Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that one month after he tabled his first budget, Canada's rating was downgraded, while, so far, Goldman Sachs and Moody's say that Quebec's credit rating will be maintained.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.
The Economy December 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that one month after he tabled his first budget, Canada's rating was downgraded, while, so far, Goldman Sachs and Moody's say that Quebec's credit rating will be maintained.
Taxation December 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Minister of Finance does not always read the documents he receives. We have been making recommendations to him for a year now and, just recently, when he appeared before the finance committee, we made ten recommendations which have the advantage of not targeting the middle class or the poor. That is why he will not implement them.
Canadians and Quebecers will soon have to decide whether to invest in RRSPs. This is a serious issue involving billions of dollars.
For that reason, I ask the Minister of Finance to be clear and serious and to rule out, once and for all, taxing RRSPs. As I said, there are billions of dollars involved and this is a very serious matter.
Taxation December 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in addition to recommending an eventual tax increase for all taxpayers, the Liberal members are proposing new taxes which would directly hit the middle class. For example, they suggest imposing a new annual tax of $500 million on gas, while also leaving open the possibility of taxing group insurance benefits, RRSPs and retirement pensions.
Will the Minister of Finance pledge to reject the recommendations made by the Liberal members of the finance committee to impose a new tax on gasoline and to eventually tax RRSPs and group insurance benefits?
Income Tax December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, why does the minister not immediately rule out these suggestions for new taxes and why does he not make a solemn commitment to immediately attack the real issues, namely family trusts, tax shelters, the $6 billion in unpaid taxes, waste and duplication? That is what people came to tell the finance committee. They did not come to say to raise taxes, to cut social programs further, to attack the unemployed, the poor, students and seniors. Had he been there, he would have understood right away.
Income Tax December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in the finance committee's report, the Liberal majority suggests that the Minister of Finance increase the tax burden on all Canadian taxpayers by levying new taxes, including a temporary surtax which alone could raise at least over a billion dollars for the federal treasury.
Can the Minister of Finance promise in this House to reject any proposal for new taxes or charges that would affect mainly the middle class, including this ridiculous idea of a surtax?
Supply December 8th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I have three comments to make following the hon. member's intervention. First, I want to ask him to show a little more respect for my leader and to remember that he has been involved in the referendum strategy for the last three months. Consequently, my leader certainly supports and endorses the process unveiled by Mr. Parizeau.
I also want to tell the hon. member-who was almost slanderous when he alluded to the honesty and integrity of sovereignists-that we were not afraid, as I said earlier, to participate in the debate proposed to us by the federalists. Is it because, unlike maybe 1980 or shortly before, the federalists are running out of arguments to convince us to stay in Canada are thus unable to publicly debate this issue?
We are offering you a forum: Why not use it to discuss the issue, instead of hiding behind your desk and making comments which are almost disrespectful, if not downright slanderous? I also ask the hon. member to be careful when denigrating Quebec as well as the wishes of a whole nation. My colleague, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, told me that you both represent neighbouring ridings and that yours benefits immensely from that proximity. Indeed, many people living on the Quebec side cross the border into Ontario, to shop in the member's riding. Again, the hon. member should be careful when making comments.
We have common interests, as evidenced by this activity between the two ridings. So, let us be careful. We must respect the will of people, and we must also respect an eminently democratic process. All Quebec federalists should participate in the consultation process.
If they do not want to move, then they should tell us, because the house is falling down. However, these federalists should come up with arguments to support their views. But do come to sit and talk. We are open, and we are very cool, calm and collected.
Supply December 8th, 1994
They took a stand and all Quebecers were proud of them. They stood up against this attempt by Canadian federalists to enslave a whole people, my people. I repeat, the member for Sherbrooke was there among them, and the present Prime Minister was in the hallways with his walkman, and often with a walkie talkie, to give instructions, in order to block the approval of any distinctive status, or to put an end to any attempt to give a distinctive status to Quebec.
Among the eight who stood firm, who fought to the end for the interests of Quebecers and also to preserve their dignity and pride, there was the present Leader of the Opposition, our leader and friend-my best friend. I want to extend my affectionate greetings to him and his wife, Audrey, and his two children, Alexandre and Simon. He is the reason why, at the time, I was moved very positively by what was happening, because the Quebec people had just acquired a great leader. Quebec had just acquired a new leader, who was standing firm with six of his colleagues, and later on with a seventh one. We are proud of that.
After that, Madam Speaker, as you will recall, there was a lot of constitutional turbulence and commotion. Remember the Beaudoin-Dobbie report, the Beaudoin-Edwards report, the Spicer commission and Charlottetown. These documents were supposed to fulfill the aspirations of Quebecers, after they were betrayed by the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord.
We took part in all these debates. We are sovereignists, but we took part in all these debates. Why are Quebec federalists, the Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec legislature, including federal members from Quebec, Liberals and others, refusing to discuss ideas, to discuss federalism, while we took part in all federalist debates which led to the adoption of those reports aimed at one thing only. They were a smoke screen used to make Quebecers believe that a reform, even the slightest reform, was possible so they could have their place, a real place which they would be proud and honoured and willing to occupy.
Why do federalists refuse a process which is eminently democratic, open, allowing for the exchange of ideas, like the one announced by the Premier of Quebec? Why? Because they are afraid. They are afraid of their ideas because it is impossible to defend a rigid status quo that prevents the normal economic, social and cultural progress of the people of Quebec. During Question Period, I heard the Prime Minister say that it is within Canada that Quebecers have developed. Acutally, we have done so despite Canada.
Remember all the efforts and energy we have had to spend since 1964, the days of Jean Lesage, in order to patriate powers that we considered essential to our development. Madam Speaker, look at what we have been doing in the last seven years in particular. We have done nothing but that, try to develop, try to develop employment, to stimulate our economic growth with powers which are presently in federal hands and which Quebec is being denied. Is that what you call harmonious development within the federal system?
No. If Quebecers have become what they are today, if their businesses are so dynamic and their workers so skilled, it is because at one point in time we decided to take charge of our own affairs despite all opposition and despite the federal system that tried to paralyse us, to keep us down and even to use force to prevent us from developing our collective wealth.
Remember Bill S-31. There was the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. We also participated in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. And if I have one reason, as an economist, to be proud of the work accomplished there, it is for one particular aspect of it: it put an end to all the economic bugbears and showed us that Canada's threat, not to allow Quebec goods and services into Canada, was empty.
With Ontario alone, the net balance of trade between Ontario and Quebec is over $3 billion; that is, Ontario sells Quebec $3 billion more of goods and services than Quebec sells Ontario. Would Ontario close its border? Bélanger-Campeau stifled this kind of nonsense. It also put an end to scare tactics like saying Quebec would lose its milk production.
When even the president of the UPA contradicts the current Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, who said "You will lose your quotas, and your share of milk production", that is something. So, I would urge you and every citizen, regardless of ethnic origin, language and political affiliation, to take part in this democratic process. I am sending out a special invitation to the English-speaking community. I would have a short paragraph to read them, if I may Madam Speaker, in their language.
"Anglophones and francophones of Quebec are still democrats and it is as democrats that I invite you today, most sincerely, to take this friendly hand we are extending to you, to help solve the question of importance to you and to join with us in building together the kind of country that we want to live in. Do not forget the future of Quebec is yours. The future and prosperity of Quebec is also in your hands. I am asking you not to remain on the sideline of your evolution and participate in the process proposed by the prime minister of Quebec".
I also send out a special invitation to the people of my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot to participate in this eminently democratic process, as well as all interested organizations and individuals throughout Montérégie.
Supply December 8th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to debate this motion on the legitimacy of the consultation process on Quebec sovereignty, released this week by the Right Hon. Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau.
Mr. Parizeau is known for his honesty, his candour and his humanity. He has a reputation for saying what he is doing, and exactly what he says. He is proving it this week, intelligently, skilfully and competently.
We are proud of Mr. Parizeau. We can only be proud of our Premier and glad to be associated with such an exciting process, a highly democratic process.
I have been an avid observer of the political scene from a very early age, but especially so since 1987. I followed with interest what led us to the Meech Lake Accord. This accord was the last attempt of our fellow Quebecers who still believed, then, that Quebec had a place within the Canadian Confederation.
It was also the last attempt to make up for the affront perpetrated by the present Prime Minister of Canada and his team, in 1981, during the night of the long knives, which led to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. That was, to use some now famous words, the last attempt to make Canada whole, to have federalist Quebecers sign the Canadian Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
I lived through the second phase, the one which led to the failure of Meech. I observed it closely, but with much sadness, especially when the report of the special committee studying the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord, better know as the Charest Report, was published.
The Charest report, named after the member for Sherbrooke, reduced to next to nothing what was already considered as the bare minimum, the entrance door allowing Quebec to try, one last time, to take its place within the Canadian federation, a springboard for Quebec to get all the powers, all the tools it needed in the areas of social programs, the economy and also culture.
The tabling of this report burying the Meech Lake Accord sadly put an end, an emotional one for most of my fellow citizens who still believed in that country, to a saga which had started with the "beau risque" as a hopeful initiative.
Quebecers remember this report tabled by the present member for Sherbrooke who was then minister responsible for the committee which really killed the Meech Lake Accord.
Those were days of sadness, emotion, and grief for me, but I was proud of what happened after. I was very proud to see MPs from Quebec, seven of them at the time, who were eventually joined by an eighth one, the member for Saint-Hubert, resign because they disagreed with the government foiling the final attempt, putting an end to the "beau risque". They took a stand and I take this opportunity to salute them.
Income Tax December 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Minister of Finance not read his letters before signing them, but the Prime Minister does not read the documents tabled by the Official Opposition. If he did, he would know that we made ten specific proposals to implement real streamlining and saving measures to improve the government's finances. I am not talking about measures which would
hurt the unemployed and the poor, but about real saving and streamlining initiatives.
How can the Prime Minister, or his government, consider imposing such a surtax on Canadians who honestly pay their taxes, when this government has yet to act, or even show the political will to recover over $6 billion dollars in unpaid taxes from the wealthiest Canadians? Is this his definition of justice? Is this his definition of fairness?
Income Tax December 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, after wasting one year in the fight against the deficit, the Liberals now propose, in a report to the Minister of Finance, to increase the tax burden of all taxpayers by imposing a temporary surtax which could bring in over one billion dollars, to be used to reduce the deficit. By the way, the last temporary tax was the income tax of 1914, which has now been in effect for 80 years.
Will the Prime Minister pledge to reject the proposal made by his members to impose a surtax which would be in direct contradiction with his own election promise not to increase the tax burden of Canadians during the first two years of his mandate?