Yves Rocheleau

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour for his question.

There is a cultural aspect to all this. People belong to a political party. They wear blinders and prefer not to fully investigate things. In particular, they prefer not to see how serious the situation is.

Either that is the case or we need to refine our vocabulary after 40 years of debate, because the real issue is Quebec's status. Since our goal is a sovereign Quebec, we call ourselves sovereignists.

When it comes to Quebec's status, these people see Quebec as a province. For the past 40 years, we have had the courtesy—I do not really know why—to call them federalists, when federalism is the relationship between the central state and the federated states, including the division of powers and the power relationship, which has nothing to do with the real debate in Quebec. This is applicable to all provinces.

It is their mindset to consider Quebec a province. They are provincialists, therefore. Perhaps this is what we should call them from now on. Both in Quebec City and Ottawa, all Quebeckers who consider Quebec a province are really provincialists. They see Quebec as small, shrunken and confined to being a province.

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it might be good to remember what John A. Macdonald said in 1864, three years before confederation in 1867, in terms of his vision for Canada. He said Canada would have:

A strong central government, a powerful central legislature and a decentralized system of small legislatures for strictly local purposes.

That is one of Canada's great founders' view of Canada. We end up with this will to centralize which has left its mark, unlike the will to make changes; we end up with this will to continue on the momentum of centralization to form an increasingly unified Canada.

We saw the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arrive on the scene. He had a very specific mandate from the Prime Minister, since this minister was also President of the Privy Council. He had to run things, ensure order and put Quebec back in its place.

And the minister gladly did just that—everyone knows it—with, first, the clarity bill in 1999. It was a direct attack on the rights and sovereignty of the Quebec National Assembly in terms of its right to ask the people of Quebec any question it wants.

Then, still in 1999, there came the social union agreement. It was signed by 9 of the 10 Canadian provinces and the federal government; the Government of Quebec, then led by Lucien Bouchard, chose not to sign.

For the benefit of those who would doubt the seriousness of this agreement, I shall simply quote two constitutional experts who have written articles in a monograph on constitutionalism. They wrote about this social union agreement. This book is called The Canadian Social Union without Quebec: 8 Critical Analyses and is published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. First I shall quote Mr. André Binette, a well known constitutional expert who says:

The 1981 constitutional agreement and the social union agreement are the major and minor aspects of the same proposition: Canada cannot continue to coexist with the identity of Quebec. Canada is less and less capable of defining itself in view of Quebec's aspirations and will to achieve autonomy. Although the social union agreement was created in less dramatic circumstances than the 1981 constitutional blockbuster, its effects are more concrete and more damaging to Quebec's aspirations.

That is what Mr. Binette said.

Another eminent constitutional expert, André Tremblay, has written an article in the same monograph. In my opinion, this passage, this stance taken by a constitutional expert, is an important aspect, and I quote:

For the first time in the history of intergovernmental relations, the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, have confirmed and recognized the legitimacy of the power to spend and have given Ottawa carte blanche to intervene in all exclusively provincial spheres of jurisdiction.

He continues:

The agreement of February 4 [, 1999,] provides all the leverage and all the tools for centralization, and reduces our Quebec specificity. The federal government is crowned supreme and the provinces become its branches or franchises.

What the social union agreement means in practice is that the federal government has grabbed some powers and new responsibilities and that these have been recognized. That is what is new. There is no more debate and argument among the provinces, because Canada's provinces have bowed to the pressure of the moment and the historical pressure of the central government. They have abdicated. Only Quebec has refused to get on board the bandwagon.

In short, the following is involved: recognition of the legitimacy of the federal spending power; equality of the provinces among themselves, Quebec being considered a province like all of the others; no recognition of the Quebec people, as well as no recognition of the concept of two founding peoples.

From now on, the federal government can deal directly with organizations or individuals without any consideration for provincial jurisdictions, even in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This means that it will now be dealing with municipalities, hospitals, universities, CLSCs, research centres, volunteer organizations and so on. Its presence will be felt increasingly, but we will come back to that later.

Another aspect is that the provinces will have to come to an agreement with Ottawa to establish new programs in their own jurisdictions and soon meet national standards set by Ottawa. The provinces will also have to account to the federal government for their management of certain programs, while the reverse will not be true. Furthermore, it will be up to the provinces to prove that they are managing the programs in question properly.

Finally, and this is the crux of the motion, no province will be authorized to opt out with financial compensation if it turns down a federal program and wants to establish its own. This seems to me to be central to the social union agreement.

Why is it despicable? Why do we feel compelled condemn this agreement today? Because Quebec is not a province, and above all, it is unlike any other province. Quebec is a people, a nation and, therefore, the right-thinking federalists should lead the fight to ensure that, in this country so dear to their hearts, Quebec is recognized as a distinct society. That was the expression used by the Prime Minister himself, but he had to backtrack when he realized that the rest of Canada was not on board.

Where are we headed for in this Quebec and Canada, if not toward recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness and giving it the special powers that go with it? We are moving literally and very quickly toward an increasingly centralized and unitary Canada.

The intention behind this attitude is clearly articulated by the Privy Council. Anyone who is monitoring closely the situation can tell. The result will be that there will be only one national government in Canada and that Quebec's claims in this respect will be eliminated over the next few years or, at most, the next few decades.

This then is the whole issue for Quebeckers: to properly understand the game, the manoeuvres, going on here in Ottawa, day in and day out, week after week, ever since the referendum of 1995. In my opinion, this government has neither legitimacy nor mandate, has not carried out any consultations, and most particularly has not carried out any referendum authorizing it to act so cavalierly, thereby downplaying the distinct character of Quebec. Quebec is a people. It is a nation. Quebec, despite its status as a province, has considerable influence in the international community.

These are not empty words. What does the reference to an unprecedented offensive aimed at making Canada into a centralized and unitary state mean? I will give you a whole list of all the initiatives the federal government has taken without any mandate to do so.

There is the millennium scholarship foundation, the young offenders legislation, the rural policy, the policy on the volunteer and community sector, the national agricultural development strategy, the university chairs, the national strategy on end of life care, the privacy legislation, the national standards on admission to the medical profession, the national strategy on technological innovation for training, the federal rules for environmental assessment, the endangered species legislation, the potential power to divert Quebec Rivers in the St. Lawrence watershed, the sponsorship program—that never ending saga—the planned multitude of cultural funding initiatives, although culture is exclusively a Quebec jurisdiction, the coming national securities commission, the potential national health insurance system, the planned national identity card so dear to the heart of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the program for funding post-secondary research, the national housing strategy for the homeless, the early childhood program, the program for marine conservation areas. Our list could go on all night.

That makes no sense.

It would be better to discuss whether this government was transparent and had the courage of its convictions. Whether the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Minister of Justice—all Quebeckers—had the courage to explain to Quebeckers that their plan in 20, 25, 30 years is to make education, health and social programs belong exclusively to the federal government, to say, that is their vision for the Canada of tomorrow and that is Quebec's place in the Canada they dream of.

I think that if people had the courage of their convictions and the intellectual honesty to talk about their daily actions, there would be a lot of problems in future elections. But, since people hide their intentions and do not have the courage to tell Quebeckers what they intend to do, they can still go to Quebec with a semblance of dignity while Quebec disappears slowly but surely.

Just look at our demographic weight compared to our political weight. There were 294 members in this House in 1993, 301 members in 2000 and there will be 308 members in 2004. There is no new seat for Quebec, while Canada will have almost 13 more. We have not even talked about globalization, where the sovereign Government of Canada will increasingly make decisions that will affect all the provinces, or those that remain, and that will have an impact on the daily life of the people of Quebec, putting its destiny at stake.

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, September 23rd, 2003]

moved:

That the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes a nation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the social union framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues who have agreed to join me in this debate, which I feel is important to the history of Quebec and Canada.

What is important is not that I have taken it upon myself to bring forward this motion, but that it has to do with such an important issue: the existence or non-existence of the Quebec nation and the appearance on the historical scene of the 1999 social union policies.

To aid in the process, I will reread Motion No.394. It states “that the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes anation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the socialunion framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebechas the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroachingupon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation”.

The meaning of the motion must be clearly understood, and a historical overview is necessary as well. It must be kept in mind that the federal government, Canada, had a choice. It had a crucial choice to make in the aftermath of the October 30, 1995 referendum, because of the resounding results. The columns of the Canadian temple were strongly shaken by the desire for change expressed by 49% of Quebeckers. At the very least, this sent a message to the federal government that things had to change.

The Canadian people—although that concept is also a debatable one—had a choice, through its government. It could recognize the need for change expressed by the referendum and shape the Canada of tomorrow to fit the aspirations and demands of the Quebec people. It could also bring about constitutional change to the way the country works so that Quebeckers might feel more comfortable. That is, in our opinion, where the problem of Canada, and Canadians, lies.

It could also continue along the path toward centralization that we have become familiar with since 1967, one that has characterized the constitutional evolution of Canada, shaped by crises and wars, throughout its entire history.

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the statements by my hon. colleague from Champlain illustrate quite eloquently just how unfair this is to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. These people are often living on their own, and their children are often far away. So they are completely vulnerable in such circumstances. This illustrates how horrible this situation is.

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. We need to get some sense of proportion. The banks are said to have deprived Canada of $2 billion in tax revenue. I have read that this figure represents the budget of the University of Montreal until 2009. These are extraordinary figures, and they are easier to understand when transposed to some other area.

I would also like to add this clarification. We have referred to Barbados, but there are the three Bs: the Bahamas, Bermuda and Barbados. Moreover, in 2001, Canadian investors just happen to have invested $34 billion in Barbados, Bermuda and the Bahamas. During that same period, we invested $24 billion in all of Latin America. So, it just so happens that these three tiny countries, with a total population of 270,000, got $34 billion of investments, while all of Latin America, with a population of 10 million, many times over, got $24 billion.

As for Africa, our Prime Minister's favourite place—and this shows the political will and influence this government has, and how it puts its money where its mouth is—investments totalled $2.8 billion, compared to $34 billion for the 3 Bs.

This shows the hypocrisy of this government. There is an huge gap between words and actions. This is an area where the just society really comes into play. They used to be so big on the just society and social justice, but no more. There is no political will there. The debates that have initiated by the Bloc Quebecois these past 10 years prove quite clearly that there is no such political will on that side, none at all.

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to participate in this crucial debate brought about by my colleague, the member for Joliette. It is in line with a issue of concern to the Bloc Quebecois ever since we came to the House in 1993, the issue of tax havens.

Let me read the motion for the benefit of the House:

That, in the opinion of thider to ensure tax equits House, in ory, the government should terminate Canada’s tax convention with Barbados, a tax haven, which enables wealthy Canadian taxpayers and companies to avoid their tax obligations, and should play a leadership role at the international level in activities to eliminate tax havens.

This is a major issue. Personally, I think this is one of the ugliest aspects of international capitalism, which involves great fortunes and the most important stakeholders of this world. Approximately 250 large corporations secretly control the universe using all the possible means and pulling all the strings available to them.

These corporations manipulate governments through election funds. We have to know that there is a direct link between the attitudes of western governments, the complacency with which they treat large corporations, and their electoral funds. Those people are all good friends. This colours the whole debate.

Yet, organizations have examined this phenomenon, which, one must also realize, is about impoverishing societies.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, better known by its acronym OECD, worked on this issue and in 1998, set out parameters for identifying tax havens. It is good, for our purposes, to repeat them here.

There are four major criteria for identifying a tax haven. First, it is a place where taxes are non-existent or insignificant. Second, there is no real exchange of tax information; things are done in secret. The most legendary example of that is Switzerland. Third, there is a lack of transparency in the laws or taxation. Fourth, there are no substantial activities or obligations for a corporation to truly operate in the country. In many places it is just a mailing address or a desk with a phone, but likely no secretary to answer it.

At the time, 35 countries met these criteria and could be called tax havens. If we broadened the parameters slightly, 12 more countries would be added for a total of 47, including Canada. In the eyes of the OECD, our tax policy is linked to international freight transportation.

In Canada, there are very few entities that transport freight internationally in a serious and institutional manner. The former finance minister has always developed his talents not only here, on the backs of the provinces and the unemployed, but also with his financial advisers.

For instance, in 1992, he created four subsidiaries to his Canada Steamship Lines group in Liberia. Liberia is sure to be on the list of 35 tax havens. Every company, no matter what their profits are, pays Liberia a maximum of $350 a year in taxes. Companies benefit from tax conventions with countries like that.

That is another element of the debate. There have to be tax conventions between countries, in all honesty, in order for taxes to be paid. If a Canadian or Quebec company invested in Germany, for example, tax rules and laws would ensure that taxes would have to be paid either in Canada or in Germany.

But when one does business in Barbados, things are not quite the same. The tax rate is 2.5% in that country, compared to 30% here, which means that one would pay ten times less taxes under an advantageous tax agreement with Barbados. This means that the economy of Quebec and of Canada is deprived of all these revenues that would normally be used to develop new services.

A law-abiding and socially responsible corporation pays its taxes.

When people do not pay their taxes in a society like ours—and this is not a phony debate, far from it, it is a question of public morality—when people do not pay their taxes, either they do not have access to public services or other people pay taxes for them.

That is what is happening in Quebec and in Canada. Other people pay the taxes that the banks and Canada Steamship Lines do not pay. That is what is immoral.

This is why Canadians and Quebeckers may complain about the high tax rate. The federal government is not dealing with this issue, which the Bloc Quebecois has been raising for 10 years. It has dealt with the unemployed, though. It made sure that in Trois-Rivières, for example, where there may have been some abuse under the old act—but that is another issue—employment insurance benefits are no longer available to 85% of those who lose their job, as used to be the case, but to a much smaller percentage of people.

It is well known that $45 billion has been taken from the EI fund, first to eliminate the deficit and then to pay down the national debt. Instead of making the rich people pay, we are forcing the poor and less fortunate people to do so.

Let us take, for instance, the guaranteed income supplement. The Canadian government has, in an underhanded and despicable manner, pocketed $3 billion in the last five years by attacking those who are most vulnerable in society. In the meantime, the five major banks in Canada have deprived the tax man of $5 billion in the last five years, if I am not mistaken.

Some of the communicating vessels seem to be blocked up. That has not happened as if by magic. They are blocked up because there is a lack of political will to do take action, or rather a political will to maintain the status quo.

It might be that the campaign fund is ever-present in people's minds. It might be because good friends have agreed to pay $500, $1,000, $1,500 or even $3,000 a ticket to attend a cocktail party, for a total of $9 million—and you know just how fast that was collected—to help someone become the next prime minister. We know that.

All that is related. The Canadian government is not doing anything to straighten out this mess. To the contrary, it part of the problem. People should know that there is an Internet site called Barbados International Business Centre, where Canadian exporters are invited to invest in Barbados. It is the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that is inviting people to invest in Barbados, where they pay practically no income tax. These Internet sites are harmful to the Canadian economy.

This is nothing short of outrageous. The more I think of it, the more outrageous it seems. I am convinced that what we are experiencing as citizens of the world is almost anarchy. There is a total disregard for the citizens and the taxpayers. We urgently need an international mechanism to try, with limited means, given the clout these people have, to find something like the Tobin tax that will make the rich pay, as the CSN used to say in its heyday. By levying a modest tax of 0.5% on the $1,500 billion in daily transactions, we could create a fund of a few billion dollars each year. It could help provide drinking water in Africa, for example, and thus help alleviate problems that should not even exist in this day and age.

There are places in Africa where they do not yet have drinking water. They do not have clothes. They do not have a shelter where they can sleep. They still have just the bare minimum required for community living and human dignity. And people opposite tolerate and indeed condone this kind of scheme. When you accept tax rates of 2.5%, how could a developing country assess rates of 30%?

This is institutionalized underdevelopment. Not a single developing country will be able to make it, if the international community is not willing to bring these people into line. At a minimum, they should redistribute wealth in a decent way. The fact that this is not being done is a daily scandal.

[Agriculture, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of April the UPA of Grand-Pré and the Envir-Eau-Sol group, which consists of 72 businesses in the regional municipality of Maskinongé, asked the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice personally to guarantee, in their words, “farm income protection systems by increasing the amount provided within the agricultural policy framework so that the Financière du Québec can cover the production costs of our farmers”.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to reply in the affirmative to the legitimate demands of these agricultural producers from his riding?

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, retired General Romeo Dallaire, who knows what he is talking about, said yesterday that the similarities between the Congo and Rwanda are striking. Without some quick decisions, he said, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is heading for disaster.

However, last week Canada announced a minimal participation in the intervention force being organized by the UN.

Having heard the alarm sounded by General Dallaire, does Canada plan on getting seriously involved and making a significant contribution, and doing so right away?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and debate Bill C-28, a bill to implement the 2003 budget.

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Drummond, for having brought to the attention of the House section 64 of this bill, which deals with the government's attempt to recover GST rebates that Canadian school boards received.

We know that the GST is considered an input. This involves the whole system of GST inputs and outputs that the Liberals wanted to scrap a few years back, in 1992-93. Yet, today, they are such staunch defenders of it that they are prepared to violate the ruling handed down by a court. I say this because the court handed down a unanimous ruling saying that the school boards' position was perfectly right.

This involves public money at two levels, at the federal level and at the school board level. The provincial governments have not sat idly by, particularly given the amount of money involved--$70 million at the time the judgments were handed down. Their concerns are outlined in a letter written by the counsel for the school boards, who—by coincidence or very clever strategy by the school boards—hired the eminent legal expert, Marc Lalonde, a former minister of finance himself and colleague of the minister of finance at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, equally eminent, you will all agree. In his conclusion, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, counsel in this case, said on behalf of his clients, the school boards, and I quote:

Needless to say our clients feel as though the Minister of Finance is playing the role of the better who says, “Heads I win; tails, you lose”.

As I was saying, the court of appeal ruled in favour of the school boards unanimously on this matter. The government, in response, decided to pass legislation that would exempt it retroactively, in what can only be described as a flagrant abuse of power. Therefore, the legislation is retroactive, which exempts the government from any rulings against it in this matter. We cannot accept this type of retroactive legislation. This type of response must never be accepted.

This may illustrate the culture of this government, of the past Minister of Finance or the present one. Imagine what a fine choice there is: the old and the new finance ministers both prime ministerial hopefuls. Canadians, and proud of it, that's for sure. There is lots to be proud of when we see these two competing for a new job, given their recent past performances.

I would like to congratulate my colleague for having raised the consciousness of this House on this. I would also point out that, once again, we have total silence from the other side, from the Liberals from Quebec. They are keeping mum when there is anything to do with public funds, as I have said, not just at the federal level here but also in Quebec and at the level of the school boards. Once again, these members are not saying a word, rather than backing the cause that has been presented by my colleague for Drummond.

There is one other point I would like to draw to your attention concerning three flaws in this budget. The first of these is the total absence of any reference to the restoration of the older worker adjustment program or an equivalent. This is a program that was around in the 1980s and 1990s and one I had the pleasure of administering when a Quebec public servant, with the help of my federal colleagues.

This program started off as the workers assistance program and evolved into POWA, the older worker adjustment program. For the most part, it applied to major plant closings—a heavy blow to any community—and was for workers aged 45 and over who found themselves facing a somewhat closed labour market and saw themselves doomed to welfare, given their level of education.

So this was in addition to unemployment insurance and a highly intelligent and well-targeted measure that met an obvious social and economic need. It was well thought out and yet it was made to disappear arbitrarily, more or less. Now there is a refusal to resuscitate it, despite the sad situations I have seen in my riding, with the closures of Tripap and Fruit of the Loom, for instance.

Six hundred women have been forced onto unemployment and will soon be on social assistance. Representations were made, by us and by many of our colleagues in this place and probably others across Canada as well, to get the government to make amends by establishing such a program. It keeps turning a deaf ear, and this budget is no exception. I want to once again condemn this kind of mismanagement.

Second, as mentioned earlier, is an issue raised by my hon. colleague from Champlain which concerns tens of thousands of Quebeckers who are vulnerable or old: the guaranteed income supplement. This guaranteed income supplement augments the old age pension for a number of Canadians and Quebeckers who are unfortunately having a tougher time of it than others.

There is a supplement but because it is so very generous, as we know, the federal government is making sure that thousands of individuals who have neither the physical nor the intellectual capacity to demand this supplement never get it, because it is not sent out automatically. There is so much involved in applying that those who need it are deprived of the supplement. They are badly in need of it, but they cannot fill out the forms. That is what is likely to happen, if I understand correctly the problem very aptly described by the hon. member for Champlain, whom I want to congratulate once again.

So this government which is raking in billions of dollars—this will never be overemphasized—has no solution to offer, no sympathy, no empathy.

Perhaps because of my interest in and concern for foreign affairs, I would like to raise a third point: international aid. In spite of all these billions it has at its disposal, Canada will not go along with what the United Nations Organization is proposing. A member as prosperous and developed as Canada should allocate 0.7% of its budget to international aid, as do the Scandinavian countries. Instead of 0.7%, it is a mere 0.3%.

So, it is slightly disgraceful that a country that benefits from the international community's largesse, that is rich in natural resources, that has been developed, like others, at the expense of underdeveloped countries—there is no denying it—refuses to be more generous. It is a complete disgrace. I am certain, and I dare hope, that a sovereign Quebec would be much more sensitive to such concerns, as are the Scandinavian countries that have been such models for Canada. So, it is somewhat disgraceful to see the Canadian government behaving this way with regard to international aid.

I would like to give a quick overview, because ten minutes is not a long time. What is working in this country? I want to look quickly at this. Are things going well with regard to the fisheries? Air travel? Aboriginal affairs? Agriculture, shipbuilding, health? Is the federal government part of the problem or part of the solution in health? I think it is more part of the problem. Are things going well with regard to helicopters? Employment insurance?

In ridings such as mine, 85% of those who lost their job were entitled to employment insurance; under the party opposite, only 40%, if not 38%, qualify and the government refuses to relax the rules. It continues to enforce strict rules, despite statements such as those our hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth made earlier, about the hotel industry being devastated by fallout from SARS. We are seeing the same rigidity with regard to softwood lumber. There is a lot of boasting going on, but what is going well in this country?

If we take off our rose-coloured glasses, things are not going so well. In my opinion, the government's sole aim is to have a hand in everything in order to create a centralized, unified country at the provinces' expense. It is perhaps not so terrible that it is being done on at the provinces' expense, but it is at Quebec's expense, because there is an attempt to minimize the Quebec nation. We will continue to speak out, as long as we are here.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect ourselves from the paranoia of our neighbours and friends to the South. The media is completely misleading the public. An attempt is being made to justify implementing all sorts of control mechanisms that will erode not only the Americans' quality of life, but perhaps that of the entire planet. People will feel like cats and dogs fearing, from sunup to sundown, an attack on their person or their country.

This is, to some extent, unhealthy, a fact that must first be acknowledged and then condemned. The healthy development of humankind is in no way advanced by this attitude. We should be focussing on how to make the world a better place.