Marc Lemay

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in only four minutes I will try to paint the picture.

I am pleased that the end of my speech comes today because in the meantime I had a chance to read in this morning's papers—these are not our words—a good article in Le Droit by a journalist reporting on cattle farmers begging for help two years after the mad cow crisis. In Quebec, in addition to the anniversary of the 1980 referendum, tomorrow marks the two-year anniversary of the beginning of the mad cow crisis. We had expected to find help for farmers in this budget. Allow me to quote the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles:

Federal programs are geared more toward western farmers and still do not meet the needs of Quebec cull and dairy farmers.

It is absolutely clear, in our opinion, that this budget provides nothing to help farmers in Quebec, beef, cull and dairy farmers in particular. These three sectors are in crisis.

Now I want to talk about the famous foundations. Amendments are proposed in the budget, and the Auditor General's mandate is to be extended to agencies that received at least $100 million in funding within the last five consecutive fiscal years. Each word is significant. If money was received one year and not the next, then more money was received in the third year, this amendment is not applicable.

The Bloc Québécois has been calling for changes to foundations for many years. I was not in the House two years ago when I heard my colleagues repeatedly call for the elimination of these foundations for which the government and the members do not have oversight. As a result, we are asking the House not to vote in favour of this budget, which would see funding continue to go to these foundations. Between March 1 and 31, the government allocated over $3 billion to these foundations. This is unacceptable. As elected representatives, we have no oversight or control over these foundations. I repeat, this is unacceptable.

I want to conclude with a final word about seniors. The amazing thing is that this budget will amend the Old Age Security Act so that our seniors receive an additional $18 per month. This is huge. This is staggering. This is a disgrace. We should vote against this budget just for that. Obviously, we are in favour of giving seniors a bit more money, but we have been asking for ages for this bill to be made retroactive and for our seniors to receive, retroactively, the guaranteed income supplement payments that were stolen from them. This is the only word we have to describe this situation. They were not told, and they are entitled to that money.

There will be 54 of us voting against this budget this evening. I will not be the only one saying this: I am asking the House not to vote in favour of this budget and to ensure that this government is defeated on this confidence vote. If so, this evening would mark the start of an election.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois expectations of this budget included some major financial impacts for Quebec. Among other things, we expected recognition of the fiscal imbalance by this government, but this has not happened. We expected improvements to employment insurance, and were told these would be in the budget. We also expected something to be done in the budget to improve the softwood lumber situation and the promised assistance to the farmers, including the floor price. Our main expectation was to see some respect for Quebec's jurisdiction over certain areas, such as child care and parental leave. As well, we expected a government announcement of 1% or the equivalent for social housing.

Unfortunately, those things are not to be found in the present budget. One day, the present government—or the next, if there is an election—will need to acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance.

All of the provinces, and in Quebec in particular, all parties, including the Liberals—and goodness knows they are federalists—and the Parti Québécois agree, and here in Ottawa, three out of four parties acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and Quebec in particular, and with the other provinces as well.

Piecemeal solution of these issues is not the way to solve the fiscal imbalance, which is the approach this government has been taking in recent weeks with its injections of millions and billions of dollars. This is not the solution. An agreement between the parties, between the provincial and the federal levels, would be required to remedy the imbalance.

For those who are listening, I should point out that there is nothing complicated about the fiscal imbalance. The expenditures are in the provinces, and the money is in Ottawa. What are the key expenditures at this time? In Quebec, mainly education and health services.

At the present time the federal government is trying in every way possible to buy its way into provincial jurisdictions, with a million dollars here, a million dollars there. This is particularly the case with health. That is not what solving the fiscal imbalance is all about. What they are creating now is no longer a fiscal imbalance but a social imbalance between the needs and the means the federal level has for meeting those needs.

We expected to see measures in this budget to counter that, or at least to find a solution, if only for certain amount of time. With the right measures, the fiscal imbalance could have been resolved in a year or three or five. This was not the case.

Despite unanimous recommendations by a committee of the House on employment insurance, we still do not have an independent fund or the measures that should be implemented so that workers in Canada and Quebec can finally receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

We are currently experiencing a crisis without precedent in the employment insurance fund. The government has been in power since 1993 and has cleared the deficit, but it did so on the backs of workers and the unemployed. It took $47 billion from the EI fund at the expense of workers and the unemployed. The government need not tell us there is not enough money, because there is. We expected to see an EI fund to help workers.

I think my time is running out. I imagine we will soon be called to vote. I will continue my speech later on.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague one simple question.

I listened very carefully, during the preamble to his speech, when he referred to the sponsorship scandal, the Gomery commission, everything that happened, the inquiry, the Prime Minister and so on.

What is his interpretation of the announcement the hon. Minister of Transport made a few minutes ago about the creation of a trust into which $750,000 of the alleged dirty money will be deposited, in order to—perhaps, eventually—repay the money, received inappropriately during the sponsorship scandal?

I want to know why this is being done now at the 11th hour, when we have been calling for this for more than six months now? How does he explain this?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague from Ahuntsic. I would say to her that I am very involved in social economy, and my question concerns it.

I was the chair of the social economy committee in my riding in the region of Rouyn-Noranda at the time of the Chantier Défi-Emploi. We had a social economy table to promote enterprises of this type and develop them. They are very important in regions such as ours and have made considerable advances in recent years.

However, we kept running into the problem of funds for starting up or supporting social economy enterprises. In the budget we will be opposing, there is no provision for helping establish or start up social economy enterprises, which need such funds. Reference is made to a capitalization fund. Such a fund would help provide capital for a business already up and running, needing just a little help to make it.

So, my question is as follows: why does the budget contain no provision for a start up fund for social economy enterprises?

[Chantal Petitclerc, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, athlete Chantal Petitclerc never ceases to amaze us and continues to earn the highest accolades in the world of sports.

After winning five gold medals and setting three world records at the Paralympic Games in Athens, after being chosen female athlete of the year in Quebec and in Canada, she has just won the prestigious Laureus world sports award for the top sportsperson with a disability from the Laureus foundation in Estoril, Portugal.

What makes the Laureus so prestigious is that the recipient is chosen by her peers. The selection committee is made up entirely of international level athletes.

This exceptional athlete is a true role model for our young people and society in general.

The Bloc Québécois commends the perseverance, tenacity and competitiveness of Chantal Petitclerc and applauds her success. Congratulations, Chantal.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. It is quite strange: I am arriving and he is leaving. However, in the past 20 years that I have been coming to the Hill to work on national and international sports issues, I have had the opportunity to cross paths with the hon. member and we have had a few quick exchanges.

Quite clearly, we do not share the same political opinion about the future of Canada or Quebec's place within this country. Much of this side of the House believes that Quebec must be a full-fledged nation and the hon. member opposite believes otherwise.

Since he is leaving, I want to ask him this question: without being psychic or using a crystal ball, how does he view Quebec's position in the coming years, since, increasingly, support for Quebec's total independence is approaching 50% plus 1? Can the hon. member tell us how he views this political option?

In closing, I want to pay tribute to him and, on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I want to thank him for being here in the House.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Ask the question.

[Quebec Mining Week, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is mining week in Quebec.

Quebec is recognized world wide as a centre of mining excellence.

The mining industry is an essential lever to the economic development of Quebec and a major employer, particularly in the region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

There are more than 130 mines in the Rouyn-Noranda—Val-d'Or corridor. For close to a century, this has been the main mining region of Quebec and there is still a great deal of prospecting for precious and other metals carried out in the region.

The year 2005 is full of promise, because the growth of the world economy ought to remain relatively solid.

The Bloc Québécois thanks all the men and women of Quebec who contribute their knowledge and talent to the economic development of mining, and wishes them a great mining week.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his position he has taken in the House on the motion introduced by the hon. member from the Conservative Party.

However, I want to understand one thing. It seems to me that, in life, we have to take small steps and I think that the Conservative Party's motion, which has been supported by the Bloc Québécois, was a small step in the right direction. It seems that the hon. member wants to leap too far and too fast.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but does he not believe that it would be better to start with one step in the right direction as suggested by the Conservatives and supported by the Bloc?

I am asking him this question because, in my riding, there are people who suffered terribly in an Indian residential school in Saint-Marc, near Amos. They have been waiting for years for even the slightest hint of a resolution. Many of these aboriginals, who are Algonquin Anishinabes, have died and yet the waiting and the delays continue. So it seemed to me that the Conservative Party's motion, seconded by the Bloc Québécois, was very interesting and a step in the right direction. I want to ask the following question: does the member not believe we should take the first step in the right direction, even if it means following up later with the proposal by the hon. member?

[Petitions, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House a petition signed by constituents in my riding on Bill C-38, now under consideration. These people oppose changing the definition of marriage.