Pierre Paquette

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, already back in 2000, the Bloc Quebecois had put its finger on the disturbing behaviour of the communications agencies run by friends of the Liberal Party of Canada and on the huge contracts that they were getting from the federal government. In fact, it is increasingly clear that, under the cover of Canadian unity, the Liberal Party used these agencies for electoral purposes in 1997 and in 2000.

Since then, the Bloc Quebecois has asked over 450 questions in the House on what was to become the sponsorship scandal. However, we did not get a single answer from this government.

What happened to the $100 million and who pocketed that money? Who is responsible for this disgusting scandal to paraphrase the Prime Minister?

The Liberal Party of Canada is now discredited. Cabinet ministers have lost the public's confidence. Today, the question is no longer whether the Liberal Party is corrupted. Everyone knows that. The only question that remains is: How badly is it corrupted?

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one should never hesitate to be patient and I am pleased to see that you agree and have given me the floor.

I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who has given a brilliant demonstration of the problems in the health systems in the provinces and Quebec, and the relationship between these problems and the federal government's withdrawal from funding.

I would like to return to the question the Minister of Health asked during his speech. We know that there has been a withdrawal, and everyone agrees on that, including the finance ministers and premiers of the provinces. The Romanow report also made reference to it and all parties in the National Assembly are agreed. At present, the federal government's share of transfers to the provinces for health care costs stands at 14 or 15%.

We have found one other measurement that I think the hon. members would be interested in. In a report prepared by the former president of the Quebec treasury board, Mr. Léonard, it can be seen that in 1994-95 for every dollar the federal government collected in revenue, in all kinds of taxes, it invested 4.5¢ in the CHST. If we look at the breakdown in the CHST, 60% for health and 40% for other social programs, it means 2.8¢ for each dollar in revenue the federal government collected. That was at the time the Liberals took power, with the current Prime Minister as Minister of Finance.

In 2002-03, the federal government's share in health and social programs was only 2.7¢, or 1.7¢ on health for every dollar of revenue. And they want to make us believe there has been no federal withdrawal.

Once again, for the benefit of the our audience, I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to explain the Liberal government's mathematical sleight of hand.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the member for his speech. As he pointed out, it is not easy to pick up where one left off after an interruption. However, it is sometimes a matter of time.

I would like to ask him if he generally feels that the current Prime Minister, who says that he wants to establish a new, more harmonious relationship with the first nations, effectively gives the signal of a new relation by introducing Bill C-23.

We know that he met with first nations chiefs during a Canada-wide forum just a few weeks ago. At this forum, everyone seemed to show some goodwill. I was very surprised that, in the Attikamek community of Manouane—which will be in my riding after the election, which should come soon—two projects that the community really wanted and in which it had invested a lot—one on telehealth and the other on high speed Internet—were rejected, either by the Department of Industry or by the Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, in the days following the meeting between the Prime Minister and the first nations chiefs.

I would like to know whether the member feels that, with Bill C-23, we are heading towards a renewed relationship with the first nations and a true acknowledgement of their self-government; or are we simply taking the same approach Jean Chrétien did with Bill C-7?

[Taxation, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the government refuses to follow the path set out for it by the National Assembly unanimously, it will be contributing to prolonging the problem. The tools, the means, and the solutions exist.

Is the government aware that, if it refuses to act now, it will again be the patients, the people in need of health care, who will have to pay for this indecision?

[Taxation, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said he wanted to differentiate himself from Jean Chrétien and to do things differently. This offers him an excellent opportunity to do just that. Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion calling for the federal government to transfer the GST in order to correct the fiscal imbalance.

Does the Prime Minister intend to take advantage of this opportunity offered to him unanimously by the Quebec MNAs and does he plan to make his contribution to eliminating fiscal imbalance by transferring the GST to the Government of Quebec?

[Taxation, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The federal government already has predicted a $5 billion surplus for this year, while the provinces predict a $5 billion deficit for the year. That is strange.

Is that so hard for the Prime Minister to understand? People want their tax dollars to go to the right place, that is, to the services they consider a priority—that is all. Can the Prime Minister understand that?

[Taxation, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Prime Minister to read the Séguin report. He will then understand why Quebec has problems.

The nonsensical thing about this debate on taxation is that in his letter in response to the National Assembly's unanimous resolution on the fiscal imbalance, the Prime Minister proposed that Quebec raise its taxes to cover its expenses.

How can the Prime Minister act so irresponsibly toward the taxpayers when his own government already collects too much tax, which would explain the surpluses that recur, year after year, in Ottawa?

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we really have in front of us a member and a government struck by amnesia. We are told that this government has been in place for five months, but actually it has been there for ten years. Amnesia seems to be the rule because in the ad scam some ministers and the Prime Minister himself have also been struck by amnesia. They are also suffering from amnesia when it comes to their promises.

We must remember that during the last election the president of the Privy Council travelled to Chicoutimi where he promised construction workers that changes would be made to employment insurance. They never were. Workers confirmed this last week; they remember and they will keep an eye on the Liberals during the election campaign.

The Prime Minister himself travelled to Charlevoix a few months ago and promised changes to employment insurance, especially about the gap. Nothing happened.

I will ask a simple question of the hon. member. Why did he oppose unanimous consent in the House to have this motion made votable tonight?

In conclusion, I will read the opposition motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should propose, before the dissolution of the House, an employment insurance reform along the lines of the 17 recommendations contained in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled “Beyond Bill C-2: A review of other proposals to reform employment insurance”.

Why did the member oppose the motion's being made votable?

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his very fine speech. I think it is clear proof that common sense is on the side of the suggestions this week of the standing committee on human resources development and unions in Quebec. I congratulate the hon. member also on his fine work in this area when he was the Bloc Quebecois critic on human resources.

My question to him deals with something that is beyond me. The Prime Minister and the Liberal members are aware of the problem. They know about this gap in regions with seasonal industries, and they know about the difficulty for young workers, women who re-enter the labour market and older workers to access EI benefits. They are certainly aware of that, because they promised repeatedly to bring in reforms. That means they know about the catastrophic situation many of our fellow citizens are in.

How can the government be so cynical about the needs of the unemployed? How can it be so indifferent when it does not put even a cent in the EI fund? That is really beyond me. Perhaps my hon. colleague can explain that to me.

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my friend, the hon. member for...