Odina Desrochers

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

It bothers them a lot on the other side to hear the truth. But do not worry, I am used to that. I once worked in the telecommunications industry and I am not the nervous type.

Talking about intrusions, the national health surveillance network comes to mind. This network will be used to identify outbreaks of serious illnesses and will link Canadian laboratories electronically. This is an investment of $75 million over a three-year period. Health is a provincial jurisdiction, it is a Quebec jurisdiction.

There is also the establishment of the Canada health network. This network will provide Canadians with access to information about health issues ranging from nutrition to colds, from breast cancer to diabetes, and so on. It will cost another $75 million over three years. Health comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec, not of Canada.

Then there is the Canadian institute for health information, a bunch of medical snoops who will visit CLSCs and hospitals and report to the Minister of Health on how he can take money, go over the heads of the provinces and of Quebec, and invest it.

The new mandate of the Canadian institute for health information will be to file periodic reports on the health of Canadians and the health system, including waiting lists, doctor and specialist assignments and the most effective courses of treatment.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food dealing with rural development—since we are talking about health—I learned that a $70,000 investment in community health was being made in Saint-Étienne-des-Grès. How odd that this is right near, if not right in, the riding of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the nurse or the person in charge of this project is a generous contributor to the Liberal Party of Canada. There are 68 rural development projects for a total of $3.8 million in areas of provincial jurisdiction. They excel at this.

There is more. There are telehealth and telecare pilot projects. These are virtual CLSCs. There are accountability measures and the NURSE fund. Now they are into training. But the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a training agreement. This has been ignored. What about prenatal nutrition, to the tune of $75 million? This duplicates what is being done by CLSCs.

I will now look at how the federal Liberals went about eliminating the deficit. There is nothing tricky about it: the provinces, the sick, and unemployed workers were stuck with the bill. In 1993, the federal deficit stood at $42 billion.

This is the unfortunate heritage of the Conservative government, but we must not forget that before the Conservatives tere were the Trudeau Liberals, John Turner and great experts in economics. The result was a growing deficit.

In 1993, the present Prime Minister said it would be impossible for him to eliminate this deficit in under five years, without cutting social programs. The first solution was to cut social programs. And what did the Liberals do as soon as they took over? They systematically demolished social programs.

From 1994 to 1999, federal government program expenditures were reduced by $7.5 billion. Transfer payments to the provinces alone were slashed by $6.3 billion, or 84% of total reductions in program expenditures. Thus, close to 80% of federal budget cuts were shouldered by the provinces. These federal cuts to front line services represent more than 75 cents of every dollar of cuts to health and education in Quebec.

And what about the unemployed? This is another Liberal policy aimed at eliminating the federal deficit. There is nothing complicated about it. The employment insurance program is reformed, the rules are modified, and as a result fewer than 40% of unemployed workers paying into the program are now eligible to draw benefits. And where does the surplus go? First of all into the employment insurance fund, and later into the pocket of the finance minister.

When one thinks of it, employment insurance has become surplus insurance for the government and poverty insurance for workers who lose their jobs.

Nowadays, is there anything more scary than losing one's job? There have been so many cuts in offices that the unemployed are now dealing with recordings. There is not much sensitivity involved. People wait. They do not know what they will get. The act is so complex. They are told “Use tape number one to find out how to fill your form. Use tape number two to know your rights. Use tape number three to kill time”. Finally, when the time comes to meet an officer, the afternoon is gone. It is 4:30 p.m. They are then told “Sir, Madam, come back tomorrow”.

And the lists get longer. I have received many complaints in my riding office concerning the 1-800 number. The line is always busy. Yet, the telephone operators are located in Shawinigan, in the riding of Saint-Maurice. That service should work. After all, it is in the Prime Minister's riding.

I will now refer to a recent study by two UQAM professors, Pierre Fortin and Pierre-Yves Crémieux, which shows that, because of the recent employment insurance reforms, Quebec's welfare roles alone will eventually swell by 200,000.

The impoverishment of Quebec and the regions is the result of the employment insurance program. The data from Statistics Canada support this forecast, given that, between 1989 and 1997, the percentage of unemployed receiving EI benefits dropped from 83% down to 42%. The situation is even more dramatic in the case of young people. More than three out of every four young people do not qualify for employment insurance, even though all young workers contribute to the program.

I want to say a word about the tax reduction, about the crumbs that this government offered in its latest budget. The Bloc Quebecois had asked for a targeted tax reduction that would have helped those who paid off the deficit, namely the unemployed, the young, the sick and the poor in our society.

As regards the elimination of the 3% surtax for middle class people earning between $30,000 and $60,000, the reductions in income tax amount to $163 per person. In this budget, the poor were left to their own devices, with tax reductions of only $90.

The minister announced an increase in the basic personal exemption from $6,456 to $7,131, a tax reduction of $115 per single taxpayer living alone. That really boosts the economy, and helps a parent cope with difficulties.

I have spoken at length of the unemployed and health care, I will now speak about rural development.

The Minister of Finance announced cuts worth $100 million to funds earmarked for regional development. Since its arrival in 1993, this government has completely forgotten Quebec regions in its budgets. That is understandable, since a recent survey published last week in the Globe and Mail revealed that 77% of people did not know who was responsible for regional development, despite government propaganda.

Every time they provide a bit of money in Bloc ridings, we are not invited. They arrive on the sly. The Minister of Human Resources Development was by two or three weeks ago on the pretext of making big local and regional announcements. All he wanted to do was impress the local media with the benefits of the budget.

The press conference was over in 20 minutes, of which 15 were taken up with questions and five with announcements. The media reported that there was nothing in the budget for unemployed workers, middle income earners, or health. On the contrary, there is plenty for health when it comes to Quebec. But once again this was misunderstood.

In conclusion, I would like to mention another cute patronage trick for interfering in the affairs of the provinces. It is called rural development. There is an indepartmental working group composed of 26 federal departments and agencies. Their job is quite simply to find ways of interfering in provincial jurisdictions where they have no business. That is their mandate.

At least they are frank about it, which is rare for members opposite. They say that the rural development goals for the next few years are to ensure follow-up—$3.8 million for 68 small projects with no structure—; co-operate better with other levels of government. I wonder what that is all about because they are going to be interfering in municipal and provincial jurisdictions. Another goal is to make programs more flexible and—here comes the fine print—increase the federal presence. This was on one of the slides shown last Tuesday.

They also want to listen. Listen to what? Listen to the demands of people who no longer know which way is up. The response is to increase funding and to go over the heads of municipalities, provinces and agencies serving the public.

Let me address these projects, particularly the $70,000 to develop a model for rural community health care co-operatives.

The other project—and the minister was asked to define rural community last Tuesday—is a $20,000 investment in community organizations in the municipalities of Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, Boucherville and Chambly. These communities are located across from Montreal, on the south shore. It is an urban area, and the government would have us believe that it will put money into rural development in that area. It is nothing but a joke.

In conclusion, when talking about implementing certain provisions of the budget, it is very difficult for us, in the Bloc Quebecois, to vote in favour, because our basic demands were dismissed out of hand by the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the federal Liberals.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

It would be worth less than 50 cents.

How much energy and money is expended by this government in an ongoing battle against its own constitution? When it gets involved in health and the municipalities, it is directly interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. When it comes in with the millennium scholarships, it is interfering with education.

Who are the losers with the millennium scholarships? The younger generation, the students, who will find themselves dealing with two systems—once again, duplication in Quebec—and will lose financially. While the federal government doggedly insists on not respecting Quebec's jurisdiction over education, who is it that loses out? The young people.

There is a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars. Everything possible has been done to get negotiations under way again, but on an equal footing, not between the president of Bell Canada and the new Minister of Education, but between the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Education. This government is trying to shirk its responsibilities by delegating a representative of a private company. Let us get serious, now.

Getting back to employment insurance, I would like to repeat to this government the essential demands of the Bloc Quebecois. The employment insurance fund must no longer be used as a tax on employment. The way it is operating, employment insurance has become an indirect tax, a tax that is taken from the pockets of the unemployed and from employers, and one that has no positive benefits for them.

Let us consider the following example. A person has insurance for his car. He is told “If you have an accident at Drummondville, you will be covered, but if it is at Lac-Saint-Jean, you will not”. The EI system is as ridiculous as that.

In the Quebec City region, crossing the river changes the EI rate. The result of this is that no one gets the same amount, no one is entitled to the same number of weeks of employment insurance. Where is the fairness and justice in such a system?

What is more, administration of the employment insurance account needs to be depoliticized. If the federal government has a hard time grasping common sense, it need only give this responsibility to employers and workers. We have introduced a private member's bill on this issue. Here again, the four parties on this side of the House have approved this approach, but, on the other side, nothing is happening.

I would now like to discuss the second point of my speech, which concerns health, or, if members want to put in that way, the initial ravages of the social union. The cuts are in the amount of $33 billion rather than $42 billion. The budget announced an additional $11.5 billion in transfers over five years, which means $2 billion in 1999-00 and $9 billion until 2003-04.

Furthermore, the government also announced an additional $1.4 billion in new health care spending, which tramples on and overlaps provincial jurisdictions. The $2 billion announced for all of Canada represents only just the amount that was cut for Quebec alone in health care. It is a third of the $6.3 billion shortfall the federal government announced last month.

Let us talk figures. They are the experts in this on the other side of the House. They are also experts in having a hard time recognizing the real things.

The initial plan for cuts represented a cumulative shortfall of $48 billion between 1993-94 and 2002-03. The announcement in the 1997 election was a little election treat. They are good at that. I will discuss later the little election treats in rural development and where the money goes. You will see that, in patronage, these folks are hard to beat.

During the 1997 election campaign, the Liberals announced an increase of $12.5 billion and said the cumulative cut would be only be $42 billion. This is not what I call a treat.

Let us now turn our attention to the recent social union framework agreement. This was a great blackmail operation conducted in the Prime Minister's office, along with provinces that will soon hold an election, except one. It is very easy to understand why Ontario received $1 billion. That province is well represented in this House.

I can understand why the province of Ontario would be favoured, but I have a hard time figuring out why Liberal members from Quebec would be so gullible. What is going on in that caucus? They are asleep. Quebec MPs fall bow down to Ontario and guess who loses? Quebec. Ontario receives $1 billion, while Quebec gets $150 million. Is this justice? Is this a worthwhile social union?

I can certainly understand why the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, dismissed the agreement that was proposed to first ministers. It is impossible to understand why this government is always trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I will now give the long list of future federal intrusions in health.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-71 now before the House, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled last month in the House.

It is difficult to find positive things to say about this bill, since the budget alluded, of course, to the centralizing of the health care system, does nothing for the unemployed and is giving the agriculture sector nothing but crumbs. I want to show how this government managed to eliminate its deficit.

First, let us look at the employment insurance program. Members opposite are very stubborn; we keep telling them that the system is not working, that it is choking the unemployed. Let me give you an example. As members know, in recent years, the employment insurance benefits that the unemployed were not getting have been used to increase the amount in the employment insurance fund which, in turn, was used by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit.

In the 1999 budget, the government confirms that it misappropriated the $7 billion EI surplus in 1998-99 and that it intends to repeat the performance with the anticipated $5 billion surplus in 1999-2000. Adding up all the billions that were taken from the unemployed, by the end of this year—and this is a real bug for the jobless—amounts to a $26 billion surplus, which has made the regions, including Quebec, poorer and put the jobless in a scary situation that still persists. These people have no hope that the system might some day meet their expectations.

When I rose a few weeks ago to speak to the budget, I had made a long list of suggestions to improve the employment insurance plan. However, when we on this side speak to the other side, I do not know, it is as if there is an invisible wall or some comprehension problem, but they do not understand common sense. They really do not understand common sense.

We are hoping that, finally, the Liberals opposite will understand what the Bloc Quebecois wants and what all the workers in Quebec and Canada are calling for.

First of all, improved eligibility: the end of discrimination against certain categories of unemployed because of their so called regularity on the labour market; a reduction from the current 700 hours to 300 hours the requirement for special illness, maternity or parental benefits; an increase in the number of weeks of benefit from 45 to 50; the abolition of the so called intensity rule, which progressively cuts benefit rates from 55% to 50% for contributors regularly drawing employment insurance.

As we know, like a diet, a plan can be hard on people. Sometimes people lose weight when they go on one. But the unemployed lose money. They really lose money. Since 1993, this government has ceaselessly attacked society's most disadvantaged. This government, and especially the Minister of Finance, has become very good at creative bookkeeping.

That brings us to the transparency of the EI fund. At a press conference last winter, the four parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, got together and called for the EI account to be kept separate from government operations and for the Employment Insurance Commission, not the minister, to be given sole authority over EI premium rates.

Every December, the minister trots out so-called good news that bears no resemblance to what unemployed workers want.

We also called for the rules that reduce the amount of benefits to be eliminated. We asked that the freeze on maximum insurable earnings be lifted, the 52 week base period be restored, and the calculation of benefits be based on the number of weeks required to qualify during which earnings are highest.

These are interesting and constructive suggestions, but nothing is happening. On the contrary, the government continues to dip into the EI surplus. Why? So that it can lower the deficit and, worse still, interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is getting very good at this.

This was clear in the September 1997 throne speech written by a marketing specialist, the sole objective of which was to make sure the maple leaf appeared on everything.

Whether in provincial, municipal or rural jurisdictions, everywhere we turn, there is the maple leaf. With the millennium scholarships, we were even afraid we would have to have the Prime Minister's face on the documents. What do you suppose would happen to a Canadian dollar with the Prime Minister's face on it?

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, radio listeners in Quebec City are open people who believe in the future, so I am not a bit surprised by these results, and I am sure that if such a poll had been held throughout Quebec, its results would have been positive. It just goes to prove that Quebeckers are all for change and not for the status quo, unlike the federal Liberals opposite.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to demand one too.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that there is at least one hon. member who is open to the possibility of a committee being struck. The pan-American currency is a project for the future. We have to talk about it. This is our position and we want to set up a committee. Is there anything more democratic that a committee?

Members opposite have chosen to address today the issue of Quebec's sovereignty. Let us be serious here. What we are proposing today is becoming a more and more distinct possibility in a global environment. The hon. member opposite, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, should know this.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

I am pleased to rise today in this debate on a motion put forward by my party, the Bloc Quebecois, asking for a committee to be struck in order to consider the possibility of the creation on a pan-American monetary union.

This is a very serious issue and I am very proud to speak to it. I am not dealing with it the way opposite members are doing nor in the way they have been behaving for the last few minutes.

On the eve of the year 2000, in a world where economy, science, politics and energy are changing rapidly, we must deal with this issue within the broad modernization process in the context of globalization.

Every day, the media report large business and economic mergers. How can we remain passive in the face of the strong possibility of the creation of a joint pan-American currency?

The arrival of the Euro on the market last January was the trigger and the real beginning of this important reflection.

Who would have thought that only 40 years of negotiation would be needed for European countries to decide to create the Euro? The creation of the Euro gives back to Europe the look of an economic power resulting from the interdependence of eleven different countries.

The printing of the first Euros is the tangible result of the hard work of European countries after the second world war on the economic and social reconstruction of Europe.

We will soon be in the third millennium, and we will enter into multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization.

The debate on a common currency for the three Americas should start right now. While the Prime Minister of Canada and the governor of the Bank of Canada oppose this concept, the deputy premier of Quebec, Mr. Bernard Landry, who was an adamant proponent of the free trade agreement in 1988, is supporting the position of the Bloc Quebecois and its leader.

The FTA, followed by NAFTA have given Canada and Quebec a better access to the American market, and exports from Quebec have risen annually by 7% or 8%. Mr. Bernard Landry was right, and this trade agreement was fitting nicely in our agenda for Quebec sovereignty.

The creation of a common currency is another political and economic issue that should be dealt with seriously, in the context of discussions and negotiations over international trade agreements and more particularly in the context of a sovereign Quebec.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is requesting that a committee be set up to study this important issue. Even if the Prime Minister of Canada and his finance minister are completely opposed to this, all members in this House should do something concrete and demonstrate that a common pan-American currency is a most realistic project that should be examined right now.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois is that a sovereign Quebec should keep the Quebec-Canada monetary union, but we should go further than that in our thinking. We know that sovereignists are for change. They are open to this worldwide debate, contrary to the federal Liberals who do not want to move away from the status quo and who refuse any kind of change.

I remind members of the position taken by the Liberals in the 1988 debate on free trade. They were against the idea, including the then premier of Ontario, David Peterson. In 1999, it is the same scenario. Ontario Liberals are opposed to change and show no openness to prepare for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.

A few weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois, a democratic party that listens to its grassroots members, formed a task force to examine the place of a sovereign Quebec in the world. The issue of a common currency will also be considered.

Personally, I support the creation of a common currency, as do my colleague from Charlesbourg and our leader. I am still convinced that, by the year 2020, three currencies will dominate the world market, namely the U.S. dollar, the Eurocoin and the Japanese yen. Twenty years is not a long time. Therefore, we must prepare ourselves for that economic possibility.

Members of the House of Commons must follow our lead immediately and consider the possible creation of a common currency. The federal Liberals still have closed minds and are incapable of dealing with such an important issue. They just refuse to get away from their old conservative way of thinking, from their unhealthy obsession with the status quo and from their narrow vision of Canadian nationalism.

I understand them. How can we expect them to be proactive and to renew their rhetoric when they are led by a man who is mostly inspired by the Trudeau philosophy of the 1970s? And what about the position of the New Democrats, who are also stuck on their old centralizing paradigms that are very close to those of the federal Liberals who are unable to have a world vision?

The Bloc Quebecois has taken the lead. Our members want to talk about this issue right now. We are a sovereignist party that anticipates the exceptional interdependent relationship of a sovereign Quebec with its other economic partners throughout the world. We are a party that looks forward to the future, not an old fashioned party like the Liberal Party opposite.

[Eastern Ontario Francophones, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Professor Charles Castonguay has written an affidavit for SOS Montfort on the situation of francophones in Eastern Ontario.

The Liberal members from this region, who represent these French speaking Canadians, ought to read it.

We learn from this document that, in the nation's capital and surrounding area, the assimilation rate of francophones has grown from 13% in 1971 to 24% in 1996 overall and from 19% to 32% for people 25 to 34 years old.

“For the Ottawa—Carleton residents born in Ontario only, the net assimilation rate of young francophone adults reached 41% in 1996”, according to Professor Castonguay.

[Construction Contracts, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has behaved imprudently to say the least in awarding a contract without tender to a contractor hired privately by the Prime Minister to construct a second residence.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. By giving the Prime Minister's private contractor the benefit of an untendered contract, has the Minister of Public Works and Government Services not put the Prime Minister in a situation that is awkward and embarrassing to say the least?

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague.

I understand his enthusiasm. If we look at what Ontario got, $1 billion, with $150 million for Quebec, I understand his happiness, like that of most of his colleagues from Ontario.

However, I would like to know if he is aware of the Constitution of Canada. All the budget did was encourage interference in provincial jurisdictions. Does the hon. member really know his Constitution?