Meili Faille

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question on the mental health issue. I want to emphasize here before the House that we are not investing enough in a number of areas, including the program to reduce homelessness.

The population of my riding is increasing quite quickly and the needs are ever greater, but unfortunately, the budget does not live up to what the people of my region expect.

There are two different realities in my region: rural life and urban life. Each has its own problems. One of them is the lack of housing. There is very little investment in social housing and, in addition, people with mental health problems do not get the services they need.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government intends to use the entire budget surplus to pay down the debt, and I find that unacceptable. The Conservatives must reverse that decision before the end of this fiscal year. They do not seem even close to doing so. As a result, they will have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. They will have only themselves to blame if an election ensues. If that happens, you can rest assured that they will find us in their path.

Regarding citizenship and immigration, if I may, I would like to come back to a topic that I have discussed at length here in the House since I was elected, namely, the issue of the refugee appeal division. I cannot believe that a government that has the means at this time is refusing to allocate the $10 million needed to get the refugee appeal division up and running.

I would also like to point out this government's indifference when it comes to the appointment process for the Immigration and Refugee Board. At present, delays and a shortage of commissioners are causing considerable harm to the public.

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Laval for sharing her time with me and for her analysis of the status of women. I am sure that she could tell us much more, and that it would all be just as interesting as what she has already said. Unfortunately, the government will not have the pleasure of hearing more just now, but I am sure that she will return to the subject in the future.

I am also pleased to see that my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who has taken over as citizenship and immigration critic, is here in the House today. Although I appreciate the current government's investment in accelerating citizenship and immigration case processing, I find that it has done very little about refugees. Also, the government could have done a lot more about the fees that must be paid by permanent residents coming to Canada.

Without further ado, I would like to talk about the minority Conservative government's third federal budget. I wish I could say that the government has listened to the people, but that is certainly not the case. The day after the budget was presented, Quebeckers, on the whole, reacted negatively.

I want to remind this government that we told them about the threat of an economic slowdown and about the need to change course accordingly. Unfortunately, I have no cure for the government's plugged ears; they remain deaf to the demands of the Quebec people.

I will not support this budget, and the reasons are very simple. The Bloc Québécois consulted several communities throughout Quebec. From these consultations, we determined some guidelines, or six priorities that the government should focus on.

The government should address the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries, for which there was a request for $5.5 billion.

We also wanted the government to restore dignity to seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement and still live under the poverty line and the low-income cutoff. We were calling for $3.9 billion in retroactivity. When the government was in the opposition, it promised to reimburse seniors.

We wanted $3.5 billion to increase education transfers.

The government should invest $1 billion for status of women and social housing.

Furthermore, $398 million is needed to promote culture.

Lastly, we wanted $1 billion to make a 180-degree turn on the environment.

In the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, more than 400 people told us their expectations for the budget and the use of the surplus. We carefully analysed all the proposals sent to my constituency office. There were expectations concerning measures for seniors, the environment, taxation, health, families, education, housing, and so on. We analysed all the recommendations and expectations shared by the public. I can also say that people had some rather high expectations concerning the use of the surplus.

This was a fantastic example of public participation, and I would like to thank these people for their help. The results have been made public.

I should add that there was a huge amount of support for seniors who are not receiving fully retroactive guaranteed income supplement payments and are living below the poverty line. The Conservative government will have to answer for its actions and its political choices. Here again, the response greatly exceeded our expectations, and I would like to thank the local stakeholders and community organizations for their contribution. We are getting results when politics serves the people and not the reverse.

The Conservative government brought down a very slim budget and did not listen to repeated calls to use a portion of the surplus before March 31, 2008. Quebeckers want a change in direction and major gains for Quebec. Today they are disappointed, and this budget does not come anywhere near reflecting their interests and values.

In the past two years, this Conservative government has spouted its ideology and slashed social programs without any real debate here in the House or in society at large. It is shameful. The government has not even made a commitment to develop foreign policy or defence policy to justify the militarization of Canada. It makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, in their budget, the Conservatives decided to put all their extra cash towards the debt. They increased military spending, maintained help to western oil companies and promoted nuclear development while entire sectors of Quebec's economy, hit by crises in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, are suffering because of Ottawa's laissez-faire attitude.

Workers have also been abandoned and many organizations were counting on this budget for a little help. It is true the Conservatives established a reserve for the employment insurance fund but they are endorsing pillage of the fund by refusing to return the $54 billion already drawn. This money belongs to workers and employers. The government must return it. Unemployed workers would also like to see the EI system improved.

The Conservatives turned a deaf ear to farmers and cattle producers, who were expecting much more aid in view of the urgent issues and the income crisis they face. There is nothing new in the budget for these vital economic sectors in Quebec. If that were not enough, the government went so far as to give $250 million to Ontario's automobile industry when Quebec's problems are just as urgent. In fact, the Conservatives refused to meet the needs expressed by industry and all sectors, including the Government of Quebec.

The Conservatives were in a position to meet Quebec's needs given that there is a surplus of $13 billion for the 2007-08 fiscal period, according to government figures, and room to manoeuvre with the $8.2 billion surplus for 2008-09, according to Bloc Québécois calculations, which have proven to be on the mark, year after year.

The Harper government intends to use the entire budget surplus to pay down the debt—

[Public Works, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Minister Michael Fortier said yesterday, upon leaving committee, that pressure did come from the Prime Minister's Office, but it came from him, the minister. Even if he is just bragging, Michael Fortier is admitting that there was political interference.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the many interventions between his office and that of Mr. Fortier meet all the definitions of the term “political interference”?

[Public Works, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there was political interference and scheming in the Prime Minister's Office and the fact that it failed does not mean that there was no interference. There were apparently several meetings and communications between Soudas, the unelected Minister Fortier and his office.

Is this not a prime example of superficial ethics, duplicity and hypocrisy on the part of this government?

[Kosovo, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the province of Kosovo gears up to declare its independence, several European countries and the United States are supportive of this nation's efforts to take charge of its own destiny.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell this House what the Canadian government's position will be on recognizing the independence of Kosovo?

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking to this bill in the House.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-29. The Bloc is in favour of a bill that would prevent people from bypassing campaign financing rules. Our position has not changed, unlike what the government is trying to do by introducing its three motions that are on the order paper.

Last session, this bill was called Bill C-54. I say that for the benefit of those listening and watching at home. The government simply introduced a new version containing the amendments made in committee, amendments that were adopted, by the way.

This bill is necessary to close some loopholes in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, which the government wanted to rush through. We believe that it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent financing limits from being circumvented. Contributions to political parties from individuals are limited to $1,100, and contributions from unions or businesses are no longer allowed. These contributions are close to zero. So, an individual can contribute up to $1,100 to a political party, and businesses and unions are not allowed to finance a political party. Examples were given in the May 9, 2007 Ottawa Citizen. This is one of the sources that reported on this problem. It provided examples of expenses and looked at whether or not they were permitted under the Federal Accountability Act.

The Liberal Party of Canada allowed candidates, including Bob Rae and the current Leader of the Opposition to take out loans of around $705,000 and $655,000, respectively. We also saw that creditors made loans of $25,000, $50,000, $100,000 or $150,000.

It was clear that the candidates for leadership of the Liberal Party had found a way to fund their campaigns without relying on grassroots funding. We want this ceiling. These contribution limits are the result of a battle the Bloc Québécois has fought since it has been here. These limits were set several years ago, and we will do everything in our power in this House to make sure no one circumvents the law. We will not support regulations that would amount to backsliding. We want grassroots funding and limits on individual contributions, as we have had in Quebec for 30 years.

The content of the bill is fairly simple. The bill would establish a uniform, transparent disclosure system for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms. People would therefore have the right to know the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors. The bill provides that only financial institutions, at a commercial interest rate, or political entities would be authorized to make loans of more than $1,100.

The rules that apply to unpaid loans would be tightened so that candidates could not shirk their obligations.

Riding associations—or the party itself, when there are no associations—would become liable for loans candidates did not repay.

We are currently examining a request by the government concerning how candidates' unpaid loans would be treated.

In its current form, the bill provides that loans that were not repaid after 18 months would be considered political contributions.

This brings me to the three motions on the order paper, and I will explain the position of the Bloc Québécois on each one. The three motions are amendments to the bill. We have problems with two of them. The third does not present a problem because it makes clarifications that are in line with the amendment tabled in committee.

The problem with the first motion is that the government wants to limit contributions to a given candidate to $1,000 for the entire leadership race. We would prefer that each $1,000 donation from an individual be made according to existing rules governing political contributions, that is, on the basis of a fiscal year. That way, if a leadership race were to take place over two fiscal years, a total of $2,000 could be donated. We are therefore against the government's amendment.

We think that the amendment proposed in committee is logical because the contribution limits in the Elections Act are annual. This would provide for a contribution system identical to that for individuals. We do not want two different kinds of funding for two different kinds of elections, whether for a leadership race or a general election.

The second amendment, the one we agree with based on our analysis, is the one about deadlines. Earlier, I said that the bill proposed an 18-month deadline for paying back a loan. Here, the government is proposing much more precise wording, and we have no problem with that. For a nomination contestant, the three-year period would apply as of the selection date; for a leadership candidate, it would be three years after the end of the race; and for a political party, it would be three years after the end of the fiscal year. What the government is asking for here is quite reasonable.

We do have a problem with the motion that proposes rejecting all of the Bloc Québécois amendments. This is very straightforward. The government wants to make political parties responsible for debts contracted by their candidates. We oppose that proposal. We think it is illogical to try to force a political party to take on its candidates' debts when the political party has no way to limit a candidate's expenditures. The example given was a simple one. A political party cannot currently do anything to prevent a candidate from taking out a $60,000 loan. In a case like that, the government's motion would be unreasonable.

The government motion allows an individual to borrow an unlimited amount in the name of a separate entity. To illustrate this, it is as though I were to borrow a large sum of money and when it came time to pay it back and I was unable to do so, I said it was up to my neighbour to pay it back, even though he knew nothing about the loan. We think this is nonsense and we would like to keep the bill the way it is concerning that particular clause.

I see I have one minute left. In conclusion, here is our problem with the last motion. In committee, the government introduced the Bloc Québécois' amendment. It was in favour of doing things the way we had proposed. Now, though, after reviewing the bill in committee, it has changed its position. That is another reason why we will oppose this amendment, although we are in favour of the bill.

The Conservative Party has had many problems these last few days. This whole issue of transparency and ethics has to go beyond mere slogans.

[Government contracts, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said, “We need a new government to ensure that these important public appointments are merit based.” We have learned that the Prime Minister's Office, together with the staff of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities flouted the law that requires the manager of the Port of Montreal to be appointed independently by the board of directors and, furthermore, that his office conspired to appoint the protege of the Mayor of Montreal, the former boss of Soudas and Housakos.

Is that what the government was promising: interference and patronage?

[Public Works and Government Services, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the legal conflict pitting his department against the Irving family, the unelected Minister of Public Works refused to listen to the grievance of a member of Parliament who wanted to discuss a case that is before the courts. However, in the Rosdev case, a matter that is also before the courts, Public Works ran straight to the Prime Minister's Office. Two similar cases, two different ways of dealing with them. Does that not qualify as political interference?

[Public Works and Government Services, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Gilbert Lavoie, one of Brian Mulroney's former chiefs of staff, said that when people got a call summoning them to the Prime Minister's Office, they got a move on for one simple reason: the Prime Minister was interested in a specific file.

Having allowed his secretary, Dimitri Soudas, to meet with the unelected Minister of Public Works'—Michael Fortier's—chief of staff, in his offices in the Langevin block, can the Prime Minister deny that the request was, by definition, political interference?