Debates of April 15th, 1994

Income Tax Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were both in our seats when you asked if we wished to proceed with the debate. We answered by saying " débat '', because we do want to speak on this bill. I do not understand-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would point out to the hon. member that when the Chair calls for the debate to begin, a member must rise in his place. No member did in fact rise when I called for debate.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to support the comments on the point of order made by my other colleagues on this side of the House. Our members also were here prepared to debate. We did not hear the Chair indicate that this was an appropriate time to begin the debate. We believe this debate should go forward this morning as we have clearly indicated we are prepared to do. We have submitted speakers to the Chair. It was obvious that we were ready to go ahead and we think that the process should have allowed us to hear and realize that this was the time to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In response to the point of order by the hon. member for Calgary North, I called the debate, I named one of the ridings on the member's list effectively. That member was not in his place and did not rise. The question was called for and once I have called the question it is too late to go back to debate unless we have unanimous consent of the House.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It has always been my impression that the goal of this House is to allow members to speak on issues put before Parliament by the government. In this particular instance, I would point out that in order for the debate to flow smoothly, insofar as the translation in both official languages is concerned, the Chair must co-operate with members and show considerable understanding, and vice-versa.

As far as this particular debate is concerned, members were prepared to speak. That includes members of our party and of the other party as well. My colleagues indicated to me that they were somewhat unclear on the approach taken to this debate. They did not understand exactly at what point in the proceedings the Chair was and they wonder if perhaps the Chair could not have been a little more tolerant toward the members who wanted to speak on this subject, in particular the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, even though apparently they had missed their opportunity to do so.

I think one thing should be made clear. We need your co-operation to ensure that the proceedings flow smoothly, as the government needs ours. The smooth running of Parliament depends on this mutual trust. Tricks should not be played on members and the Chair should not move hastily to ask if someone wishes to speak and when no member rises immediately, move on to something else. We know that the Standing Orders require that we ask for the floor. We have an agreement which works very well for Question Period. Members do not have to clamour to be recognized. The Speaker proceeds in a specific order. Some customs in this House cannot be overlooked. If my colleagues were to understand from your decision that they must now rise and shout in order to be recognized, then the complexion of this House could change rather dramatically.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your decision and allow our colleagues to speak. Our goal is not to muzzle members, but to give them an opportunity to speak.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a problem here this morning but, in my opinion, the problem is not on the government side.

When the House met, you called for debate on the question before the House, on this bill at second reading, twice. Yes, you called for debate twice and you even called on a member who was not in the House to start the debate. The member was not here. Only two Bloc members were here in the House. And I am sure that these two members could not have participated in the debate because the member for Richmond-Wolfe has already delivered his speech on this bill; he cannot make another one.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

I was here. I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No. I am on a point of order. Wait for your turn.

May I refer all members and you, Madam Speaker, to Standing Order 17:

Every Member desiring to speak is to rise in his or her place, uncovered, and address the Speaker.

It is vital that members rise. No one rose to debate. We sat here and called for the question and finally after a lengthy delay-I submit a more than adequate delay-Your Honour put the question to the House. The question was put, the votes were called for, and then members realized after the vote had been called for that there was a problem because they wanted to debate.

There is a third reading on this bill. Members will have ample opportunity to debate the bill at third reading. We have had three days on the bill already. I do not understand why there is an objection now, after the vote has been taken, when none of them

was here ready to debate when the order was called at ten o'clock.

It is not the responsibility of the government to do more than make the opportunity available. It was available. The members failed to show up and now they are complaining about it. Madam Speaker, you cannot be responsible for their tardiness.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe has risen. Does he want to speak to the same point of order?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Yes, Madam Speaker. First, I would like to set the record straight. I was in this House and I did not speak in this debate.

Second, I think you were aware, as you were given the names of the speakers in this debate, that we were going to rise. Reform members had also given notice that they would rise.

I do not intend to continue and stir up a dispute. What you must realize, regarding our mutual co-operation in this debate, is that we in the Bloc did not quite understand the meaning of your announcement. This is why we are asking you to exercise your authority and your good judgment. We misinterpreted your remarks.

So if in the future we in the Bloc must alter our relationship regarding this co-operation, you must tell us clearly that sometimes you cannot make use of your good judgment to allow the debate to go on. And I think the party in power should consider that what is important in this part of House proceedings is to allow members to speak to get through the whole process in a democratic fashion. That is basically why we make speeches. It is a matter of democracy.

And if the party in power wants to muzzle us this morning, knowing full well that we had members ready to speak, Madam Speaker, I call on your good judgment and ask you for a ruling.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Charlevoix on the same point of order.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect I think that the authority over this House rests with the person occupying the Chair; you are vested with that authority.

Earlier, at the opening of the sitting, to make the Chair's job easier, I tabled on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois the complete list of our members who wished to speak. Two of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois had taken their seats when I handed in my list at the Clerk's table. At the same time, you asked: "Are there hon. members who wish to ask questions?" At that precise moment, I was at the Clerk's table dropping off my list in duplicate, with one copy for the Clerk and one for the Chair, to help identify those members who were to speak.

When you called a member from the Reform Party to speak, if he was not here at the time, you should have called the next speaker, namely Gérard Asselin, member for Charlevoix, the first name on that list. I was right here, at the Clerk's table.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Roberval when he says that co-operation from all hon. members in all parties and from the Chair is essential to the proper operation of this House. But I would like to add that the same kind of co-operation must be shown by members in debate, when we have to rise to indicate to the Chair our desire to speak.

That did not happen, and seeing that no one was rising in his or her place, you simply put the question, which was perfectly in order. Madam Speaker, for the sake of preserving the good will prevailing in this House, we would be prepared, on this side, to consent to revert to debate and give these people the chance to speak. We are prepared to do this to accommodate you as well as the hon. members opposite.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I just want to remind hon. members of this House that the orders of the day had been called and that I had called for debate. Not one single member rose in his or her place, as required for debate. Furthermore, the government side asked for the question to be put. As no hon. member indicated a desire to speak, I then put the question.

I would have a question for the government whip. Could the unanimous consent of the House be sought to revert to debate?

The hon. member for Roberval has the floor, on a point of order.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understood the Secretary of State to say that he allowed the debate to resume. So, quite simply, that means the government no longer objects.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his microphone is not on. The whip's mike was not on.

So let us go back. Is there unanimous consent of the House to revert to the debate on Bill C-17?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we will give unanimous consent to the proposition on the understanding that the question will be put on the motions by the conclusion of the time allotted for government orders this day.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

I would have a question for you, Madam Speaker.

We are satisfied with the decision just rendered and the agreement just made in this House. Nevertheless, for our future guidance, I gather from your decision that the indicative lists of speakers that we provide you are no longer useful and are worthless. We have always been opposed to providing the Chair with a list of members who should speak in the question period during debate.

I must conclude from your decision that these lists are no longer useful in our work and that members will have to ask for the floor as the debate proceeds. That is how I understand your decision. I would like you to enlighten me on that, because we will not make a list just for the fun of it. We will proceed differently in future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The lists are still very useful, but they are to be seen only as a guide. Members must rise in their place to be recognized.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to clarify events. We too are happy that the debate can go forward as it ought to so that everyone can be heard on the matter. However, when one of our members was recognized who was not present-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. We have responded many times that you are just as essential but it is more essential that the member called be seated in his or her seat.

We have resolved the question and I resume debate with the hon. member for Charlevoix.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion.

Budget Implementation Act, 1994

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate this morning in the debate at second reading of Bill C-17, which deals with the budget.

Let me give a little background on Canada's budget, debt and deficit. In 1980-when the Liberals were in office-a debt was generated, as well as a deficit which set the first record. Four years later, in 1984, the debt had climbed to $187 billion with Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in charge, and the current Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, as his Minister of Finance.

From 1980 to 1984, 74 of the 75 members representing Quebec in this House were Liberals. There was only one Conservative MP in the province, namely Roch LaSalle from Joliette. What did the Liberal members representing Quebec do in this House? Were they muzzled by MPs from English Canada?

The debt of $187 billion which the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals in 1984 had grown to $500 billion by 1993. In 1988, the riding of Charlevoix was represented by a Conservative member; however, it was represented by a Liberal from 1980 to 1984.

Between 1984 and 1993, the member for Charlevoix and Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, was at the helm and left a debt of $500 billion, which costs Canadians $108 million every day in interest charges. Six months later, Canada's debt stands at $525 billion, costs $110 million a day in interest, and the Liberal government is proud of the Minister of Finance's budget. A deficit of $39.7 billion-which sets the second record in this House-is something unheard of until now. The government wants to reduce the deficit by creating deficits. Many Liberal MPs are uncomfortable with this $39.7-billion deficit but, unfortunately, when the vote is taken in this House, the Liberals, who are too uncomfortable to discuss this issue, will prove us right and vote for their budget because they are once again muzzled by the government.

Madam Speaker, you cannot gag members for years and years. If you do, they will try to speak from the side of their mouths and those who enjoy a long career in this House might end up with a crooked mouth. Liberal members must have the opportunity to vote freely on the budget, which will then undoubtedly be rejected.

There is no light at the end of the tunnel. This budget contains a lot of increases. People in Charlevoix will be affected by all these measures, since the government has increased unemployment insurance premiums for workers and taxes for the elderly. It has increased the deficit as well as the number of unemployed Canadians and helped to create a feeling of social insecurity in this country. Unfortunately, all of this will have a negative impact on my constituents in Charlevoix.

The budget does not only include increases, it also contains cuts that we have to mention here, if only to be honest. Social programs are cut by $7.5 billion over three years. Instead of dealing with unemployment, the government has chosen to go after the unemployed. The government also cut social housing and daycare programs, as well as assistance to low-income families, job training, post-secondary education, assistance to single-parent families, help for families with handicapped people and programs to help the handicapped re-enter the labour force. All this in the International Year of the Family.

The government did not take its responsibilities. It has no backbone. It should have cut where cuts are needed. It should have cut the Senate budget, ministers' expenses and pension funds of members of Parliament. It should also have set the age of pension eligibility at 60. People in Charlevoix, in Quebec and in Canada are being hurt and this budget will only increase the poverty level. This week, the Prime Minister was pleased to tell us that the unemployment rate was down, but when unemployment decreases by 2 per cent in Quebec, welfare increases by 2 per cent.

I want to remind members that the Bloc Quebecois tabled a motion in this House to set up a committee to examine all government expenditures, item by item, department by department, to review the Auditor General's recommendations and to report on these issues. Auditors General, past and present, have always done a good job. Unfortunately, their reports have always been overlooked.

The government is seeking additional revenues. In the red book, the Liberal government said it would abolish the GST. Why do they want to do so? Because this tax is visible and the Liberals want a hidden tax. Why? So they can raise the GST from 7 to 12 per cent. They want to broaden the tax base to be able to tax food products, drugs, education, volunteer organizations and charities. Who will pay and suffer? Not the senators, but workers and consumers, low-income families, seniors, single-parent families, the unemployed, students, the handicapped-of which I have many in my riding of Charlevoix. They are the ones who elected me to represent them and defend their interests. That is why I speak today, to defend their interests.

There are too many welfare recipients and UI beneficiaries in Charlevoix. Once these people have paid for rent, food, clothing and hydro, which are necessities, they cannot afford to buy medication for their children or for themselves.

Let us look at what the government has spent. According to an old saying, money cannot buy happiness. That may well be true, but money sure helps to pay the bills. The government spent $800 million to implement the GST, but it cost small businesses $6.4 billion. Yes, the GST needs to be improved. Canada is going deeper and deeper into the red, the budget is in the red and the deficit is not getting any smaller under this Liberal government.

The message is clear: Quebecers do not trust the federal system anymore. The people of Charlevoix proved it on October 25. Quebecers from 54 ridings proved that they have finally understood that the federal government is no longer effective. Liberal or Conservative, it is all the same.

I have to thank the people of Charlevoix, both the sovereignists and the disenchanted federalists, who voted for me and sent me here to protect their interests in this House today.

It was Paul Martin, the minister, who said that the House of Commons is a theatre. On October 25, the people of Quebec tried to change the actors in this House. If the House of Commons is a theatre, it is important also to change the horror movie that is playing here, the one about social insecurity in Quebec and in Canada.

Is it the politicians who spend too much or the bureaucrats who are guilty of mismanagement? I asked the Minister of Finance this question. His answer was: the politicians, of course, because we lack control mechanisms.

In closing, I would like to leave a clear message with the people of Charlevoix and of Quebec. Tomorrow's generation will have to foot the bill. I hope that Quebecers will choose the only solution that will enable us to help them. They will very soon be given another option, namely Quebec's sovereignty.