Yvan Loubier

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, are you calling on me to speak to the motion I moved, Motion No. 2?

[Assistance To Businesses Affected By Ice Storm, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one might well ask who is playing politics, because the Government of Quebec's programs are chugging along, while all the minister is doing is talking.

Will the minister admit that, by worrying more about the federal government's visibility than the effectiveness of its program, he and his Treasury Board colleague have associated their names with an appalling failure that does precious little to serve the interests of SMBs in areas affected by the storm?

[Assistance To Businesses Affected By Ice Storm, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec.

Last February, the federal government refused to co-operate with the Government of Quebec and came up with its own program of assistance to businesses that suffered losses in the ice storm. We have just learned that, to date, two months after the crisis, only 28 of the 25,000 businesses affected have received federal assistance.

How can the minister justify the failure of his program of assistance when, at the time, he used the urgency of the situation as an excuse for refusing to reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Thirty-one billion dollars.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Not a one.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Must be panzomania.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

No, never. They are liars.

[Balanced Budget Act, March 12th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-375, the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce this balanced budget bill, or anti-deficit legislation.

The effect of the bill, if passed, would be to prevent the government from incurring deficits, except under extraordinary circumstances. The Minister of Finance would be accountable to Parliament for his management. Another new element is the fact that this bill contains provisions to monitor changes in the immense federal debt.

I therefore introduce this bill in the House in the hope that all my colleagues will pass it quickly.

(Motions agreed to, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of Industry, one would think one was on another planet. He says he has gone across the country and has found that business people, and indeed everyone, is happy with the finance minister's latest budget.

I would just quote a few comments made by business people, including Mr. Cléroux, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who said the day the budget was brought down, and I quote “It is a budget lacking vision, with no job strategy”.

So, when we are told that the business community was happy, we have our doubts. There was some unanimity around the budget, to the effect that it was not the budget of a visionary, and that, as far as real strategic planning with respect to the economy and jobs, the Minister of Finance was not perhaps the best person.

He says that everyone was happy. The day the budget was brought down, and the following day as well, all the provincial finance ministers and premiers—Mr. Romanow spoke on behalf of all Canada's premiers—were united in condemning this budget, saying that the Minister of Finance was taking credit for all the benefits of putting the fiscal house in order when it was their work that had made it possible and that they had received nothing for their efforts.

The Income Taxpayers' Association also had something to say. There were people representing taxpayers. They found $4 billion in tax cuts over the next three years laughable. Since he has been Minister of Finance, do you know how much the taxes of Quebeckers and Canadians have gone up? By almost $31 billion in three years.

So, thanks to him, people have paid an additional $31 billion in taxes over the past three years. Now he is telling us that, in the next three years, he will be reducing taxes by $4 billion. That amounts to laughing in people's faces.

The Minister of Finance is much quicker and more effective when it comes to voting in legislation for himself that suits him in terms of international shipping business than when it comes to reducing everyone's taxes for the collective good.

I have a question for the minister, in view of his remarks. We know that the first deficits date from a Liberal government some 25 years ago. I would ask him whether he agrees with our voting on an anti-deficit law in this House that would set specific parameters ensuring the accountability of the Minister of Finance to the House of Commons?

Would he agree to anti-deficit legislation to ensure that the Liberals do not fall back into their old ways of spending and put us in the situation they did 25 years ago?

[House Of Commons, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for making such an eloquent speech in support of democracy and respect for parliamentary institutions.

If I am not mistaken, today, March 10, is the birthday of his father, Gilles Bellehumeur from Berthierville, whom we salute.

I want to ask the hon. member if he was listening when the Reform Party leader said, and I quote: “It is time we stop falling over backwards to accommodate separatists”. They would have had to have been nice to us in the first place, which is far from obvious. In any case, we never asked these people to be nice to us.

I wonder if the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm could elaborate on the comment made by the leader of the official opposition. Did he mean that, from now on, the Reform Party will no longer show respect—lack of respect and intolerance being common traits of Reformers—in this House the voice of 44 duly and democratically elected members from Quebec, who represent a vast majority of Quebeckers? Is this what the Reform Party leader meant?

Does this intolerant and, frankly, paternalistic comment mean that, in the future, whenever any of the 44 duly elected Bloc Quebecois members will rise in this House, Reform Party members will neither recognize nor show respect that member? Will Reformers see to it that our right to speak is constantly interfered with?

Is this what was implied? If so, is such attitude not reminiscent of what used to be called fascism? It is something totally unacceptable that could be associated with the Reform Party. If we look at some action and comments made in the past, including some intolerance shown toward the Chair, we see a behaviour reminiscent of a group from the far right.

Could the hon. member elaborate on this.