Odina Desrochers

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all that the Bloc Quebecois MPs do is defend the interests of Quebec. Our mandate is a serious one. We defend the interests of Quebec. We defend the interests of Quebec as defined in an agreement signed in 1964 between Jean Lesage and Lester B. Pearson, a respectable Prime Minister who had the interests of Quebec at heart at that time and knew that giving the responsibility for education and the student loan and bursary program to the provinces would ensure that the system would work profitably and efficiently for Quebec students.

Your present Prime Minister would do well to reread the words of Lester B. Pearson from that time, in order to see what a Canadian Prime Minister used to be like.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

On February 24, the first budget of this Liberal government's second mandate was delivered to Canada and Quebec. Not surprisingly, the maple leaf theme was omnipresent. The Liberals' masquerade is over. The true face of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and his finance minister has been revealed to the people of Canada and Quebec.

What the Bloc Quebecois had been dreading since the Speech from the Throne, that is, an unprecedented invasion of provincial jurisdictions, has now become a sad reality.

In Quebec and the other Canadian provinces, the finance minister's words had a bitter flavour. The provinces have realized that, once again, they will have to pay a high price for the Liberal government's visibility, while the federal government completely ignores their demands to restore the transfer payments the Liberals have been systematically cutting back since they were re-elected in the fall of 1993.

What can we say about the government's position on the employment insurance issue? Where is its commitment to agriculture? The budget does not contain a single line on this industry which is vitally important to Quebec and my region in particular. Not to mention the war of flags that will be fought on the backs of Quebec students.

These remarks accurately reflect the comments made by the stakeholders in my riding of Lotbinière. On Tuesday, these people met in my Laurier-Station office and, after seeing the finance minister's fiscal plan, they concluded this was “a Canadian Liberal budget devised by a centralizing government that is gradually squeezing the provinces”.

Let me quote some of the comments made by socio-economic stakeholders in my riding: “Why does the federal government want to create a fund that will directly compete with Quebec's student loans and grants program?” “Where are the job creation initiatives?” “What will the Minister of Finance do with the employment insurance surpluses?” “Not a word on agriculture; it sure tells you what the federal government thinks of this sector.” “Independent workers are not just concerned about their dental plans; it is not enough, it is a joke.”

Let us take a look at the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Once again, we can see, upon reading the budget, that the Minister of Finance is contradicting himself.

In his speech he said “Education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. It is the provinces that are responsible for the curriculum, for educational institutions, for quality”. But the minister's respect for provinces, for Quebec, stops there. How the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will operate will be defined without consulting the provinces.

The minister was clear on this. He said “Once established, the Foundation will consult”. The foundation, which will be administered through a cumbersome, costly and complex structure, will make life difficult for Quebec students.

The federal government, along with certain provinces, is doing the groundwork for the establishment of a true federal education department. This government, which cares so much about the Canadian Constitution, which is even prepared to go before the Supreme Court, cannot even respect its own Constitution.

This government, which is looking more and more unitary, is acting unilaterally. In actual fact, this budget is the second phase of the Canadian flag operation, a Plan B attempt to charm young people, a strictly election-minded strategy.

The Minister of Finance's budget ignores the provinces, who wanted the Liberal government to be fair, and to use its surpluses to give them back what it cut in transfer payments. But the government takes no notice of what the provinces are up against.

I would now like to share another reaction from one of my constituents: “I would like to see the look on the faces of those waiting in hospital corridors when they hear that the federal government is not returning one red cent to the health sector”.

By refusing to give back to the provinces the billions of dollars it has taken from them in recent years, the federal government is giving a signal that health is not a budget priority. Although the Minister of Finance used the phrase “equality of opportunity” in his budget, it is a budget full of financial inequities.

Let us now look at EI, specifically at surpluses in the EI fund which, at the rate things are going, will stand at $30 billion by the year 2000. That is the finance minister's big cash cow for paying down his deficit. Employers and unions throughout Canada called for substantial reductions in EI premium rates.

On Tuesday, workers were shocked to hear the Minister of Finance boast that the unemployment rate had gone from 11.2% in 1993 to under 9% in 1997. These victims of the new system were excluded from EI because of restrictive eligibility rules.

In conclusion, the scenario for Quebeckers, for our young people, for our sick people, for our seniors, as written by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, with the help of the Minister of Human Resources Development, is a sting aimed at our entire society.

I would like to inform you that, unlike the multiple Oscar-winning 1970s Hollywood movie “The Sting”, the Canadian version of that movie currently running in the federal parliamentary theatre is not winning any awards, with the exception of an Oscar for best predator to the Prime Minister and best imposter to the Minister of Finance.

[Bill C-28, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since the ethics commissioner himself said that other means should have been taken to avoid any apparent conflict of interest, can the Prime Minister tell us if his ethics commissioner—who obviously disagrees with him—informed him, as he was duty bound to do, that he did not share the Prime Minister's opinion?

[Bill C-28, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance put himself in an apparent conflict of interest by sponsoring Bill C-28, which provides major tax exemptions for shipping companies.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Minister of Finance should have taken other means to avoid any apparent conflict of interest regarding Bill C-28?

[Bill C-28, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government's ethics commissioner acknowledged that the measures intended to eliminate any whisper of conflict of interest in the story of the ship-owning minister's sponsorship of Bill C-28 were not implemented.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the ethic's commissioner's statement proves that there is an apparent conflict of interest and the 1994 code of ethics states that ministers must not find themselves in such situations, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about his minister-cum-shipowner-cum-legislator?

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member for Beauce quote statistics about the 1980 referendum and the 1995 referendum, when his party and all his colleagues are about to support what is bound to happen in the supreme court, who will deny Quebeckers this very right. I wonder how he will be able some time soon to express his views about democracy and self-determination for the Quebec people.

The federal Liberals are more and more alone in this adventure. Think about the positions taken by Claude Ryan and the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Daniel Johnson. They seem increasingly to be distancing themselves from the federal Liberal members of Parliament. There is in Quebec a consensus that this reference is pointless, illegitimate and disrespectful of our democratic values.

Does the hon. member realize that he can only rely on his Reform allies and Guy Bertrand to help him defend the hard line set out in Plan B, which is decried by the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party of Quebec, some international experts and the people of Quebec?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what all Quebeckers, whether aboriginal, anglophone or francophone, are demanding is to be the ones who determine the future of Quebec.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. member across the way has so many concerns, but I would like to find out his opinion on his party's offensive relating to the reference to the supreme court. I would like to know if he will be equally objective when it becomes obvious that his federal allies in Quebec are now denouncing the way the Liberal Party of Canada is handling things, denouncing the fact that the future of Quebec has to go through federal courts, which do the thinking for the federal government.

So, before he gives us any lectures about the aboriginal people, I would like to ask his opinion of this objectivity, this great democratic spirit which his government seems to be trying to show with this reference to the supreme court.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

But in the meantime, we want justice. I did not ask that transfer payments be increased, just that the government give us what is owed to us, the amount of the cuts made since 1993. That is all we are asking from the other side.

We in the Bloc Quebecois advocate sovereignty for Quebec. But in the meantime, until the Quebec people chooses sovereignty, count on us to defend in this federal Parliament the interests of Quebec, which are tied to its exclusive jurisdictions: health and education.

The reason we are also going to intervene in coming months in this House is to put the brakes on the numerous standards the government across the way wants to set in its attempts to interfere in exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

I repeat: the Bloc Quebecois is here to defend the interests of Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is here in this House to promote the sovereignty of Quebec, so be prepared in coming months to see us keeping a vigilant eye over the way you are going to administer our money. What we in Quebec want above all is to get what is due to us.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my hon. colleague opposite that the top priority for the Bloc Quebecois and its 44 members sitting in this House is to get Quebec out of the federal system.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased today to take part in this opposition day devoted to a debate proposed by my Reform Party colleagues.

First, I must say that my political party approves the principle behind the Reform statement to the effect that the government is “imperiling the economic and social security of Canadians with their reckless commitment to dramatically increase spending” at a time when “Canada has the highest personal income taxes in the G-7”. I would add that the Minister of Finance's priorities are not fair to the average taxpayer.

We think it is clear that the federal government must stop spending and focus on running the country better. However, the Bloc Quebecois' ideas for attaining this goal of reducing spending are a little different from those proposed by the Reform Party.

I will begin by reminding members that last October's cross-country tour of major Canadian cities, and the comments made by organizations and individuals in the course of approximately 50 meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance show that the country as a whole wants the Minister of Finance to change his political tune.

The Bloc Quebecois is clear about this: the Liberal government must call a halt to the cuts it has been making to provincial transfer payments since 1993 and, in particular, forget about the $30 billion it was planning to cut over the next few years.

The Minister of Finance must give back to the provinces the amounts he has cut and must certainly not launch costly new programs with national standards that would interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada, the public continues to condemn the Liberal administration.

The federal government is largely responsible for the deterioration in Quebec's health services and for student debt, for our young people being crushed under the weight of the tax burden imposed by the federal government.

Last December, Quebec's premier, Lucien Bouchard, made an interesting proposal to the Minister of Finance. This proposal reflected the wishes of all Quebeckers. The wonderful surpluses soon to be announced by the Minister of Finance should be used as follows: 25% to make up for cuts to transfer payments and 75% to ease some of the load on taxpayers. That is a realistic suggestion.

In this connection, the Minister of Finance ought to abolish the employment tax, or in other words reduce employment insurance contributions by employers and workers, and labour and management are unanimous on this. Even the chambers of commerce throughout the country are insisting that the Minister of Finance decrease contributions.

So what is the Minister of Finance waiting for before taking concrete action in response to these demands? He cannot take action, understandably, because he continues to dip into the employment insurance fund in order to reduce his deficit. What the Minister of Finance will be announcing to us shortly is, in actual fact, nothing more than a simple mathematical operation and the pseudo-surpluses will in actual fact be nothing more than the amounts he has taken out of the employment insurance fund.

The rules as they stand still allow the Minister of Finance to dip into these funds, which were contributed solely by businesses and workers, and which, let us remember, now add up to about $12 billion.

It must be kept in mind too that the auditor general also strongly recommends an annual report on all employment insurance activities, so that the Canadian people may know how this program is really being administered. To this too the Minister of Finance turns a deaf ear. He continues to obstinately pursue the policies he has always favoured.

Let me now tell you about another solution which could help alleviate the taxpayers' fiscal burden, namely having better control over the numerous service charges created in recent years by various federal departments and agencies. The figures are alarming. These federal agencies implemented service charges when the Minister of Finance authorized them to do so in 1995. The minister stated at that time that it was appropriate to charge such new fees in order to finance part of the programs and services provided by the federal government.

Who is paying for this new approach? The taxpayer. Let me give you some examples of increased service charges by federal agencies: a head tax of $975 for each new immigrant coming to Canada; administration fees for a passport raised from $35 to $60.

Another measure directly affects families and outdoor enthusiasts: in 1995-96, $35 million in entrance fees was collected from users of our lovely national campgrounds, and these fees almost doubled in 1996-97, totalling over $61 million. Today, access to national camping facilities costs more than to private ones. How can these hidden taxes imposed with the finance minister's blessing be justified when the people of Quebec and Canada are already taxed to death?

The pre-budget consultations clearly showed, once again, that there are two economic visions in the country. The federal government wants to centralize everything, establish national standards and continue to infringe on the exclusive rights of the provinces. As for Quebec, it leads a daily fight to protect its autonomy against this centralizing government. It takes all kinds of actions to ensure that the federal government respects provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois is simply asking the Minister of Finance to give the provinces their money back. The minister must correct the social injustice he created for those directly affected by his financial decisions, namely the unemployed, students and low income people.

Where do the finance minister's real interests lie? In the coming months, the Bloc Quebecois will speak as often as necessary, here in this House and everywhere in Quebec, to get the point across to the Liberal government. Between now and budget day, we will insist that the Minister of Finance finally see the light.

We stand up for Quebec, whose federal transfer payments were drastically cut these past few years. Also, the Minister of Finance has to stop dipping into employment insurance surpluses and ask his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, to amend the Employment Insurance Act to make it more accessible and compassionate for the workers.

To conclude, we ask that future surpluses be used by the federal government to do justice to the province. Moreover, the government must implement job creation initiatives. Finally, it must be truly responsive to the needs of our people.