Pierre Paquette

[Taxation, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Bloc Quebecois released the third report of the committee chaired by Jacques Léonard, this time on the evolution of federal transfers to the provinces and to individuals. There are two main findings.

When the current Prime Minister was the finance minister, transfers for health, education, and social assistance decreased in Quebec, while they continued to increase in other Canadian provinces. The same is true for individuals with respect to employment insurance.

Moreover, during that same time, the Prime Minister of Canada mismanaged the national debt by quickly paying down the federal debt—the least costly portion—thereby causing an increase in debt for the governments of Quebec and the provinces.

From this study and the two previous ones, it is quite clear that the current Prime Minister has contributed to financially choking Quebec and that year after year, under the federal system, Quebeckers are increasingly losing the ability to determine their own future.

[Taxation, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, here is yet another example of the fact that, each time he finds himself backed into a corner, the Prime Minister refuses to speak.

Will he admit that, when it comes to granting benefits to one of his companies, he does not hesitate to intervene directly and even make legislation retroactive for his own purposes?

[Taxation, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister maintains that he excused himself from cabinet each time decisions about shipping were being discussed.

If that is the case, how does the Prime Minister explain that, when Bill C-28—which deals with shipping companies, among others—was introduced, he was the one who sponsored it in the House?

[Taxation, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how can we believe the Prime Minister when he says that his kind of politics will be different, when we realize he custom tailored legislation to benefit his family business, that his company received $160 million in hidden contracts, and that he also custom tailored contracts in favour of Earnscliffe, a company owned by his buddies?

[Taxation, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we knew the Prime Minister was in conflict of interest in passing Bill C-28, which, despite what the Minister of Finance has said, was tailor made for international shipping companies like the PM's. We now know that his family business was in contravention of the Income Tax Act. As a result, the Quebec and Canadian tax systems did not get $100 million in taxes.

Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of other companies have followed his example, and as a result $23.9 billion left Canada for Barbados in the year 2002 alone, thereby escaping taxes in Canada and Quebec.

[The Budget, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Finance has been forced to sell $880 million worth of assets to balance his budget. Oddly enough, the federal government has a $5 billion surplus, while the provinces' deficits also happen to total $5 billion. The federal government confirms this in its own documents.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, unwittingly, he is offering an excellent illustration of fiscal imbalance: $5 billion over in Ottawa and $5 billion under in the provinces?

[The Budget, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec and the provinces are having trouble balancing their budgets and several are in a deficit position. There is even reference to being at the breaking point, so perilous is their financial situation. According to some reports, the provinces are reduced to providing essential services, nothing more.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he has not invested a single cent of new money, particularly as far as health services in Quebec are concerned, although he had the means of doing so, and if he continues this way, the provinces are at risk of budgetary disaster and a return to deficits?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is very relevant as the softwood lumber issue is one that was completely overlooked in the budget.

You will recall that a first aid package was announced by the then natural resources minister, and we were promised there would be a phase 2. Phase 2 was to comprise an assistance plan for workers, using the EI fund of course and other programs, and also assistance to companies to help them survive this crisis. Even if we win before international tribunals, be it the WTO or NAFTA, if our companies have gone bankrupt in the meantime, all we will be left with is winners without a job.

What we wanted to do was use the EI fund to help some of those workers find temporary work in other areas in their own region so they would not have to leave, which is often the case. Failing that, they should at least have received enhanced EI benefits taking into account the situation in their community. Help should have been provided through programs such as loan guarantees, for instance, so that companies could survive the crisis.

That is what was promised, but we got nothing. There is nothing in the budget. The softwood lumber dispute no longer registers on the Liberal Party's or the federal government's radar screen. The areas affected by the crisis will remember that at the polls.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is absolutely right. I will give a figure that illustrates the situation very well. If Quebec had received its fair share of R and D expenditures over the years, we would be in a position to do secondary and tertiary resource processing. Quebec is known for its very rich natural resources. Here is that one figure: public expenditures in R and D in Ontario are 80% federally funded, while in Quebec the percentage is 39%.

This is a very revealing figure. If the public funding of R and D in Quebec were at Ontario's 80% level, we would be far more able to develop technologies and methods for processing our natural resources, particularly in the regions.

Such is the history of Canadian federalism. It is, moreover, also the reason why increasing numbers of Quebeckers have chosen the path of Quebec sovereignty. Through it we will be able to repatriate all of our means and all of our tax money so as to be able to have positive investments. Equalization payments are a lesser evil, but I would remind hon. members that equalization is included in the Canadian Constitution. I will read you the excerpt, and will close with that. It states that the provincial governments should have sufficient revenues

to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

That is what is written in the Canadian Constitution, but it is not what the federal government, the Liberal government, is doing.

The equalization formula therefore needs to be reviewed in light of what is stated in the Constitution. As long as Quebec remains within Canada—and we hope that is not for long—the federal government will have to respect its commitments. This is not the case with either Bill C-30 or the budget. I can assure you that the people of Quebec will make this government pay for its ineffectiveness, and then some.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that his party and ours are on the same wavelength with regard to the employment insurance fund.

We must be very clear, the federal government has not put a nickel into the employment insurance fund since 1990, almost 15 years now; employers and the workers' representatives should therefore be the ones managing this fund. We want it to be completely separate from the overall management of public funds by the government, since the former are the ones contributing to this fund.

We think that the government should negotiate an acceptable rate of coverage for workers. The employment insurance fund is not worthy of its name if only four out of ten people who pay premiums have access to benefits. This average must be improved to seven out of ten individuals, seven out of ten workers, who pay premiums and who, if they lose their job, can receive employment insurance benefits. That is a minimum. That was the way it worked before the Axworthy reform.

So, accessibility must be improved. We must also ensure that there is coverage during the period affecting seasonal workers. This means that the number of hours of employment needed to be eligible for benefits must be drastically reduced for most of the regions. This applies in particular to new entrants who must work 910 hours currently, when everyone else has to work just 400 hours. The number of benefit weeks must also be increased to 55 from 45. There should also be an older worker adjustment program, as in the past, a program that the current Prime Minister abolished when he was finance minister.

So, that is how coverage should be determined. The premium rate should ensure such coverage and provide a reasonable reserve. However, for the time being, a reserve is not even necessary. The federal government owes $45 billion to the employment insurance fund, and the actuary said that a reserve fund of about $15 billion was needed.

Consequently, the federal government needs to start paying back this money one day. In addition to its repayments, it needs to establish not only a reserve fund but also improve the system. It is totally unacceptable that this $45 billion be used for any other purpose than EI, especially since employment insurance premiums are a regressive tax, meaning that those earning the least are the most penalized.