House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
Genetically Modified Foods April 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, a poll by Environnics published this weekend reveals that 75% of Canadians are concerned about the safety of genetically modified foods. This poll reveals as well that 95% of Canadians think genetically modified foods should be labelled.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food act on the on the almost unanimous demand by consumers by labelling genetically modified organisms, without delay?
Genetically Modified Organisms April 6th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, more and more countries are opting for the compulsory labelling of GMOs. In Canada, every poll conducted in the past five years shows that consumers want GMOs to be labeled, but the federal government is going in circles.
What is the Minister of Agriculture waiting for to take action in response to the unanimous request of consumers to immediately implement compulsory labelling of genetically modified organisms?
The Budget March 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
What we have shared, more specifically, is a round of consultations across Canada, from Vancouver to Halifax, where the Reform Party had asked whether there were inequities for individuals earning the same income, depending on whether this amount was divided between two people or was the income of only one person.
During these consultations on employment insurance and parental leave, a lot of representations were made, which probably inspired the Minister of Finance to introduce some tax relief or programs. These measures might be described as steps in the right direction, but they do not go far enough.
Looking at the limitations of employment insurance, given the number of people who, following the reform, qualify for benefits under the program mentioned by my hon. colleague in connection with parental leave, the vast majority are basically denied employment insurance benefits because they are unable to qualify. Even when they can, these are often poorly paid jobs that do not therefore guarantee a reasonable income on which they could afford to stay home on parental leave.
On the subject of employment insurance, in general, the member mentioned that I spoke of 10%, but it seems to me I said 10 cents.
We can count ourselves lucky if we have a job these days. Ideally, contributions should be as low as possible, while the majority of the people needing them can draw employment insurance benefits.
But, initially, let us set contributions aside. People who work already have the distinct advantage of having a job. I am convinced that, in a spirit of co-operation, people are prepared to contribute to enable those who have the misfortune of losing their job to collect benefits. So the plan must be improved in terms of its benefits.
In this regard, I believe that the Minister of Finance has not gone far enough. He has taken the surpluses and put them in other programs. In the past, the employment insurance plan managed the POWA program, which must come back. Increasingly, businesses are closing their doors, laying off older workers. There are surpluses in employment insurance. There must be a program for older people again.
The employment insurance money must be used for those who have worked. Those who have the pleasure of working are prepared to contribute so that those who lose their job may benefit.
The Budget March 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the budget.
After starving the provinces, Quebec, the population, and the poorest in society in particular, with its latest budget, the federal government is setting the table for a five course election-minded meal.
Unfortunately, not everyone will be invited at its table. Once again, the less fortunate, the homeless, low income earners and those in a precarious situation are not invited.
Moreover, the federal government's menu does not necessarily suit all diets, especially not all constitutions. Also, so much time will elapse between each course that a number of things might go wrong. Naturally, the turn taken by our economy may not be as positive as the finance minister seems to expect it to be.
Speaking of food and calories, according to CGA-Canada, the Minister of Finance has served us a low calorie budget. This organization told us the following:
It is the opinion of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada) that the Minister of Finance dissipated his efforts in the federal budget unveiled today. The minister's fingerprints are all over this budget, which give a little bit to everyone but not enough in each case. It reflects the prudent, optimistic and clever tinkering the government has become a master at.
That is what the chair of the fiscal policy review committee of CGA-Canada said. He stated further:
The federal budget will modestly lower the tax burden on individuals, especially middle income taxpayers. This year, the tax break for a couple with a total income of $60,000 could amount to approximately $108.
To digress for a moment, the increase alone in the price of oil, gasoline or heating oil this year will go well beyond the basic tax relief families in Quebec and Canada may enjoy. This is not the case just for the first year, but perhaps for the five years provided in the federal government's budget.
The association also observed:
—although this budget sets Canada firmly on a tax reduction course, it could have delivered those cuts faster and deeper if the federal government had curtailed its spending.
This document also refers to the owners of small businesses, and states:
Some of Canada's small business people may like this budget. for example, their tax rate will drop by 7% for small businesses with business incomes between $200,000 and $300,000. But many small businesses do not earn that range of income and won't benefit.
These, in short, were the main remarks of the certified general accountants.
The Bloc Quebecois carried out prebudget consultations in all regions of Quebec. We fulfilled our responsibility as members and as a political party. Then, after the budget was presented, we consulted people as well to find out what they thought of it. When we asked people if they were satisfied with the Minister of Finance's budget, it was pretty clear.
I will quote the main observations made. First we were told “It was smoke and mirrors”. We asked “Were you satisfied with the budget?” They said “No, because there was nothing in it for health care, education and income security”.
They said “No, because the cuts to income tax do not take effect until next year, while the government has the manoeuvring room to cut taxes this year”.
They said “No, because the unemployed and the provinces got nothing”. They said “No, because it is clear that they are going for visibility and votes”. They said “No, because the priorities of Quebecers were ignored; no, because the government is determined not to take Quebec into account when it comes to child welfare and families, although child welfare clearly comes under Quebec's jurisdiction”.
What did the Bloc Quebecois want? Nothing very complicated. We could have easily put together a budget. We were asking for an increase in transfer payments for health, education and income assistance. Quebec is now out $1.7 billion annually. It was therefore important to reinvest in social programs and it is clear that that was what all Quebecers wanted to see.
As a result of this consultation, the Bloc Quebecois called on the federal government to put $3 billion into an infrastructures program, including $1.7 billion for social housing. These requests were ignored. The government is offering a meagre $268 million over five years for social housing.
We also called for an improved EI system, greater accessibility, a larger reduction in premiums, higher benefits, and an improvement in parental leave. What we got was a ridiculous ten cent decrease.
The Bloc Quebecois also called for tax cuts and indexing starting right away, not in 2001, the election year. Indexing is not synonymous with tax cuts.
In addition, when we asked people what they thought the federal government was doing wrong, it did not take them long to answer “It ignores Quebecers' priorities. It continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It creates a private, independent trust with which the provinces must negotiate in order to obtain their money. It wants to impose the social union on Quebec when it has refused to sign”. They were also critical of the Minister of Finance for cooking the books: the surpluses are always larger than forecast.
It was clear from the prebudget consultations that people wanted to see four main things in the federal budget. I will repeat them because this is very important. I referred to this briefly earlier, I come back to it and I will come back, if I have time, to the specific cases in the riding of Sherbrooke, to what people, including social and community groups, said when we consulted them.
We cannot say often enough that the social transfer must be significantly increased to enable the provinces to reinvest starting this year in health, education and social assistance. We will keep calling for a significant cut in taxes, for improvements to the employment insurance plan and for a big investment in infrastructures.
The Bloc Quebecois listened to the people, while the federal government decided to ignore people's needs. With the federal government, Quebec and the provinces do not have a whole lot to meet the needs of the people in health care, education and social assistance.
Instead of fully restoring the transfers to the provinces, which have needs to meet, Ottawa is satisfied with a meagre refinancing. The federal government is injecting $2.5 billion over four years, when it should be reinvesting $4.2 billion for this year alone in transfer payments to the provinces.
With the federal budget, the cuts already planned in the transfers to the provinces will be maintained, and half of the cuts will be on the back of Quebec.
Quebec's meagre share of the $2.5 billion set aside by Ottawa is not going to fix things. Furthermore, Quebec taxpayers will have to wait because, for all intents and purposes, they will not see any real tax cut this year.
Indexing for inflation, which costs the federal treasury $3 billion, means only that people will not pay more taxes this year. But the federal government's refusal to introduce indexing sooner, as the Bloc Quebecois requested, means that taxpayers have already paid close to $15 billion too much. Instead of providing tax relief now, the federal government has decided to wait until the 2001-2002 election year to cut taxes.
I will not be able to buy a lot with my tax cut or tax refund this year, certainly not two or three full tanks of gas for my car, but I might have just enough for a nice little toilet down which I will gently flush the Minister of Finance's budget, just so I will feel a bit better.
Gasoline Pricing March 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, every day we hear news that confirm the negative impact of the gasoline price increase on the economy.
The one-point rise in the inflation rate since January is evidence of that impact. However, Ottawa will collect, through the GST, an additional amount of close to $250 million, because of the increase in the price of gasoline.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the financial means at its disposal, should the government not give a break to taxpayers by immediately reducing the excise tax on oil products?
Gasoline Prices March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the June 1998 report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing in Canada, stated the following:
The committee finds [...] disturbing the recent tendency of the federal government to turn to outside authorities to obtain data and information on the oil industry. The committee wonders if that is acceptable.
Is the Minister of Industry not making the same mistake he made in the professional sports issue by ignoring the opinion of the Liberal caucus and asking the Conference Board to undertake a study that should be conducted by an objective parliamentary committee?
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 398
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Notwithstanding sections 1, 2 and 3, where the population of Quebec is consulted by a referendum, the winning option is the one that obtains a majority of the votes found to be valid, or fifty percent plus one vote.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 351
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. This Act shall come into force on October 1, 2008.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 326
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. This Act shall come into force on November 1, 2005.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 302
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Section 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 2 shall come into force on the day that is five years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”