Patrick Gagnon

[Correctional Services Canada, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has informed us of the information he has just received. Therefore for the benefit of members concerned I will take this under advisement. I am sure the minister will answer him appropriately.

[Mouvement De Libération Nationaledu Québec, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec held its first public meeting yesterday, in Montreal. As you know, the primary objective of that movement presided by Raymond Villeneuve, a former FLQ member who was in exile for 16 years, is to promote Quebec's independence.

Depicting Quebec's English-speaking and ethnic community members as "enemies of the Quebec people", the movement, through its president, intends to take all the means it deems necessary to implement the distorted ideas expressed in its manifesto.

The values and the ideas of the Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec are totally incompatible with the democratic and peaceful traditions of Quebec and Canada. Therefore, I urge members of this House to strongly condemn this group of extremists for its barely veiled incitement to violence.

[Japanese Bulletin, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention today to the 50th anniversary of the Japanese Bulletin , a Canadian community newspaper which is published in Japanese, French and English. May I take this occasion to congratulate those responsible for their services to the Montreal Japanese community.

The existence of such a paper demonstrates the importance of learning and the rich contribution made by foreign languages to Canada on both the economic and the cultural levels.

For half a century journal volunteers have worked to bring their community closer together, to help immigrants adapt to Canadian society and to assist their members in addressing the social needs of Japanese Canadians in the Montreal area.

Japanese Canadian readers of the Bulletin are diverse, comprising third and fourth generation Canadians and obviously recent immigrants.

Again, my congratulations to those who are behind the Japanese Bulletin and my best wishes to this most interesting publication for a long life.

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, contrary to the private member's Motion M-497, the Government of Canada should not support the elimination of personal income taxes on interest from personal savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.

As hon. members may remember, before 1988 individuals were allowed to claim a deduction of up to $1,000 of interest income in computing taxable income. This interest income deduction existed at a time of high inflation as an approximate method of providing some allowance for income tax paid on the inflationary component of interest.

Inflation is now very low. Therefore this rationale would not apply today. In addition, the elimination of interest income deduction was one of a number of base broadening initiatives introduced as part of the 1988 tax reform. Those measures made possible a reduction in tax rates and the enrichment of certain tax credits.

The elimination of interest income deduction for 1988 and the subsequent taxation years was largely compensated by a $1,730 increase of the basic personal amount.

Therefore it would be inappropriate to restore this deduction particularly at a time of very low inflation. The federal revenue cost resulting from allowing a deduction of up to $1,000 of interest income for income tax purposes would be very high; in the order of $1 billion per year.

Because of the fiscal situation of our country we simply could not afford to make such a change without making up lost revenue. This lost revenue would therefore have to be made up through a general tax increase, an increase in taxes across the board. Most of the burden would fall on the shoulders of the average income Canadians while the deduction would benefit only most higher income individuals.

The bulk of the efforts of the government on the income tax side since coming to office in the fall of 1993 has been directed at ensuring the tax system is fair. A number of tax advantages that did not meet the standards of fairness Canadians expect were eliminated in the 1994 and 1995 federal budgets presented by the Minister of Finance.

Let me highlight a few of those more important changes that have contributed to making our tax system fairer. As hon. members are aware, the federal budget of February 22, 1994 proposed a number of personal income tax measures. First, the $100,000 capital gains exemption was eliminated. This exemption largely benefited high income filers, and there was little evidence that it encouraged investment and job creation as it was first intended to do.

The tax exemption for premiums related to the first $25,000 of coverage under employer provided life insurance plans was also eliminated. This measure ensures individuals with employer paid life insurance are not treated more favourably than those who purchase life insurance out of after tax income.

The government did not limit its elimination of tax preferences to those preferences that affect individuals. A number of tax measures affecting businesses were also introduced in the government's first budget. For instance, the deduction for meal and entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per cent of eligible expenses. This change makes the tax system fairer by reflecting the significant element of personal consumption involved in these or such expenses.

In addition, Canadian controlled private corporations with capital of $50 million or more are no longer eligible for the small business deduction and the enriched research and development credits accorded to small businesses.

The government's commitment to tax fairness did not end with the tabling of its 1994 budget; quite the contrary. The federal budget tabled February 27 announced more steps the government was taking to make the tax system fairer. For example, it was announced that the tax deferral advantage enjoyed by individuals with business or professional income resulting from their ability to select their own year end for tax purposes was being eliminated.

As other Canadians, individuals who begin to earn business or professional income will have to report their income on a calendar year basis.

Moreover, the 1995 budget eliminated some of the tax benefits from family trusts. The government repealed provisions allowing the postponement of the implementation of a rule requiring a deemed disposal of assets after 21 years.

Our efforts to make our tax system fair did not start and do not end with budgets. The proof of that is the measures announced by the government in December 1994 to prevent the erosion of the tax base brought about by the active promotion of abusive tax shelters

and a longer list of deductions in the calculation of the alternative minimum tax.

What the government has done in the last couple of years attests to its commitment to a fair Canadian tax system. Giving preferential treatment to interest income, as suggested in this motion, would not be consistent with the policy the government has adhered to from the start. Such a change would benefit mainly high income taxpayers, since they have more savings.

To conclude, and for all these reasons, I urge the House to reject private members' Motion M-497.

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I draw the attention of the House of Commons to the recent improvements to the Canadian Coat of Arms. These improvements highlight the motto of the Order of Canada, our country's highest honour. Interestingly, they were proposed by a member of the press gallery, Bruce Hicks, over a decade ago. The motto, "To build a better country", is something every member of the House should be trying to do.

In 1987 the Queen approved this change for limited use in Canada. In fact everyone who has been to Rideau Hall will have seen this new coat of arms in the stained glass window near the entrance. Last year the Queen authorized its general use and slowly it is being introduced so as to not cost the taxpayers any money.

Last year I sent a copy of these arms in electronic format to every MP and encouraged them to start using them on their letterhead and publications when they reorder. The Minister of Canadian Heritage drew attention to it last month when he unveiled the latest edition of symbols of Canada.

As Canadians, we do not wave our flag. But I for one am proud of my country and its symbols. I applaud the Governor General for this change.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have any intention of going back to 1941. The basis of this reform is to ensure we answer the needs, the requests, and the demands of the new economy, which is completely different from the economy of 1941. In 1941 we were in the middle of a war. It was a completely different context. We did not have the new economic realities. We did not have computers and fax machines and the rise of a new economic class. We did not have the fundamental changes that have taken place in the last five years.

We are trying to invest not in the government programs per se, or the fonctionnaires, but in younger Canadians, in middle aged Canadians, and in older Canadians. We are trying to define what they need. Often what they need is also what the new economy demands. This is why we have to adapt our programs. This is why we should invest in the individual. It is up to the individual.

If I am not mistaken, the Reform Party has always upheld individual rights more than anything else. We are now investing in individuals. We have faith in Canadians to make the correct choice in order to find the course that is tailored to their needs and to that of the new economy. That is why I would ask the hon. member opposite to support the government in this courageous initiative.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions I would like to answer.

First of all, we clearly show our confidence in Quebecers and in all other Canadians. I think that by giving each unemployed worker a certain amount of money, we give him or her the tools needed to create his or her own job by letting him or her decide which course answers his or her own needs. They can choose the courses that are adapted to the new economy that is emerging in each region.

Decentralization is going directly to these people, to Quebecers. That is decentralization, and that is what the unemployed want. That is what we mean by change: giving people the appropriate programs, according to their own personal needs.

I also want to answer my colleague's second question, about young people finishing high school, professional training, college or university, therefore for all young people. When I finished my studies-and that was not too long ago-my first priority was to find a job. I would rather use examples from my own region. When a young person graduates from school, he or she seeks a job to get experience, to show what he or she can do. This is why with the new programs like services Canada but particularly youth internship, we will tell the young person this: "Listen, you have this much money, go to your employer and tell him that, thanks to the support of the Canadian government, you can subsidize part of your salary, on the condition that he promises to keep you on staff for a certain period of time".

I think we are investing in Quebecers. For too long, we invested in the public service, in obsolete programs or in programs that were not adapted to the real needs of the population. We listen to the population and to the unemployed but, unfortunately, this is not the case of the opposition.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As you know, we are getting into a rather important debate which concerns a very large majority of my constituents in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I feel very emotional because, as a member of Parliament, every day I am made aware of requests which are sent to me, to my office or to various offices providing services to our constituents. We try to find ways to create appropriate and durable jobs in my riding.

As for the motion the hon. member for Mercier put forward, we have the feeling that it was written before the minister introduced his bill here in the House.

I sense in this motion that they are not willing to really work with the Government of Canada, that to a certain extent they question the sincerity of the members on this side of the House, that they question how seriously the Canadian government wants to get Canadians and Quebecers back to work, especially people living in remote areas.

I want to tell you, mainly for the benefit of the population but also for the benefit of the hon. member for Mercier, who is the official opposition's critic for this department, that this piece of legislation is intended to limit and ultimately eliminate the well-known overlapping and duplication in the system.

Again, for the benefit of the members opposite and of the population, I want to say that the program has been designed in such a way as to harmonize the programs we have to develop and create jobs across Canada.

Besides, what are we trying to do? We are inviting the provinces, especially my province, Quebec, and its employment minister, Mrs. Harel, whom we have to call by her name today, to sit down with us in order to explore the opportunities provided to all Quebecers, businesses and the unemployed in particular, to create permanent and durable jobs, and to stimulate as well, of course, the economic recovery of our area.

Still, the minister spoke of five new conditions, that is five new programs, if you will, that from now on are provided for in the bill. We know very well that these five different kinds of benefits will surely help those truly in need.

I still go back to my region and I know full well that the people who work in the natural resources area, especially those who work part-time and in seasonal industries, are often penalized by the current system. The system we are proposing will right this wrong which has been going on for much too long.

I can give you some first-hand examples. In the Magdalen Islands, there are fisherman's helpers-this is just one example among many others-who people used to work and still work 10 weeks a year to qualify for 42 weeks of UI benefits. When the program was changed, they had to work 12 weeks to qualify for only 30 weeks of UI benefits. That meant 10 weeks without income for these fisherman's helpers who worked, might I add, not 35 hours a week, not 50 hours a week, but rather 70 hours a week on average. Such is the life of a fisherman's helper in the Magdalen Islands, in the Gaspé Peninsula and, of course, on the lower North Shore.

I can also give you similar examples of men and women who work long hours in the forest industry, throughout eastern Quebec and rural Quebec. Unfortunately, these people were penalized. The number of hours they worked was not taken into consideration. With the new system, we now know that 12 weeks of work equal 420 hours of work. But I can assure the House that these people, these fisherman's helpers in the Magdalen Islands, for example, work an average of 700 hours in 10 weeks.

These people will be able to qualify. The people will not go without benefits for 10 weeks, as we have seen these last two years. This is what the reform is all about. I think it is encouraging to see in this debate that both sides of the House recognize that seasonal workers do work hard and do put in countless hours of work.

Thus, companies will be better able to evaluate the efforts made by these workers in various areas. I can tell you of all kinds of examples, such as people who work in fish factories. I met with some of them in Pasbébiac, Gascons and other ridings surrounding Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who work close to 90 hours a week. That is substantial. Unfortunately, as we know, these people were not eligible because, depending on the species harvested in the summer, the fishing season is often restricted to 10 or 12 weeks.

So I believe we have corrected an iniquity that harmed the regions. Of course, the opposition is claiming that these cuts are unfair and wrong; they mostly benefit people who earn no more than $40,000. Very few of my constituents earn $40,000 or more in seasonal jobs. Most of them are low-wage workers who did not have a chance to become educated or to find long-term jobs. Life is not always easy and the first thing that we have to acknowledge here today is that we want to help those who really need it.

I remarked to the hon. member for Mercier, the other day, that in her own constituency, there are female or male single parents with two or three children and an income of less than $26,000. They did not have certain opportunities. That is why we want to establish a program for the underprivileged who really need it.

There is no shame in saying to those who earn $55,000, $60,000 ou $70,000 in a few weeks, in the worst cases, or in a few months that they have to reimburse, in part or in full, the unemployment insurance benefits they received. That is fairness. That is justice. That is the principal purpose of federalism as we know it.

I heard some positive criticisms, but when I hear members of the Bloc Quebecois say: "We are not happy with the situation. We only want the federal government to transfer the whole amount directly to the province of Quebec and let it run the program altogether".

But no one on that side spoke about the difficulties encountered by the people, the problems they have in finding a job, in getting training. No one ever mentioned the 40 per cent dropout rate in Quebec.

As members of the Canadian government, we believe in this decentralization, and I want to tell you, especially my good friend, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, that the Canadian government, with the offices it already has, will now be able to work in co-operation with stakeholders, social and community leaders in all of the regions of Quebec and, of course, of Canada.

We are ready to design programs that accurately reflect the needs of our regions, of our employers, of our workers. That is what we want to do. We do not want, like the SQDM and its 12 service points, to establish programs in Quebec City, which will then be imposed upon my constituents. For our part, with our 90 service points and the others which will be developed very shortly in the province of Quebec, we will at last fill a real and urgent need, that is designing programs that will help create stable, durable and lucrative jobs. That is the main purpose of this bill, as set out by the federal government.

Unfortunately, my time has expired. There are surely a lot of questions. But I invite the opposition, and the people to review the information and to take advantage of the new programs, which are there to serve the people and not civil servants.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 1st, 1995]

Oh, oh.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the opposition is not necessarily ready to recognize the people's verdict of October 30, because the other day, as you know full well, members of the Liberal opposition in Quebec asked the Quebec government and its Premier to respect, and above all to recognize, that verdict.

I find it strange that the PQ government refuses to recognize the fact that Quebecers have chosen to remain within the Canadian federation.

Having said that, I still have a few questions for him. For Quebec, the motion as tabled, the resolution in question, is aimed at regaining a veto that was abandoned by the former PQ government, the 1981 government of which the hon. member for Mercier was a member. I find it strange that they do not want to regain this veto that the PQ government forsook in 1981.

We are talking about change, about sincere change. The other day, opposition members accused us federal Liberals of dragging our feet. They said that they were still waiting. That the referendum was over. We have now come up with a serious proposal, which is obviously a step in the right direction, but I must tell you that if we are in favour of enshrining this veto, and especially Quebec's distinct society, in the Canadian Constitution, we are asking the provinces to invite the Canadian Parliament to entrench this concept, this Quebec reality, in the Canadian Constitution.

That is why we are asking the opposition to do the same thing, because the Leader of the Opposition, as we know full well, supported the concept of Quebec's distinct society not so long ago. Unfortunately, they are not ready to do so, and that is why we made a formal commitment not to enshrine anything in the Canadian Constitution without the support and consent of Quebecers, and above all of their National Assembly.

I urge the hon. member of the opposition to pressure his leader, who will likely become Premier of Quebec, into making a public commitment today in the House of Commons to tell Quebecers that he, too, will recognize Quebec as a distinct society and ask Parliament to ensure that this principle is entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.