Pierre Paquette

[Ethics Counsellor, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion of the hon. member for Calgary Centre, which reads as follows:

That an Order of the House do issue for the production of copies of all reports of the Ethics Counsellor concerning the former Solicitor General.

In order to fully appreciate the motion before us, I think it is important to give a little background.

We will recall that the former Solicitor General had to resign on October 23, 2002, after a report by the government's ethic counsellor, Mr. Wilson, concluded that the Solicitor General should not have intervened with the RCMP commissioner with respect to a grant for Holland College, on Prince Edward Island, a college that was run by his brother.

Mr. Wilson began his investigation on October 4, 2002, after allegations of patronage were made against the former Solicitor General in connection with a $100,000 contract awarded to a firm in which his official agent, Everett Roche, had a financial interest.

The Prime Minister explained that Mr. Wilson had cleared the former Solicitor General of any breach of ethics in the matter I just referred to. The Prime Minister added, and I quote, “In the case of a public institution owned by the provincial government, the ethics counsellor said that he should not have intervened”.

In his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, the former Solicitor General railed against Mr. Wilson's conclusions regarding lobbying he purportedly did for Holland College, and said that he believed that the ethics commissioner made an outright mistake in his advice on this whole issue.

Members will recall that Mr. Wilson had written to the Solicitor General in 1999 to tell him that he could not have anything to do with Holland College. The former Solicitor General maintains that his work on behalf of the project did not constitute “preferential treatment”, because the project had been recommended by the Atlantic innovation fund, a fund that did not come under his responsibilities.

The former Solicitor General therefore claimed his innocence by stating that he was resigning to defend his honour. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said that, in this age of political correctness, if he were to stay in cabinet, he would give the impression that he was fighting for my job, instead of his honour.

To the surprise of many, the Prime Minister accepted his former minister and faithful supporter's defence, saying that he had done nothing wrong.

The Prime Minister mentioned that all the minister did was defend the interests of the people of his small province.

The Prime Minister added that he had been an excellent minister and that he was proud that he had served in his cabinet.

Obviously, after the new Solicitor General was sworn in at Rideau Hall, the Prime Minister once again explained that the former Solicitor General had left the cabinet gracefully in order to allow the government to concentrate solely on government business.

The Prime Minister explained that he had accepted his resignation, even though the former Solicitor General had done nothing wrong. The Prime Minister added that if he had not resigned, he would have continued to defend him.

Clearly we are dealing here with a great number of indirect assessments, from the former Solicitor General, from the Ethics Counsellor and from the Prime Minister himself.

We know that the commissioner's report to the Prime Minister has remained confidential. The Prime Minister said that it contained privileged information that was no business of the public's. We do not agree with him on that.

According to the Prime Minister's summary, Mr. Wilson concluded that the former Solicitor General had respected the code of conduct in the case of a contract awarded to the accounting office of his official agent. I have already mentioned that. On the other hand, he may have contravened the rules of ethics by intervening with the RCMP and the Correctional Service in favour of a project led by the community college—Holland College— headed by his brother.

A number of questions remain unanswered. On what grounds did the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, absolve the former Solicitor General in the case of the contract with his official agent? Another question would be about the discoveries made by the ethics counsellor in the second case, which might mean that the counsellor's report should be passed on to the RCMP so that the rules of proper public management are followed.

It will be remembered that the ethics counsellor's only mandate was to examine whether the former Solicitor General's actions were in accordance with the code of ethics.

We support Motion P-15 in principle, because it seems to us that more transparency is needed in order to bring this entire situation out into the open.

We must remember that in the last 10 years there have been many scandals that have not yet seen the light of day. It has been a recurring theme of the Liberal reign ever since they came back into government. To mention only the most important ones, there was the Auberge Grand-Mère, the HRDC scandal, and the sponsorship program.

We know that, in the end, after many years of promises, the Liberals have finally tabled a certain number of documents in this House. The measures taken for the future will not cleanse the past and it is clear that, over the past 10 years, the government's ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, has acted more as a political adviser to the government than as a guarantor of ethics in government.

At the time of the events I referred to at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois was demanding not only the publication of the ethics counsellor's report, but also a more thorough investigation. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois—you will remember him—said that he found it very odd that someone would resign if he had nothing to be ashamed of. His remark is still relevant.

Improving the system requires some good will but sometimes this good will needs a hand, especially when we see that some ministers continued to support the former Solicitor General after the ethics commissioner produced a damning report.

I can, for example, mention the case of the new Solicitor General, who condemned the witch hunt by opposition members that forced his predecessor out. The Minister of Canadian Heritage—currently a Liberal leadership candidate—described her colleague as probably one of the most honest people in Parliament, adding that he was only doing his job, that all the parties on the island support him, that he did not seek profit for himself or his family, that his brother works in a public institution, not in private enterprise.

Even after the former Solicitor General stepped down, the Prime Minister said that he had done absolutely nothing wrong and that he had defended the interests of people on Prince Edward Island. So, there he is, among the Liberal members, and they had to agree to this rather surprising resignation if, in fact, the former Solicitor General is beyond all reproach.

In this regard, it is in everyone's interests for the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson, to table his reports in their entirety, so that the public can really see what the truth is.

It would be difficult to understand why the government would be scared of the truth if, in fact, the former Solicitor General is beyond all reproach. If, as the Prime Minister says, he was only doing his job, it seems that it is in the Liberals' interests for the ethics commissioner to table all the documents in this House.

I therefore invite all the members of this House, including the Liberals, to support the motion by the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. The parliamentary secretary is still boasting about good Liberal government. I must admit, I do not know what kind of a bubble he is living in.

When there is a $70 billion surplus that was not forecast, over the past give or six years, there is a problem. When the government is unable to tell us exactly what is up with public funds, when it systematically underestimates its surplus and then puts the $70 billion in question out of the realm of public debate, there is a problem.

When $45 billion has been diverted from the EI fund for purposes other than the one for which workers and employers pay into it, thereby penalizing the unemployed, it seems to me that we have a problem.

I would like to know whether the hon. member shares my point of view, which is that this government's way of managing public funds—in particular in the February 18 budget—is totally devoid of transparency.

Before letting him answer, I will moreover conclude by reading a brief passage from a letter from Yves Séguin, now the Quebec minister of finance, in which he said:

Accountability, as far as public funds are concerned, requires a government to bring down a budget, get votes passed, and levy taxes accordingly. To systematically announce in advance surpluses which the government has not clearly indicated will be forthcoming raises a serious problem of transparency and is, of course, contrary to the interest of the taxpayers, who are the ones who have to pay.

I would like to know if the hon. member shares the point of view of the new finance minister of Quebec?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Although we sometimes disagree, I think that our assessment of this budget is much the same.

I have two questions for him. The first concerns the consultation process launched by the Minister of Finance regarding mechanisms for setting employment insurance premium rates. We know that $45 billion has been misappropriated for something other than employment insurance.

Does the hon. member have faith in this consultation process announced in the February 18 budget and implemented by the Minister of Finance? Does he think that the federal government should repay the $45 billion to the unemployed and contributors, in other words, to the workers and the employers? That was my first question.

My second question concerns the infrastructure expenditures announced in the budget. As the hon. member is aware, the Minister of Finance announced $1 billion, which seems like a lot, but over a 10-year period. This means barely $100 million per year for infrastructure that, in most cases, is in terrible shape.

Quebec, for example, would get $25 million per year. With 25 kilometres of roads, our needs are much greater than that. This would not be a lot for Saskatchewan either. I would like his comments on this ridiculous amount of one billion over 10 years announced by the Minister of Finance.

[Taxation, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance realize that, with his $10.4 billion surplus—the exact amount the Bloc Quebec had forecast—he can afford to help the provinces and Quebec?

Will he finally open discussions on the use that is being made of the taxpayers' money, by providing the Government of Quebec with the tax room necessary to invest in the areas of jurisdiction where the needs are, that is, health, education and social housing?

[Taxation, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance paid a visit to his counterpart in Quebec, Yves Séguin, who, as members know, is the author of the report on the fiscal imbalance.

The Minister of Finance claims to want to work constructively with the Government of Quebec but, at the same time, and that is odd, he denies the existence of the fiscal imbalance and refers to it as a dogma. A dogma shared by the three parties at the National Assembly and the 10 provinces of Canada ,looks much more like a certainty.

Does the Minister of Finance intend to respond favourably to the Premier of Quebec who emphasized, and he said so again just yesterday, that the fiscal imbalance remains our first priority?

[Salon du livre ancien et du livre d'histoire, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm that I have agreed to be the spokesperson for the very first Salon du livre ancien et du livre d'histoire, to be held on May 24 and 25 at Collège de l'Assomption, which has been designated a cultural heritage site. Given the interest in history, heritage and genealogy, this event is a guaranteed success.

Naturally, history will hold an important place at this antiquarian and history book fair, but so will literature, the arts and sociology. Book lovers and others will be delighted to see and touch the treasures put on display by the booksellers.

Visitors will also be treated to a display of rare and antiquarian books from the college's archival funds and an exhibit on genealogy. In addition, a designer bookbinder will be talking about his trade and his passion.

Throughout the fair, visitors will have the opportunity to learn more about Jean-Baptiste Meilleur, who was recently recognized as a person of national historic significance by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

We wish the first Salon du livre ancien et du livre d'histoire de l'Assomption every success.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for his comments. Of course, I do not agree what everything he said. However, I believe there is a lot of common ground.

I would like to ask him two very specific questions. I would like to know if he considers, as I do, that the February 18 budget is a budget that throws money around indiscriminately. We see that it contains 74 expenditure measures, 14 tax measures and that none of these gets our attention. I would like to know if the member agrees that, in this budget, a lot of money has been thrown around without really solving an essential and priority problem for Canadians and Quebeckers.

Second, I would like the member to tell me—he referred to employment insurance premiums--whether he considers that it is normal, or totally abnormal, that, this year again, at $2.10 per $100 of insurable earnings, the employment insurance fund will rake in a surplus of $2.8 billion, as the Minister of Human Resources Development confirmed yesterday. This will bring the debt accumulated by the federal government with people paying into employment insurance to almost $45 billion. Is it normal that the government has used EI premiums to pay down a part of the federal debt?

[Chief Actuary Act, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Calgary—Nose Hill for introducing Bill C-421, which provides for an independent Chief Actuary of Canada who would be a senior government official just like the current Auditor General. The Chief Actuary would be independent and report directly to Parliament.

The proposal made in Bill C-421 is perfectly in line with the expectations of Canadians and Quebeckers concerning the transparency of the federal government. The parliamentary secretary indicated earlier that Canadians as well as Quebeckers trust the Canada Pension Plan. This might be the case now, but it was also the case for the employment insurance account, a few years ago.

I remember that, up until the late 1980s, Canadians and Quebeckers took great pride in their unemployment insurance system, as it was called at the time, especially when compared to the circumstances of salaried workers in the United States. This UI system provided workers who lost their job with replacement income to help them through a difficult time.

Now, thanks to the actuary, we know that not only do Canadians and Quebeckers not have access to a reasonable employment insurance program, but as well the money in the fund is going for other uses. Without the actuarial study, we would not have all the information required and would be in a position where the minister could tell us whatever he felt appropriate.

To give one example, I have asked the finance minister on a number of occasions, or his parliamentary secretary, why the contribution rate to the EI fund is so high compared to its requirements, which means that it creates a surplus year after year. Twice the parliamentary secretary has told me that this year revenue would balance expenditures. He told me that twice.

Today, I asked the same thing of the Minister of Human Resources Development. She told me that no, again this year they were expecting a surplus of close to $3 billion.

There is a problem with transparency then, and people's trust in a whole series of federally administered programs is shaky. It could easily be lost altogether.

As for the proposal made by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill in her Bill C-421, I really cannot understand how the government, the governing party, could object to it. When one thinks that confidence is based on transparency, there is every interest in creating all the conditions necessary to ensure that the transparency is real and not just theoretical.

It seems to me totally obvious that creation of the office of the chief actuary of Canada would raise the confidence level, as well as the accountability level, not only of public servants but also of the government as a whole as far as these programs are concerned. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, the sponsor of this bill, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries supports her proposal. I can also assure her of the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Jean for his question, because I was unable to get to the last part of my speech.

As he mentioned, in this debate that is just beginning on the missile defence system, some will emphasize the economic spinoffs from the money spent on the system, especially for the aerospace industry, which is concentrated in the Montreal area, to a large extent.

We could be parochial and say that we should jump on board because the Montreal area will benefit a great deal. But if we do join the missile defence plan, the Americans will not guarantee any economic benefits unless we invest also. We will be asked to spend billions on this.

As the hon. member for Saint-Jean mentioned, these billions of dollars will have far fewer spinoffs and much less of a multiplying effect than if we spend them on social housing, our $5-a-day day care system in Quebec, public transit, implementation of the Kyoto protocol—since we have projects to harness renewable energies like the wind—and on education or health.

Thus, from a strictly economic perspective, it is better for Canadians and Quebeckers to invest in these types of economies, in these types of industries, services or products, than to invest in this plan.

I remind the House that even down the road, presuming that we say no to the Americans—I repeat that I hope we will do so—if we do not invest money in the missile defence plan, we will still get spinoffs. We must keep in mind that 40% of trade between Canada and the United States is within firms. This is called intrafirm trade.

For example, if an American firm that has a contract with the Pentagon concerning the missile defence plan has a subcontractor or owns a business in Canada, and if this business is more productive and better able to build part of the components required, this firm will not do without because the Canadian government and the people of Quebec and Canada have said no to the plan. Obviously, business interests will prevail.

I will conclude by saying that it would be very much to our advantage to say no to President Bush. We are not saying no to the American people, because I am convinced that many Americans are concerned and oppose this plan. But, at the same time, we have nothing to fear in terms of economic spinoffs. I think that we could choose our investments. In any case, if it is in the interests of American firms operating in Canada to use their subsidiaries in Canada and Quebec, I am convinced that they will do so.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I first want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Jean on his motion, which reads:

That this House urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan.

I want to thank him for this motion, because it is an opportunity to hold a debate that the government, unfortunately, did not allow us to have other than on an opposition day. This motion is not a votable one. If the government had been serious here, I know that there would have been unanimous consent to make this a votable motion.

That said, the way in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the House are treating this issue shows their lack of respect for Canadians and Quebeckers. People are extremely worried about this missile defence plan. They are perhaps much more worried than the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada realize.

I would not be surprised, over the next few weeks, particularly with regard to the federal Liberal leadership campaign, but also the next federal election, if the missile defence plan were to become a major issue.

I am therefore asking Liberals to be cautious. It is rather paradoxical for a political opponent to do this, but I am doing so in the interests of Canada and Quebec. By making too hasty a decision, the Liberal government, the Liberal party and future Liberal party candidates must not be made to pay the price during the entire election campaign.

As one of them said in Le Devoir : “A yes now makes a no more difficult later”. So, at best it is leaving itself some leeway, taking the time to think and seeing where things lead. At worst, it is adopting a difficult to defend position that it would probably abandon in the face of concerted opposition from Canadians and Quebeckers.

Of course, these are political considerations, but they are extremely important. The Prime Minister understood this very well. No one was fooled by the fact that he made his decision about the war on Iraq during Quebec's election. I do not think that this was the only consideration, but I think it had a strong influence.

It was quite clear that an election campaign with a federal government that supported the American offensive in Iraq would have turned out differently than what we saw in recent weeks, with demonstrations every weekend. I organized demonstrations; I took part in demonstrations; I myself was astonished, and I think that other organizers were also astonished by the response from Quebeckers, by their call for peace, weekend after weekend.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Jean for giving us this opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue. However I am disappointed that the government did not consider the issue serious enough to organize a real debate and allow a vote.

I hope that this Bloc Quebecois opposition day will allow the Liberals, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to reflect on the impact of support for the American proposal.

First, I think it has been mentioned—and I am no expert on these issues—but clearly observers and experts in this area have called into question the proposed technology, even the latest technology, in Mr. Bush's plan. So, we would be getting involved in something that might never come to pass because the technology will not work, even as modified by the American administration.

Then, and this was also mentioned, there are the astronomical costs: $60 billion to $120 billion. This money could easily be used for other purposes. The member for Laval Centre just mentioned some of these purposes. I am always surprised to see how our governments, that of Canada, but especially the Government of the United States, are able to come up with staggering amounts of money for war and military spending, yet they are unable to find money for international aid. That is particularly true of Canada. Unfortunately, it is also true of the United States, which is the most powerful country in the world.

How is it—I cannot wrap my mind around this one—that a government can consider a project that will cost between $60 billion and $120 billion to create a missile defence system, the effectiveness of which is far from having been proven, when it cannot find a few billion dollars for international aid at a time when the gap between northern and southern societies is growing, or even the gap within our own societies?

We have seen from the census and the figures released yesterday that the gap is increasing between the top 10% of our society and the bottom 10%.

I cannot accept priority being given to a plan that will take away billions of dollars, not only from the U.S. Treasury, but also from the Canadian consolidated revenue fund, when the priorities lie elsewhere, for example the fight against poverty, application of the Kyoto protocol, the search for solutions to the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. There are other priorities far closer to Canadians than this missile defence plan.

As I have said, its usefulness will be dubious. I am sure, as all opposition members have pointed out, that the existence of such a defence system would never have stopped the September 11 attacks nor will it ever stop terrorists who use more conventional weapons. If Al Queda had had the means that some even secondary powers possess, it would not have needed to highjack planes to do what it did. It would have had weapons to attack American interests in another way. We do not know what means they will make use of in future to put across their point of view via methods all of us here oppose.

Not only is it an unwieldy and extremely costly technology, but it is also not up to the challenges identified even by the Americans in their fight against terrorism.

Looking at the existing countries, even those labelled rogue states, what can the Americans be so frightened of? The cold war is over, the great European economic powers are certainly not a threat. The former U.S.S.R., that is Russia, is facing terrible problems. China too is having a lot of problems. We have seen that with the SARS epidemic, which has shown the world the real problems their system is experiencing. It is certainly not North Korea, despite its showy foreign policy, which frightens no one. In this matter, it is playing along with the U.S. authorities. So let no one try to convince us that North Korea, Syria or the Iraq of yesterday are powers that represent a real threat to the Americans.

We must not let ourselves be taken in. As has been said, this is a strategy of the U.S. government, of President Bush, to impose U.S. authority on the world, to pass itself off as the world's policeman. This we cannot accept. The Canadian government has never accepted that in the past, and Quebeckers will not accept it either.

We must not have any illusions. It is clear from the pre-emptive attack on Iraq. It is clear from the decision of the U.S. government and the coalition to rebuild Iraq, with the UN almost outside the process instead of occupying a central role. In supporting this plan, we are helping to marginalize the United Nations, and all multilateral activity in the world, particularly in the west.

Furthermore, it is part of an industrial strategy. I find that the Canadian government is being incredibly naive. It is clear that all of national defence and all the spending on the missile defence plan will not be covered by the WTO or the FTAA.

We already know that there are American farmers whose fields are irrigated by the U.S. army. That is not a subsidy because it is not covered by international treaties on international trade.

The $60 to $120 billion that will be spent will be spent outside multilateral trade treaties. And who will pay for all that? In large part, it will be the Canadian economy.

This is nothing new. The Americans have always wanted to use the conquest of space and the military-industrial complex to develop their civilian industries.

I will conclude by saying that this might isolate Canada from the main partners with whom we agree on a multilateral approach to international trade. Therefore, I call upon the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the government to demonstrate good old common sense and refuse to go along with this plan, as the hon. member for Saint-Jean—whom I congratulate once more—asks in his motion.