Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[The Environment, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the regional health board confirmed that the incinerator represented a significant source of toxic fumes.

When does the minister intend to provide, as demanded by the community, full and complete details on the composition of the contaminated products to be transported?

[The Environment, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the Minister of National Defence granted a $15 million contract to Bennett Environmental so that 40,000 tonnes of contaminated waste and soil from the former radar station in Saglek could be processed at the Saint-Ambroise incinerator in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.

Given that this company was found guilty of non-compliance with Quebec's environmental legislation, what process did the minister follow in granting this substantial contract? Did he communicate with Quebec's minister of the environment and inform the residents of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke at length about the navy. He also spoke about the Solicitor General.

I think that he has read the budget just as we, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, have done. I would like to hear what he has to say about fiscal imbalance. This budget demonstrates that federal taxes are increasing while federal transfers to the provinces are decreasing, even though that is where the needs are. The federal government is raking in the money. In Quebec, the Séguin commission has shown that fiscal imbalance is a very serious problem in Canada. All Canadian provinces have said that the federal government will have to withdraw from certain areas of taxation so that they can get the money they need to meet the expectations of Canadians and Quebeckers.

I would also like the member to make a few comments on the issue of employment insurance. What does he think about the infamous gap and about the $45 billion, which the government collected from workers and employers and which has disappeared all of sudden? It has just vanished into thin air. I would like to hear what he has to say on these various issues.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his question. Obviously, I will not have enough time to give a complete answer.

In this day and age, information is readily available 24 hours a day. So, everyone knows what the government is doing, like when the government negotiates with the Americans. But the strange thing is that it sent people to negotiate in the U.S. without informing the duly elected members of Parliament.

Luckily no one has ever died of ridicule. Otherwise, there would be no more government and no more Liberal Party in the House.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean. His question goes straight to the heart of what a society should be thinking about at a certain point in its evolution.

Yes, this is a social vision. It is a social discussion that we must have for the sake of the future. The future is ever more with us, but we are not a part of it. It worries me. It is true that in my riding we are going to be affected. I remember that at one time there were nuclear weapons at the military base in Bagotville. People were very worried. They got rid of them and sent them somewhere else.

I do believe our society is sufficiently evolved and aware to be able to be fair and just. But this vision is under wraps for now. It is discussed in Liberal back rooms, at cabinet meetings, and in the Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister even told us that all we needed to do was participate in their caucus meeting.

I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I am here to advance the cause of Quebec's sovereignty. I am not here for the Liberal Party. I ask the minister to have enough respect for the people I represent to be able to say that it is transparent, that yes, we have a new social vision, but we need to discuss it together.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to take part in this debate initiated by the member for Saint-Jean, a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

My feelings are a mix of joy and fear, in expressing my concerns about this motion. The motion asks that this House “urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan”.

When people talk about missile defence, I think of my grandsons, who watch the movies from the Star Wars series and go on and on about them. Sometimes I sit down with them and ask them, “Is this reality?” It is unbelievable.

What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is to talk about this. We know that government members are talking about this together at this time. However, democratically elected members from all of the other parties in Canada are being excluded from this debate that is being held in camera. Several times last week and this week, the Bloc Quebecois questioned the Prime Minister of Canada about what is happening and why negotiations were being held, if indeed they were, without Canadians, and elected members in particular, being informed.

The Prime Minister told members of the Bloc Quebecois to use their opposition days to have a debate. Let it not be said that opposition members do not heed the Prime Minister's good suggestions. We moved a motion for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition day.

I do not think the Prime Minister was being serious. If he were happy to have this debate, he would have allowed the motion to be votable. Yesterday, when the member for Saint-Jean asked for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable, the Prime Minister did not even rise to respond. He let the government House leader answer.

There is an old saying we have back home. No one has ever died of ridicule. However, if ridicule did kill, it would certainly have killed the Prime Minister, because right now, he is not really saying what he is thinking. This is serious. Quebeckers do not understand. I do not know if Canadians understand. I think that members from the other parties in Canada will talk to us about it.

Quebeckers do not understand the federal government's sense of urgency here. We supported Canada's decision not to take part in the war in Iraq. I conducted a poll in my riding of Jonquière. Some 85% of my constituents opposed any Canadian participation in the war in Iraq. We supported the government because everyone was consulted.

But this is a new way of proceeding. I would not want the government to give in to the reasoning that developing new nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place. There are currently two opposing viewpoints. Is it true that new ways of developing weapons will provide greater security or is it the opposite?

The debate started with the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States. I also believe that a Pandora's box is being opened with this American missile defence plan. It would be normal for the members of the House, who represent the people, to ask them if they agree or not with what the members would find out and that could be debated frankly. They could be consulted.

That way, the Prime Minister of Canada could say that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers agree with his position. But no, everything is being done behind closed doors.

I am very surprised at the statement by the Minister of National Defence. He appears to be in favour of this decision. That is odd. How can he be in favour when he also says that we are just at the preliminary stages, that we do not know?

There is a lot of money involved here. It is said that missile defence would cost a minimum $60 billion to $100 billion, in U.S. dollars. This is not peanuts.

If the government is involved in the discussions but does not know what is going on, because the Americans are the ones who are going to take the lead in this issue, what will happen when it wants to pull out, when to wants to say that it disagrees?

As hon. members are aware, the Bagotville base is in my riding. I have questions as a result. Will there be nuclear weapons on these bases? My area is in northern Quebec, so a lot closer to the North Pole than the South Pole. So what is the position, as a NORAD member? Will it remain within NORAD? Will there be changes in my area, in my riding, as far as nuclear weapons are concerned?

As hon. members will recall, from the days of the debate on importing MOX from European countries, people in my area were against it. I would like them to know we are all civilized people here. We are going to participate in the debate, examine what it is all about, and then make informed decisions. I do not think, however, judging by this government's actions, that there is any openness for a debate that would allow us to tell our constituents, “This is going to cost the government a lot of money”. Yes, the Canadian government will have a say, but what is our involvement? What can we expect from it? What will the cost be? Let us not lose sight either of the issue of fallout, of debris. Where will that all go? What is going to be done to protect us from it?

There are all manner of questions. The greater the secrecy, the greater the feeling of insecurity. Much is made of the need to make people feel more secure in the aftermath of September 11 in the United States. This government, however, is doing the opposite just now: making people feel less secure.

When we do not know something, we are not receptive to this particular thing. Instead of giving people a feeling of security and telling them what is really going on, the government is keeping them in the dark. It is also keeping parliamentarians in the dark. And when we ask questions, it feigns ignorance. It hides its head in the sand and says that it is none of our business. Strangely enough, all parties in this House were democratically elected by the people they represent.

There is a lot of talk about democracy, about transparency, about all we can do to make people feel secure. People in my riding are always telling me that they are afraid of the unknown.

This plan is bizarre. I do not think that we should be part of it. I support the position of the Bloc Quebecois; we should not be part of it. I am feeling insecure and I am making my constituents feel insecure.

Therefore I am asking the government to put everything on the table, to tell us what is really at stake, what the implications are, what we can do, what is going on right now and what it is actually negotiating.

Was the government told, “You refused to join us in the war against Iraq and if you do not join us this time, we will retaliate”? We should never let fear and ignorance influence our decisions. But, right now, these are the only cards that the government is playing. I would ask it to show transparency, accessibility and accountability.

Even though this motion will not be voted on—which I find very sad—I hope that the government will listen to members of the opposition.

[Gasoline Prices, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is over. The price of crude oil has scarcely increased. Yet in Montreal yesterday all gas stations jacked their prices up 10¢ a litre on the same day, at the same time. Just coincidentally, we have a long weekend coming up.

Will the Minister of Industry agree that the oil and gas companies' behaviour raises a competition issue, and that competition is one of his responsibilities?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise to speak on the budget for 2003-04.

In February, when I first spoke on the budget, I reacted mildly. But as time goes by and I examine the budget, I realize that, as my colleague, the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane, said, this is a budget of illusions, and it is unrealistic.

With the arrival of the new Minister of Finance, who was allegedly in the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party at the time, I would have expected money to be spent on the real priorities of Canadians. For years now, the people have been telling this government what their priorities are. With this budget, the candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party did no better than the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

In this budget, I note that the priorities with respect to urgently required investments were ignored, whether in infrastructure or other areas.

After this budget was tabled, the president of the Coalition pour le maintien des infrastructures stratégiques, the mayor of Laval, said that the government would have had to invest $15 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade municipal infrastructure. Instead, what does the budget propose? Two billion dollars for the whole of Canada over the next 10 years. For Quebec, this means $200 million for the next 10 years.

Moreover, the federal government wants to go over the heads of the provinces and deal directly with the municipalities, instead of developing projects and signing agreements as in the past, infrastructure agreements between the Government of Canada, Quebec and the municipalities. At present, while offering a meagre $200 million, it expects to deal directly with the municipalities. Clearly, the mayors of municipalities are not fooled, even though the need is great.

It is all fine and well to say that money is being put into health care, but we have sewer and water systems that need to be refitted in our municipalities. Hon. members know how important this is. Just think of what happened in Ontario, when they had problems with the sewers and water.

Also, in my region, the Canadian government is always saying, “We are looking after the regions”. I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development. I have looked at the budget for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Reading that budget, I saw that for fiscal 2003-04, in a budget that reflects the reality of the regions, there is a $52 million cut. I asked myself some questions. I said, “How can the Minister responsible for the regions of Quebec accept this?” I notice that was cut out of the speech. He had better not try to tell us he is looking after the regions.

In addition, this budget has succeeded in showing us the extent of the fiscal imbalance. Words fail us, in this regard. I believe all the provinces of Canada supported the Séguin report in Quebec and agreed that there truly is a fiscal imbalance in Canada. The Government of Canada is making an enormous tax grab and leaving crumbs for the provinces. What is it doing with all that tax money?

Instead of returning tax points to the provinces, it invades jurisdictions where it does not belong. It creates new programs and after three years, it waltzes off, leaving the provinces to deal with the new programs. The provinces are starving on the meagre supply of money being returned by the federal government.

The situation today is serious. It is said that the Minister of Finance is going across Canada to talk to people and ask them, “What should I include in my budget?” I do not know who he has met. In my riding, I meet real people, persons with disabilities. There is no fiscal measure to help these people out with a disability tax credit. On the contrary, the government is restricting access to this credit. One has to be bedridden, incapacitated, incapable of dressing and feeding oneself, in order to be eligible for this tax credit.

I would also like to mention the issue my hon. friend from Champlain has spoken about a great deal over the last two years, the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. For nine years, the government has been depriving a huge number of old people of this income supplement. There are no plans to reimburse these people for the amounts they have not received over the past nine years.

Seniors often come to my riding office and ask me, “When is the government going to give us a decent income? When are they going to see that we seniors can live decently without constantly having to go without? When are they going to start to understand that we cannot live a decent life on $14,000? When are they going to set a reasonable income level for seniors of $30,000?” Seniors are the ones who have developed Canada, but now they are getting no recognition for it”.

Then there is all the issue of women and of employment insurance. Nothing has been done about the self-employed, whereas we know that 16% of the Canadian population is currently self-employed, with no access to employment insurance. This marginalizes a large number of workers.

This government thinks it has met people's expectations. As members know, there is going to be a new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I do not think that leader will go along with this budget, particularly when the majority of its measures are spread out over the next 10 years. It is hard to budget ahead when it is one's personal budget, and in this case it is a matter of spreading out over 10 years measures that do not even have any connection to reality. Imagine all the things that will occur down the line. This budget has made no provision for the future.

I am very disappointed with this new Minister of Finance. I am very disappointed with this government, which is pocketing staggering surpluses and doing nothing for seniors, workers, the softwood lumber workers or to change the employment insurance legislation. Last week, the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec even admitted that the EI fund with its $44 billion surplus no longer existed. Presto, it was gone.

This government is truly a master of illusions. It is a government that digs into the pockets of the public and tells them, “Hand it over, and I will do what I want with it”. No, I will never support that kind of vision of a country. I will never believe this government's claims that it is listening to people. I will be voting against this budget.

[Employment Insurance, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is pathetic. Even if the minister has run out of inspiration, there are workers in trouble in both the softwood lumber and the fisheries industries. Then there are the eastern plant workers.

How can the minister, with her $45 billion surplus in the EI fund, refuse to put more money into helping them?

[Employment Insurance, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a $45 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, to which everyone has contributed. Exceptional measures are required in both the softwood lumber and fisheries industries, yet all the minister can think to tell us is that there are regular programs and they are working very well.

Could the minister not change his tune, show some initiative and announce specific measures for the softwood lumber and fisheries workers?