Gérard Asselin

[Softwood Lumber, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with softwood lumber negotiations going full swing in Washington, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister have confused all the stakeholders.

The Prime Minister maintains that the situation will be resolved before March 21, while his minister is more pessimistic and is floating all sorts of scenarios.

Is the Minister for International Trade, who should be showing more leadership in this matter, aware that this confusion is undermining Canada's position?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-49, with which the Minister of Finance, in his last budget, applies an additional tax.

When we want people to stop smoking, all we can do is impose a tax. The higher the tax, the more cigarettes will cost, and the more likely the consumer is to decide to stop smoking.

Someone who can afford to fly to Florida can probably afford the $24 air security tax, but where the problem lies is that the tax the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget, which will be applicable starting March 31, 2002, applies to domestic flights in the regions. Through the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance, the federal government has just hammered the last nail in the coffin of the regional airports.

This is nothing new. Since the Liberals came to office in 1994, they have busied themselves with collecting money and then no longer distributing it to the regions.

Yesterday the NDP moved a motion that listed 12 good reasons to stay in Canada and conduct reforms. This morning, if we were to draw up a list, those of us from Quebec could provide 100 good reasons to withdraw from Canada. One of these good reasons is that the federal government has withdrawn from regional development and its own infrastructure in the regions. This started right away in 1994.

Will closing control towers in airports and eliminating air traffic controllers reassure passengers? In an airport such as the one in Baie-Comeau, there are control towers, and there used to be air traffic controllers. They were not there for fun, they were there to ensure safety. There have been accidents; an Air Satellite plane had an accident. It was not the airport security service that found the plane that had crashed, nor was it the RCMP, it was the volunteer firefighters from the town of Baie-Comeau.

Fire prevention services have also been eliminated in regional airports. This is important in the unfortunate event of an accident at an airport. The federal government had decided, through equipment and personnel, to provide an adequate fire fighting service, if there was a plane crash at an airport. This was eliminated. It no longer exists at regional airports.

The federal government will assign a category to an airport, based on use. Airports will now be classified as either important, intermediate or, just because of a lack of use, as airports that the federal government no longer considers in its air transportation action plans because of a drop in activity. I will explain later why this leads to a drop in airport use.

In the last ten years, the federal government has not invested a cent in regional airports. These are white elephants with deteriorating equipment. Besides, the federal government has a policy of airport divestiture. Today, it plans to sell to local corporations those white elephants with obsolete equipment and infrastructure that is inadequate , and unsafe in some regards.

Following the extensive consultations on airports carried out by the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, together with the transport critic and member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, I have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable for the federal government to remain the owner of its airports and to let local authorities administer them. It would be better for the federal government to remain responsible for its infrastructure, in order to be able to set its own standards. If airports were transferred to local corporations, there is a risk that the federal government could change its legislation, regulations and standards, which would result in a reduction in the profitability of airports.

On the other hand, if airports end up closing, the federal government will wash its hands of it, saying “We are not to blame for the Baie-Comeau closing, as for the one of Saint-Irénée, in Charlevoix”.

I believe that the Competition Bureau has not done what it should have to increase the level of movement and improve customer service in the regions. The bureau, which is under federal jurisdiction, has not done its job. Let me explain.

In Baie-Comeau, Air Canada had a subsidiary company called Air Alliance or Air Nova, which competed fiercely to get to service the North Shore region. I have always seen Air Canada as a predator. Today, this company has a monopoly and no longer provides services to its customers. Now that it has forced InterCanadien into bankruptcy, it fixes schedules as it pleases. InterCanadien was a subsidiary of Canadian Airlines.

Profits were being made and there was a competitive environment. Two aircraft would arrive at 15 minute intervals. Air Canada's white and red aircraft would arrive at 7.30 a.m., while Canadian Airlines' white and blue aircraft would land 15 minutes later. Travellers had a choice of schedules and airfares. That allowed people from Charlevoix and north shore to come to major urban centres such as Quebec City and Montreal. All this has disappeared because of Air Canada's tactics.

Air Alma is no longer in the picture. In western Canada, I am convinced that Air Canada will succeed in eliminating WestJet. The situation there will be the same as in Baie-Comeau, with only Air Canada, mediocre services, airfares going up and inadequate schedules. Again, there will be fewer flights, with the result that one day airports will be closed.

Prices are on the rise and we know that the government just imposed a new tax that will come into effect on March 31. That tax is $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a return trip. A passenger who makes a return trip between Baie-Comeau and Quebec City already has to pay $460 for his airfare and will now have to shell out an additional $24, which means that his return trip, often completed on the same day, will cost close to $500.

One can fly from Montreal to Florida or Mexico for the same cost. In the regions, we have no choice but to fly, for reasons such as our schedules, availability, the weather and various other factors.

There is a lack of services in the regions. We only have one carrier. If it decides to stop flying between Baie-Comeau, Quebec City and Montreal, and instead flies only between Baie-Comeau and Montreal, what are we going to do if we have a meeting in Quebec City at 9 a.m.? We will have to leave the day before and fly from Baie-Comeau to Montreal, then from Montreal to Quebec City, and stay overnight in Quebec City to attend the 9 a.m. meeting the next morning. If that meeting ends at 5 p.m., we will have to fly back to Montreal, stay overnight and, the next morning, make the trip between Montreal and Baie-Comeau.

What will happen? Business people, who cannot afford to take three days just to attend a meeting in Quebec City, will decide to drive the 450 kilometres to get there and the 450 kilometres to get back. Again, the number of passengers will go down, which means that profits will also go down and that, some day, there will no longer be any airline serving the regions. They will say that it is no longer profitable, that it does not work, that there is no longer any business. And then the airport will close.

This is unacceptable, in a region such as the north shore—whether it is Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau or Saint-Irénée, in the riding of Charlevoix—for the federal government to levy a $12 tax on a one way ticket and $24 on a return ticket.

The Liberal government is really hindering regional development. We have to get professional services. We have to import professional services into the regions, and there are professionals in the regions who have to go to other institutions.

This is the case in health services. A person living in Baie-Comeau and having to consult a specialist in Quebec City or Montreal has to travel by plane. Unfortunately, flight schedules do not always allow this and the costs are very high.

For example, a student going to a university in Quebec City or Montreal cannot afford to travel by air. He or she must travel by bus. This too leads to a drop in the number of passengers.

In concluding, I must say that the Liberal government will once again wash its hands and say, “I am not the one who closed the airports; it is the local authorities who did”.

The federal Liberal government rakes in billions of dollars to the detriment of the regions. This is an excellent reason for demanding our sovereignty. I say to Quebecers, particularly those in the regions, let us wake up and, at the next referendum, let us vote yes for Quebec's sovereignty.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is blabbering. Why would we want to save Canada when the government is saying that all is well, that everything is going like clockwork and that we are on the right track, while the opposition tells the government every day that some things need to be changed and that it is not going very well at all.

Quebec never signed the 1982 Constitution. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously rejected the social union framework agreement. Under the Conservative Party, the then Prime minister, Brian Mulroney, also tried to amend the Constitution to change and improve Canada.

Moreover, without the failure of the Meech Lake accord and Charlottetown agreement, the Bloc Quebecois would not be here. Quebec should be recognized as a distinct society. Quebecers should be recognized as a nation.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for the Bloc Quebecois to take part in this debate because we are talking about a motion, introduced by the leader of the NDP, which proposes a 12 point plan to save Canada.

Premiers of Quebec such as Robert Bourassa and Daniel Johnson, as well as the former leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Claude Ryan, were not sovereignists. They never signed the constitution of 1982. These politicians, whether it be Robert Bourassa, Claude Ryan or Daniel Johnson, always denounced Canada's overlap and interference in provincial jurisdictions, in areas such as health, education and even the environment.

Avoiding such overlap could save the Government of Quebec billions of dollars. What Quebec is calling for, is to collect its own taxes and income taxes in order to be able to govern itself and manage that which belongs to it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you will find unanimous consent in the House to allow unlimited time to the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague, the member for Jonquière. When she said that she represented the most beautiful riding in Quebec, I am sure that she meant after the riding of Charlevoix. After all, this is Quebec we are talking about.

My colleague referred to the EI fund. We know that there is a phenomenal surplus in the EI fund and that this surplus is generated by revenues from contributions by employees and employers. The federal government does not contribute one cent to the EI fund.

Unfortunately, the federal government is appropriating this money to pay for different programs and to pay down its debt, when we know that it is the workers who contributed to it. This is a tax in disguise that they have taken directly from the workers and that is added to their federal and provincial taxes. It is an indirect tax that workers pay and that is accumulated in the EI fund. The EI fund is for insurance in case they lose their job.

During the election campaign, members toured right across Quebec, as the member for Jonquière mentioned. The Minister of National Revenue, who comes from Charlevoix, visited the North Shore in Charlevoix, to say that the government was mistaken, that the Prime Minister was sorry and that he would fix the situation and give the money back to workers.

As for infrastructure, the same applies. There are highways that need building, such as highways 138 and 389. I think that there needs to be consultations and planning for improved results.

Following the 17 unanimous recommendations from the committee studying EI, following the debate here in the House of Commons, should the government not take the resolutions and follow the recommendations put forward by the Bloc Quebecois? In order to solve this whole problem, there needs to be a fund that is truly independent, managed by those who contribute to it.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the excellent speech by my Canadian Alliance colleague. There is indeed a great deal of waste within the federal government, because of its decision to encroach on areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

As the administrator of all provinces and territories, the federal government should manage general areas such as national defence and the post office, but not those areas in which the provinces are calling for full jurisdiction.

Last week in Vancouver, all of the provincial premiers and territorial leaders, were present, and for once Quebec was there. They were unanimous in demanding that the federal government put more funds into the health system.

Here in the House of Commons, there are members on both sides of the floor, whether in power or in opposition, who represent areas in all of the provinces and territories. We are all in touch with the needs of our communities and we know that they are calling for health care. The last time there were reforms in the provinces, all of them were forced to reform their health care system, whether in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia. They all called for far more money for health care.

The provinces are in the best position to know what the needs are in their community as far as equipment, physician and nurse training and psychiatric and other care goes and to provide what is necessary to deliver good health care. This is why the provinces have carried out reforms and meet together regularly.

Yet we in this House, regardless of which side we are on, all have a connection to these premiers who are calling for federal government assistance. I think we have a duty today to do as the Canadian Alliance member has, and call upon the government, upon the cabinet, to pay more attention to the demands of the provincial premiers and territorial leaders.

April 30 is the deadline for the premiers' threat to withdraw from the social union, the one Premier Lucien Bouchard did not sign.

In closing, I would like to ask whether the hon. member is prepared to agree with me that those in the best position to know what is needed in the health field are the provincial premiers, because they are the ones who have administered health care within their provinces, and have done so with far less funding than before?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, after hearing the comments made by the Liberal member opposite, I think that it is imperative that Quebec achieve its independence as soon as possible. The reason that I believe that Quebec needs its complete sovereignty is that the federal government is interfering more and more in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec's jurisdiction in particular, in matters of education and health.

I believe that it is important to note that if there are any two areas where the federal government has no right to intervene, it is most certainly in health and education, which fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.

Is the member aware, and does he agree with me, that the Liberal budget's $42 billion deficit reduction has been to the detriment of transfer payments to the provinces for health and education, mainly to these two departments? Is he aware that it has also been paid for on the backs of the unemployed by cutting $8 billion a year from the employment insurance fund, which is no longer available to seasonal workers in Charlevoix, on the North Shore, and across Quebec? Is he aware that it has been paid for by cutting funds for regional airports and ports, as the government is giving up its infrastructure, and also by cutting the guaranteed income supplement for seniors?

Eliminating the deficit is incredibly easy when the Liberal government takes money in, but does not give any back to anyone.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, this is something we could debate anyway.

I ask the member to stop listening to herself speak. If she were to take the time to listen to what I am saying, she would understand that our problem is that the federal government decided to put money into the highway infrastructure program, to reach an agreement with the provinces. The problem arises when the Minister of Finance decides to create a foundation.

We do not want foundations; we want results. Once again, I hope the question is clear for her. When she answers, I hope that she will stop listening to herself speak and answer my question.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member who spoke before me emphasized the infrastructure program, mostly for large cities.

In Quebec, there are outlying regions, rural regions in which there are small municipalities with very little infrastructure and not much tax revenue.

We did not just arrive here; we have been here since 1993. We would have been happy to leave earlier if the referendum had been won, but unfortunately, as long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, members of the Bloc Quebecois will rise in this House to claim their due.

There has already been a Canada-Quebec infrastructure program, and it worked quite well. There was a department in Ottawa, headed, at the time by the President of the Treasury Board, now the Minister of Defence, and in Quebec, there was a ministry in charge of municipal infrastructure projects. It worked just fine.

Since 1994, we have been calling on the government to reach an agreement with the provinces regarding infrastructure programs funded equally by the three levels of government. Today, Quebec is forced to contribute two dollars for every one dollar given by Ottawa. It is a frenzy, because municipalities want to get in on it.

Montreal needs bridges. I cannot prevent the people of Montreal from demanding infrastructure projects, but folks living in the regions also need bridges. In my riding of Charlevoix, the bridge between Tadoussac and Baie-Sainte-Catherine is a project that those living on the North Shore and in the Charlevoix have been hoping for. The Government of Quebec has invested considerable amounts of money on a feasibility study.

Can the member reassure us that there is no danger that the federal government will spend pots of money to manage this foundation? There is always the danger of ending up with a department along the lines of Alfonso Gagliano's department, full of Liberal cronies and friends of the government.

I believe that members and ministers are elected to Ottawa to administer and manage; it is the same thing in Quebec City. Public servants are accountable to a minister. Personally, I do not like the idea of a foundation whose sole role is to manage. Is there not a danger, once again, of patronage plums and of spending lots of money on the administration of such a foundation? The minister will not be accountable before the House of Commons and members will not have any ability to advocate for municipalities in their regions. We will have to kowtow to a foundation and beg for our money.

We are now in the year 2002. It is important that both governments fulfill their responsibilities, particularly the federal government. There is no need for a foundation, it is a monumental waste of money.