Odina Desrochers

[Goods And Services Tax, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

Let us talk about the GST. The Bloc Quebecois has submitted a proposal whereby arbitration would be used to resolve the deadlock that has arisen on the issue of the $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing the GST in Quebec. Yesterday, Bernard Landry officially reiterated that proposal to the Minister of Finance, but the minister again rejected arbitration.

Since this arbitration proposal does not cost anything to the federal government, and if the Minister of Finance is in fact right in his claims, why is the minister not jumping on this unique opportunity to prove that his federalism is fair?

[Philippe Boisclair, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Philippe Boisclair, a young man of 17 from Saint-Agapit de Lotbinière, is presently going through a unique experience.

In fact, since last September, he is attending one of the United World Colleges, an organization chaired by Nelson Mandela. He is our first student to be admitted into such a college.

Philippe is a born communicator and is participating in this international program so that he can have contacts with teachers and students throughout the world. The people of the riding of Lotbinière are proud to have such a young man who is making a difference internationally.

As the member for Lotbinière, I encourage young people to seek such experiences, because they are the ones who will be leading Quebec society tomorrow.

[User Fee Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is surprising to hear what our colleague opposite had to say. Dealing with transparency, with how our money is spent, is always complicated; it is always a long process. But when the process is to tax people, when the process is to introduce hidden taxes, the government is quick to act.

We have before us today in the House of Commons Bill C-205 introduced by the member for Medicine Hat. In this bill, the Reform member states that this law would provide for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by a federal authority and require public disclosure of the amount collected as user fees.

The Bloc Quebecois, a party that promotes transparency, is also willing to promote this bill. This initiative by my Reform colleague is in keeping with a recommendation made by the auditor general in his 1993 report, and I would like to quote him. My colleague mentioned this earlier, but I would like to repeat it because sometimes the members opposite have difficulty understanding the facts.

Here is what the auditor general said “We are concerned that it is not easy for Parliament to scrutinize closely user fees as determined by the market and other non-regulatory instruments. There is no government-wide summary of fees charged, of revenues collected and of the authorities under which these fees are set.”

This Reform bill addresses this legitimate concern by the auditor general. These user fees are a type of hidden tax that the Minister of Finance approves. Federal agencies are charging fees in an attempt to overcome the cuts that the Liberal government imposed on them.

In fact, these federal agencies implemented these 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.

I would like to give you several examples of increases to service charges made by agencies under federal authority: a head tax of $975 for each new immigrant coming to Canada; administration fees for a passport increased from $35 to $60.

Another example affects directly families and people who love the outdoors: in 1995-1996, $35 million were collected in entrance fees paid by users of our lovely national camping sites, and these fees almost doubled in the year 1996-1997, totalling over $61 million. Today, national camping facilities cost more than private camping facilities.

How can these hidden taxes imposed with the finance minister's blessing be justified when the people of Quebec and Canada are overburdened with taxes as it is? Bill C-205 comes at the right moment to unmask the Liberals' game. Where is this money going? The Minister of Finance did not say anything about that either. Whenever this government has to account to the people, it shirks its responsibility. There is a long list of examples.

One issue of particular concern to Quebeckers is that of harmonising the GST, which costs our taxpayers $2 billion. In spite of repeated requests on our part, the Minister of Finance still will not agree to disclose his real motives for denying this legitimate request.

The Minister of Finance repeatedly said that his studies and analyses showed that Quebec was not entitled to this money. In a last-ditch effort to resolve this issue, the leader of our party made a fair and equitable proposal to the two parties involved in this controversy over numbers. The Bloc leader asked that a three-member expert panel look into this issue. The federal government will not agree to this totally democratic and legitimate approach. What is it trying to hide from the public?

The EI fund, with surpluses expected to exceed $15 billion, is another issue. In the report he tabled in October, the auditor general mentioned that the finance minister should administer the EI fund in a more transparent fashion. The minister's financial statements should show, under a separate account, the amounts paid in and out of the EI fund.

This too would help give credibility to this government. Yet, the finance minister still denies this request. Why? He is afraid of the public finding out how he is playing with the EI fund surpluses.

Who are the losers in this economic debate? The workers, who are heavily penalized by this Liberal government.

With this bill, democracy could make strides. The issue of transparency is front and centre, and that is the first step in stopping this marketing operation the Liberal government launched in this House with the Speech from the Throne. It should be pointed out to the hon. members of this House that, in 1996 alone, these new user fees generated $3.8 billion in revenue for the federal government, without any form of review being conducted.

The finance minister's game is obvious. This is another source of revenue that looks like a roundabout way of collecting more taxes from the taxpayers. The time has come to put a stop to these hidden taxes. The time has come for the public to be made aware of the use made of this money by the government.

The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the principle of Bill C-205, allowing members of Parliament to subject to scrutiny the source of revenue from user fees.

For the reasons stated the bill, namely transparency, responsibility and representation, our party is in favour of Bill C-205.

[The Environment, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government convince uncooperative provinces to comply with the objectives set in Kyoto when it cannot even lead by example by reducing ozone depleting substances?

[The Environment, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in his report released this morning, the auditor general notes that the federal government has no internal policy governing the management, replacement and disposal of substances that deplete the ozone layer. Yet, according to the auditor general, federal departments are major users of such substances.

How can this government claim to be able to implement the agreement on greenhouse gases it will be signing in Kyoto, when its own departments are unable to set an example by cutting down on the use of ozone depleting substances?

[Committees Of The House, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again, in reading the report presented by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we can recognize the style of the Liberal government, a government focused on maple leaf-flavoured propaganda.

Reading this report, which was leaked by the Toronto media, we can see that the Liberals are attempting to pass it off as an objective summary of what the numerous organizations and individuals consulted since mid-October from coast to coast had to say. This is false.

In reality, this report is nothing but the red program of the Liberals from the last electoral campaign. Once again, the Liberals have thumbed their noses at the rules of democracy, by squeezing the opposition parties into a tight timeframe and thus trying to prevent us in the Parti Quebecois from voicing our opposition.

I have, moreover, strongly urged the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance to hold an in-depth review of the process surrounding publication of the finance report and to conduct his own investigation in order to identify the person or persons responsible for the leak to the media.

At any rate, this report shows that there are two economic visions, one belonging to Canada and the other to Quebec, which are diametrically opposed. Quebec condemns federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction, while the other provinces are calling for a stepped-up federal presence. The solution is extremely simple. All Quebeckers are aware that what will solve all of Quebec's socio-economic problems is Quebec sovereignty.

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-214, introduced by the Reform member for Yorkton—Melville.

The bill was drafted following the hon. member's experiment with taxpayers from his riding in western Canada. Again, we can see that the Reform Party has a hard time understanding how our democratic institutions work. That right-wing party comes up with a regional idea it sees as innovative and, above all, realistic.

Let us take a look at the title of Bill C-214:

An act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues—

The title is a long sentence which could summarize our whole democratic system. The way some Reformers behave in this House, one gets the impression they want to reform everything.

“An act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views”. The fact is that every three or four years, depending on the Prime Minister's mood, Canadians are asked to support or reject the government's achievements, through a general election. They are also asked to choose among the programs of the various political parties that clearly indicate how they intend to use taxpayers' money.

The intentions of Bloc Quebecois members are clear. We want to give back to Quebec the taxes paid by Quebeckers. We are convinced that the federal system no longer meets Quebec's real needs. In the last election, Quebeckers understood Reform's message and decided not to elect any member of that party, a party which is openly opposed to bilingualism and which flatly rejects every one of Quebec's demands.

For the Reform members, that consultation was not adequate. When taxpayers prepare their income tax return, they want them now to fill out a form describing how they want their money to be spent.

Imagine that tomorrow morning Revenue Canada has to review 18 million ideas on how Ottawa should spend the money. Who will determine the priorities? Would Revenue Canada's unionized workers be willing to screen these millions of ideas? No, with the cuts and the constant remodelling that most departments have experienced, the work of these government employees is now based on very precise duties and they have neither the time nor the training required to perform the new duties that the Reform Party would require of them.

The Reform Party could force them to do this work by implementing a series of orders or special laws. This is probably what would happen when you consider how that party treats the postal workers. They really have difficulty understanding how collective agreements are negotiated. The Reform philosophy, which leans strongly to the extreme right, is once again leading them to opt for the hard line by calling for a special law and by completely disregarding the claims of Canada Post employees.

Imagine if after difficult negotiations with Canada, the Reform Party had to hire personnel to try and compile these millions of ideas.

I would like to see the leader of the official opposition, who is constantly calling for cuts, cuts and more cuts, rise in this House and attempt to justify these additional expenses, and especially to explain why the decision making process has bogged down. Of course no one is surprised by the way the Reform leader changes his mind, especially when we see that his official arrival at majestic Stornoway cost taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars.

The member for Yorkton—Melville thinks that he has made a great discovery with this method of consulting taxpayers in his riding. This type of consultation is part of a member's job to maintain a close relationship with the grassroots, and we do not need to fill out a Revenue Canada form to do this work.

Furthermore, Reform members have to recognize that there are other means of finding out what the public thinks about the policy decisions we want to implement. They only have to consult their supporters in the community and, from time to time, to study the polls or read the opinions of political and economic commentators.

At any rate, in Quebec, the public knows what the real face of the Reform Party is. They remember how the Reform Party insulted Quebec's political leaders during the last electoral campaign, the anti-Quebec advertising. We all know that this party from the right has absolutely no idea of what the issues are in Quebec.

I would like to remind the Reform member who sponsored this bill that there is a whole other series of activities here in the Parliament of Canada by which politicians, groups and individuals can make known their points of view: oral question period, parliamentary committees, statements by members, speeches, press releases and even press conferences.

I really have trouble understanding how the logistics of this bill could be defended.

I nonetheless took the time to examine the result of this local operation in the riding of Yorkton—Melville. Here are the priorities expressed by the 500 taxpayers who went along with their MP's request. But before I give you the results, I will briefly review the purpose of this bill, an act to allow taxpayers to inform government of their views on levels and priorities for the expenditure of tax revenues. The French leaves something to be desired, but what it boils down to is “Where would you like to see the money you give Revenue Canada spent?”

The answers were as follows: 93% are against their money being used for bilingualism; 81.2% are against multiculturalism; and 78.4% are against native peoples.

This is the upshot of the 500 forms completed perhaps by the 500 members in good standing of the Reform Party. The constituents indicate their preference for justice and the RCMP, and jails, with welfare 21st on the list. In other words, they would rather send the least well off in society to jail than provide them with social and community support. Here again, we recognize the philosophy of the Reform Party.

My conclusion will look at the results of this operation, a phoney consultation, a tool for disinformation in the hands of a right wing party from western Canada trying to get the public to swallow Reform Party ideas that will not work in the 1990s.

The political party to which I belong, however, would be tempted to try this approach, given the negative sentiments expressed about Quebec and about social democracy. This kind of consultation would certainly help the sovereignist cause.

However, we will be voting against this bill, which has no serious foundation and which is pure Reform party politics.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his kindness.

My speech will deal with two important issues. I will talk about the St. Lawrence River and then I will tell you about how little the Liberals and Reformers care about the environment.

You know how important the St. Lawrence River is to my riding of Lotbinière. My riding is bordered by the St. Lawrence on one side and includes the following municipalities: Saint-Pierre les Becquets, Deschaillons, Leclercville, Lotbinière, Sainte-Croix et Saint-Antoine de Tilly. These villages located on the shores of the magnificent St. Lawrence River are tourist attractions along highway 132. They are part of Quebec's history and of Lotbinière's heritage.

Several mayors and representatives of these municipalities have contacted my office to express their fears about the alarming information that appears in the national media about the future of the St. Lawrence River. They wanted the Bloc Quebecois and its environment critic, the member for Rosemont, to continue their attacks on the Liberal government, which does not seem to be concerned about the future of the St. Lawrence, preferring to give in to the western oil lobby supported by the Reform Party.

I would ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for environmental issues in his government. The Minister of the Environment or the Reform Party?

On the subject of the St. Lawrence, scientists agree that the greenhouse effect will seriously affect it. According to a study issued last month by Environment Canada, the St. Lawrence will suffer the brunt of the negative effects of any warming trend; its flow would be substantially reduced. This negative impact would mean the disappearance of the aquatic grass bed, a key element in the reproduction of some 100 living species. This study indicated as well that the average temperature would rise by 4 degrees Celsius.

Once again we can see how the government treats Quebec when it has to make a decision on a subject as important as the environment.

I had hoped that the future of the St. Lawrence, the river that led our country's pioneers to discover Quebec and Ontario, would wake up the Liberals. But, no. They were put to sleep by Reform gases from western Canada.

The Minister of Finance claims to be concerned by the greenhouse effect. He said that the question should be managed by several departments. He even had the gall to say that the issue is often talked about during cabinet meetings. That is the way the Minister of Finance usually speaks, although he sometimes forgets things in his fiscal analyses. For example, he said that his government must invest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but he did not mention any specific amount.

The Minister of Finance tried to tell us that he would propose concrete solutions, when, at the same time, he continues to subsidize to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars the development of oil and gas resources. For example, he gave almost half a billion for the tar sands project. Here again we can see where the Liberal government stands.

The commitments of the Liberal government with respect to the environment are clearly inadequate. If the Minister of the Environment wants to be taken seriously at the Kyoto summit, she should go back to the drawing board.

Recently, John Fraser, the Canadian environment ambassador, sent a pressing message to the Liberal government, asking it to review the position adopted in Regina in mid-November. He said that regardless of what we have done in terms of reduction, we have not done enough. And he went on to say that we all know that we can do more.

These words came from one of the many and invaluable collaborators appointed in 1994 by the current Prime Minister, but the Liberals are ignoring one of their own. Canada should follow the example of Quebec, which is the only province, with British Columbia, to have ratified the United Nations Convention on Climate Changes signed in Rio in 1992.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud of what Quebec has done in recent years in this area and intends to continue to pressure the federal government so that it understands once and for all the high stakes involved, the quality of life of the people of Quebec and of Canada.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, my colleague opposite was a bit surprised at the many questions I had about Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

You will understand that we in the Bloc Quebecois are here to genuinely defend Quebec's interests, and when we see the way our friends opposite have been behaving since the beginning of this 36th Parliament, it goes without saying that we are even more on our guard, since the government, using all sorts of excuses, all sorts of national guidelines, is trying to interfere in matters that concern the Government of Quebec.

When I see, for example, what they did with Dorval airport, where an agreement had almost been concluded with the Sûreté du Québec to assume responsibility for airport security and the federal government stepped in and imposed the RCMP, you will understand that, because of the powers that will be given to our customs officers with Bill C-18, members of the Bloc Quebecois want to make sure that provincial jurisdictions are respected.

When someone is apprehended at the border point, a process will be set in motion and things must be clear, that is to say that it will be the Sûreté du Québec and the courts of provincial jurisdiction, as the provincial authorities, that will have control regarding possible charges laid by the legal system.

I also asked a few questions that were not answered. For instance, I asked the hon. member what assurances she had given union representatives. She replied that she had received a letter. I did not, however, hear anything specific about whether seniority clauses will be respected and whether the collective agreement of people represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada will also be respected. So, with this in mind, the Bloc Quebecois would like things to be clear.

The throne speech delivered not all that long ago made the federal government's intentions clear; it intends to use every opportunity to get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction, so we are going to remain very much on our guard in reading bill C-18.

I would remind you, however, that we are very much in favour of Bill C-18 as such, since the statistics I have given offer a very good explanation of why we would like to see customs officers' powers enhanced. However, we want to see all of this happen with the utmost transparency and we want to see provincial jurisdictions respected throughout the process of passing the legislation, of training the customs officers, of renovating Canada Customs posts.

I think that everyone, if treated fairly, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, will be very pleased with the passage of Bill C-18, for which I reiterate my support.

[Customs Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member opposite gave his reply and his comments on the speech I made before question period, you told me I would have a few minutes to reply to his questions and comments.

Therefore, I would like to know how much time I have left to complete my remarks.