Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I would like to put a question to the minister.

She continually contradicted herself in everything she said in response to both speakers. I believe she is not aware of what is happening currently with respect to the negotiations.

Government members keep on referring to the Internet site, but we know what is on an Internet site. All of a sudden, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade tells us we cannot talk about this because our partners do not want us to talk about it. Then the other one tells us parliamentary committees will review it.

We were elected. We represent the people and we want to be part of something that will have an impact on the life and the future of our children and grandchildren.

I ask the minister how we, who are parliamentarians just as she is, should go about it? She was democratically elected, just as we were, so that our voices and those of the people we represent could be heard.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask the minister a question.

Madame Minister, I do not understand what you just said. I listened to the interpretation, I listened to what you said in English, but I think that what you are telling us now is that there will be committees.

On the one hand, the government says “No, we cannot say what our positions are because that is a secret and must remain so, because our partners do not want us to put that on the table”. On the other hand, you tell us to look on the site—

[Young Offenders Act, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is the day we celebrate love, and last night I had a lovely dream. I dreamed of Cupid. In this strange dream, he wanted to give me chocolates.

He could not afford to, however, overtaxed as he was with the GST and an insidious tax on employment.

Then he wanted to express his love, but his ability to express himself was limited by a gag and by this arrogant bill.

He persisted, however, and wanted to shout his love out loud. Brave fellow, his heart full of hope, he succeeded in doing so. He managed to get it out, but there was no one in the unilingual capital who could understand him.

Poor depressed Cupid, away he went. It seems that he was then arrested for carrying a bow and arrows when he got stuck in a traffic jam on one of the bridges. Now he could go to jail, though he is just a kid. Fortunately, that is when I woke up.

When I got to the office this morning, the second reading of Bill C-7 was announced. I felt like crying.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, on this February 13, 2001, I rise with sadness to speak to this issue.

Usually, the day before Valentine's Day, we get ready to tell those we love best that tomorrow is a very important day, when we will again offer them our very special wishes, but on this February 13, the government brought in time allocation on Bill C-2. Exactly 66 days prior, the government brought back Bill C-44 as Bill C-2.

During the election campaign, the government made a commitment, particularly to workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, to amend the bill and make it acceptable to them. I would not think of harking back to the same old stories, but I remember that, on two visits made last September and October by the Minister of National Revenue, workers back home told him “It is too bad, but you are out. We cannot accept Bill C-44”.

During the campaign, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport came to tell them “Vote for me, give us a strong majority, and we will satisfy your expectations”. Today I regret to tell workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area and throughout Quebec and Canada that the government told them a big lie. The government said to them “Take my word and we will give you what you want”.

However, it must be recognized that the saying “commitment made, commitment retracted” says it all. I note that this government does not want to respond to people's real expectations.

We have criticized this Bill C-2. I was at a meeting of some one hundred thousand workers in the riding of Jonquière during the election campaign. They had come to tell the government that they wanted an independent employment insurance fund. They said that, as they and employers paid into it, they should administer it, because they contribute to it to provide themselves with some security. The government turned a deaf ear, but spoke to them saying “I do not hear you, but be assured I will meet your expectations”.

The day after the election, naturally, as Félix Leclerc says “I had forgotten your name, I had forgotten the promises I made to you”. I am sad to note that the government is refusing, in the voices of democratically elected representatives, to tell the House and Canadians how much the workers in the riding of Jonquière and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region oppose this bill. They will fight until they are backed into a corner to get the ministers who visited us to honour their word.

At home, we keep our word, and people who keep their word have only one word. Let the members of the government understand that. When we sit in parliamentary committee, we in the Bloc Quebecois will see that this bill meets the real expectations of the workers. Government members will have to honour their word.

We are simply holding our fire. We will be waiting for them in committee. The real debate will take place there, and the real people will be heard.

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the Liberal member from the beginning, and what he is saying has absolutely nothing to do with the Speech from the Throne. I fail to see the connection—

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River had to say. I have two brief questions to ask him.

Since before the election, the federal government, through the finance minister, has not stopped taking great pride in the $125 they gave to the neediest people. It is now telling us that its generosity cost $1.3 billion.

We have known for some time that about half of that money went to people that do not pay for heating oil, to inmates and even to deceased people. Does the member not find that this government is a grand master in the art of painting a pretty picture?

Here is what I mean. As the member was saying earlier, we know that the government is collecting $10.6 billion in excise tax on gasoline. The cost of the measure it has announced is $1.3 billion.

Does the member not think that, with its surplus, the government is just pretending to be generous, seeing that it has not lowered the price of heating oil?

In my area, I still receive phone calls from elderly people saying “The price of heating oil has not gone down yet. Last year, it cost me $600. This year, it will cost me $1,200”. This means that the government is painting a bright picture.

What has it done for independent truckers with regard to the price of diesel fuel? Over the last year, there has been a 40% increase in the price of diesel fuel. I would like my colleague from the Canadian Alliance to tell me what the government should have done and what it should do, rather than painting a bright picture.

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I did not appreciate the answer from my Liberal colleague.

The Liberal members always refer to the last campaign. I think they have not understood, or did not want to understand, what was said during the last campaign.

We were saying that the government should restore transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and social services to the 1995 level. Right now, in 2001, that has not been done. The crumbs given by the government is money that belongs to the provinces in the first place and all the provincial ministers are asking for it.

I think they should stop repeating what they said during the campaign, as it has no connection with what was done in Canada since 1995. I would like to hear the Liberal member talk about the true facts, to hear him tell the truth.

[Regional Development, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Tuesday, the Conservative-Independent-Liberal member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord told us that he was looking out for his region and that that was why he had gone over to the Liberal Party, a party he did not hesitate to openly criticize barely six months ago.

He attacked the Government of Quebec, which he accused of stifling regional development in the Saguenay region. This is nothing but demagoguery. Here are a few facts.

In the case of road infrastructures alone, the provincial government collected $37.5 million in gasoline taxes and then turned around and put $30 million of that back into roads in the Saguenay region—a return of 80%.

Last year, the federal government collected $35 million in excise taxes on gasoline and did not reinvest a single cent.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord should know that there is no one blinder than someone who refuses to see. Once again, he has picked the wrong side to sit on. The people of the Saguenay region know who is really looking out for them—

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I am satisfied, based on what you said concerning a government motion, that we will have a very good Speaker of the House.

I would like to put a question to my colleague in the Canadian Alliance. I am finding that, at the moment, the members of the Liberal Party are arrogantly trying to cloud the issue, instead of debating the text of the motion taken from their 1993 red book. Our Liberal colleague who asked a question before me surprisingly spoke of pensions, after the Canadian Alliance members accepted pensions.

We are talking about an ethics counsellor. We are not concerned with the person who is the ethics counsellor, but rather the rules that should be set in order to give this counsellor real powers under the authority of parliament or of the leaders of the political parties. At the moment, the Prime Minister makes the appointment, with his rules, and is the one to whom the counsellor is accountable.

I would like to ask my colleague in the Canadian Alliance how his party's motion, a verbatim copy of the 1993 Liberal Party red book, should be understood and accepted so that we may proceed with real parliamentary reform?

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member of the New Democratic Party. All ridings are having to cope with an extremely serious problem relating to employment insurance.

We have a saying in our area “Piquer, c'est voler”. That means if a person goes into another's pocket and takes his money it that is considered stealing until proven otherwise.

What this government is doing at the present time in the matter of employment insurance is dipping directly into the workers' pockets. This is a serious matter, and I will respond to the member's question.

We are a heavily unionized region. I believe that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is the most unionized area of Canada and of Quebec.

Before the last federal election, there was a movement in our area that rallied together hundreds and hundreds of workers who took to the streets to protest the employment insurance bill. They even told the minister of revenue, who is also the minister responsible for regional development, “Hit the road back across the Parc des Laurentides; you are not wanted here”. He had to pack up his bags and head back home.

We had great plans for the construction of the Alcan plant at Alma, where hundreds of thousands of workers were employed. Now these people have no work and they will end up on employment insurance. There are no measures whatsoever to help them, no structured programs that will let these workers gain some benefit from what is rightfully theirs or to allow them to be directed into employment.

All of this needs looking into. If I had any more time, there is much more I could say.