Yves Rocheleau

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Laval West a question.

When she talks of national cohesion in Canada, does she know what provision there is in the spirit of the law for Quebec and the people of Quebec, especially? In Quebec, we must remember, 83% of the people do not speak the language of the majority of Canadians. So, I would ask my colleague what provision is made for this fact.

In the spirit of the Canadian arrangement, does this mean that newcomers arriving in Quebec find, although there is an obvious specificity, that this is not taken into account? Does this mean that, in the spirit of the legislation, the existence of Quebeckers as a people is denied, that Quebec is considered not only a province but a province just like all the others? I would like to hear her response. deaf

[Alexandre Marchand, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay particular tribute to an individual in my riding, a 21 year old runner, who has already made a name for himself in international athletics.

In December, for the third consecutive year, Alexandre Marchand of Pointe-du-Lac was named athlete of the year by the Fédération d'athlétisme du Québec, a title he had also won in 1994, as well as earning the Fred Tees trophy awarded to the Canadian university athlete of the year.

He was ranked 12th at the latest Commonwealth Games. He has won countless gold medals over the years, and 1999 should be another record year. He has a competition this month in Windsor, the world university championship, the Pan American Games and the world championships.

As the Olympic Games of the year 2000 approach, I have no doubt Alexandre will represent Quebec worthily and with pride.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which I feel is an important one, in light of my personal values.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for tabling Motion M-239, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community.

An amendment to this motion has already been proposed by the hon. member for Repentigny and reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by removing the words “enact a tax on financial transactions” and replacing them with the following:

“promote the implementation of a tax aimed at discouraging speculation on fluctuations in the exchange rate.”

I hope the majority of our colleagues in this House will support the amendment as well as the main motion. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is to be commended for putting forward this motion, which parallels the current debate surrounding the issue of globalization. This is a good example of globalization and how the world has shrunk, given that, with the extremely sophisticated technology available today, financial transactions can be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and have a major impact on economies worldwide.

This has been done extensively, and it makes this motion today, the Tobin tax, all the more interesting in light of recent developments.

In a word, as we know, the purpose of this tax would be to levy a very small amount—one tenth of one percent—on international currency transactions around the world. It is estimated that such transactions total, and that is where it becomes interesting, between $1,500 and $2,000 billion a day. It is hard to imagine what $1,000 billion a day represents. That is order of magnitude we are talking about here. At the end of a year, given a rate of one tenth of one percent, $150 or $175 billion would have been raised and managed, as a world fund, by the UN or another organization designated by the international community for this purpose. As a result, and this is very important, wealth would be better distributed.

It would act as a mechanism to curb rash exchange speculation on the currencies of countries, sometimes the most vulnerable countries. We would kill two birds with one stone with this world fund, which could be used effectively to fight poverty worldwide.

And better distribution of wealth would be achieved. This would have the effect of counteracting the negative effects of globalization and slowing down the progress of the unbridled neo-liberalism which has reigned for far too many years already.

We have seen the way these faceless speculators, with no sense of social responsibility, no accounting to anyone, whose job it is to type away on computer keyboards everywhere on this planet, checking out interests rates that are too low, fostering their own clients' interests, thumb their noses at community or national interests.

When we refer to national interests, we are not referring to some vague concept. We are referring to what has happened in recent years, first of all in Asia, in Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Indonesia. All of Russia has been through it since the wall came down, and now has become a haven for all manner of crooks and criminals. Things seem to be out of control. A few years ago Mexico too was experiencing some very hard times, as Brazil recently did.

A full-scale attack is launched on certain economies—often developed ones such as Japan but sometimes still fragile, such as Indonesia perhaps—so that these economies must suddenly face some devastating times. This may be seen in the document I am going to read. This has devastating effects on economies and on the individuals in them.

Fortunately, an awareness is developing internationally. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Charles F. Johnston of 5th Avenue North in Saskatoon for alerting me to the debate and inviting me to take part. He summarizes very well the problem with the Tobin tax: “A tax like this not only would impose a number of constraints on short term speculation, but it would generate a fund destined to support economic growth and restore social programs throughout the world”.

Mr. Johnston is one example of the awareness that is developing, especially in France. That is not new. We all know about the acuity of the French on social issues. They have always been in the forefront. They are there thanks to a publication you are no doubt familiar with, Madam Speaker, Le Monde Diplomatique , which, in January of this year, published a ground-breaking article on the question, entitled “For the reconstruction of the international financial system: at the root of the evil”. The root of the evil for Le Monde Diplomatique is the processing of financial transactions, including those involving currency and rates of exchange.

I will quickly read several quotes: “So, since the crash in the winter of 1994-95, half of the population of Mexico has fallen below the poverty line. Malnutrition and famine are again raging in Indonesia. In Russia, ten years of economic liberalism have done more to tarnish the reputation of capitalism than 70 years of propaganda on the “real” socialism. Average life expectancy for men has dropped by seven years, unprecedented in the 20th century. In Korea and Thailand, IMF suicides continue. Workers who have been laid off and are without resources kill their wives and children because they are unable to provide for them.”

I will read another excerpt from this excellent article: “The top 20% of humanity consumes 86% of the wealth, while the bottom 20% is left with 1.3%. The fact is, and we hear it often enough, that the gap is widening yearly at the same time as official development assistance is declining. It is the debt that is the worst threat to the future of the south, particularly the future of less developed countries that are in the process of almost disappearing off the face of the earth because of debt that they are unable to repay now and will never be able to repay in the future.

The less developed countries are spending an average of over 20% of their export revenues on servicing this debt. If this were lowered to 1% or 2%, as it was for Germany after the war, these countries could invest the money saved in health, education, and the environment, thus generating a virtuous circle. The more a country could invest in human capital and sustainable development, the more it could reduce its debt, to the point of eliminating it entirely.”

This is what would be done with the international fund resulting from the Tobin tax on international currency transactions.

Still in France, I would like to mention the Association pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens.

The purpose of this association is to denounce financial globalization, which adds to economic insecurity and social inequality by circumventing and limiting the choices open to nations, democratic institutions and sovereign states responsible for the general good. The association wishes to show that it is necessary and possible, contrary to popular opinion, for people to put the public interest ahead of the interests of financial markets and transnational corporations. This Paris-based association also has a Web site. I urge everyone to contact it.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what our hon. colleague thinks about the trend this bill seems to be setting, in terms of Canada's evolution. This is a concern to me, as a Quebeckers and a sovereignist.

Can he tell me, since this agency will have the power to collect taxes on behalf of the federal government—taking the place of Revenue Canada, which, in itself, is a major step, given the drawbacks my colleague from Chambly just mentioned with respect to parliament's role—and on behalf of the provinces, municipalities, school boards and those private businesses that wish to avail themselves of this service, where this is leading Canada as a political entity.

Does it not look like provincial governments will soon be nothing more than regional government? Are we not moving toward a centralized, unitary Canada, where Quebec will not truly feel at home?

[The Late Alphonse Piché, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today, a great poet is being buried at Trois-Rivières, Mr. Alphonse Piché, who died on December 2.

A year after his birth in Chicoutimi in 1917, his family moved to Trois-Rivières, where he remained for his entire life.

His poetry celebrated the great St. Lawrence, love and life, and it transcends age, ill health and death. Mr. Piché was honoured by numerous literary prizes, including the Governor General's Literary Award, and an award bearing his name is given out annually at the Salon du livre de Québec.

According to Alphonse Piché, the task of the poet is an impossible and unending one, balancing imbalances, recording the unspoken, translating the unspeakable, tackling the absolute. To him, the greatness of man lay more in his attempts at discovery than in his actual discoveries.

I would like to quote some of his own words in tribute to this remarkable poet: “Sleep, my brother, there in the soil of eternity, take your rest among the endless generations, safe in the bosom of mystery, your mystery”.

[Ice Breaking Policy, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must say we are very pleased with the minister's decision. However, since the industry's counterproposal does not expressly deal with the specific issue of the ferries, which are a public service, will the minister immediately pledge to exempt St. Lawrence ferries from any type of fees?

[Ice Breaking Policy, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, eight days ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with officials from the Canadian shipping industry regarding the ice breaking issue. He promised he would contact them again in seven days to inform them of his intentions. But industry officials have yet to hear from the minister.

If the minister did not bother to keep his word, will he at least inform the House of what he intends to do with the industry's counterproposal?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43 establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

As the labour critic for the Bloc Quebecois I feel concerned by this bill. As the member for Manicouagan just mentioned, 20% of the public service of Canada will disappear, that is 40,000 employees. This agency will be a quasi-private business, and it will be independent from the whole government administration. In our view this goes against public interest and it will also change the working conditions that prevail in the federal public service.

I will also remind the House that this bill, slipped by us in June, at the end of the last session, is very insidious, particularly in an historical perspective. While I am not a constitutional law specialist, I know that this bill really goes against the spirit of the Constitution of Canada and of the Canadian confederation, two words that are no longer used because, over the decades, Canada has miraculously evolved from a confederation to a federation of provinces.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is a perfect example of this. Again last night, we saw him on television mixing up issues and concepts. It is as if two and two no longer make four. It is difficult to know where this country is going and this is just the beginning.

People should know that the authority to collect income tax was the exclusive prerogative of the provinces in the spirit of the 1867 Canadian confederation. Now the federal government, as it did before during economic crises or wars, is assuming the right to tax Canadians directly, going against the spirit of Confederation. This we can never stress enough, particularly on the eve of a debate as important as that on the Canadian social union.

In this spirit we must be grateful and perhaps do like previous governments, such as the Duplessis government in 1954, which invoked the Constitution and its spirit when levying direct taxation. We must thank him for having done so because we can now rationally think and dream of making Quebec sovereign.

If the Quebec government had not assumed this right to direct taxation, if it were still at the mercy of the federal government, historically, where would Quebec be? Where would the distinct society be? Where would our distinct character be? It is because of direct taxation that Quebec can, in conformity with the spirit of the Canadian Constitution—keep its dreams alive and reach its full development.

There is the historical aspect I just mentioned. As a member of parliament, something else worries me in this bill. The bill uses wording found in a speech by the President of the Treasury Board and talks of modernizing the public service. That was the term used when unemployment insurance was reformed. The unemployment insurance reform gave birth to employment insurance. As the months have gone by, we have come to see what came out of that. Previously, about 80% of those paying unemployment insurance were eligible for benefits. Now, after modernization, 42% of those paying employment insurance can become claimants.

Buzz words like “modernizing the public service” scare me. They indicate that the government has some very neo-liberal projects or intents. They are very anti-union and anti-labour. They encourage a weakening of the middle class and of unions, widening the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. They are the reason for statistics like the ones published today indicating that child poverty is growing in this country, in spite of the commitments the government made.

These results did not appear as if by magic. They are the outcome of decisions made secretly without any of us being really made aware that they have been made.

Another aspect one must remember in this bill is it will reduce once again the role of Parliament. Parliaments are more and more weakened, not only in Canada, but in all the western world, because elected representatives can no longer ask for accountability and the executive longer has any accountability.

These past years, especially in the transportation area, very important decisions have resulted in the fact that Parliament can no longer ask for accountability in the management of public assets. I am thinking of Nav Canada and air traffic controllers, who used to be part of the department of transport. When faced with certain decisions elected representatives used to be able to ask questions and question the government. This is no longer possible. This is a private agency.

I am thinking of Air Canada, where I met with union representatives last week. The union is very worried about the experiment under way at the Ottawa airport, where automated tellers will replace some Air Canada employees. They will directly serve clients, eventually causing massive layoffs. Parliament has no authority to ask for accountability because Air Canada has been privatized. Likewise with the CN, where they made massive layoffs but we were unable to talk about it here because it is a private agency.

And I did not mention the Canadian food inspection agency that was established a few months ago. Elected representatives could question the government on its management, but they cannot anymore, because it is a private agency.

Take the ADM, Mirabel-Dorval. The government hid behind this organization and said it could do nothing. It gave a mandate to ADM and experts, who did what they could.

As parliamentarians, whom can we hold accountable? How is public interest served in all this? What is left for taxpayers who pay their taxes and see decisions being made which have an impact on their daily lives? Parliamentarians, who are asked questions—whom else can people ask but their elected representatives?—will have to give up sooner or later because they will not have the authority to hold accountable those who should be.

The government is losing control. This is very serious. This is very neo-liberal. This is very undemocratic. Disappointingly, this is done with the approval of senior officials, who instead of having the best interests of the public at heart only have theirs. Here is what is written in a clause on the loyalty directors will have to have for the agency.

Subclause 42.(1) states, and I quote:

Every director of the Agency, exercising their powers and performing their duties and functions, must

a) act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interests of the Agency—

Where is the public interest when the bill refers to the best interests of the agency, an agency that is partly privatized and that will soon be fully privatized? The clause reads “must act... with a view to the best interests of the agency”. It is immoral to write such things. When one is paid by the state, one should act in the public interest. It is our first responsibility. We act on behalf of the state, not even on behalf of the government.

Members know how things work. A government that puts things like that in its legislation is not even trying to hide its intent, and this must be condemned. I cannot understand that the Canadian elites have not done so.

For Quebec, this is a great lesson, in view of what we will all be called on to ponder. This is a unitary Canada, a centralized Canada, in which the provinces will become regional governments and in which Ottawa will control everything. This may be good for Canada—it is their problem—but it is obvious that Quebec must get out of this crazy situation as soon as possible, otherwise Quebeckers will become increasingly diminished and enslaved in that Canadian federation.

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister accused the Bloc Quebecois of spreading misinformation about ice breaking.

Yet, he knows that the Bloc Quebecois has been dealing closely with the shipping industry on this issue.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. With the legitimate protests and unanimous outcry from the industry and the implementation of the new fee schedule due in less than a month, will the minister declare a moratorium until his policy can be amended as required?

[Ice Breaking Policy, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it cannot be stated often enough: the industry is worried, port authorities are worried, ferry operators are worried, they are all worried because the minister's plan smacks of improvisation.

Why not do the only reasonable thing and impose a moratorium?