

In Quebec, we have a very good loans and scholarships program, one of the best in North America. Now, the federal government will get involved, through this scheme, in a provincial jurisdiction. A student who will apply to the foundation will have to make a report to be eligible to the loans and scholarships program. Some young people may be penalized by this administrative ambiguity, particularly since the Quebec government already has an infrastructure, through its loans and scholarships program, that provides very good services.

Who, at the federal level, will administer the foundation? It is a private body headed by the president of Bell Canada. This is worrisome. We do not know how much it will cost. We do not know how it will work, but we do know that it will deprive Quebec students from hundreds of millions of dollars.

Members will understand that, when the government came up with its social union, when it negotiated with the other provinces, the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, could not sign that agreement. We saw what happened with the last budget.

We can also see how this government is putting itself into the position of being able to distribute gifts in all provinces and especially to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

A business facing financial difficulties usually looks first within the organization to see if it can cut expenses in order to increase revenues.

I have sat on the public accounts committee, and I realized on many occasions that the departments had not yet made the effort. They did make the effort when it came to cutting personnel and services to the public. However, when it came to big salaries, managers and money that could benefit those who make significant contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, the government has a very hard time housekeeping.

What is the government doing to eliminate its deficit? It pumps off the surpluses in employment insurance. It made draconian cuts to transfer payments in health care, education and social programs. In addition, this government has became expert at adding little taxes to public services, such as passports, national parks and so on.

Today the government has stopped providing services free of charge. However, in a society such as ours, the government has its share. We are having to keep paying for services paid for by taxes that come out of the pockets of taxpayers and, moreover, we are overtaxed.

I will not get back to Bill C-72. Another ploy the federal government used to get more money into its coffers was to harmonize the GST. In New Brunswick, it was smooth sailing, but not in Quebec. Figures and statistics were trotted out.

The current Minister of Finance is a creative bookkeeping artist. He is tops in his class. For the 1998 budget, the difference between forecasts and the actual figures varied from 40% to 50%. How can we believe such a Minister of Finance? An entire country does not know what to think.

The most important minister after the Prime Minister is the Minister of Finance. However, his actions and the fact that his forecasts are not more rigorous undermine the credibility of the entire government. We have denounced this situation countless times in the House, before the Standing Committee on Finance, and wherever we got the chance. People are clearly having trouble understanding what is going on and they are having particular difficulty figuring out what this government is really trying to do.

In September 1997 we saw that it was getting ready to interfere in provincial affairs, strengthen its Constitution and try to show the rest of Canada that the country was a unitary state, but fortunately Quebeckers saw through this. In fact, the Globe and Mail recently published the results of a poll showing that, if a referendum were held, 49.2% of the population would vote in favour. This poll was taken before Bernard Landry, Quebec's Minister of Finance, brought down his budget.

This same government sent its ministers, senators, secretaries of state and private members to fan out through Quebec during the break and still they dropped 4% in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois now has 46% of voting intentions in Quebec.

This proves that, even if the government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the other provinces, Quebeckers can still see clearly and understand that, if they want Quebec to take its rightful place in the world market, there is but one solution: Quebec sovereignty. It is the way we will be able to continue to put forward the ideas of the great Quebeckers who have, since the quiet revolution, seen things clearly and have seen that Quebec no longer had a place within the present federal system.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot, therefore, give full support today to these small amendments to the Income Tax Act, in the form of Bill C-72. Possibly we would like to see other provisions in the 1999 budget that would meet the needs of the least well off. There could be targeted tax reductions, not the general ones that were the result of taking money contributed by the unemployed and their employers from the employment insurance fund. There would have to be a general redistribution to everyone, starting with the poorest members of society, who have paid for the richest.

My fears about this government, particularly with all that is coming up to do with globalization, is that, despite all of the economic upheavals there are going to be in the years to come, this government is already taking steps to create two classes in Canada, the rich and the poor.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, a party more open to the middle class, hope that people, whether rich or poor, can be treated fairly and equitably. This is not going to happen with what the federal Liberal government is introducing this morning.