Yvon Lévesque

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I noted the comments by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. To my knowledge, this party's traditional allies are workers, through their unions. I find it odd for them to be bragging about all sorts of things, especially what is good for Canadians. I return to the remarks of the Liberal Party renegade, who said as recently as yesterday that what is good for Canadians is not good for Quebec and vice versa. This is what the member opposite has just said. She is in fact saying that it is good for Canadians.

I would point out that all their demands were at cross purposes with Quebec. For Quebec to agree to their demands, its areas of jurisdiction would have had to be taken into account in their implementation. When student bursaries and help for social housing are called for, it must not be forgotten that Quebec manages these programs. The funds were obtained at the national level and are managed by the government.

In this regard, I ask the hon. member, when does she think the NDP will get the money promised to help the public?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite speak of assistance for post-secondary education and social housing. If I have understood properly, if we are going to have an election campaign, this will be an important topic for the Liberal Party. What is the NDP's role in this? It will once again have served the interests of the Liberal Party.

Reference was made to the environment. Money going to the environment is intended to help the oil and gas companies and the auto industry in Ontario. Is the government providing any help at all to enable consumers to buy hybrid vehicles, apart from a little assistance to Quebec? This is what we have been requesting, and it would encourage the industry to produce them and make them available at a better price. No mention is made of it, however.

They talk of the deficit. I would, however, remind the party opposite that the unemployed paid off the deficit, as did the provinces in the budget transfers. In this regard, I would ask the member opposite to tell me when his party will implement the promises it made to the NDP.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the opening remarks of our colleague opposite, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, I can understand to some extent his mixed feelings when he said he “would like to” support this budget.

When we look at what was granted to the NDP in the supplementary budget, the revised budget, even if this was supposed to be a good budget, we see that there is $1.6 billion for social housing. If this budget was as good as it was said to be, why did it take pressure from the NDP and a vote in the House of Commons to get a supplementary budget providing funding assistance for social housing, when representations were made to the Minister of Finance before this budget was even tabled?

There is also $900 million for the environment. One billion was already earmarked for assistance to oil companies in western Canada. When $900 million is added, again the money goes in part to Ontario and to western Canada. Members of Parliament should drive hybrid cars. That would help our economy and minimize atmospheric emissions. Did the government ever consider helping consumers buy hybrid cars in Canada? It prefers to help the oil companies. I am not speaking for my own personal gain. I am talking about the credibility of the NDP, which claims that this is a good budget.

Can the Prime Minister give the NDP the assurance that the additional promises made and the proposed amendments will apply as of the first year of the budget?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, today a lot was said about the budget speech. We hear a lot about the big bad separatists from Quebec and the big bad Bloc members in Ottawa, as though we alone are carrying the weight of the country on our shoulders.

I will remind our colleagues opposite that since 1982, when the Constitution was patriated, unilaterally—I can say for sure—this government did everything it could to force Quebec to leave the federation. The Conservatives do not have to make much of an effort right now. When they vote the same way we do, we manage to defeat this government on bills that make no sense, and the budget is no different. It offers nothing to Quebec.

It is too bad the Conservatives did not vote against the budget at first reading. The Bloc Québécois would have because there was nothing in it for Quebec—not one cent. Today, to please the NDP and buy its vote, the government is granting minimal amounts, but we do not know any of the terms such as the period of time or the exact amount. It is all very uncertain.

I was listening to our NDP colleague from Halifax talking about the Bloc Québécois-Conservative Party alliance. At least we did not form an alliance with a party as the NDP did.

In that vein, this is my question: what does this party truly have to offer to Quebec, in terms of its jurisdictions?

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I realize that we would like to act on this immediately, but I heard certain things across the floor that I am really taking exception to.

When they talk about an alliance or a marriage, they should not forget that, whether it is based on the civil or religious definition, there is a contract involved. The only contract in effect in this House was signed by the two parties opposite. Here, we will never vote against a motion blaming the government. Indeed, the government has never done anything, except when it had its back to the wall. It has never come into this House with anything to offer to Quebeckers.

This is why I want to repeat a question that I already asked: Why does this government always wait until it has its back to the wall to try to reach agreements? That is my question.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have no objection to having to speak on security on the hill. Clearly, the matter has already been settled within the committee. The opposition parties are being accused of delaying debates. The voters are not fools. Presenting this motion at this point in time is a way of delaying the proceedings of the House. It is not the opposition parties that are interested in slowing them up.

It was not very long ago that I was elected. I ran with the intention of advancing matters and not playing circus as we have today or in earlier proceedings. Some members rise in the House to talk about their Quebec cousins and say they have tried to do them a favour. In fact, their approach has hurt Quebec ideology and runs contrary to it.

When one claims to want social housing for Quebeckers while ignoring Quebec's jurisdictions, one goes against Quebeckers' interests. Here we have a minority government and the member who just spoke told us that a minority government must get along with the other parties. Unfortunately, since the throne speech we have had to put this party up against the wall to finally make it talk and try to get along with opposition parties. Lately, it even had to buy the support of some parties.

Such things should not even exist. This government should have done the sensible thing by recognizing from the outset that a minority government must be open to discussion to make things move forward as quickly as possible, and to at least gain some credibility, which is not the case right now. In that sense, it is disappointing for voters who are looking at this circus. No wonder politicians' reputation is worse than that of car dealers. This is incredible.

In light of all the testimonies heard regarding its behaviour, perhaps the time has come for the party currently in office to refer the matter to the public and to ask it to pass judgment.

We hear about parties getting together, about alliances between parties on this side of the House. But now we have to talk about parties from the other side of the House that also form the opposition, as we do on this side. Incidentally, we do not always agree with the Conservatives. We are not even sure we will agree with them when they present their motion.

However, we are in agreement with ourselves. We will vote against the budget, because it does not provide anything for Quebec workers and businesses. In this respect, we cannot support the budget. Whether the Conservatives support it or not is of little importance. Still, it is up to them to present this motion, considering that they are the official opposition. Once they do, we will decide whether we will support their motion, or whether we will support Quebeckers.

I am now getting to my question for the last speaker. Why is it that a minority government feels the need to recognize the other parties only when it has its back to the wall? Is it not logical to them to discuss issues before proposing measures?

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of this House for the quality of their debates on this motion which I have the honour to sponsor.

I did, however, have an opportunity to hear a few inaccuracies, and I feel it is important to react to that so that my colleagues across the way and next to us here can be fully informed before they vote.

For example, an honourable colleague from the Conservative party suggested on February 11 that the price of gas, before taxes, had gone up 50%, while there had been a 67% hike in the taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth, as in fact the portion of the gas price that is tax has gone up from 32¢ to 37¢ a litre between February 1999 and February 2005, which is 15%. On the other hand, the price before taxes went from 14¢ in February 1999 to 45¢ in 2005, which is not far off 325%.

Can you imagine that a company like Petro-Canada, once purchased at a high price by Canadians in order to control the market price, took the liberty of increasing its profits between 1998 and 2004 by 3,857%? Profits were $1.89 billion in 2004 compared to $49 million in 1998.

If we consider that a 10¢ hike in gas prices slows down the economy by 0.5%, imagine how much harm that company, which at that time was still government-owned, did to the Canadian economy?

In addition to that, I would point out that the 5¢ increase in taxes is not due to an increased tax rate but to the increase in gas prices before taxes, since the tax rate is fixed but is calculated on a higher amount.

Still on the subject of taxes, I must also point out that, in February 1995, this government inaugurated a 1.5¢ per litre surtax to help defeat the deficit. That deficit was eliminated in 1998 but the surtax is still in place. What is this government, which has surpluses up to its eyeballs, waiting for before it abolishes that pointless and costly tax?

This same colleague from the Conservative Party also stated, and I quote, “the regulation of gasoline prices in Canada can be done at the provincial level” and that “provincial governments are free to regulate gasoline prices”. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth, because the component of gasoline prices under provincial jurisdiction is the retailers' profit margin. This provincial jurisdiction has an impact only after the petroleum has been refined and after market speculation on the Nymex. The causes of fluctuations on the Nymex, however, are a matter of federal jurisdiction. Currently, there is no federal agency or other body overseeing the causes of fluctuations in the prices of petroleum products.

The member for Ottawa South cited the 2003 report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, according to which the current “Competition Bureau [had] sufficient powers, personnel and resources devoted to overseeing competitive aspects of the petroleum industry”

The Competition Commissioner, Mr. von Finckenstein himself, before this same committee on May 5, 2003, pointed to gaps in the current Competition Act, including the lack of investigative authority if he were to do an industry study and the inability to summon witnesses and ensure their confidentiality. I think we must listen to the Competition Commissioner, because he is saying himself that he lacks the power to conduct real studies.

I think that it is also time to put an end to the various myths circulated by the oil companies. It is not the cold temperatures that cause refinery margins to rise, nor is it taxes, nor the situation in the Middle East. These increases have more to do with refining capacity not being adequate for the demand. Some claim that it was limited on purpose in order to raise prices.

That is why it is high time for an independent study, so the public can see the whole question. A monitoring agency would be designed for this purpose and permit better oversight of the industry, which generates profits on the backs of consumers.

In the name of all Canadians, I call on my parliamentary colleagues to support—

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I seldom attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, but, fortunately, I was there when this particular topic was discussed.

When one of our colleagues from the Conservative Party spoke, I found that this colleague was very conservative regarding the cost of administering this program. He talked about $1 for every $4. But the fact is that, at that meeting, it was demonstrated that every $1 paid in compensation costs $35.

Every day, I am surprised by the demagoguery of the governing party, which, against the will of Parliament, has always stubbornly defied Parliament and acted contrary to promises and agreements made with the other parties in this House. Take Mirabel and EI for example. On the whole, the amount of blustering before the House of Commons is increasing.

In this respect, I wonder—and my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent can confirm that this is what was said at committee—if it would not have been better, from the start, to put the money in the hands of an administration that is familiar with the problems experienced in the residential schools and those experienced even today by the Innu, who are sent thousands of miles away to pursue an education. The same is true for other aboriginal people, whether Cree, Naskapi or Algonquin. They are sent thousands of miles away from home. That is almost like living in an orphanage: they are at the mercy of strangers; they lose their customs and language; they are taught other religions than their own, and it is mandatory.

On this, I will ask my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent if, really, the best would not have been to establish an aboriginal committee to administer a program designed to compensate aboriginal people.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like the debate on the budget to start over. I have been listening to speeches since this afternoon and I could certainly talk for twenty minutes or so on it.

The Minister of National Defence, among others, has told us that the Liberals have achieved fiscal balance for the past seven years. I do not see things the same way. For me, balance is when two things are of equal weight on a scale. But what has been happening here has been a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or rather Jean to pay Ralph, who has been awash in money for a long time. There has been no attempt to redistribute the money to those who really need it.

I think that this government is totally out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, it must be admitted, the working class, that is those who need help, has been totally ignored by this government. The Liberals have forgotten all about the country they are living in.

Take, for example, the committee that has looked into employment insurance. It was made up of Liberal MPs and members of all the parties and came up with eight unanimous recommendations. My colleague has already mentioned it. There were twenty other recommendations as well by the majority. But this government has never addressed the issue, nor has it respected the decision of a parliamentary committee. This makes no sense. It defies committee recommendations yet claims to present a balanced budget.

Paying off the debt is secondary. A debt is, in my opinion, the inability to earn enough to pay off what is owed. This is not the case with Canada. There is such a huge surplus. The provinces and the unemployed have been strangled to such an extent that surpluses abound. The unemployed need money. The regions have lost in excess of $66 million. The budget is spread over five years. It is the first time I have ever seen such a thing—and I was not born yesterday.

Are the Liberals prepared to guarantee that they will not change this budget when next year comes? That is what I wonder.

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I am a little taken aback. I thought she was from some place much farther away from Quebec. Apparently, she does not live that far from Quebec. She might do well to pay a visit to Quebec.

I would like to tell her that we do not fight separatism. Separatism is a consequence of actions that lead people to find a better system than the one they have.

It is difficult to ask people not that interested in politics to understand this, but a person who is well informed enough to run for office does not seem to understand either.

Here is my question: Does she believe that, instead of fighting separatism, fighting anglophone hostility to an equitable sharing and the creating of a sound and honest public administration would be a more efficient way to build a united Canada?