Marcel Gagnon

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He is completely correct. It is true that with respect to exports out of Quebec or imports into Quebec, it is quite normal, because we are in a time when we talk about the free movement of goods.

I was giving the example of the European countries. Even where countries share a border, even with problems such as we are encountering at present, that does not mean there is no more trade. We can see it with the United States. We are trading with the United States even though the border is currently closed in this sector.

What I wanted to demonstrate earlier involves the immensity of this land. Because this problem could not be regionalized and minimized, that means that the Mauricie, for example, which is some 6,000 kilometres from the region where the problem exists, is also affected. The problem has arrived in Mauricie even though as a region it has less than 1%—really none—of the responsibility for this crisis.

Since 1993, Quebec has taken the necessary steps. If a cow from Quebec is sold to another province, we can trace it. We trace the origins of the animal, and it is the same thing when we get them from elsewhere. We started taking this precaution in 1993 because of the value of our farms and our dairy herds.

Now we are paying because this has not been done elsewhere.That is the situation I wanted to explain. Of course an independent Quebec would be an importing and exporting country just like all others.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

It may have been.

I was on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for at least two years, and the former minister of agriculture and agri-food promised us the moon. For months he talked about a framework agreement, or a policy framework. It was going to be wonderful and change the world of agriculture. Just this morning, someone mentioned we never had anything like this before in Canada.

In Quebec, we have had something even better for a long time. It is not for nothing that Quebec farmers did not want to sign this agreement. They signed it with a knife to their throats. It does not make sense because our agriculture was better protected before this agreement.

It is terrible to see how much we are losing to a government that protects its friends first, no matter where they come from. We have seen the sponsorship scandal. We can take the administration scandal in general as an example. I swear, with the money that gets wasted in this government, it would be possible, if it were logical and offered not just words but real actions to go with the words, something more than just hot air, the farmers in Quebec or anywhere in Canada would not have the problems they are having now.

My colleague from Drummond said that, especially in her riding—because most of the dairy industry, some 47% of Quebec's production, is concentrated in her riding—there are some farmers in a very sorry state right now.

I have already used the example in this House of a visit I had from a farmer who said he had been a millionaire. “At the age of 59, I was ready to retire. I could have sold and with what I had on my farm I could have paid for my retirement”, he told me. Then he told me, “But now I am not worth anything anymore. My retirement has gone out the window because of the mismanagement of this government”.

At age 59, this farmer will have to keep working to earn a living because he has nothing left. In another region of Quebec, farmers are committing suicide.

This is no joking matter. It is a big deal to individuals. When we talk about industry, it seems like we are talking about machines. But when we talk about the farming industry, 90% of it involves labour and humans. Some people are losing everything, and the government has nothing but words, words, words for them.

It will provide something in the next budget, on the eve of the election. We have seen that before and we will be seeing it again. The government is getting ready. It will announce $1 billion for farmers. However, it will not have time to spend the money because it will be out on the campaign trail. Personally, I hope it never comes back.

People say this government mismanages things. My colleague, the member for Jonquière, asked a question about a highway that was promised but never built. I remember having heard, in this House, the Prime Minister say that he was taking the time to establish good relations with the province so that the money is well spent. If there is one government not qualified to show anyone how to spend money well, it is the Liberal government. This is quite incredible.

To give members an idea, under the current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, operating costs increased by 39% in five years. This is an average of 9.6% a year, while inflation was 1.9%. Where did the rest go?

The number of federal officials increased by 46,000 in five years. That is a 21% increase. For the same period, the payroll increased by 7.3%, to 41%. In comparison with the government of any province, we can see that not one province is as mismanaged as this government.

Expenditures for legal services have increased by 129%, and, this is quite extraordinary, expenditures for opinion polls have increased by 334%. It started in 1994 before the referendum. They wanted to know how to stop Quebec from moving forward. I already heard the Prime Minister say in the House that they were not using polls to govern. What would it be like if they had to use polls to govern. So, there is a 334% increase, or 66.8% annually, for opinion polls.

Where is this money coming from? It is being taken from those who need it. I am not talking about the sponsorship scandal; we have talked about that enough. My colleague from Drummond talked about what we could have done with the $250 million that was stolen. There is constant talk about helping those who feed this country, who feed Quebec, about those who are building this country, the farmers, but there is never enough time. Hot air is all they are offered, while they work in the fields and suffer as a result of this government's mismanagement.

In passing, I can say that there is another important element. We are suffering from our lack of sovereignty. If Quebec was sovereign, producers would not be experiencing this problem. My colleague from Drummond said that, if a European country experiences a problem, the border is not far. Quebec has taken the necessary measures to prevent a mad cow crisis. Quebec is 6,000 km from the problem, and yet it is the one suffering.

Quebec was also implicated in the sponsorship scandal. Why did Liberal pals invest so much money there? Because they were afraid that Quebec would make the right choice. They wanted to stop Quebec from making a decision. They conducted polls and greased the palm of their Liberal friends saying, “Show us how to stop Quebec from moving forward”. That is what they did with our money. They stole from us three times. They stole our reputation, our money and our country.

I think the federal government is a terrible administrator. No wonder Quebec still hopes to become a sovereign nation.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Drummond still had a lot to say. I agree with her that, if there is one thing that has been utterly unfair to Quebec, it is the mad cow crisis.

As the member for Drummond said, since 1993, Quebec has taken every precaution to keep track of every animal that is put on the market. This is a measure that did not come into effect nationally until 1997.

Since 1993, we have been aware of the risks, especially, as the member for Drummond said, since 50% of the milk produced in Canada is produced in Quebec. It is a major industry. It is a big part of industry in Quebec. That said, it was necessary to take precautions to avoid a crisis like the one we are in now.

When I was listening to the parliamentary secretary a song popped in my head. I forget who sings it, but it says:

Paroles, paroles, paroles.

Words, words, words. All I have heard since I have been in this House is nothing but words.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my honourable colleague and I found what she had to say to be very interesting. Of course, we have to use such a crisis to find medium- and long-term solutions.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the current situation. Some of my constituents have told me, for instance, that at 58 or 59 years of age, they are now at the end of their working life and thinking about retiring. Their farm, assessed at $1 million at one point in time, is now almost worthless. This is a financial emergency. In Quebec, as my hon. colleague knows, desperate people have killed themselves because of their financial problems.

While medium--and long-term solutions are being considered, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that the government should act now to try to help those who, at least for now, and let us hope for not too long, have lost hope, because this crisis has cost them too much and they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel? Does the hon. member not think that we could quickly find some money to assist these people at such a terrible time in their lives?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding to what I have just heard. This is a very strange way to view things, in asking the provinces to sign an agreement before they can even negotiate it. It is like asking workers not to strike and to sign a collective agreement, in hopes they will agree with the employer. If an agreement with the provinces is to be reached, it must be done before the expiry date and there must be negotiations.

References have been made, for example, to the $2 billion for health. How long have we heard about this? Mr. Chrétien promised this amount, for part of last year, and this promise is being repeated. They say that to invest $2 billion in health, the equalization agreement has to be renewed for another year. This is false.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking that the federal government fulfill its obligations and give the $2 billion for health care. The bill can be split with regard to this issue. We are asking that this $2 billion be made a recurring item. It makes no sense to try to administer a province without ever knowing what will happen.

For example, Quebec, like the other provinces, is responsible for health, education and municipal affairs. It needs to know what funds it will receive. A new equalization agreement must be signed before the old one expires, so that we know what will happen under the next agreement.

However, if one law says it can be renewed for one or five years, this puts the provinces in a tight spot. They agree to what the government wants, or else the current system is renewed. This is not a logical way to work. Our system is one in which the federal government must give money to the provinces; therefore, both parties must agree.

Last year, the House hardly sat. Nothing was accomplished. Now, the bills we should have considered last fall are being reinstated one by one. Due to internal problems in the ruling party, the House did not sit. Now, the government wants to reinstate everything at the last minute, no matter what may happen to those suffering from its incompetency, as the provinces are suffering with regard to equalization.

The request of the Bloc Quebecois is quite logical. This $2 billion for health was promised a long time ago. Please, give us the money. We can split the bill. We all agree, everyone agrees with that part of the bill, and we would even want it to be a recurring item. It is quite a significant amount.

Last year, during the whole summer and autumn, we were told that the government was not sure it would have enough money to hand out this $2 billion. The government wanted us to believe that it was almost in a tough financial situation, but we now realize that there will be a $7 billion surplus. All this goes to show how hypocritical they can be. Why can they not tell the truth for once?

We are looking for the truth not only about the sponsorship scandal, but also about what is happening with equalization. I agree with what our critic said on this issue. We do not sign blank cheques. We want the bill to be split and we want to get the money for health that is owed to us under the equalization program, and we want it to become a recurrent item. We would support that part. However, let us go to the negotiation table as soon as possible. Let us not put a knife to the throats of the provinces and coerce them into signing a deal that would be similar to the current one. If we go about it this way, the provinces would not be pleased and would feel once again that they have been had.

I sat for nine years at the National Assembly of Quebec and I know the administration problems the provinces have when they do not know what transfers they can expect. The amounts owed to the provinces do not belong to the federal government, but rather to the provinces and are needed to help them discharge their obligations.

It is not logical to feel that one is at the mercy of the federal government and that they always arrange things so one is at a disadvantage in negotiations.

I am therefore totally in agreement with the Bloc Quebecois position on this and am convinced this position is shared by all the provinces, Quebec in particular of course, because we have heard that Mr. Séguin is calling for the same thing we have been saying here.

What I find deplorable about this government is the lack of justice in its legislation or in the way that legislation is applied. Someone this afternoon referred to equalization payments as they are seen by the Liberal Party over there. Among other things, it is the money involved in the sponsorship scandals which finds its way to the party's campaign funds without anyone being responsible. They saw nothing, yet half a billion dollars changed hands, and one hundred million of that half billion changed hands in an indirect manner. A strange kind of transfer payment, that.

I invite people to look into the contributions to the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. These are public and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the contributions to the Liberal Party. I know that because I have worked in Quebec, as I said, and have had to work within the stringent rules of Quebec's legislation and we had moral standards, unlike the federal public service and the federal government.

It is, for instance, scandalous to see that seniors are being deprived of money, as are the unemployed. Only 39% of those currently out of work can collect employment insurance. Their fund has been taken over. That is another transfer payment in favour of the federal government. They helped themselves to $45 billion from the EI fund, money that belonged to workers. Not one red cent of it belongs to the government.

I do not want to hear anyone try to tell me that it is the same thing in Quebec. That is not true. The Government of Quebec has had some things to answer for, but never a scandal such as the one we have here. There are even some people on that side who are so scandalized that they dare not speak. Someone has said it is totally beyond him. What is really beyond me is that it is difficult, if not downright impossible, to get at the truth.

There is a word I would like to use, but it would be unparliamentary. Therefore I will not use it. Another word that should be considered unparliamentary is the word truth. We have very little opportunity to hear that word. What is happening defies logic.

The fact that we are constantly before a government that takes every opportunity to help its friends and then shirks responsibility if a problem arises, make no sense. They are the only ones who had not heard about what was going on, while in our ridings, everyone had. Agency representatives in my riding were shocked at what they had to do in order to get a sponsorship. It is quite unbelievable.

At any rate, we are talking about equalization. I know I have somewhat belaboured the point, but we can all agree that this equalization formula is unacceptable. With respect to the current agreement, I think it would be logical to meet with the provinces to negotiate as soon as possible in order to resolve this problem. Legislation could be passed after the negotiations, not before. The provinces should not have to renew the former agreement for another year or another five years because the government says so.

[Cégeps en spectacle, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the 24th edition of the Cégeps en spectacle local finals at the Collège de Shawinigan has been a great success. More than 40 young people trod the boards of the auditorium, dancing, playing music, singing and juggling.

The judges, including actor Robert Brouillette, winner of the 1984 finals, were won over by three creative numbers in singing, music and dancing. Singer-songwriter-performer Lillianne Pellerin took first prize. Many volunteers contributed to the success of this cultural event, onstage and backstage, even operating the lights.

Many new talents have been discovered through this competition, including Sylvain Cossette, Denis Trudel, Jean-François Bastien. Cégeps en spectacle will continue to be a life changing and unforgettable experience for many generations of students.

Congratulations for 25 talented years of Cégeps en spectacle.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, it is difficult.

As I said earlier, from travelling around Quebec and meeting people, we realized that, often, the people who do not apply for it are, for one reason or another, unable to fill out the form. For example, I met a person who lived alone. This individual had had several strokes and suffered some memory loss but was in good health. Even if we are helping makes things easier, it is still hard for this person, who lives alone, to get the benefits owed. It was hard to make them understand that they were entitled to this money. Other people have to take on this responsibility.

During this tour, someone said, “You still do not want to go door to door”. I answered yes, that is one possibility. There are enough organizations taking care of seniors that we could, in fact, ask a seniors' club to do this. If we wanted to give them their money, we could. The system has to become more human.

It is true that the sick and the disabled, for one reason or another, have trouble communicating with the government by Internet or otherwise to get what they are entitled to; there is a way to make the system more human. We managed to do this to a certain extent over the past year, but more needs to be done.

We could if the will was there, as much will as it takes to pocket $100 million while one is finance minister by finding a way to make legislation retroactive. Throughout Quebec, I met people prepared to help us, who are already helping us to track down people entitled to these benefits.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny.

In my life, I have had the opportunity to experience, hear, debate and criticize a number of throne speeches. In Quebec City, I seized each opportunity to speak because it was a golden opportunity to talk about the problems in my riding, the contents of the throne speech and what it was lacking.

I must admit that, in Quebec City, the throne speech was delivered by a premier I really admired. He had so many plans and ideas for Quebec's future that the throne speech debate could have lasted a long time. The throne speech was not short on content. Mr. Lévesque was recognized as being a good writer who had something to say. His throne speeches were rich in substance.

I also had the opportunity to work with the late Claude Ryan, whose funeral will be held tomorrow. Claude Ryan was not a member of my party, but I must recognize that, in the Quebec Parliament, while he was there and I got to work with him, I saw that he made a positive contribution. His speeches were always well thought out. I enjoyed working and discussing things with him, even if I disagreed with his ideas.

I also want to take this opportunity—surely the Chair will not object—to express my condolences to his family, who is now mourning their loss.

I was terribly disappointed by this throne speech. First of all, because it makes a fundamental oversight. There is absolutely no mention of seniors. This is disappointing and scandalous. If we live in a country that we love and want to develop, be it Quebec or Canada, if we can express ourselves today, it is because others went before us and worked hard. They deserve not only our respect but also maximum benefits during their old age, or at least the benefits they are entitled to.

Since I arrived in the House, I have worked on matters relating to seniors, including the guaranteed income supplement. A terrible and unpardonable injustice has been done here. I met at least 3,000 people who work with seniors' associations. I met 15,000 seniors and held a total of 37 meetings in all the regions. Everyone condemned the fact that seniors had not been treated fairly enough.

Even the government recognized it, because it did improve things. So, as a result, over the past year, there are probably some 25,000 people in Quebec out of 68,000 have started receiving the guaranteed income supplement to which they were entitled but which they did not receive before. Thus, some work has been done. Still, there are many people who have not been found. Even among the ones who have been found, some have truly been robbed. There are people who are owed money.

Two weeks ago, I was in the parish of Notre-Dame-des-Anges-de-Montauban, in my riding. A couple wanted to speak to me. Both were 70 years old.

They said to me, “Thank you. You came to give a talk and you opened out eyes. Ever since, we have $4,000 more each year; $2,000 for each of us”.

“Monsieur Éthier, how old are you?”, I asked, and he answered, “We are both 70”. I asked further, “Have you been getting the supplement since you turned 65?” “No,” he replied, “this is the first time we have got it, and they told us we were only entitled to 11 months of retroactivity”.

That is outrageous. These people, this couple, were entitled to $4,000. This is $20,000 over five years. I have met people like that all over Quebec. These are people who were eligible, but, for various reasons, had not received any money, and no one had made an effort to give it to them. These are people who, for various reasons, were unaware. About 14% of seniors eligible for the guaranteed income supplement are not receiving it.

In all of Canada, that means some 270,000 people. I would have thought that in his throne speech, the new Prime Minister would have talked about these people and righted the injustice that has been done to them, but no. Every time we talk about it, they tell us that the retroactive period is only 11 months. But listen carefully to me.

This same Prime Minister, who was finance minister and owner of Canada Steamship Lines, among others, had legislation passed in 1997 or 1998 retroactive to 1995 so that he could pocket $100 million, money he could have paid in taxes to the government if he had not conducted his business with a tax haven in Barbados. He managed, in a roundabout way, to get $100 million to put in his pockets.

With the $100 million he pocketed, based on an average of $4,000 a year—for seniors who were denied the guaranteed income supplement, which ranges between $1 and $6,000, the average being $4,000 a year—25,000 seniors could have received the guaranteed income supplement. With the $100 million he pocketed, every senior in Quebec whom we could find could have enjoyed 24 months of retroactivity instead of 11 months.

However, retroactive legislation was possible for him. This is something I personally will never be able to accept. Rest assured, the general public does not accept this either. In my view, this scandal is almost as bad as the sponsorship scandal, which has been the talk of the town all week.

I am disappointed to see that, in this Parliament, in this government, people have such bad memories. There are people who see things happening, but yet it seems that they have heard nothing, seen nothing. For example, the Prime Minister told us today, in connection with the Barbados business, that he fought against it. He fought against it, yet got $100 million out of it.

Why could there not have been something in the inaugural speech about restoring justice to older Canadians? Why was there nothing? I find this unbelievable. I will not have time to talk about the sponsorship scandal, although much is being said about that these days.

It seems that the same man who was able to make retroactive legislation back in 1997 in order to line his own pockets had no idea there was any scandal going on, that a bunch of Liberals were lining their pockets through the sponsorship program. The amount involved is around a half million dollars. Approximately $100 million went into the waiting pockets of a lot of little Liberal friends who were buddy-buddy with those in power.

Now it would appear that the same Prime Minister, who used to be finance minister, who used to be Treasury Board vice-president, did not know. He signed the cheques, gave out the money, but did not know there was anything dishonest going on. So there is another $100 million that could ensure that those seniors I referred to before receive 36 months of retroactive payments instead of 24 on the money they are owed.

This is why we are disappointed in this government. There is nothing in the throne speech to improve the situation.

[Jacques Lacombe, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a young Quebecker from Cap-de-la-Madeleine, in my riding, recently accomplished a rather unique feat. Jacques Lacombe, a young orchestra conductor, who is currently the principal guest conductor of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, conducted, for the very first time, six performances of Massenet's “Werther” at New York's prestigious Metropolitan Opera, the most important opera house in the world.

Many agree that, although he is barely 40 years old, he is one of the world's most promising young conductors of his time and one of the best Quebec has ever seen. Some go so far as to compare him to the famous Karajan, Bernstein, Solti and Kleiber.

My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois join me in congratulating this unassuming son of a shoe repairman who is now travelling the world and whose achievements showcase, once again, the richness of Quebec's artistic talents. Bravo, Mr. Lacombe.

[Older Adult Justice Act, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech from the member and that of my colleague on this very important issue. Everyone knows how concerned I am about the situation of older adults. My role within my party is to defend older adults and to question the government about their situation.

The bill being introduced is full of good intentions, but we cannot support it because, as the member says, it interferes directly with provincial jurisdictions.

I am against having to take multiple steps to complete one task. This is not legislation that is going to protect older adults. In Quebec, we already have a Public Curator, the Conseil des aînés, and the CLSCs, that do roughly what this legislation is asking be done.

When I was an MLA in Quebec, I made it my duty to visit all the retirement homes at least twice a year. I did that for 9 years, which means I did it at least 18 times. I saw the abuse that goes on and I had the opportunity to make changes. However, it is not by implementing another council or another level of protection, legislation or officials that we are going to improve the situation.

Older adults have the right to be informed. It is by giving them information that we will help them, since they already have the Public Curator, the Conseil des aînés and the CLSCs. These agencies already exist in Quebec.

The legislation could be helpful if it made changes to the Criminal Code. That is an area that might need some work. We could rewrite the legislation in order to amend the Criminal Code because it could be flawed with respect to this issue.

This bill explains what constitutes abuse of older adults. The following is the definition provided for abuse:

The knowing infliction of physical, psychological or financial harm on an older adult.

I am scandalized by the introduction of this bill. Yes, there is financial harm. The one most responsible for financial harm is the federal government. It has kept money from at least 270,000 older Canadians. I have travelled across Quebec and in some parts of Canada, including Vancouver. I have met people who are the victims of the government. This does not mean that there are not people as well who financially abuse older people. I know this goes on.

However, when the government itself does not provide the information to ensure that people receive the guaranteed income supplement, when the government itself does not take measures to find these people, even by going door to door to meet the people who are entitled to their money because it is owed to them, when the government does not do so, I think that introducing a bill such as this one will not improve anything.

This is quite simple. There are 270,000 Canadians, including 68,000 Quebecers, who did not receive the guaranteed income supplement. I took part in 37 meetings across Quebec. I met almost all the news media there are and we managed to find people who were entitled to it. The department told me it may have found about 75,000 people that it was looking for, and about 30,000 in Quebec alone. This means that, in Quebec alone, about $100 million are now in the pockets of the poorest, who need it and who were deprived of it because of the inaction of the federal government.

Let them pass legislation, at any time, to require the federal government to reimburse seniors for the money stolen from them because they were not informed. This is money of which seniors were deprived, and it was used to the government's profit. These seniors were unable to cope, had little education, were alone, sick, abandoned to their own devices, and could not obtain the necessary information. Nothing was done to get it to them. In order to get what was coming to them, these seniors had to make a phone call, talk to a machine, and dial 22 numbers, only to hear that all the lines were busy.

That is how the information was given out. If someone did manage to get hold of an application form, it took an accountant or a lawyer to fill it out. Today I say this: enact legislation that will require the government to do the same for seniors to whom money is owing, as the former finance minister did, for example, for his shipping companies, which have come up again today. A way was found, retroactively, to put money into the pockets of certain individuals.

It is true that the seniors I speak for have been abused by this government. That does not mean that the government is alone in doing so. Still, they have been abused by the government and I think that it is criminal that, in their twilight years, because they are ill or do not have much money, or because they simply have no fighting spirit left, they are not given what they deserve, and no one takes care of them, although there are many organizations that could help them.

In Quebec there are the CLSCs and there are golden age clubs. There are many organizations whose sole purpose is to help people. I have dealt with these organizations on my travels around Quebec and I have found some incredible things. For example, I met a woman in Sherbrooke, who has since died, who lived out her senior years on $6,000 a year: just the old age pension. I calculated that the government saved $90,000, because of that woman.

In my opinion, legislation is not what we need to correct this. What we need is a little honesty in the system. We must use what we already have. We must use the information that can get to the people who need it. We must make use of the people working in the field who are only too glad to provide assistance. There are service clubs of all kinds and these people are ready to help us.

The Criminal Code needs some amendment, it is true. I said so a moment ago. Still, if it means that the services provided in Quebec are duplicated, I do not agree. Calculations show it is wasted time. Having more discussions at various times is fine; I,too, would like to be called as a witness to talk about it before a commission. I would work until I got back the money owed to those very deserving people. The older generation was here ahead of me; they built this country and they are entitled to our utmost respect.