André Caron

[Red Cross, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, because the Red Cross hesitated and, in fact, neglected to test blood products for contamination by hepatitis C, several hundred Canadians were infected. This shocking conclusion was mentioned several times in the course of the proceedings of the Krever Commission.

The Red Cross waited until 1990 before using a test to detect hepatitis C, claiming that existing tests were not effective. In 1986, the United States was already using an indirect test to detect contaminated products. Hesitation on the part of the Red Cross between 1986 and 1990 potentially infected 10,000 Canadians.

These damning revelations are the latest in a series of horror stories which have surfaced at the hearings so far. In view of this information, the Krever Commission has a responsibility and a duty to identify those whose irresponsible attitudes led to the death of hundreds of human beings.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. I say with pleasure but also with a certain weariness, because the first speeches I delivered in this House more than a year ago dealt with the privatization of Pearson airport by the previous government. In that speech, I denounced the dubious transactions involving people close to both Tory and Liberal political circles.

Bloc members who spoke up at the time called for the supervision, clarification and regulation of lobbyists' activities in Canada. Reading the bill now before us, I realize that the main demands made by Bloc speakers, the main conditions we wanted to set in order to shed light, once and for all, on lobbyists' activities in Canada, have not been met.

Although we may deplore the fact that lobbying activities take place in a government such as the Canadian government, it must be recognized that, given the financial implications-for example, the federal government signs close to 90,000 contracts every year-, some people may to try to influence the government and meet lawmakers and senior officials with decision-making powers to ensure that regulations, programs and even bills are in their best interests.

Although we understand this situation, we are surprised that this government does not understand the need to monitor the risks of influence and mismanagement so that citizens are fully aware that things are being done properly. The bill before us nonetheless contains a number of improvements. Certain members of the Liberal government now in power had denounced really unfortunate and unacceptable situations when they were in opposition and promised, notably in their red book, drastic measures to regulate the activities of lobbyists.

Going over this bill, one realizes that, while some improvements have been made, major amendments would have been required at committee stage to increase its efficiency in terms of its purposes and to bring it at least slightly more in line with the goals the Liberal Party had set for itself when in opposition as well as with its promises to sort things out once in power.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken on this bill, therefore I will only list a number of flaws or points that should have been corrected in order to allow us, members of the official opposition, to vote for this bill. Since these flaws were not corrected in the legislative process, it will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear me say that, like all Bloc members I think, I will be voting against this bill.

One of the main flaws of this legislation has to do with the whole ethics counsellor issue. At present, no one seems to have the authority to provide advice or guidance to politicians and government employees on certain procedures or actions which may be confusing.

The bill provides for an ethics counsellor to be appointed by the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will choose an honest and reputable person who will be able to provide enlightened advice. However, this person will have no power and, being appointed by the Prime Minister, neither will he or she have any credibility. The House of Commons, or Parliament, should appoint the ethics counsellor, so as to give that person the prestige, the authority and the protection necessary for someone who will have to provide opinions on actions, representations or projects which often involve enormous expenses for certain people.

We deplore the fact that, while the ethics counsellor will undoubtedly mean well, this person will be subject to the Prime Minister's will in terms of his appointment, and it is the Prime Minister who will govern to a great extent how the ethics counsellor executes his or her mandate.

When we reviewed the transactions surrounding the privatization of Pearson airport, we also asked that there be only one category of lobbyists. As you know, lobbying activities are conducted by various firms, groups and organizations. If someone wants to influence the government or have his or her views expressed to MPs or to some senior public officials, that person can go to a specialized agency which will do what is necessary to convey his or her views to those concerned.

However, there are also other people who lobby while working for various organizations, such as business associations, unions, and all sorts of other groups which hire permanent staff to do so. Some of these permanent employees may be involved in communications or governmental relations and make representations as lobbyists, even though they are not treated in the same way as those who belong to lobbying groups specifically involved in governmental relations. We suggested, in parliamentary committee, that there should only be one category of lobbyists, so that all those involved in the same kind of representations and have the same responsibilities, would also have the same obligations. However, the legislation provides for two categories of lobbyists.

Several other suggestions were also made. We had asked that the fees paid to companies, agencies or individuals for lobbying services be disclosed. They will not be. Lobbyists objected to that. Lobbying experts have told us that this was not possible, that it was not under federal jurisdiction, that there would be problems related to competition and non-disclosure of activities, and that it was not necessary in any case.

I feel it is important that Parliament and the Canadian public be aware of the amount of money involved. Whether a company hands out $2 million or just $20,000 to a government relations agency does make a difference. When huge sums are involved, people who have to watch over lobbying activities would be on the alert.

We would also have liked some clarification on the political ties of lobbyists. The media have pointed out that many former very influential politicians, political staff members and people close to decision makers easily make the transition to a new career in lobbying.

It would have been important to have some kind of registration scheme for lobbyists so that we could determine who did what, what they did subsequently, and whether they hold positions, paid or unpaid, in political organizations. If the president of a Liberal association is active in lobbying, I think the people should know.

I had more points to make to demonstrate that the bill before us is flawed. But my time is running out, and I can only express my disappointment at the lobbying problem we now have in Canada and the unwillingness of the government to keep the promises it made in the last campaign, as set out in the red book. The only legacy of that red book will be the shame of unkept promises.

[The Economy, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to information received recently from the Conference Board, the job situation in Canada is of major concern to consumers and business people.

In the world of business, 38 per cent of managers foresee an upturn in the economy in the coming six months, as opposed to 64 per cent last year. Fewer than one third of consumers in Canada consider this a good time to make major purchases.

Only 16 per cent of consumers think there will be more jobs in their community in the next six months, whereas, at the end of last year, 26 per cent of consumers felt there would.

Confidence in Canada's economy is shrinking daily, despite what the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance are saying. The Prime Minister should look at what is going on around him. Has he spoken recently to any of the millions of Canadians reduced to unemployment insurance and welfare?

[Seagram And Power Corporation, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the revelation of friendship and favouritism shown by government ministers to Seagram and Power Corporation causes us to fear the worst.

Three weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was present when the President of Seagram announced his proposed takeover of MCA. On Monday, for the first time in history, the government overturned a decision by the CRTC in order to give a hand to a subsidiary of Power Corporation, headed by the Prime Minister's son-in-law.

The Liberals' incestuous relations with the business world are increasingly coming to light. The Liberal ministers consider the government their own and use it to benefit their friends. In the past, in Upper Canada, the term "family compact" was used to describe this sort of incestuous relationship between politics and business. Today the Liberal clique is running Canada, with its head offices at Power Corporation.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the candor of my colleague for Madawaska-Victoria amazes me. She spoke of an announced fiscal reform.

I do not know if it has already been announced, but it has not been announced very loudly since the present Liberal government came to power. Maybe it was announced in the red book, but there has been nothing more than promises since then.

But I am happy to learn, for example, that the GST will be abolished. I heard it would be on January 1, 1996; according to a few items in the papers just before Easter, the government announced it would not be on January 1, 1996, but maybe sometime in 1997, 1998 or 1999. This promised reform is probably similar to the promise made when the tax on income was introduced during the war. It was supposed to be only temporary. That is what they said. Since the reform was announced, I hope my colleague for Madawaska-Victoria's wish, which is shared by all Canadians, will be fulfilled and that the much abhorred GST will be abolished one day. But I am not sure that we will still be around to see it happen.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I always wondered why, according to the Chief Electoral Officer's reports that I often read in newspapers, some corporations or major banks were giving $50,000, $100,000 or even $150,000 to the Liberal Party's or the Conservative Party's election fund. It has always been a mystery for me since, as an ex-member of a provincial party that promoted and adopted a bill on political party financing, I was used to contribute $50, $100, or maybe $300 in the good years, or the election years. No one of those who acted as I did were getting any particular benefit for their contribution.

In particular, I have often been surprised to see that some corporations were giving $100,000 or $200,000. My colleague, the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, is telling me why. In fact, when those people give to some party's election fund, they are probably expecting some benefit in exchange. But it may be more subtle than that. I do not think it is necessarily a give and take process.

I hope that I will never see a minister of the Crown award contracts or give favours for money. I think that would be too disgusting, and it is probably not done these days, at least I hope not. But I think that things are done in subtle way, because the big corporations, the ones that contribute significantly to campaign funds, affirm their position in a particular milieu, that is the haves, the people who, in all good faith, and I do not in any way condemn wealth, belong to a certain social class, to a certain milieu, and who want that milieu to continue.

When we hear the statement made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, we realize that this milieu organized a lobby for itself, to make representations to the government on its behalf and to have members of the milieu elected to government. Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe mentioned that the present Minister of Finance used to own-I hope that it is not the case any more-a fleet of ships sailing under flag of convenience. That does not surprise me. The Minister of Finance knows the system very well, but he must feel in all good faith that it is a good system. If it is good for him, it surely must be good for every one else. So, he is perpetuating it.

So, be it through election funds, through having people elected, or through lobbying, I think it is the same system that is being perpetuated, and Canadians and Quebecers have had enough.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Yes, he probably did, maybe at that time we did not care so much about federal politics, but I believe that we might have supported it at the time, supported his efforts of clarification regarding the tax privileges some social classes enjoy in Canada. The speech he made today, he could have made it at the time of the Conservatives and he would have had the same result.

People might consider his proposition favourably, like many of us did when we heard about it. They might look at it and say: "There might be something there, maybe we could do something". But next year, when we are going to talk about new amendments to the Income Tax Act, we will probably say the same thing again. There are privileges in Canada. There are people who do not pay the taxes they should be paying. We deplore it, everybody talks about it, newspapers mention it, TV commentators mention it, and tax experts say so too.

The other day, a tax expert was saying that the Income Tax Act is so dense and contains so many exceptions that it takes an expert to find one's way through it. A provincial finance minister is even known to have said that, with our tax system, if a big company pays taxes, it is probably because its accountant is not very good.

So, when we are faced with these kinds of situations, I think that we cannot limit ourselves to proposals like those in Bill C-70, which deals with all kinds of things that are, in fact, secondary. As far as the exemption is concerned, I think that it might be the only provision which would be somewhat sensible for the working class. In the case of funeral arrangements, people would not have to pay taxes on the interest earned on amounts prepaid for these arrangements.

This is not serious. I believe that Canada is in a very difficult fiscal and budgetary situation. Minor improvements such as the ones proposed in Bill C-70 are not going to solve anything. We have to look once and for all at the Canadian tax system that we have had for the last 20 to 25 years and which has not undergone the reform everyone expected. Canadians are waiting for some kind of reform. Taxpayers, Canadians who contribute to social, health and education programs are ready to continue to do so, but they want everyone to do his or her fair share and to realize that taxes due must be paid. But that is not the case nowadays.

When we consider the case of banks and big business and, as I said a moment ago, the whole issue of tax shelters, we see how outrageous the whole situation is. Some would say: "Well, you are not an economist". If, for example, we increase corporate taxes, we are going to lose investments. That might well be but very often this is a point used to scare us, to prevent us from taking measures which would be significant, which would be necessary if we want Canada to have a sound tax system, if we want everyone to pay taxes according to their income and to prevent people from being in a situation where they can avoid paying taxes since this is essential to the survival of this country.

It is not just a question of saving money for all taxpayers. A country where taxes are not considered fair and equitable is on the road to ruin. A country has obligations and must have sufficient revenues to meet them. It has the responsibility to see that the revenues are there and that they come from the population as a whole, not only the middle class and the least fortunate members of our society, but also from big corporations and well-off families. The more fortunate members of our society must also pay their share of taxes because they benefit from the central government and from its services.

No business in Canada would survive if we were in a situation where people are opposed to a certain extent to the tax measures because if they are not sure that justice is the same for everyone, that responsibilities are the same for everyone, people will be less and less interested in paying taxes. They will turn more and more to moonlighting, thus taking away the money needed by government. This would lead us to disaster. That is why I call upon the minister-I do not know if many members did, although all the members of the Bloc who spoke on tax issues did do so-, I call upon the Minister of Finance to show more social understanding and to initiate a genuine tax reform. I hope that we, the members of the Bloc, will see such a reform while we are still in the federal Parliament.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-70. I listened to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and I was both amazed and impressed.

I was amazed to hear a Liberal member, an experienced member of the House of Commons who did a very thorough study of the tax system in Canada, say that the tax lobby is the most powerful lobby in this country and that there is no tax reform in this country because there are powerful interests that do whatever is necessary to influence governments.

I am also impressed, because I see a Liberal member who is swimming against the tide as he tries to advance the cause of fair taxation in this country. I am impressed because, considering his experience, he must realize that his chances of succeeding are very slight. Nevertheless, he belongs to a group that is submitting a proposal for tax reform.

I suppose that five, ten or twenty years from now, he will probably still represent the riding he represents today in the House of Commons and will probably be making the same speech and say: I have these wonderful ideas. I want to reform the tax system, but the big business lobby, the lobby of the haves in this country is so powerful that I cannot do a thing. But I will persevere.

So again, I have nothing but praise for the hon. member, and I would urge him to keep up the good work, because it is a very slow process, as the hon. member for the Reform Party said earlier.

The purpose of Bill C-70 is to implement certain measures announced in the budget of 1994, not the budget tabled a month and a half or two months ago but the one that was tabled 14 months ago. Now this is a good example of an institution that just ambles along, without realizing that some people in Canada are in a hurry for tax reform.

There are people who look at our tax system, and right now, they are probably finishing their income tax returns. They will probably file them at the last minute because, like a lot of people here, they owe money to the government. Taxpayers do their tax returns, saying to themselves: "It seems that Canada's tax system is not quite what it should be". They look at their tax returns, saying to themselves: "I get very few exemptions and tax credits". The people filling out their returns perhaps work for someone else, so evasion is not an option.

At the same time, the same people will see in the papers or on certain television programs that some people in this country are fortunate enough to have tidy fortunes, and to, it would seem, not have to pay taxes or to be able to take advantage of some form of tax evasion scheme, like family trusts, like tax credits such as the research and development credit, which in some cases may be used for praiseworthy pursuits but in reality boil down to a means of not paying a fair share of taxes.

The citizens in question who are in the process of filling in their tax returns may still recall the Auditor General's report last year, which said it was astounding that we continue to tolerate that Canadian income tax laws still contain certain tax haven provisions.

The Auditor General asked the government to review some tax conventions with certain countries, which permit businesses that we believe to be Canadian but are registered in foreign countries with laxer tax laws than Canada, to avoid paying taxes. I hope to be able to prove, in my speech, that Canada's Income Tax Act is very kind to the rich, but that there are other countries where it is even worse, where the tax legislation is even more lenient for those who make profits.

It should be noted that usually these countries are not rich ones, but rather countries which are struggling and belong to the third world. They probably benefit in some way from having such tax provisions. But on second thought, one realizes that they probably do not derive huge profits from signing these

conventions. According to the Auditor General, Canada probably loses vast sums of money in these transactions.

How is it that, in the bill before us today, which enacts certain provisions contained in last year's budget, there is no definite provision concerning tax havens, and tax conventions? Why?

I believe that the speaker who addressed the House before me, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, answered this question. It is because the lobby for rich Canadians is so powerful that the efforts of those who strive for greater and clearer fairness in the tax system are being defeated by people with huge interests.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood, speaking of eliminating privileges, loopholes, and grants in the form of tax breaks, even gave the figure of $500 billion. This is a huge amount of money. I did not do the same research as he did. I trust him.

That figure tells us that maybe there is a good part of the federal debt that we are trying to pay off, or rather that some people in Canada want to pay off by going after the middle class and even the less fortunate, through cuts in tax credits such as the age credit which has been slowly decreased year after year, for example.

Let us say I am happy to see that, on the Liberal side, the social conscience of some members is still strong enough to make them denounce the present situation, although the Liberal Party has done so before.

In the red book, the bible of the last election campaign, they proposed certain measures to increase the fairness of the tax system, certain steps which, according to the Bloc Quebecois, would revive trust in the taxation system, and would make Canadians believe there is justice in taxes after all. But once in office they no longer seem to be interested in such measures.

The speech that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood gave today, he could have given it with the same result when he was in opposition and the Conservatives were in office.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask a question to the hon. member, but first I would like to make a short comment.

After hearing the hon. member's speech, I think I can see the difference between Reform and Bloc members. I feel that Reform members represent taxpayers, while we, Bloc members, represent citizens.

It is often said that citizens do not want their riding to change, or that their member makes representations on their behalf to preserve the boundaries of the riding. That is because the member recognizes that these people feel a sense of belonging to their riding.

People get attached to their riding, which is represented by a member of Parliament. Often, they will have created a sense of community in that riding.

To think strictly in terms of numbers when establishing the boundaries of a riding would be to make the same mistake as in 1982, when the Canadian constitution was changed and when the country's ten provinces, whose populations are far from being equal, were said to be equal. That created an artificial country.

I believe that, given the attitude which frequently prevails when setting electoral boundaries, we create artificial ridings which do not mean anything special. It is as though Canada was a big cake cut into pieces, with the hope that these pieces will somehow be equal. You simply cannot do that with a country. You cannot overlook the sense of belonging.

I ask the hon. member: Does he not think it is important to take into account the voters' sense of belonging when redefining electoral boundaries?

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of our colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I think that his position was clear and well put.

I would like to ask him a few questions, perhaps two, particularly on the issue of an elected Senate. But before I get into the subject, I would like to justify, just a little, my participation in the debate.

As a sovereignist member of Parliament from Quebec, it might seem strange that I would want to get involved in the representation of Canadians in the House of Commons, but it should be well understood that constituents gave us the mandate to be the official opposition in the House. I think that it would have been inappropriate for us not to deal with this issue claiming that it does not concern us.

It concerns us, first, because of the mandate which we received, as I just mentioned, and also because, in view of the association with Canada that we want to promote, it is in our best interests, as Quebecers, to ensure that Canadian Parliament works in the best way possible.

I would like to remind my colleague, whom I was interested to hear mention that the representation of Saskatchewan's members in Parliament would be reduced in the future, why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, were moved to present an amendment which was defeated by the House. The aim of this amendment was to ensure that, should Quebec remain in Canada, its representation would never drop below 25 per cent.

Why are we insisting on that figure? I think that this 25 per cent is very small if we consider what we have been. When you come into the lobby of the House of Commons, there is the opposition door and the government door. If you look above the opposition door, you can see two medallions. In one of them, there is Louis XIV and in the other, François I.

Above the government door, you notice two English kings. What does that mean? It means that you can see, carved in stone, what Canada was when we entered Confederation. By the way, we entered Confederation on a vote by the Parliament of what was then Lower Canada. There was no referendum. At the time, Canada was a duality, what people used to call the French Canadian people and the English Canadian people. That is how people saw Canada.

In 1982, Canada changed. Canada was a country with ten equal provinces, and in those provinces there were citizens who were all equal, irrespective of their origins, but that is not really my point. My point is that the nature of the country in which we live was changed and it was done forcibly, and, I may recall, by means of a law passed by the Parliament of England. So this is not exactly conducive to good relations between peoples, and

when I say peoples, I am referring to the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake rose to complain that Saskatchewan would have fewer members. As members from Quebec, we also rose to complain about this eventuality, and the House of Commons ignored our complaint. We protested on the basis of our historic responsibility as the homeland of French Canadians. Today, French Canadians call themselves Quebecers, possibly to the dismay of some people in English Canada.

And now my question is about the Senate. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake suggested, to compensate for the decrease in representation of the provinces, an appointed or elected Senate that would act as a kind of counterweight to the fact that the House of Commons would then perhaps represent more ridings and the Senate would then represent the provinces and play a kind of protective role.

Considering his experience in the House of Commons-the hon. member is an experienced member of Parliament who was here throughout the Mulroney era-does he really believe that in the present situation, Canada will ever achieve the kind of constitutional reform that would allow for making changes in its institutions?