Paul Devillers

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity today to comment on the government's budget and to highlight its main components which, I believe, will benefit all Canadians in the short and long term.

I would first like to commend the government-unlike my colleague from across the way-for respecting the voters' will,

which was clearly expressed as regards taxation. Canadians do not want any tax hike, because they believe that they are already paying their fair share of taxes.

The government has chosen to fit this tax freeze into an overall strategy which consists in guaranteeing our financial future while continuing to put our public finances in order. In this regard, the 1996 budget is consistent with the 1994-95 budget, and this will enable us to reduce the deficit to $24.3 billion in fiscal 1996-97 fiscal year, or 3 per cent of the GDP. This development shows that the Minister of Finance will undoubtedly meet his deficit reduction targets.

Given the delicate state of the Canadian economy at the present time, the federal government could have opted for harsher measures. In fact, some provincial governments, such as the Ontario government, have chosen this path which, I think, does nothing but exacerbate the economic problems we face. The Liberal government rejects any solution based on ideologies that are narrow and prejudicial to Canadians. Our attitude toward the economic changes that have to be made is one of pragmatism and fairness to all levels of our society.

I will give as an example the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which will benefit from secure, stable and increasing funding over five years, receiving $25.1 billion the first two years and an increase based on economic growth for the next three years.

I will say that, contrary to what some sovereignists are saying, there is no new reduction of transfers to the provinces. This criticism is unfounded because it refers to the reductions announced in the 1995 budget. On that subject, I would like to indicate that those reductions from the 1995 budget represent 3 per cent of provincial revenues, not the astronomical amounts mentioned by our critics.

The most disadvantaged in our society will not be forgotten in this budget and by this government. Budget cuts will not be made on the back of students. All Canadians can count on stable funding for health insurance.

Do these measures aimed at securing the future of social programs come from a government that could not care less about the well-being of the community? Do these measures bear the mark of this economic laissez- faire, both unbridled and lacking in social conscience? No. These measures show the will of the government to guarantee the social programs that Canadians presently enjoy while allowing for fiscal consolidation.

I was quite pleased by some of the measures announced by the finance minister. He announced two specific improvements that will benefit children. One measure will see the child care deduction extended to passive income such as unemployment insurance.

I had proposed this amendment to the finance minister which was spurred by the experience of a co-operative education student and constituent, Ms. Janet Lewis, who worked in my office. She was on unemployment insurance at that time and therefore could not claim the child care deduction even though she needed child care in order to get her high school diploma. This inequity has now been addressed in the government's budget.

I would also like to mention that the new budget will give $250 million more a year in supplementary assistance to some 700,000 low-income Canadian families, a third of which are single-parent families.

This is quite significant since the earned-income supplement under the child tax benefit will be doubled in the two next years, going from $500 to $750 in July of 1997, and to $1,000 in July of 1998. Let us not forget that our children hold the future of our country in their hands and that child poverty represent a threat. I think that that initiative will bring more social and economic equity in Canada.

I noticed with pleasure that the government dealt with the situation of youth on the job market by reallocating funds from other programs to the Student Summer Employment Program. That is a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, I hope that the government will take more initiatives to create more new jobs for all Canadians.

In this regard several initiatives come to mind. The government's infrastructure program is a fine example of job stimulation, obviously benefiting the workers who obtain direct jobs from the project but also the economy as a whole. The future continuation of this program would, I believe, be beneficial to Canada's economy.

A project to stimulate the construction industry would also go a long way on the job front. This project, apart from the creation of construction jobs and industry spin-offs, would also contribute to the social development of communities, allowing the government to kill two birds with one stone.

By bringing changes to old age pension benefits, the government is once more confirming its support of the principle of equity by better targeting benefits in order to give better support to low income Canadians and by reducing or eliminating benefits to high income seniors. Liberals have not forgotten the concept of a just society. They stand by it and have shown it in the budget.

Need I mention, as many hon. members already did, that the new seniors benefit will be tax free and fully indexed?

This budget is based on a sense of moderation. It will allow the government to reach its goal of fiscal consolidation. In fact, the government acknowledges the need to put its fiscal house in order but not at the expense of a just society.

Economy is only a means of making society work. It is not an end per se and should never be.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this historic debate on the Prime Minister's motion which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society by its language, its culture and its civil law tradition.

The motion we are now debating is one of three initiatives for change announced by the Prime Minister last week and which act on the commitments made during the referendum campaign in Quebec. In addition to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, the federal government will henceforth grant a regional veto on all constitutional changes and pull out of manpower training.

These initiatives result from promises that the Prime Minister made to his fellow Quebecers during the referendum campaign and, particularly, the great Montreal rally which brought together more than 150,000 people, including 500 from my riding of Simcoe-North and the neighbouring riding.

It is important to note that these initiatives are not the only measures the government has taken in response to Quebec's referendum, but they surely are an important step. Moreover, they are further proof that when the Prime Minister makes a promise to Canadians, he keeps his word.

During the referendum campaign, everybody was talking about the need for change, everybody said that, from then on, things should be done differently if our country were to remain united. However, I have the impression that the change the vast majority of politicians were referring to did not reflect what Quebecers want.

Indeed, when I was going from door to door during the referendum campaign, people were constantly telling me that they wanted jobs, economic stability, a better future for their children, a good social climate, and so on. I can assure the House that the numerous Quebecers I met gave little importance to constitutional changes and the squabbles that go with it.

In this regard, Quebecers are not very different from all other citizens of Canada. People from my riding of Simcoe-North express the same concerns. That is why I say that the commitment to change to which we should give a lot of importance is the one the Canadian people, including Quebecers, want. This is why I am proud to be part of a government which, for two years now, has been tackling with the real problems of the Canadian people, which are job creation and economic growth.

That being said, the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister are not without sound basis and legitimacy. The motion on distinct society is important because it recognizes an obvious historic fact and reassures Quebecers as to their place in our country. In fact, the concept of distinct society is not new, neither historically, nor constitutionally.

According to Professor Ramsay Cook, francophones in British North America and Canada developed early on a consciousness of their distinctiveness, both individually and collectively. The most obvious badge of that distinctiveness was language, while the civil code provided a legal foundation for difference.

The idea of distinctiveness is even recognized implicitly in the British North America Act of 1867. The mere fact of creating the province of Quebec was the beginning of acknowledging a distinct society within Canada. There are also explicit recognitions of this fact in the Constitution. For example, section 94 recognizes the civil law of Quebec as distinct. Section 133 made Quebec, alone among the original provinces, bilingual, and by doing so made French for the first time an official language of Canada.

The motion put forth by the Prime Minister is yet another explicit means to acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness. Even though the distinct society resolution we are debating is not a constitutional resolution, it is important that it is a solemn commitment that sets out how the federal government, the only government in Canada that speaks for all Canadians, will conduct its affairs. In effect, it will indicate to all citizens and all federal government authorities that it is the will of the House of Commons that the distinct character of Quebec society be recognized once again within the Canadian federation.

I also want to assure all Canadians that the expression "distinct society" is not exhaustive by any means. Even though the motion simply notes that the distinct society includes some specific elements of Quebec, it does not exclude others. It does not exclude the fact that Quebec is a pluralistic and democratic society, that all its citizens are equal before the law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Canadian Constitution.

This motion and the other measures announced by the Prime Minister are a significant first step in delivering on the promises he made during the referendum campaign. They are also an important bridge to the first ministers conference on the amending formula that is scheduled to take place in April 1997. Once these negoti-

ations start we will have benefited from the practical application of the distinct society motion and the veto bill.

The Prime Minister made it quite clear that these measures can some day be entrenched in the Constitution if it is the desire of the province of Quebec and other provinces to do so. However, the Government of Quebec has stated categorically that it does not want to participate in any constitutional discussions. Until this unreasonable position of the Parti Quebecois government changes, we will not be able to incorporate these measures into the Constitution.

I am convinced that the vast majority of Quebecers will view these initiatives in a favourable light. They will see that the Prime Minister is serious about making the changes they want.

Obviously, members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois will oppose these changes. The reason is simple: they are separatists. They have no intention of improving Confederation. Their only goal is to destroy Canada. As Jacques Parizeau said during the referendum campaign: "We do not want a distinct society, we want a country."

In spite of the intransigence of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois, we will not let them prevent the adoption of these changes that are not of a constitutional nature, changes that the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada want.

[Insurance Brokers, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the past several months I have received numerous representations from insurance brokers in Simcoe North. These small business people have valid concerns about the possibility of chartered banks being permitted to aggressively enter the insurance business.

On the surface this may appear to be just two industries in competition over a business segment, but it is much more than that. It is about the survival of many hundreds of small insurance brokerage firms located in towns and cities throughout Canada. It is also about the consumers of insurance services who will receive less personalized, untailored insurance coverage from inexpert bank representatives pushing inflexible, preset insurance plans.

This government is very concerned with creating conditions in which small and medium enterprises can grow and prosper. I hope this positive attitude will prevail when it comes to the hundreds of insurance brokers across Canada.

[Public Finances, November 24th, 1995]

I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance. Since federal transfers to the provinces account for nearly 20 per cent of federal expenditures, they cannot be ignored. On the other hand, these transfers account for only three per cent of the provinces' revenues.

We made deeper cuts to our own expenditures on goods and services than to transfers to the provinces. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have been able to balance their budgets while taking into account the new federal transfer payments. The Quebec government is lagging behind, because of all the energy it is putting into separation plans and referenda. In view of the fact that the transfer cuts contemplated amount to only a few percentage points of provincial revenues, is it fair to say that actions taken by the federal government are solely responsible for provincial cuts to come?

[Public Finances, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the hon. Paul Martin have taken upon themselves to put their fiscal house in order.

[Quebec Referendum, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec must understand that a Yes victory in the October 30 referendum will take away forever all the benefits associated with belonging to the Canadian family.

If Quebec separates, this means that never again will Quebecers be called Canadians. Never again will they benefit from the international recognition and respect that go with the Canadian passport. Never again will they be able to move as freely in Canada as their brothers and sisters from the other provinces and to trade as freely as they used to with them.

A victory for the Yes side will have untold but deeply felt consequences for Quebecers. On October 30, the Canadian dream must be kept alive by saying No to separation.

[National Unity, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, October 25 marks the second anniversary of our government's election. Two years ago, Canadians across the country decided to elect a government that reflected them, one they trusted.

The popular support our government has enjoyed in these past 24 months demonstrates clearly our ability to identify the public's real needs. The challenges are considerable. We are working tirelessly to put the economy back on track and we are confident we will make good all of our campaign commitments by the end of our mandate.

Canadians want the changes we support, and we are sure that, if we continue to work together, Canada will long remain the best country in the world.

[Canadian Unity, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to Roger Bernard who, with the help of his organizer, Mr. Robert Feeney, was able to accumulate over 60,000 signatures in support of Canadian unity.

Mr. Bernard began a 23-day journey on July 1 of this year entitled "Canada Can Campaign '95-Standing Up for Canadian Unity" in order to deliver a message of optimism, hope and inspiration to all Canadians.

Mr. Bernard collected these signatures on a long trip spent running and cycling the 2,219 kilometres between Barrie, Ontario, and his hometown, Eel River Crossing, in New Brunswick. He covered an average of 100 kilometres per day and visited 23 municipalities.

Speaking on behalf of all Canadians, I want to commend Mr. Bernard for his courage and his dedication to our country.

Mr. Bernard and Mr. Feeney are in the House today.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, just like larger corporations, now a majority of small and medium size businesses in Quebec are making a stand against the separation of Quebec. Can the industry minister explain to this House the main economic reasons why those who really create jobs in Quebec want to stay within a united Canada?

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Bloc Quebecois, French speaking people outside Quebec are all condemned to assimilation unless Quebec separates.

That reasoning is all the more insulting because it is unsound. Today, there are seven million French speaking people in Canada, out of a total population of 27 million, which means about 25 per cent of all Canadians. Should the Yes side win, there would be one million French speaking people in Canada out of a total population of 20 million, or five per cent of Canadians.

Separatists are prepared to jeopardize the remarkable progress that we have made over the last 30 years to protect and promote French in Canada. Separation would result in the worst geopolitical setback for French in North America since 1759.

French speaking people from all regions of the country, including Quebec, know very well that there is strength in numbers and

that a French speaking community which comprises Quebec is the best guarantee that French will blossom in this country.