Gérard Asselin

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the fishery has been identified. The problem is not overfishing. The problem, whether it be on the North Shore, the Magdalen Islands or the Gaspé Peninsula, is a predator that has been identified quite clearly: the seal. Each seal consumes one tonne of groundfish per year. This is causing problems for fishers and the resource is disappearing.

I have a question for the Bloc Quebecois fisheries critic. A program has already been established, the Tobin plan. The problem of the predator was identified. And, on the North Shore, there are processing plants, seal hunters were hired, tanneries were set up. There are systems for cleaning pelts. The meat is saved and send to zoos in Granby and Saint-Félicien. Tanned seal pelts are processed. I think that we could be onto something. It would eliminate the predator and create jobs. It would solve both of the problems.

Is the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans planning on creating a specific program and compensating seal hunters by giving them a price per pound of seal that is caught and processed?

[Oil and Gas Prices, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, instead of making ironic comments, I think the minister needs to face up to his responsibilities and demand an investigation by the Competition Bureau. Otherwise we will be forced to conclude that the minister is thumbing his nose at the public. Will the minister tell us which it is?

[Oil and Gas Prices, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every time we raise the issue of the cost of heating oil, the Minister of Industry tells us that he cannot intervene because he needs to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction.

Can he explain to us how this situation is any different than in October 2000, when the government did intervene, announcing that it was sending out cheques to everybody? Is the difference that oil cost 10¢ less a litre at that time, or did an impending election have something to do with it?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the people of the Gaspé Peninsula and the South Shore of the St. Lawrence, those on the North Shore were able to work.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane a question. In terms of regional development, what concrete measures are being taken to ensure that someone reading the newspaper the day after the budget is tabled will see that things are changing for the better? Cuts are made by the federal government, but are there indirect consequences? What more can dairy farmers and producers expect from the latest budget tabled by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?

I think that the government could have helped forestry workers and farmers indirectly. It could have eliminated the federal gasoline tax. We know that, today, machines are used in forestry and farming.

The gasoline excise tax was introduced to fight the deficit. Today, there is an accumulated surplus of $15 billion. This government had a real opportunity to eliminate the excise tax and the gasoline tax to directly benefit producers.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in the little time I have remaining, I would first like to question the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I want to remind the hon. member that, in 1993, the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord elected the Bloc Quebecois' candidate, Gilbert Filion, who did an excellent job here in the House of Commons.

In 1997, the current member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord had to run as a Progressive Conservative to get elected. Shortly thereafter, he became an independent and then was elected as a Liberal in the 2000 election. How can the hon. member be taken seriously as a parliamentarian?

The hon. member is telling us that this is an excellent budget. I would remind him that the majority of his constituents, regular people, workers, are low income earners. They are women, youth and the unemployed. The latter are getting employment insurance because of the dairy crisis and the softwood lumber crisis, because of problems that this government has not be able to resolve. As a result, these people need employment insurance.

Four out of ten people are entitled to employment insurance. No wonder premiums are now $1.98. Despite this, the government is still putting $6 billion in the surplus pot.

When Brian Mulroney introduced the GST—and the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was a Progressive Conservative at the time—the Liberals promised to scrap it once they were elected. But, it is still there, just like the gasoline tax. Rebate cheques were issued, however, just before the last election, to pay heating oil—

[Gasoline Prices, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will be able to understand my next question. I am going to ask it for the sixth time, in the hope of getting the right answer.

In October 2000, the price of heating oil in Quebec was about 51¢ a litre. At that time, the government felt that the situation was critical enough to mail out cheques to help people, even some who were in jail or no longer alive, pay for their heating oil.

Now that the price has gone over 60¢ a litre, is the minister going to decide to make a move, thereby proving that the interest shown in October 2000 was not just a ploy to get more votes?

[Gasoline Prices, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, all week the Minister of Industry has been telling us that he is not interested in the spiralling cost of gas and how it is affecting people.

Is the minister prepared to admit that, if he had wanted to show his concern, he would have already brought this matter to the attention of the Competition Bureau?

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act requires that all Canadians or Quebeckers pay income tax. This tax is managed by the federal government. If the federal government passes legislation, it must be fair for everyone. The Canadian Alliance has made some demands. The Canadian Alliance does not have any members of Parliament from Quebec, nor in a number of Canadian provinces. Yet, all of these people pay taxes and income tax to the federal government.

We know what the Alliance did on the issue of members' pensions. Yet, today, they are all eligible. Would the member accept having a double standard in the House, by having one party, because it promotes Quebec's sovereignty, penalized by Canadian legislation?

[Petitions, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today tabling a petition with more than 590 signatures, to go along with those already tabled by my colleagues with a view to sending a clear message to the government.

Any change to the financial situation of the disabled is a potential threat to their health. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to oppose any plan to limit access to the disability tax credit and to ensure that the government does not pass any measure in the House of Commons without prior consultation of organizations representing the disabled and of health professionals.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his motion and the hon. member for Drummond for her amendment.

The hon. member who just spoke will doubtless agree with me that the money is in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces. Yesterday, in answer to a question from the Bloc Québécois, the Prime Minister said that he did not want money from the federal government to be used to pay for collective agreements, but to go solely towards purchasing equipment.

In my opinion, each province knows best what its health care needs are. Emergency services are a priority. Home care for the elderly is a priority. Investing in equipment is dangerous. The same thing will happen that happened in education with the millennium scholarships. We know that the federal government wants to be visible when it comes to equipment. No visibility, no equipment. We risk finding Canadian flags etched onto computers, while emergency services have serious problems, and we need to invest directly in patient care.

Will the hon. member agree with me that those best placed to determine health care priorities are none other than the provinces? We are asking the federal government to give back the money it cut in transfer payments to the provinces and let the provinces decide how to invest it. This is Quebec's main demand.