René Canuel

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, the Minister of Finance tabled his budget in this House. This event extensively covered by the media was preceded by a fear-mongering effort to scare the public. They said the budget would hurt all taxpayers, but they did not tell us the most important part.

And that is that the creditors to whom the Canadian debt is owed wanted to make sure Canada would be able to pay the interest on its debt in the years to come. That is what the problem was. It was also most important to let it be known that the federal government was waiting until after the Quebec referendum to make major cuts, once again deceiving the people.

When I was first elected to this place by the residents of the riding of Matapédia-Matane, I was sure I was coming here to serve the interests of my region and that is what I have been doing ever since: serving the interests of my fellow citizens. But since February 27, I have had to admit that it is not really the hon. members and ministers opposite who run the country, but rather big financial players.

What are the ministers and members across the way doing here if they let their Minister of Finance table a budget like this without saying a word? I must admit that certain members did stand up and denounce this budget and I am proud of them. I only wish others would follow suit.

What power do these members and ministers have in this House? I hope they are not mere puppets. When the creditors of a country tell its finance minister what to do, it means that the country has lost its monetary and financial independence.

Who has led us into that tunnel? None other than the Prime Minister, when he was the Minister of Finance. The process started with him. That farce shows a serious lack of respect for Canadian taxpayers, particularly those from Quebec, for whom the big cuts will come after the referendum.

Why not tell the people the truth? Why not tell them now what they are in for? Stop hiding your despicable and partisan goals. The Minister of Finance's action lacks any consistency and is a monumental hoax. I can tell the minister that Quebecers will remember him and his party on referendum day. My constituents in the riding of Matapédia-Matane will not be fooled.

The federal budget will hit them very hard. Let me give you a few examples. There will be cuts at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, in Sainte-Flavie, in the Supply and Services division in Matane, and in the offices of the Department of Human Resources Development; fishermen will be hurt by the service charge in fishing ports and harbours; cuts will also affect farmers and milk producers; finally, there will be a gas tax increase, in a region where gas is already more expensive than elsewhere. Last year, Rimouski residents blocked a road in an attempt to have the price of gas go down. It did go down one cent, but now it is going up one and a half cents.

Since the budget was tabled, the only ones to speak in favour of the government's strategy were the creditors, and even they had mixed feelings about it.

A few days later, we were again faced with rising interest rates and a falling dollar on financial markets, a quick response to the minister's budget.

Blaming Quebec for this country's financial situation shows an unprecedented lack of logic. If Quebec were to blame, would members opposite not tell us to become sovereign as fast as possible?

The impact of this budget will be shocking, and pretty soon the minister will tell this House he can no longer control the deficit or stop the growth of the debt.

In the days following the budget, we saw that Canada's provinces, including Quebec, rejected the minister's vision, and today, everyone openly condemns that vision, especially Ontario.

And now for a closer look at the disastrous impact this budget will have, starting with the catastrophic impact the spiralling federal debt will have on job creation and corporate investment.

For people who do not have a job and those who will be affected by unemployment insurance cuts, the future is very bleak. Because of the poor economic climate, consumers will spend less, and businesses will postpone investment projects because of the high cost of borrowing.

It is clear that this government, which promised hundreds of thousands of jobs, has missed its target by a mile. It misled everyone. I would say it practically lied to the entire population. It has turned its back on its commitments.

In addition to letting the debt grow at an alarming rate-everyone is saying it will reach $603 billion in 1996-the government has just cut 45,000 jobs in the Canadian public service. This government is now producing unemployment instead of encouraging job creation. How many of these government employees will join the ranks of the unemployed? And there are hundreds of indirect jobs that will disappear in the process.

In the outlying regions, these job losses will have a disastrous impact on an economy already weakened by a recession that is still smouldering.

The government has just created a feeling of uncertainly, which will have very serious repercussions on the performance of the public service as a whole and on other related areas of activity.

There is nothing in this budget for the 800,000 unemployed and people looking for work in Quebec. On the contrary. Fortunately, the Government of Quebec knows how to create jobs.

The only good federal program is the infrastructure program, and it is being cut by $200 million.

We are all aware that Canada's debt has mortgaged the country's future. Quebecers have made this point repeatedly. At the hearings on the future of Quebec, everyone where I come from fears the worst, because it is clear that the ship is leaking and the captain has abandoned his duties. The people of Quebec will give a clear response to this government in the upcoming referendum, and neither fear nor threats will change the course of history. After the victory of the "yes" votes, the other provinces will have to decide what sort of country they want. I am sure that others will want to follow the road the people of Quebec are preparing to take.

In concluding, I would say: Long live Canada without Quebec, and long live Quebec without Canada.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. The problems she described in her region sound pretty similar to those in mine, except that the solutions she offers are almost unacceptable, and I will tell you why.

If I understood correctly, she is telling the poor, people with major problems, the unemployed, people on UI and income security that they must show more imagination and initiative.

I also heard the other day one of her colleagues on the other side of this House say that a former member of Parliament who has been without a job for eight years is having a very hard time finding work even though he is well-known. Yet, he is not lacking in either imagination or initiative.

Whenever the poor-whether it is a single person, a couple or a family with a father, mother and four children-are unemployed, they are asked to show initiative and imagination. Yet, when a person whose salary was much higher has trouble finding another job, we commiserate.

The budget may also hit seniors next year. In my region, farmers face cuts of 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent next year for a total of 30 per cent, which represents about $2,500 a year for the average farmer. This leads me to ask my colleague if we are looking for revenue in the right places or if we simply get the money from the pockets of the most disadvantaged and the poorest.

My colleague did not say that these people were lazy, but she said that they should show more imagination and initiative. Seventy-five per cent of the time, they are full of imagination and initiative, but they are still without jobs. I would like her to explain this to me.

[Hibernia Project, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary realize that the private sector's complete lack of interest in Hibernia confirms that this money pit will never be profitable? Do you admit that your government will have a lot of trouble handing it over to the private sector?

[Hibernia Project, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.

In spite of the government's wonderful speeches, the budget has not put government spending in order. Within the natural resources department alone, the Hibernia project will swallow up $172 million this year, not to say $66 million more in interest free loans.

Why has the natural resources minister not taken the opportunity with this budget to dump the Hibernia project immediately, this money pit which will never be profitable and will only ever eat up hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's constituents may be receiving this budget very well, but the people I represent in the riding of Matapédia-Matane are not.

The Minister of Finance told us in his speech, and he quoted his father, that it is necessary to plan ahead with courage and determination. I think that the Minister of Finance showed great courage and determination in looking to the least well off members of our society for money, and much timidity and hesitation in his treatment of the wealthy.

Very often, the members opposite accuse us of being negative. My honourable colleague, I am going to ask you a question and make a suggestion. I would like you to respond, positively I hope, to this suggestion. I will read you a few lines: "The Minister of Finance has deliberately avoided mentioning in this budget the large aquarium that is home to 104 elderly members of the same contented species, whose somnambulistic performance costs the government more than $42 million annually, not to mention the $349 million their former colleagues, also non-elected, draw in pensions".

Nevertheless, starting next year the government will quite happily go after the elderly. How is it that this budget does not touch the senators, who are costing us, who are costing the public, $42 million, not to mention their retired colleagues, who are costing a fortune?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to what my colleague has just said with great interest. I do believe her Liberal roots are showing.

It is full of sophisms. I will make a comment and then put a question to my colleague. How will it be possible to provide quality health care when transfer payments to the provinces will be cut by $700 million next year? How will it be possible to improve health care? She spoke at length about this earlier.

If I were a young graduate, I would be very concerned tonight. If I were on income security, I would be even more concerned. If I were unemployed, I would be extremely concerned. They are talking about cutting 45,000 public service jobs, about closing military bases in Saint-Hubert and elsewhere. The extremely competent workers who will lose their jobs will surely find other jobs, but for a 24-year old graduate, it is a different matter. One job means one job, not two jobs.

Tonight, I would be very happy if I had a family trust as I would have until 1999 to avoid taxes. Nothing to worry about. If I were the Royal Bank, I would be very happy, too. I would send you a dozen roses and we would sing together. The wealthy are rejoicing while the most disadvantaged are sad.

I would ask my colleague to really explain to these young university graduates and unemployed workers how and where this budget will help create jobs quickly, when we know that it takes $200 million away from infrastructure programs?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a brief comment. This budget is a little bit like venom to which sugar has been added to make it easier to swallow. Why is it that measures dealing with family trusts have been delayed until 1999, and that nothing is said about measures aimed at senior citizens?

If transfers to the provinces are cut, and this is my question for the member for St. Boniface, how could it not affect the least fortunate, the poorest members of society? Back home, farmers are going to suffer a great deal. The 15 per cent cut this year added to the 15 per cent cut next year is going to hurt them tremendously. Some of them told me this morning that they could hardly manage as it was, and that with these new cuts, it was going to be hell. How can you claim that this is not like venom?

[The Environment, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the bad track record the oil industry has regarding environmental protection, will the minister not concede that the government is dreaming in technicolour if it believes that it can reduce greenhouse gases by virtue of incentives only?

[The Environment, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. After making important commitments during the election campaign to reduce greenhouse gases, the government has been at a standstill on the issue for 15 months. Worse yet, the federal Cabinet is divided on the issue of whether punitive measures or only incentives should be used.

Is the Minister of the Environment of the same opinion as her counterpart from natural resources and the Prime Minister that the only way to meet the red book's commitment of reducing greenhouse gases is to implement voluntary measures and incentives in the industry?

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we met with the Council of Churches and they totally agreed with my Liberal colleague. We must address the root causes of the problem. It is not by putting people in jail that we will teach members of society how to live together, and that we will spend as little as possible.

You know that prisoners cost a fortune, not to mention prisons and penitentiaries. When our colleagues from the Reform Party say that tough sentences are needed, almost suggesting that criminals must be punished, I, on the other hand, say that we must address the root causes. We must invest in prevention, in education. We as a society should consider the issue thoroughly and spend the money wisely.

A suggestion was made yesterday. Let us assume that the judges are given the money they need for the year-let us say, for example, $187 million per district. This money could be managed jointly by the judges themselves and the citizens. If that were the case, protecting society would not cost $187 million. It would only cost half as much and these people would also make a contribution to society.

I think that we could make several suggestions like that one.