André Caron

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few quick comments on what my colleague just said.

Regarding the auditor general, I recall getting the impression from his report that he blamed Mr. Axworthy, to a certain extent, for proceeding with social program reform before thoroughly analyzing the efficiency of Canada's existing programs.

I do not think that we can determine with any precision whether our social programs are efficient based on what the auditor general says. The auditor general has asked the government to review the situation.

My second comment is about what my colleague from the Reform Party said when he claimed that his party's proposals are grass roots proposals. My proposals and the ideas I shared with you earlier also came from the people. I told you that I met with some constituents. I told you that people from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean asked me to give Mr. Axworthy a petition which 11,000 people signed. Therefore, I can also safely say that my ideas come from the people. I think that people want to keep the social network or social net, which we all have in common.

Now, regarding the opinion expressed that I should be happy to see social programs disappear because I am a sovereignist and because most of these programs are federal, and their disappearance could very well be politically opportune, simply because they are federal, this is not how the Bloc Quebecois sees it. Yes, indeed, we believe that the federal government should leave social programs to the provinces, because social programs do not lie within federal jurisdiction. What we are asking for is a system where the provinces would administer social programs in exchange for tax points corresponding to the cost of administering them.

I think that federalists, like my colleague from the Reform Party, should be more careful when they talk about the importance of social programs, because some Quebecers say that the railway and social programs are what Canada means to them. The railway is being dismantled and so are social programs. Therefore, in the opinion of many people, Canada is also crumbling.

Regarding the question I was asked about social program reform, I agree that the government ought to determine whether each social program meets the end it was designed for. I do admit that, in certain cases, it would be appropriate to adapt the program, and in others, to restrict them because they do not really meet any needs.

In my opinion, Canada must continue to invest in social programs because Quebecers and Canadians are very proud that the neediest people in our society can still live in dignity.

The solution lies in job creation, which will ensure that more Quebecers and Canadians are contributing money to the government. This is how we will be able to sustain the social programs which make us so proud and which make us the envy of many countries of the world.

[Supply, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Reform Party motion, which proposes to replace Canada's current social security system with a registered personal security plan.

From the outset, the wording of the motion reflects its underlying philosophy or principles. The Reform Party wants to replace a social security system with a personal security plan. A

social security system is a plan designed to look after the needs of the poor, so that they have the minimum required to live in adequate conditions. On the other hand, a personal security plan concerns a single individual, namely its beneficiary. Such a system has no social dimension: it only concerns the individual.

The underlying principle of that proposal is obviously the prevailing ideology within certain groups promoting a free market, the law of the jungle and the "every man for himself" philosophy. This is not the principle which guided the building, in Quebec and in Canada, of the current social, economic and even political structures.

This morning, I listened to the hon. member for Calgary North, who mentioned some countries which had set up plans somewhat similar to the one she is proposing. She referred to the United Kingdom under Mrs. Thatcher and Chili under General Pinochet.

I do not think these examples would be acceptable to people who have any social conscience at all. The British experience under Mrs. Thatcher, for the past fifteen years or so, was not a particularly happy one. If we compare that experience with the option chosen by France which has taken a different approach to managing and funding social programs, we realize that people in the U.K. are not better off financially than people in France, at present.

As for Chili under General Pinochet, we need only consider what happened during that period and what this every man for himself, this free market ideology produced. It produced torture, deregulation and anti-union behaviour and made the poor even poorer. I do not think people would welcome that kind of system in Canada, especially since we recently had another example of a government that applied this ideology.

Which country was mentioned in glowing terms by the International Monetary Fund? Which country was, in recent years, applauded for its privatization model? Which country was cited as an example for its cuts in social programs? It was Mexico. And look at where Mexico is today. This is a country that wanted to implement a foreign ideology, a country that took steps that had a disastrous impact, first on the poorest in Mexican society and later on the entire Mexican economy.

We cannot disrupt people's lives for ideological reasons, and we cannot apply half-baked theories developed by academics in their ivory towers. We cannot just go ahead and blindly apply these ideologies to advanced societies like ours.

Clearly, I do not support the motion presented by the Reform Party. I intend to analyse it, however, because there are some aspects that must be condemned outright and that are downright shocking.

First of all, the motion proposes to reform existing social programs which are said to be failing, an expression that has a certain currency among certain groups. Who says social programs are failing? The people who do not need them.

Why do we have social programs in Quebec, in Canada, in the western world? Workers and the least well-off have always sought protection against poverty resulting from sickness, unemployment and old age. Often, when people can no longer work because of age they are poor if they had only their job as a source of income.

Western society, has always, and particularly in the past 20 to 30 years, sought protection against the poverty resulting from these scourges. I think they have clearly succeeded. We have health care programs to help the sick, unemployment insurance programs to support those who have lost their jobs and old age security programs to provide a decent standard of living to seniors who have worked all their lives.

I do not know how we can claim these programs are ineffective. I think Canadians and Quebecers know what is involved; they want to keep their social programs. I have two personal examples for you that will confirm what I am saying.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his proposed social reforms, I called a meeting in my riding for anyone interested in the subject. Some 200 people showed up-people from community groups, the unemployed, union people-These people made it clear to me that we had to protect the social programs we enjoy in Canada today. We might have to change them a bit, but the conclusion was that they had to be protected.

My second example is the petition given me by the movement known as Solidarité populaire, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. This petition contains nearly 11,000 names requesting the minister to keep the social security safety net in Quebec and Canada.

In the light of such a showing, I can only support those who elected me, particularly because I share their beliefs, and insist that the government maintain the social programs we currently have in Canada, adjusting them as necessary to suit circumstances and to improve their effectiveness.

We hear a lot about the cost of social programs. Of course, unemployment insurance, old age security and health insurance cost money. To some extent, we can surely limit expenditures. We need think only of the duplication of federal and provincial initiatives, which we could stop.

We could also consider cutting expenses by adapting certain programs to reduce their costs and so that the people running them give greater thought to costs. Given the effects of these programs in social terms, I do not think that current costs are exorbitant.

The problem with these issues of cost is the lack of fiscal resources. Why are we lacking fiscal resources in Canada? Because our policies on employment are ineffective.

Certain circles, especially people from the Reform Party, have the following to say about employment policies: "We do not need to have a policy on employment, because jobs are created by the private sector". This point of view is slowly winning over some of our friends opposite, from the Liberal Party. What a pity. Although it is true that business creates jobs, in advanced societies like ours, the government should blaze the trail and take job creation initiatives whenever there is a need.

I am not suggesting that we introduce initiatives based uniquely on a certain ideological or theoretical framework. We must look at the needs of the population and make sure that they are met, to the extent that this is possible.

I would like to move on to a more thorough critique of the Reform Party proposal, as regards a personalized system. The concept of universality would be thrown out. People who have contributed to a plan would be able to use it, and people who have not made contributions, well, who knows what would happen to them. The principle of universality is important, because it acknowledges a citizen's right to receive services by virtue of being a citizen, and, if all citizens have equal rights, they should all have access to many different kinds of services, like health care, education, social security and old age security, just because they are citizens.

Of course, those who are better off may possibly, through various means such as taxation, be required to pay back the benefits that they receive, but it still remains true, I think, that in a society, it is important that citizens collectively have the right to certain services, by the simple fact that they are citizens.

Under the personalized system proposed by the Reform Party, everybody would contribute to the plan, everybody would invest money in a fund in order to pay for their own eventual social needs. But, what happens to people who, for one reason or another, do not contribute to the plan? What happens to people who are unemployed, who cannot afford to make contributions? The chronically ill? People whose lack of training prevents them from being part of the active population? What would we do about them? Would we create a dual social security system?

And if we did, how would the people who have to contribute to a personalized plan feel? They will say: "We are already paying, so why should we pay for others?" In that case, will we let the poor pay for the poor? We can already see where a proposal like this one would take us. It would take us to a two-tier society with rich people living well and poor people starving. Quebecers and Canadians alike condemn that kind of society.

The proposal refers to tax-sheltered savings accounts. This means that the personalized system will be tax-deductible in a way. In other words, the Reform Party is saying "every man for himself", except that the state will have to give tax deductions to those who contribute funds to this system. I think that this is a covert way of making the state pay. It is all very well to say: "Yes, people will invest, take themselves in hand, put money aside-"

I heard our Reform colleague explain to us this morning that if you invest so much per year, you end up with a fortune after 15 or 20 years. This reminds me of the financial advisors who visit people in their homes and tell them: "If you deposit $500 every six months or $1,000 a year, with interest rates, you will become a millionaire". After he leaves, you see yourself as a millionaire, but you are not one penny richer.

While we are on the subject, our Reform colleague said this morning while explaining her system's benefits: "Assuming that a person invest so much as such-and-such an interest rate and that this person is never sick or unemployed, he or she will be a millionaire in 30 or 40 years". Such assumptions do not feed the poor, care for the sick or provide our old people with the support they need.

As for tax-deductible RRSPs, you may think, Mr. Speaker, that I am against RRSPs in principle, but that is definitely not the case, neither for me nor for my party.

In fact, in prebudget debates, we spoke in support of not taxing RRSPs, in spite of the fact this currently deprives the Canadian government of $15 billion in revenues, because we think it is not fair to change the rules of the game along the way, after a contract was signed or a tacit agreement has been reached by the government and citizens who invest in RRSPs. It had been agreed that these benefits would not be subject to tax.

As a party, we are not against RRSPs. We do not want RRSPs to become taxable, but at the same time we cannot understand why one would want to apply the RRSP formula to everyone in our society.

I see that I am running out of time, but I would just like to address one issue that our colleague raised this morning. What happens to those who invest in RRSPs if something goes wrong with the economy, if banks go under, if bad investments are made, if our currency is devalued, if the interest rates go down, if there is an economic crisis? I could go on and read you the entire Apocalypse. Many things can happen that will cause funds invested in RRSPs vanish. You could then come up to us and say: "Well, I am poor now. You must help me". If the Reform Party members were in power, here is what they would tell you: "Look here, sir, you made investments and you lost money. You are a loser and losers have no right to ask the society for help. When you lose money, you lose money, and you shut up".

Basically, the Reform Party's proposal is for the rich, the healthy and the educated.

The other problem with this proposal is this: these funds can and should be drawn only in an emergency. The proposed plan would replace the Unemployment Insurance Plan, the manpower training programs and the pension plans.

What happens when an individual has the misfortune to become unemployed repeatedly over the course of several years, if he has the misfortune to be ill and therefore unable to contribute to his pension plan? What happens if that he drains his personal registered savings plan and ends up with nothing to fall back on.

I think that the Reform Party's proposal takes a rather simplistic view of society and public finance. They are telling us that the public finance problem would be resolved if there were no public expenditures, which is rather simplistic, since it is so obvious. Except that public spending exists precisely because there is a public, a population, whose needs must be taken into account by politicians.

Solutions such as the one proposed by the Reform Party may seem attractive to someone watching us on television, while relaxing in the living room. However, such solutions are not acceptable to the needy.

In conclusion, since my time is running out, when faced with proposals such as this one from the Reform Party, we must remind our fellow citizens and politicians what social solidarity, society and community living are all about. Nowadays, these realities are too often forgotten. We hear about personal success, free market and registered personal security plan. This is a self-centred philosophy. I will not make a long speech about sacrificing everything, including ourselves, to help others, but we live in a society and we have a responsibility toward social solidarity.

I invite Reform members to reflect on life in a society and to realize that we do not live only for ourselves but also for others, who also live for us. This is how we can all function in a society. And this is what we hope to preserve for a long time to come in Canada and in Quebec.

[Genetic Engineering, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the longer she waits to regulate the activities of certain Canadian businesses, the more difficult it will be to enforce regulations to prevent this commercial activity?

[Genetic Engineering, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Last week several European countries took a stand against the marketing of genetic discoveries. Europe is sending a clear message to the biotechnology industry: allowing business to gain control over the gene pool of the human race is out of the question.

Does the Minister of Health not think that it is high time the government made its intentions known and tabled a clear policy preventing the sale of human embryos and genetic manipulation for commercial purposes?

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, March 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to include an income contingent loan repayment system. I am aware that my colleague from the Liberal Party has just moved an amendment but I do not think this will affect my discussion of the main motion since the amendment is consistent with the spirit of the motion by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

The hon. member favours an income contingent loan repayment system. We know that, under the current loan repayment system, loans are guaranteed by the government. A few months after graduation, the student starts repaying his or her loan according to a schedule set by the bank and at regular interest rates. In his first speech, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest pointed out that about 20 per cent of students had trouble repaying their debts under the current system.

Our Reform colleague's proposal links the annual amount and repayment period of the loan to the student's annual income. It also provides for debt collection through income tax.

At first glance, the proposal may seem attractive in the sense that it allows for some flexibility, which is a good thing for a person in debt. It is important that the system be flexible enough to allow for specific situations. Last week, the Quebec ombudsman noted, while referring to young people who have problems repaying their loans, that one of the main problems was that the banks currently do not have the required flexibility to take into account the situation of these young people, with the result that several of them have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Obviously, some improvements could be made in that regard.

Collecting debts by using the tax system is also interesting in the sense that very few people can avoid the tax man. This would ensure that the debts incurred by young people for their education would be repaid.

However, when you think of it, that proposal is not as good as it may seem. It is seriously flawed in a number of ways. First, it is based on the principle that education is young people's responsibility. It is up to them to pay for their education, whether by holding a job or getting into debt. It becomes a case of every man for himself. It is the law of the jungle. Society admits to no responsibility toward anyone and leaves it up to each individual to fend for himself.

This is not the principle which led to the establishment of the current loan and scholarship program in Canada. It was felt that education was a right and that society had to help young people enjoy that right. It was also felt that education was a social investment. Young people benefit from school training. Just take a look at the figures on job placement and unemployment;

they will confirm that. As well, all the personal development and culture gained by young people will prove very useful throughout their lives. But providing an education to young people is also a social investment. The richest and most advanced societies from a socio-economic point of view are those where young people get the best education.

The loan and scholarship program in Canada was based on these premises. The federal and provincial governments were guided by the following principle when they got involved in loans and scholarships: each young person has the right to an education and that education is a social investment. This is why, in Canada, we made sure to keep tuition fees rather low, compared to what they are in some other countries. It is a societal decision, a choice we made as a society because we believe that our young people should get an education for their own benefit and that of society as a whole.

Therefore, I cannot support the motion before us because the hidden agenda seems to be to have students pay their own way. It is particularly striking in the part of the motion that my colleague from the Liberal Party wants to delete, the part that talks about reducing the cost to taxpayers and charging accumulated interest. Basically, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest arises from a concern to save money for taxpayers and make sure that the government withdraw as much as possible from education financing.

I think that there is a danger for students in there too and that is the danger of long-term indebtedness. Take for instance a student who has accumulated a debt of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 while in school. If this student has the misfortune to have trouble finding a job, if he has the misfortune to be poor, he is going to be in debt for a very long time. Perhaps 10 years, maybe 15 or even 20. He will not have much of a chance to get out of debt, especially if, as suggested by our colleague from the Reform Party, we charge him accumulated interest on his debt.

I think that the danger for our young people is long term indebtedness. This is also an indirect way of forcing us to go along with the underlying spirit of minister Axworthy's reform, i.e. shift the financial burden of education on to the students by reducing government assistance in the form of scholarships and asking students to go into debt to get an education.

I think that a proposal like this one could have a negative effect on motivation to pursue their education. My experience as a teacher tells me that positive reinforcement is important if we want our young people to be motivated to get higher education and I think that putting in place an adequate grants and loans scheme plays a major part in this. So, this is why I shall vote against the motion: because, in my opinion, it will institutionalize long term indebtedness for young people and it overlooks the need to maintain a scholarship system.

This motion also disregards the need to provide our young people with incentives to graduate as soon as possible, so as to keep government expenditures to a minimum. It is a matter of completing one's education in good time. If it takes three years to get a degree, take three years but not four, as some are tempted to do because they have to work their way through school.

To conclude, I think that what our young people need when they graduate is to find a good job they can live on and pay their school debts with, not to find themselves having to spend the next 10 to 15 years paying off debts.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Let there be no misunderstanding, Madam Speaker. I believe that this bill is a message that society is sending to itself. It is citizens saying to each other that they want to live in a non-violent environment, in a less violent environment. They are saying that it is not good, that it is not acceptable in our society to possess firearms, to be able, as my colleague pointed out, to go to a bar and buy a handgun, something that I personally have never done, but that it seems is possible.

In addition to its practical effectiveness in controlling firearms, the bill that we are examining is symbolic, it is a message that society is sending to itself. It is not insignificant that hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions calling for better control of firearms in Canada. There is a problem, contrary to what my colleague is implying in his question.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. With respect to the matter of imprisonment, I, of course, am not advocating that prisons be abolished or shut down. I do think, however, that the bill puts a little too much emphasis on imprisonment as a solution.

We may, for example, wonder why there are 49 inmates per 100,000 people in the Netherlands, compared to 116 in Canada and 519 in the U.S. I do not think that violence is commonplace in the Netherlands. I think that some societies do not see jail terms as a deterrent in the same way as we do in Canada and the U.S.

The question I ask myself about this bill is whether the proposed solution of systematically increasing jail terms for crimes committed with firearms is effective.

My colleague's second question deals with Reform's amendment to split the bill in two and make a distinction between hunting rifles owned by ordinary, law-abiding citizens, as my colleague would say, and handguns more often used in committing crimes.

I think there is no reason to make such a distinction because, in my opinion, a firearm is a firearm. A misused firearm can cause definite, serious harm to people. It does not matter whether one gets shot with a 12 gauge shotgun, a hunting rifle or a pistol. I think that, in our society, it is important that all those who have the power to harm others with their firearms be aware of this responsibility and let society know that they have this potential power.

Although these people will not, of course, misuse their firearms, that is still a possibility. There is no reason to make a distinction between presumably law-abiding citizens-and I agree that they are-and less respectable people who own handguns or other types of firearms. I do not think that a distinction should be made.

In my opinion, some handguns should be completely banned or recalled, even if they are collector's items, because they are potentially dangerous.

I do not see how it would be prejudicial to a citizen to register his hunting rifles. Many things are registered. Many of our possessions are registered and I do not think this violates anyone's rights.

I will not vote for the amendment put forward by my Reform colleague because I do not think it should be adopted. In my opinion, all weapons are potentially dangerous and their owners should be aware of this. One way to make them aware of this is to require them to let society know that they own firearms and will live up to their responsibility to use them properly.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks on Bill C-68.

When I spoke on this bill previously, I said straight away that I agree with the principle of gun control and that, on the whole, I support the justice minister's bill. Later, I will raise specific

concerns I feel my party should address in a parliamentary committee.

I was somewhat surprised with the type of debate that took place in this House around the gun control issue. I heard some speakers mention individual freedoms. Some spoke of the right for every Canadian citizen to own firearms. Others perceived the proposed measures as unjustified government interference in people's private lives.

To some extent, we are having a societal debate here. Many representations were made and many letters were sent to my office by Canadian citizens who oppose this legislation. I read almost all of them to have a good idea of what the problem is.

I think that this debate is about looking at society differently. It is a matter of individual freedom against public interest. No one in Canada, I think, opposes the right of the government to control firearms, to ensure that anyone who owns weapons, handguns in particular, be identified and be required to justify requesting permission to own such weapons. The problem right now is with the registration of firearms which are hunting weapons.

Some say: "I am an honest citizen and I am not going to cause problems for others with my firearms. Consequently, I do not see why the government wants to know if I own such firearms and determine whether I am allowed to do so". Those who use that argument forget something important, namely that our society-we are not talking here about American society in the 19th century, but about society in Canada and Quebec in 1995-has changed. Customs have changed, as well as the concept of community life, and I believe that one of the main thrusts right now is that society is opposed to violence.

Society is opposed to violence against women and children. Actions which were condoned 25 or 30 years ago are now being denounced and can trigger criminal proceedings. Society tells us, legislators, to control violence. If violence can sometimes show itself in such brutal and damaging ways, it is because some people are armed. It goes without saying that the vast majority, maybe 99 per cent, of those who own firearms will not commit violent crimes. This control which we want to implement over firearms may deter only a small number of people from misusing their firearms, or from using them with bad intentions.

But I want to make it clear that, in my opinion, this bill is a message. It is a message which society is sending to itself. It is society which no longer wants to live in a climate of violence, which wants peace and safe streets, and which wants to make sure that, if a neighbour, a person across the street or those people whom one meets in one's daily activities are armed, they will have had to state that they own firearms.

Owning a gun does not necessarily mean a person is violent, but society tells us that it wants to know who has guns, so that the message is clear. To own a gun is, in a way, a right, but there is also a duty involved. Guns must be used carefully, so that no one is ever at risk.

That being said, I think it is important to adopt the kind of bill before us today, even if it means curtailing certain individual freedoms. I think that, to a certain extent, society is ready for this bill.

Some aspects of the bill are not entirely satisfactory, however. Before my time expires, I would like to comment on these aspects. There is the matter of prison sentences. The bill provides for a minimum prison sentence of four years for serious crimes committed with firearms. The bill also contains several provisions that would increase prison sentences for individuals convicted of contravening this legislation, once it is passed.

I question the use of prison sentences and their effectiveness. The other day, I read in the paper that Canada ranks third among a number of western countries for the number of persons incarcerated per population of 100,000. Countries like Germany, France or the Netherlands have incarceration rates that are lower than Canada's. There is no indication, however, in the newspapers or in reports on the subject, that in these countries violence has greater impact or that people are not as safe as in other countries where incarceration is the measure of choice to control crime.

Incidentally, the two countries where incarceration is used most often are Russia and the United States. The United States has opted for incarceration as a way of exercising social control, as a way of controlling crime. If we look at what is happening in the United States, we do not get the impression that American society is less violent or less dangerous than German or French society.

I think that incarceration is not the right way to deal with the crime rate, and that is why I question some provisions of the bill that seem to reflect this emphasis on the deterrent effect of more severe prison sentences. There may be other ways to approach this problem. This is a very complex issue, and I think my party should raise it in committee.

There is also the matter of sentencing. It is said that judges do not have enough leeway. The minimum sentence is too high to allow sufficiently for the circumstances involved. I think judges should be allowed greater flexibility in setting the minimum sentence. Obviously, when a crime is committed with a firearm, this is an aggravating circumstance. However, there are situations where a judge may have to penalize individuals because under the law, he must determine a minimum period of incarceration. This does not mean justice will necessarily be served in every case.

There is also the time frame. This is important in connection with the requirement to register a weapon and license it. If we add up all the possible time periods, and take into account the number of people currently owning firearms, we are talking about a period of almost seven years.

Obviously, enough time must be allowed for the appropriate administrative measures to be taken to ensure an effective registration and licensing system is in place. However, I think seven years is a lot. This is a very long time, in view of the urgency of the situation and the value of the firearms control measure of registration. It would be preferable to shorten the time period so that people with firearms could take note of their responsibilities and register their weapons as quickly as possible.

There is also the whole matter of costs. There are fairly low fees for registration and there are fees for licensing, which is renewable every five years. I think many people who opposed mandatory registration of firearms mentioned that significant amounts would be involved. Of course, if we add everything up, we arrive at a figure of perhaps several tens of millions of dollars. Not a mind boggling figure, but a reasonable amount, to some extent.

Clearly, if we could lower the administrative costs of licensing and registration, it would be easier on people who have to keep an eye on their spending. But I do not think that the $50 or $60 fee currently provided for under the proposed regulation is high enough to prevent people who would like to own guns from assuming their responsibilities and from registering them, a measure designed to let society know who is armed.

There is another aspect. Some categories of guns-for example the infamous AK-47-will remain in the hands of their present owners. In my opinion, these kinds of weapons have no place in a democratic and free country. They have a history in several countries. They have served all sorts of purposes, not always noble. I think it would have been appropriate for the minister to immediately recall these weapons.

Those are the main points I wanted to make about this bill, which is legitimate in a free and democratic society. In a society favouring non-violent values, it is important to know who owns firearms, because they increase carnage when violence breaks out. As well they are a symbol of violence.

These days, no one can walk the streets with a gun without alarming citizens. This was not the case 30 years ago. In my own town, which was closer to a medium size town than a small town, I recall that, at 17 or 18 years of age, we went through town carrying our .22 calibre rifles to go target shooting in the fields. People did not make a fuss because most of them knew each other and knew who was who. They did not think we were violent. Nobody worried about it. But now, no one can walk the streets of my town, Jonquière, with a .22 rifle without the police hearing about it.

In my opinion, this indicates a shift in society's values and I believe that the time has come for us in Quebec and in Canada to know who is armed, who owns guns, and why, so that people become fully aware of their responsibilities as gun owners.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Madam Speaker, I would say that the connection is tenuous and as far as I can see, non existent. We heard the same excuse after the results of the referendum on the Charlottetown accord in 1992. I remember seeing certain studies, including one by the Royal Bank which said that if Canada said no or Quebec said no, that would be the end of Canada, and I remember, this was either in the study or maybe it was a political cartoon, there would be train loads of Canadians heading for the American border to take shelter in our neighbour's economic paradise. In fact, there is no connection. If you look at the economic situation and the whole issue of Quebec's sovereignty, there is no connection between the two. Often, support for sovereignty is strong while the economy is weak, but often it is the other way around.

Unfortunately, some politicians are using this issue to make political gain. I deplore that because politics is a noble art, a noble science, a noble calling, and it is the art or the science, if you will, of government. It is the art or science of guiding and moving societies. When we use all kinds of tricks and excuses to try and get at our opponents and even resort to blackmail on these issues, I think that in addition to weakening our case, we also diminish our performance as a politician.

I want to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for giving me this opportunity to say that I do think economic issues are linked to the question of Quebec sovereignty. I agree, but I do not agree that this very fact weakens the Canadian economy. I would say that people are waiting. People are waiting, and if we manage to reach a decision, I am sure the economy will recover, both in Canada and Quebec, and that we will then have the resources to restructure our economies and ensure that within Canada's present borders there are two countries that are comfortable financially and whose citizens will be able to work together.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and question.

With respect to his comment, I would just like to say that, when the Minister of Finance talks about job creation or when the Liberal Party was talking about job creation during the election campaign, they never said: "We will create 400,000 jobs". What the Liberal Party said is: "We will create jobs". And what the Minister of Finance is telling us is: "We have created 450,000 new jobs in Canada". I suggest he qualify this statement by saying "we contributed to the creation of", if we follow my hon. colleague's reasoning.

On the issue of confidence and Quebec, I do not think that shoving our problems under the carpet will resolve anything. The Quebec issue is that of a people who wants to achieve sovereignty. I could tell you a long story, but it would be the history of Quebec, to make the point that, for us, this is a culmination. And Canada will not make this problem disappear by denying this reality. A better way of dealing with this problem would be to recognize it and look at the potential impact of Quebec's sovereignty on both Canada and Quebec.

I have the distinct impression that Canada would survive if Quebec were to secede. Why not? I think that those who say that people are reluctant to invest because Quebec wants its sovereignty are just using this as a scare tactic. Interestingly, after the defeat in 1980 and the patriation of the Constitution which was supposed to create a new order in Canada, we did not experience a major boom in the economy. I remember what happened in 1982. There was a serious recession, and that was two years after Quebecers said no in the referendum. I do not think there is a relationship between the two.

But there is something I would like to say to the hon. member in closing. As long as the issue of Quebec has not been resolved, Canada will always identify this issue as a problem. I do not think that holding people against their will, scaring them and threatening them will solve the problem. Whether the answer is yes or no in the referendum, the problem will still exist and there will still be sovereignists in Quebec who will continue to stand

up for what they believe in because not only is it an emotional issue, but it is also a matter of interest for Quebec.