Paul Crête

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 24, 1994, I questioned the Minister of Transport on the rationalization of VIA Rail operations. The minister gave me the following answer:

If there is no dramatic improvement in VIA Rail's ability to provide service within the budgets allocated by the federal government, then some major changes will certainly be made.

I urge the minister to consider the November 1989 report of the federal Liberal task force on VIA Rail, whose members included over 15 Liberal members now sitting in this House and which made recommendations on what VIA Rail should do and on what could be done to make it profitable and efficient. One of the conclusions was this: "We must however show foresight by immediately introducing a program of expenditures-they were not talking about cutbacks or rationalization-of investments aimed at upgrading the whole VIA Rail network".

This report signed by more than 20 federal Liberal members shows how they felt about all this. The Minister of Transport would be well advised to consider it and perhaps to make it his policy to ensure that VIA Rail becomes profitable and efficient in the future, so that we in Eastern Quebec can stop working desperately to keep our rail service, as we have been doing for at least 10 years.

I urge the federal government to assume its responsibilities in this area before dealing with education and other issues. It is always advisable to look at the consequences of our actions to see if we did the right thing. I am thinking in particular of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who has a major responsibility in this area because rail service in his region is cast in doubt year after year. The whole line that goes as far as the Maritimes is also called into question year after year.

One would think that, when federal parties go from being in opposition to forming the government, their vocabulary suddenly changes and they start defending regional underdevelopment, when we could turn rail line development into an important tool to provide our regions with the basic transport infrastructure needed for the development of small and medium-sized businesses in our communities, thus contributing to local growth, instead of always being on the defensive and only seeing the little cuts that can be made here and there.

What I found rather surprising is that when the Liberal Party of Canada was in opposition, their recommendations were, for example, to improve the equipment and infrastructure; to upgrade and introduce high-speed trains-they settled for low speed instead; to revive track-guided buses; to make fares and schedules more flexible; to involve the public.

In this sense, we think it is important to impose a moratorium on the elimination of rail service in Eastern Canada, as was done in Western Canada. Especially since we know that, in a 1989 report written in the last Parliament when it was in opposition, the government advocated involving the public in the future of VIA Rail. I would ask the current government why it does not honour the commitments it made when it was in opposition. We are not talking about independent members but about an official report of the national Liberal caucus, several members of which are now ministers who should make appropriate representations to the Cabinet.

I hope the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will convince his government to stand firm and honour the commitments it made in the report of the national Liberal caucus.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member sitting next to me for her clear demonstration. It was very instructive and we can see that her experience as a teacher is now useful when time comes to give very clear examples.

I really liked the comparison she made with Ginn Publishing. Whereas the Pearson Airport situation is the doing of the previous administration, the Ginn Publishing matter is the responsibility of this government but, in both cases, we see the same pattern of unclear behaviour which maintains the behind-the-scene influence of the lobbyists. I would like my colleague for Rimouski-Témiscouata to give us more details about the changes to the financing of political parties that would be needed to correct this situation.

In a sense, this reminds us a little of what may have happened in Quebec before 1976, particularly during the first two terms under Robert Bourassa, that is from 1970 to 1976, when questionable practices were common.

We had people somehow similar to those mentioned in the speech. In Quebec, Desrochers, for example, was maybe the type of person to do that kind of work.

Quebec managed to break free from such practices thanks in particular to the way Mr. René Lévesque revised the financing of political parties. I would like my colleague to clarify for us the ways to eliminate the questionable relationship between governments and lobbyists.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the comments made by the previous speaker, who said that we must distinguish between privatization under circumstances which justify such a measure, and privatization under rather dubious circumstances such as in the case of the Pearson Airport.

I want to ask the hon. member if, in some future legislation on lobbies, it would be appropriate to include specific provisions on the concerns related to lobbies under particular circumstances where privatization is anticipated. Should we have specific rules concerning lobbies which could apply to this case, but which could also apply to any case, so as to be sure that those who have a vested interest are kept at arm's length?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for his clear presentation. I think that he knows the issue quite well-that is pretty obvious.

I would like him to tell us what effect it will have on the people of Quebec and Canada not to hold a public inquiry in a situation like that, if, as it seems very clear, there were many underhanded dealings in this case, many people who took advantage of the over-representation by lobbyists and the questionable lobbying practices.

So I would like to know from him what he thinks the impact on the public and on the future of the present Liberal government would be if we were led to believe that it is a free-for-all and that we will continue to operate with the same kind of system, and at the same time, what message does it send to those who are not part of this wonderful system where special contacts and having friends in the right places are what counts.

For ordinary people who are caught in the current economic bind, with all the attendant difficulties, and who are being hit with an increase in the number of weeks needed to qualify for unemployment insurance, for example, what message does it send when a whole government tolerates such situations and would let them be by not holding a public inquiry that could clarify matters?

[Income Security, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the committee responsible for reviewing the social program reform action plan of the Minister of Human Resources Development and, unlike the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I think that the vision of Mr. Chris Axworthy, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, is much broader than that of his namesake, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

His motion, in favour of which I will speak, has only one flaw in our eyes: it should be more proactive since the hon. member says that "the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized."

I myself think that the government must ensure that the reform of the tax system is harmonized, and I think it is important to make that clear because the current approach used by the Minister of Human Resources Development in this area is no guarantee of future success and because he announces changes, to the Unemployment Insurance Program in particular, even before his reform initiative is in place, and it is clear that there is no harmony between the budget and the objectives, and the way social program reform is being conducted.

So we obviously support the proposal of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, since the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for tax reform since the election. This issue was part of our election platform and we think it is important to harmonize the two elements, namely the tax system and social security programs, regardless of our opinion on how to approach social program reform in the future. Be it the Reform Party or the Liberals, I think that, in this respect, everybody will admit that we need a little more harmony. I believe that, at the present time, there is a serious lack of co-ordination on the part of the government, and a warning such as the one the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is proposing is in order.

It seems to us that the planned social program reform might create more inconsistencies if it does not take the tax system into account. We will end up with the same counterproductive situations we saw in the past, where we gave people incentives to increase their income but these same incentives discouraged them from working and being productive members of society. Harmonization is a must.

We must harmonize because the present government does not seem in any hurry to deal with some elements of the tax system which impact on the reform of social programs. I am referring to family trusts, for instance. We can reform all the social programs in the world, but if we do not take care of the revenue

side of things, making sure that everybody pays their fair share, we are not doing our job as a government, as a Parliament.

In 1969, there were $18 billion in family trusts. In 1982, there were $80 billion. The potential growth of those trusts should encourage us to check to see what today, in 1994, the exact amounts involved are, to determine why these people pay no taxes and to find ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of tax revenues from those trusts. After all, they belong to a few very rich families, as Mr. Claude Piché said in La Presse on January 19, 1994, when he explained that the creation of a trust is a very complex and costly process which is not really worthwhile unless you have a real fortune.

Therefore, on the question of family trusts, it would be interesting to know exactly what is going on as soon as possible because since 1983-84, we have not been able to find out what funds are in there. In my view, the government should take a close look at its own actions on that issue and publish the exact figures as soon as possible.

Tax reform also seems very important because the tax structure must be fair for everybody. We should make our tax tables much less regressive because right now taxes do not serve justice and equity in our society and there is a lot to be done in that area. The present government is saying nothing and does not seem to be really willing to make the necessary changes; it is burying its head in the sand.

There is also the issue of tax shelters that need to be abolished. There would be a lot of work to be done just to determine which shelters should be maintained and which should be abolished. In that sense, the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing is very interesting and it is a needed reminder for the government which seems to forget that what it does on the one hand does not necessarily agree with what it does on the other.

The other important element is that the fiscal structure must be harmonized to take income security into consideration. There are examples from the past which demonstrate that income tax tables can be used to help low-income earners. In Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, when he was Minister of Finance, made sure that low-income families would pay no income tax. That kind of initiative should be taken by the current government, which seems to be forgetting its electoral promises to the neediest and more inclined to protect those who financed its electoral campaign.

We therefore consider it important to support the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. There are also a few other things that I would like the government to take into consideration when harmonizing, and one is a minimum corporate tax. There is no doubt that Canadian tax policy is very favourable to business. Naturally, businesses should be allowed to develop, but at the same time we have to avoid an imbalance between the share individual taxpayers must bear and that of business. In that area, I thing we have a long way to go.

Another thing I would like to mention are the changes to fiscal arrangements that apply to foreign corporations. For example, in 1990, taxpayers with incomes of over $80,000 accounted for more than 70 per cent of all taxable capital gains, and 66 per cent of those were investors. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the financial position of the government requires a larger contribution of high income taxpayers, and in the spirit of this motion we could, at the very least, undertake a thorough study of this aspect, to make sure that in the future, the tax policy and the forthcoming reform of social programs guarantee some harmonization between the two and that, in effect, we do not create situations that are even more absurd than the ones we now have.

I would like to add that when the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell quoted from the red book, it reminded me of a saying my grandfather was fond of. Do not judge people by what they say but by what they do. It is particularly true with the Liberals' election platform. During the campaign, all they promised were jobs, jobs, jobs, but they have yet to deliver. The Liberals made a lot of commitments concerning social equity in the red book, but they have not achieved much. And worst of all, they do not seem to have the will to forge ahead in this area.

To conclude, I would like to say that, unlike the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I do not see how you can compare the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing with the position taken by the Minister of Human Resources Development. There is a fundamental difference between the two in that the minister tends to act a bit like a bulldozer these days. However, he may be realizing that provinces have some rights in this area and will expect the government to respect them.

The public also want things to be done legally and has shown in the past that if governments are divorced from the realities of their constituents, voters can remind them of the harsh realities come election time. I think that a motion like the one before the House today should prompt the government to review the need for more harmonization at the Cabinet level, which would allow people to share their ideas and dovetail their programs.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from the Association québécoise des retraités , Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup section, expressing to the House the association's dismay over the numerous attacks which the Liberal government has launched on the incomes of retired persons, in particular its proposal to reform old age pensions and to abolish the universal age tax credit. I believe that the views of the senior citizens in my riding must be taken into account and I therefore wish to table this petition.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the Reform Party, while visiting Quebec, stated that Canada would accept Quebecers' decision to become sovereign. By recognizing Quebec's right to self-determination, he has come to the obvious conclusion that Quebecers constitute a distinct society.

The recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination is part of a continuum. After the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party of Canada, the Reform Party confirms that it too would respect the democratic choice of Quebecers, a choice they will be called upon to make in the very near future. I am fully confident that they will move forward towards their historic goal, that is to be masters of their own destiny.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

I rise this evening as member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, which is represented in Bosnia by militiamen of the Fusiliers du Saint-Laurent, and I also speak on behalf of one of the 15 Canadians who were held as hostages last week.

These developments influence our action somewhat because this conflict is not a black and white issue. It is a grey area and the decision to be made is complex and difficult. However, we must take our responsibilities and do what is necessary.

I would like to quote a comment I made in my speech on the same issue, on January 25, 1994. I said: "It is important for our operations to contribute directly to resolving the crisis and above all to avoid perpetuating the current imbroglio."

In fact, one wonders whether the intervention in Sarajevo was strong enough. We targeted only one of the safe areas and since then the problem has spread to another of those areas, and this could go on and on.

We realize that a more comprehensive solution is necessary. Also, we must not lose sight of the objective of the intervention, which is to ensure peace in Bosnia.

Names such as Bihac, Gorazde, Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Tuzla, and Zepa are not part of our daily vocabulary. Yet, these names have become synonymous with dying children, and adults running in the streets to stay alive. All these images trigger a common reaction.

It is important to adopt a position which will lead to a complete and permanent solution. To that end, certain essential elements must be taken into account. The first one is the need of a consensus among nations. I think that if we act without first enlisting Russia's support regarding a possible intervention, we will repeat the mistake made in World War One, something which would be very costly.

So it is very important to make representations within the Security Council and at the UN and ensure that the Russians will be at the table and will take part in the process. I think they have realized that the behaviour of the Bosnian Serbs is unacceptable. I think they see a certain betrayal of their commitments as a result of this situation, and we can only hope that they will join in the consensus that seems to be developing here.

It seems that another important point is that we should send a clear message to the Bosnian Serbs because so far, commitments and promises have meant absolutely nothing to them, since there was not always a concerted effort to enforce these agreements.

We have seen a kind of behaviour that in some cases does not even observe the normal rules of war. When we see pictures of people shooting at hospitals, and when we see shells going through hospital walls, I think we have reached the point that something has to be done to deal with the situation once and for all.

In the circumstances, I was referring to a consensus in public opinion, a clear message to the Bosnians-but I think it is also important to have diplomatic initiatives by the major powers to have a clear indication of where we are going and of the main participants in this process. The point is that if we merely resort to air strikes without providing for the next phase, we will only move the problem somewhere else, and we must avoid escalating the conflict.

These are all very important considerations. I think we must act responsibly on this conflict, but I am also concerned about the security of our troops. I think it is important to minimize the risk to the safety of our troops, although as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said on April 14, and I quote: "It is inherent in their responsibilities and their duty as soldiers to risk their lives". We agree with this statement, that to take risks in a war situation is part and parcel of a soldier's job, role and commitment; on the other hand, we must do our utmost to avoid casualties.

In my view, if we are to put the odds on our side, we must take part in strategic planning, avoid a situation where Canadian and Quebec soldiers would become the pawns of unacceptable decisions, the victims of errors that could have been avoided. To this aim, the choice of strategic targets must contain certain minimum guarantees so that we do not pick targets which should not be attacked and would not help solve the crisis, in any case.

When dealing with a problem such as this one, we know that it is dangerous to intervene, and that some soldiers' lives will be on the line. On the other hand, I think that there is a lesson to be learned from last week's hostage-taking, which ended well, but could have gone terribly wrong. Admittedly, this incident was to some extent the result of the UN's procrastination. If we let things drag on, we will face other similar situations, other times when our soldiers' lives will really be threatened. It would be unexcusable if it were to happen by pure negligence, for the simple reason that we did not act responsibly.

I think that it is important that the consensus reached by the Parliament be taken into consideration by the Cabinet and that, with the same caution we feel in this House, it makes sure that any action taken will be decisive and will protect the lives of our troops as much as possible.

Finally, I would like to thank the Canadian peacekeepers, especially those from my riding who volunteered for these peacekeeping missions all over the world. I think that we can never thank them enough. They are aware of the inherent dangers of their job, but I believe that they have the right to expect sound policy direction that gives due regard to the importance of human lives, and to the importance of solving this crisis, which is the result of many years of ethnic hatred. It is important to find a political solution which will put an end, once and for all, to this devastating conflict.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on this bill and I will vote against it. This bill is a good example of why Canada does not work.

Look at this morning's figures. I think that, instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs," their party's election slogan should have been "welfare, welfare, welfare." In Newfoundland, the higher eligibility standards will throw 1,635 more people on welfare, while the reduced maximum number of weeks of benefits will increase welfare rolls by 1,370. In New Brunswick, welfare rolls will grow by 1,165 because of the higher eligibility requirements and by 1,335 because of the reduced maximum period of benefits.

I would have expected government members representing ridings in these two provinces to rise and tell us that it does not make sense, that this is totally at odds with what their party said during the election campaign. This would have allowed the government to come to its senses and stop sending misleading messages.

We are telling people that the economy is stalled, to be even more cautious, to avoid consuming more, to be careful. We act in a way that will make more people go on welfare, consume less, and contribute less to the economy. We kill off the weak recovery our society may be experiencing. It is a strange message to give to Quebec and Canada, to Quebecers and Canadians.

In their previous speeches, government members told us there was a free debate on the budget, that opposition parties could make suggestions. Good, I think that is the purpose of the House of Commons! That is not the problem, the problem is that our suggestions are not acted on. Every time we propose job creation programs to kick-start the economy and make people proud to earn a living, they come up with measures such as this legislation; it will only put more people on unemployment insurance.

When I say that this bill is an example of why Canada does not work, it is because the people cut off from UI benefits will no longer have access to training programs linked to unemployment insurance. In that sense, it is linked to one of the fundamental problems with this system, namely its inefficiency when the federal government lacks the will to co-operate with the provinces.

The minister of Human Resources Development told us that youth employment was the priority. Now he is surprised that the opposition raises the need to respect the wishes of the provinces in that area. The minister should be the first to know-I would say this is a very important quality in a minister-that, if you want to get somewhere, the co-operation of the people you are working with is essential. The only indication he has given was to the effect that he wanted to bulldoze the issue. The reform he had in mind was one that would override the wishes of Quebec in the area of manpower.

What he did not bargain for, though-and it must have taught him a good lesson-was to see the governing federalists in Quebec, who can hardly be called "big bad separatists", pass a unanimous motion in the National Assembly yesterday. Here is what it said:

That the National Assembly of Quebec ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus among all concerned in Quebec on the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training.

It does not sound like a whim to me, yet it is said to be so in the case of the Parliament representing the only majority French-speaking nation in North America. It seems to me that some attention should be paid to that kind of thing.

In a way, the bill before us reflects this government's problem in that it sends a double message: on the one hand, promote economic recovery, but oddly enough on the other hand, do it on the backs of the least fortunate in our society.

Ontario will not be affected as much as other provinces by this reform, with 30 people or so not meeting the new eligibility requirements. That gives some idea of the influence the Ontario caucus has over this government, but I hope members who represent other provinces will make sure they have their say and convince the government to show a little more compassion for regional economies which do not necessarily keep going year-round. In that sense, I think it is important for the government to act quickly.

I would have preferred to vote today on a bill setting up real job creation programs. This bill touches on several issues; in fact, we might even say that someone tried to smother the unemployment insurance issue in this great omnibus bill, but no one was fooled. We realize that the reform before the House today is the same reform the Conservatives introduced last year and which the Liberals have re-established and will continue to apply.

That reminds me of the question Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec, still a true federalist, put to this government. He asked: "Look, who is in charge in Ottawa, the bureaucrats or the government?" That is what we have come to realize with this bill. The machinery of government kept working after October 25, and no one bothered to stop it. That is why these things are still going on.

When you live in the lovely Ottawa region, it is very easy to forget that some people are stuck with unemployment rates of 20 or 25 per cent and to conclude that UI beneficiaries are people who do not want to work. It is not true. If the unemployed were happy, they would not have the highest rates of suicide and prescription drug use. They would not have to put up with high crime rates and other social problems.

Some ridings and regions are more dependent on the econo-mic situation; in those regions, we need new ways of coping with structural change. But this government lacks imagination and awareness and takes no action.

As a matter of fact, I am very happy to be part of the Official Opposition because it gives me the opportunity to speak for those who have no voice here. The two provinces most affected are Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Quebec, too, is hard hit. We have been taking the floor for three days in an attempt to convince members opposite to change their mind. Government members should be rising to demand that this bill or at least the clauses on unemployment insurance be withdrawn.

[Unemployment Insurance, April 15th, 1994]

The minister seems to have no idea what it is like when 44,000 people lose their UI benefits. Does he admit that, in addition to offloading major expenditures onto the provinces, his reform excludes 44,000 people from training programs that would have helped them to find jobs?