Yvan Bernier

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore raises a very good point.

This government made promises to get elected, but it was just a smokescreen because, as soon as they took office, the Liberals started governing like a right wing party and making cuts.

Close to $1.9 billion was invested in the Atlantic groundfish strategy but, unfortunately—and the hon. member is right—the very first year cuts were made to all transition and economic diversification programs, under the pretext that the number of potential clients had been miscalculated. These people still exist. There were close to 45,000 of them and they will still be there at the end of May 1999. What will happen to them?

People who work in the fishing industry, including fishers and the women who work in plants, will not disappear like the cod, because it is the federal government that now manages that program. These people are still there. They are human beings.

I remind our viewers that Canada was discovered precisely because there was cod along our coasts. Fishermen came close to the Newfoundland and Gaspé shores. Today, people from the Gaspé and Newfoundland are told “Sorry, we have had enough of you. Stay home and keep quiet. We are not giving you another penny”.

This is an insult. It is pure contempt on the part of people who claim that Canada is a wonderful country, full of life and full of compassion for all its inhabitants, including those who live in the regions that were the first ones to become part of Canada. I do not know how the Minister of Finance can tell them “Sorry, that's it, that's all”.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, not because this budget pleases me, but to give the people in my riding an opportunity to speak through me. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.

If I may, I will pick up the thread of what has been said this afternoon. The member speaking before me mentioned that the Minister of Finance would go down in history as one of the greatest ministers of finance. The people of the Gaspé will remember the Minister of Finance as the greatest conjurer, that is, he has a talent for juggling figures, making believe a cut is no longer effective and having us believe that what he is giving us is coming immediately, when it can take three or four years, as the Reform MP mentioned. It is time to set things straight.

The other thing I must mention is that this conjurer opposite got his deficit to disappear by having the provinces and the unemployed pay first. I will elaborate on these two points.

First, let us talk about the unemployed. Everyone knows now that there is over $20 billion accumulated in the employment insurance fund. I am entitled to speak to this subject today, because the Minister of Finance included the employment insurance revenues in his consolidated budget.

This year, he is telling us that he thinks he will have revenues of about $18.8 billion, of which he expects to spend about $17 billion. But everyone knows that he will once again save at least $6 billion. The magician that he is comes up with various expenditures, but he never thinks about the well-being of the unemployed.

I want to take a moment to mention the excellent information work being done in the Gaspé region by the Mouvement action chômage Pabok and by its coalition, whose two co-chairmen, Mr. Cousineau and Mr. Blais, do a great job.

Let me go back to the manifest released by the coalition in New Richmond, two weeks ago. These people are asking three things from the government: first, to establish an independent employment insurance fund run by representatives of the contributors; second, to improve the employment insurance program; third, to put the surplus back into the fund.

These three issues are important to regions such as ours. I see that some Liberal members are listening carefully. Why is it so important? Because, in January 1999—I do not have the current figure—the actual unemployment rate was 20.8%. The average for 1998 was 22.8%.

Moreover, in the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, a paper mill may close and 300 jobs will be lost if one of the two machines is shut down, or 600 jobs will be lost if both machines are shut down. We are told “perhaps work can be done for other companies during down times”. But this requires maintaining the social security net, that is the employment insurance program, even though I would much rather see the paper mill operating year round with the two machines and the qualified workers who are already there.

I remind members opposite that our riding must also face the closing of a copper mine in Murdochville. This means that 300 jobs will be lost. This time, it is not the federal government's fault; it is because the mine is depleted.

When these job losses are added to the existing unemployment rate, members can see the how important the transition measure, the social net provided by the EI program really is. The Liberals did not say much about that. The minister of regional development will perhaps be able to confirm this, but my reading of the budget is that there is actually less money available for regional development. I would like him to respond to this.

The second point I would like to make is that the Minister of Finance magically transferred the deficit onto the backs of the provinces. Wearing three jurisdictional hats at once, he slashed the health, post-secondary education and social assistance envelopes.

However, this time, he is saying that, with the situation bad in the provinces and problems in the hospitals, the government will come up with some money and pretend to alleviate matters but will impose a medical police force to keep tabs on how it is spent.

This is disgraceful. Hospital management comes under provincial jurisdiction and the money is now in Ottawa, but it is always the same taxpayer footing the bill. The public will not be fooled.

That brings me to the following point. The sectors I have just mentioned come under provincial jurisdiction. But what about the fishery and the catch, which really do come under federal jurisdiction? Do members recall that there is a groundfish moratorium, that it is still in place, and that experts agree that the commercial fishery will not resume on its former scale any time in the next five years?

As for TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, the last lump sum payments will be made in May 1999. Nowhere in this budget is there any mention of what will become of fishery workers after May 1999.

What about the people approaching retirement age? What can we do in a devastated region such as ours, where fishing is no longer possible, when we get to be 50? What new job direction are we supposed to take, and where are the energies and catalysts for recharging our economy? There are none! Yet, they have jurisdiction over this, and it is easily enough understood.

I will use the other official language to pass the following message to my friends in the other maritime provinces, and I want the Liberals over there to listen carefully.

What kind of hope could this budget deliver to the fishing worker? There is nothing in this budget to cover the end of the TAGS program which will stop at the end of May 1999. This budget gives only dividends to people who have a chance to work, mainly Ontario workers. I am glad for them but nothing is done in this budget for the people from the maritimes and the Gaspésie. The people from Newfoundland and elsewhere in the maritimes should raise this question with their members, if the members have the courage to go back to these ridings after the last vote on this budget.

We are trying to stay calm, but this is becoming increasingly hard to do. In mid-January I was present at four or five different demonstrations. The people are taking to the streets of the Gaspé to voice their despair and confusion. At the moment they are doing so peacefully, but I am afraid, and I want the cries of the people to be heard all the way to this House.

I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development, or rather the Minister of Finance, to stop fiddling with the figures and to understand that the people need dignity, a social security safety net, and catalysts for a diversified economy. This is what they want the government to know. They do not want to be on employment insurance for the rest of their lives; they just want help in getting through some bad times, and unfortunately there is nothing in this budget that allows them any hope.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of funny that the two members opposite would talk about a common theme, namely hope. These are two government members who have contributed to killing hope.

The first one, the member for Broadview—Greenwood, said there were few separatists left in Quebec. I would like to reassure him. Perhaps he did not go to the right places. I will introduce him to some. I can also assure him that we can manage our own affairs and chew gum at the same time.

I have a question for the last member who spoke, because he played a role in the employment insurance reform. If the government wants to give people hope, it ought to see to it that they have food on the table, as the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac often points out.

You should look at what your government is doing in its budget to restore hope in the fisheries, which comes under its jurisdiction, particularly as regards the issue of catches. Instead of interfereing in a jurisdiction that is not yours, namely health, what did you do?

And what do we have in answer to the fishermen from Newfoundland now? What can we do for them? What kind of hope can they have? If the member can answer that, the fishermen in Gaspé will understand.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I once again rise on a point of order. In dealing with certain issues, I mentioned historical facts. I did not used bad words. And if this how he sees it, then the answer—

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my comments were misinterpreted, because the member referred to them as rhetoric of rubbish. Yet, I did not use any vulgar expression and I would appreciate it if the member opposite could choose his words more carefully.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member opposite I had a great deal of difficulty restraining myself.

I cannot imagine how the Liberal members opposite manage not to choke when they speak in a debate like the one on the budget tabled yesterday.

It is as if we were living on two completely different planets. I believe the hon. member is from Ontario. Before making those kinds of remarks, he should come and travel across Quebec and the maritimes. Having done that, if he still cannot show more compassion, he may at least not get so carried away about how good this budget is, as he described it. I noted a few things. I will first make a comment and then put a question to the member.

The hon. member praised the work done by the Minister of Finance, saying that the minister was working with standards widely used in the G-7. I am not sure how widely used they are in the G-7. But one thing is sure: he was unable to tell us if these standards were widely recognized here, in Canada, by Canadians, so that comparisons could be made.

Neither could the hon. member bring himself to admit that the finance minister had his wrists slapped by the auditor general precisely because this is not a transparent approach allowing figures to be compared from one year to the next.

In fact, to find out what the actual breakdown by province is today, one has to request from senior Canadian officials special tables, which show in black and white what the Government of Quebec told us, and that is that the province is getting no more than $150 million for health care. That is my first point.

Second, he said that the Liberal government's priority for health care would be to make people more accountable and to make the management of the health care system more transparent. They dare brag that they will establish audit systems to ensure that care is actually provided.

I believe I am in the Parliament of Canada, which has the role of protecting the Canadian Constitution, although some would say it is not my job. The Constitution, which parliament must honour, must recognize at least that health care is under provincial jurisdiction. Let them not boast to Canadians watching us that they will establish accountability.

Another odd thing in the speech by the previous member is that the Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of increasing the country's debt. The Conservatives were in office only two terms. What the members opposite forget to say is that the deficits started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I would remind the member that we were not in a recession at that point. People who want to provide a lesson should reread their history.

The federal government says that Canadians can now trust it and it will not spend foolishly, or something like that. Can we trust those opposite?

They got elected in 1993 and said they would scrap the GST. From 1993 to 1999, that is six years. This is the sixth budget brought down by the current government. It had the opportunity to eliminate the GST, but not a word was said on that in last night's budget. Should we trust the federal government?

I will give another example of what happens when the Liberals say we should trust them. Following the 1995 referendum in Quebec, they supported a motion in this House recognizing Quebec's unique character. This implied that if Quebec wants to do things differently, it should have the right to opt out of programs. But what did the government do at the first opportunity, when it started making a surplus, last year? It created the millennium scholarships, which was yet another intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The Liberals could have eliminated that program in yesterday's budget. They did not. This is another example of an unkept promise. And they are asking us to trust them.

I have a question for the hon. member. I do not see many members from the maritimes here today, but they could put that question to him. Health and education are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Fisheries, as far as catches are concerned, is a federal jurisdiction. What is there in the finance minister's budget for fishers, who will lose everything in May of this year? This is a federal jurisdiction. The federal government could not care less.

[Employment Insurance, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, in New Richmond, people from all walks of life from the Gaspé, Magdalen Islands, Lower St. Lawrence and Acadie regions sent an appeal to the Government of Canada.

People from these regions want to live, not just survive. They are saying to the federal government “Stop impoverishing those of us who live in coastal and forest regions and depend on seasonal work. The spring gap is waiting for us”.

These people are demanding that an independent employment insurance fund be established and administered by representatives of the contributors, that the employment insurance program be improved, and that the EI surplus be given back to them.

To this, the Minister of Finance replies contemptuously but shamelessly “You little people from the regions, wait some more. Ottawa still needs to take your employment insurance money to appear to be resolving the crisis in the health care system, to alleviate the plight of high income taxpayers, and to put Quebec in its place”.

[Fishing Quotas, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during the summer of 1998, the attitude of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the fishers of Gaspé on the brink of despair.

Can the minister indicate what steps he has taken since last August to deal with the backlash from fishers concerning his department's delay in releasing fishing plans, as well as the setting of quotas for the Gulf of St. Lawrence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to leave a little time for my Reform Party colleague, for questions and comments. Since the debate is to end by 5.15 p.m., I have less than 15 minutes left.

I would like to recap the situation with Bill C-43, giving the Bloc Quebecois view of it in four points.

First, we feel that this bill is a form of abdication of political power. Even if the other side of the floor is telling us that the minister will still be accountable, that is not the impression we get from reading the bill.

The second point in the powerlessness of the Minister of National Revenue. I have always thought of him as a nice guy, but I cannot understand how a minister with 20% of the public service under him would want to find himself, the day after this bill passes, with possibly only his chauffeur still working for him. I wonder how appropriate it is to still have a minister responsible for this.

What I see as equally serious, given the size of the public service, and this is the third point the Bloc Quebecois wishes to bring to the attention of this House, is that establishment of this new agency appears to be anti-union. They are trying to do away with 20% of the Canadian public service. That is not peanuts.

The fourth point is that this bill smacks of centralization. Not only does the government have trouble keeping its hands in its own business, it would like, with the agency, to look after everything to do with taxes. It would like to offer its services to the provinces. It would even like to offer its services to municipalities. If this is not centralization, I would ask the other side of the House to give me another term for it, one that is acceptable, of course.

With the four points I have just raised, if it is true that this is an abdication of political power or if it is not true, in other words if the government will in fact continue to be responsible under the Income Tax Act, and accountable to the House for responding to questions on the Act, what is the point of establishing this agency?

We will always question the fact that with the federal government, primarily when government seats are occupied by Liberal Party members, the word “modernize” often rhymes with “privatize”. Where is the government going with this?

Since the Liberals' election in 1993, they have privatized the railways, tried to privatize the ports and there are even privatization agreements for the airports. Canada Post Corporation, which is no longer a government department as such, was established earlier.

Is the government sending the message that Canada is being put up for sale piece by piece, that there will just be a group of subcontractors from whom Canadian taxpayers will have to get public services and pay for them? The user pay principle is being hammered home with the imposition of new rates by the coast guard.

If the government insists on a user pay system, it should allow all Canadian taxpayers to pool their collective interests and to start calling for bids themselves. They could draft the bids and manage their own affairs. Is this where Canada is headed?

The other thing that concerns us with this way of doing things is that the agency will privatize its operations and will let go 20% of the public servants who are currently working for Revenue Canada. Clauses 15, 22 and 25 of the bill, which deal with the appointment of the directors of that future agency, are of particular concern to me.

It is provided that 15 directors will be appointed, including a chairperson and a commissioner. These people will be appointed by the government, which will have a great opportunity to reward friends that did not get elected, or that have been waiting to be compensated for past services. This is worrisome.

What is also worrisome is that these appointees will have the authority to determine their own salary. Some members opposite may object that this is not true, that I should just read the clauses carefully. I will do just that. Clause 30(1) provides, and I quote:

30.(1) The Agency has authority over all matters relating to

(a) general administrative policy in the Agency;

(b) the organization of the Agency;

(c) Agency real property as defined in Section 73; and

(d) personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.

Are savings going to be made at the expense of frontline workers, for the benefit of senior managers, who will be appointed by government people? This is very worrisome.

When it says they have the authority to determine their conditions of employment, will the future chair or future senior officers want to compare themselves, in terms of salary or funds for which they are responsible, to bank presidents? Without naming any names, this is several times what members here make.

I have no objection to people in a capitalist system making money, and the structure is such that they are accountable to their shareholders. In this case, however, I fail to see how they can be accountable to these shareholders, the people of Canada.

Usually, it is elected officials who are responsible for how they manage things. But here we have a superminister sharing his management authority with a team of 15 friends of the party. That will be fun. Who will be answerable to Canadians as shareholders?

Even more amusing are clauses 47 and 49, which provide that the agency's business plans must be submitted to the Treasury Board for approval and that the minister must table a summary of the plan in each House of Parliament in the first fifteen days after it is approved.

There will be only 15 days in which to do a post-mortem of the megaprojects and megastructures to which the members across the way have accustomed us. They are very good at cover-ups. As we have seen in recent budgets, they are also very good at making cuts that only kick in somewhere down the line. Is that what we can expect? I have some serious questions about transparency and accountability for actions further down the road.

I will digress, if I may. I come from a seaside riding. While the government wants to part with 20% of its employees—and is willing to give up all related powers—I find it somewhat shocking to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage come to the rescue of rich sports people these past few weeks. She sponsored a bill on the establishment of marine conservation areas. On the one hand, the government wants to take apart a department or get rid of civil servants. On the other hand, through the establishment of marine conservation areas, a field the minister does not know the first thing about, it wants to infringe on an area of provincial jurisdiction. To compound the problem, these marine conservation areas will have to have on-shore facilities. But who lives by the sea? Fishers and plant workers.

Last June, the government opposite sneaked in a final proposal washing its hands of the crisis in the fisheries. The whole mess is no longer its problem. Now I wonder who is going to stand up for fishers and plant workers.

On the one hand, it tries to get rid of 20% of its public servants. On the other, it got rid of 40,000 fishers and plant workers and wants to establish marine conservation areas. I cannot for the life of me understand the government's management style nor its policy thrusts. It blows all over the place. It twists and turns. Nobody will be able to understand it any more. Worse yet, no one across the way will be able to answer our questions.

I wonder about the appropriateness of this bill at a time when, as my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said earlier, OECD statistics show that, far from diminishing, the number of poor children is on the rise. The government would have us believe that the elimination of 20% of jobs in the public service will somehow result in fewer poor in this country.

I am quite willing to believe—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood well. The member said the minister will still be accountable for tax legislation to his peers in the House, that he will still be required to answer any questions parliamentarians will want to ask.

If the minister is still responsible and has to answer the questions, what is the use of changing the law?

Is it to harmonize federal and provincial tax laws? There is no need to estaablish a superagency to do that. It can be done with the provinces, as shown by the harmonization of the GST and the PST in Quebec.

I do not know if that is what they want to do. But what is behind all this—and I would like the member to confirm this if he can—is that the minister will no longer be the employer of the tax collectors who now work for Revenue Canada and collection agencies. The bill says that the agency will be their employer. Will the minister end up with his chauffeur as his sole employee? Is that what it means? Do we still need to have a minister in that case?

Is the government looking to save money at the expense of public servants? It seems to me that this is an anti-union bill. The government is cutting the federal public service by 20%.

Is that the purpose of this bill? If the member has not understood, he can tell us and then again ask the minister the question.