Yvan Loubier

[Committees Of The House, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the chair of the finance committee, I wish to thank the staff, and especially the office of the clerk, for the excellent job they did when the committee was preparing its report and during the committee's public hearings.

Remember that the Official Opposition tabled a dissenting opinion as an appendix to the report of the Liberal majority. Why a dissenting opinion? First of all, because the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, is convinced that the measures supported in the Liberal majority's report do not reflect the vision and the views of Canadians expressed at the public hearings.

Second, there is the prospect of an increase in taxes across the board for all Canadian taxpayers. We cannot support this proposal and we are particularly wary of the statement that the increase will be only temporary.

Third, the Liberal majority's report announces a series of tax increases or at least the prospect of tax increases which will again affect a middle class already taxed to the hilt since 1984.

Fourth, the report, and this is our main grievance, launches another attack on social programs by proposing cuts in addition to those already announced in the last budget.

Fifth, the report ignores the fact that more jobs can also mean more tax revenue and, in the end, an improvement in the state of Canada's public finances. For all the reasons I just mentioned, readers will see the Official Opposition's dissenting opinion appended to the report.

[Via Rail, December 1st, 1994]

Shame!

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must agree with my colleagues in the Reform Party this time. The Liberal government has done nothing at all for the economic recovery. On the contrary. A few weeks after Mr. Martin tabled his first budget, interest rates shot up. That is why we will have to pay $2.7 billion more for interest alone.

Not only the finance minister's credibility, but the measures he advocated in his first budget did not help the economic recovery and job creation; rather, they hurt economic growth and the growth of employment. If he had taken effective-I would say tougher-measures on February 22, more jobs would have been created and the financial picture would have been much better in the last few months.

I ask him where the Liberal Party contributed to greater growth, when everyone says that it has not in the past six months?

[Budgetary Policy, November 30th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to direct some questions and comments to the leader of the Reform Party.

I listened carefully to what the leader of Reform Party had to say. In fact, I always listen very carefully to what Reform members have to say, and there are two points I would like to make. My first point is that the leader of the Reform Party does not have the foggiest idea of what is happening today in Quebec, of what is shaping and promoting the sovereignist option in Quebec to make a country out of the land we cherish. It is not because of poor management by the federal government. It is, first and foremost, about choosing the kind of society and country we want, and above all, it is about getting out of a system that is impervious to reform, a system that is doomed.

I think the Reform Party is accelerating the process in Canada, because last week they proposed cuts to all the symbols that are a source of pride for Canadians. I do not feel more Canadian than the Reform Party, but I think they lack vision.

They brag about proposing $10 billion in cuts, but just look where they want to make those cuts! It is so vicious and shortsighted, for instance, to suggest cutting and slashing and even destroying the CBC, as well as everything connected with the language, culture, development and international presence of the country they claim to defend. They want to save $10 billion by destroying the very foundations of what they claim to defend. This is odd, to say the least.

About a month and a half ago, we in the Bloc Quebecois presented proposals that would raise between fifteen to twenty million dollars. Mr. Speaker, consider the difference between our approach and theirs. Consider that $8 billion worth of unpaid revenue is out there, $8 billion owed to the federal government, a point that was raised in the Auditor General's report last week. They are not talking about going after those $8 billion worth of unpaid revenue and taxes, and do you know why? Because most of those accounts receivable are big accounts, people with very high incomes who owe money to the federal government and who can count on the right incarnate on our left-I know it sounds peculiar-to defend them with blind dedication. They know these people will defend them practically to their dying breath. They are not interested in those $8 billion because these are their pals out West.

They also ignored the fact that $1.5 billion could be cut in the National Defence budget, as we suggested. They did not even consider what the Auditor General had to say about wasteful spending at National Defence. Why? Again, probably because they have some friends there, so they will not admit there is any wasteful spending in the Public Service and at the Department of National Defence.

They did not take a look either-guess where, Mr. Speaker? At the tax treatment of corporations. They do not want to touch it. Why? Because they are so dogmatic. As far as the Reform Party is concerned, these big corporations can do no wrong.

I suppose if they are prepared to say it is morally right-they are very keen on morality-to have a classified ad in the newspaper that says "unused federal tax deduction for sale", and accept that, they will not look at the tax treatment of corporations, which I think is disgraceful. They have no social conscience and do not have the foggiest notion of what Canada is all about.

They approve of an outrageous family trust system which defers for 80 years taxes payable on capital belonging to the wealthiest in this country, and there again, I think they lack a sense of morality and they lack vision.

For all these reasons, I think it is disgraceful that Reform Party members set themselves up as great reformers. It looks more like they are out to destroy the country they claim to defend. We are anxious to get out of this country because we are sick and tired of these dogmatic speeches.

[Unemployment Insurance, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Finance is accusing me of using discretion regarding the proposals made, when he should be the one doing so when it comes to solving these issues.

Does the minister realize that, by refusing to lower UI contributions to the level suggested by the business community, he merrily contradicts his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, he deliberately sacrifices 100,000 jobs, this according to his own figures, and he confirms the

comments made by the vice-president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said that the Minister of Finance could not care less about job creation?

[Unemployment Insurance, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, the federal government rejected a plea from the business community to lower UI contributions. While the Minister of Finance stated in his last budget that, according to his own figures, a reduction of seven cents would create 40,000 jobs, his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, said that an unexpected surplus would allow further reductions.

How can the Minister of Finance justify his persistency in ignoring the representations made by the business community for further reductions of UI contributions, given that he claims he wants to create jobs and that the UI program has a $2.7 billion surplus?

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are people here who are indulging in petty politics, and I am referring to the Reform Party. The Reform Party distorts all the proposals made by the Bloc Quebecois, which were about cutting the fat from government operations, the recovery by the federal government of $8 billion worth of accounts receivable classified as bad debts, which the Auditor General mentioned last week, and cutting into the $3.3 billion worth of subsidies to corporations. You never hear the Reform Party talk about that. Do you know why? Because they are both judge and jury. They have a vested interest.

There is a question I would like to ask them. I will read them something in English, because I think it is significant, and I will then do a proper translation. I would like to ask them whether they agree with an ad that appeared last week, which I found with the help of Léo-Paul Lauzon, the well-known tax expert. It says more or less the following in English, if you will excuse my heavy accent:

"Fiscal loss to sell. Our client, a cosmetic distributor, has important fiscal loss and he is looking for a buyer who is interested in using this fiscal deduction. Please call the following number".

Do you agree with this practice?

Is that why they will not look at the tax treatment of corporations, why they will not consider raising taxes, why they will not consider improvements so that everyone, individuals, corporations and SMEs, does their share? If their minds are closed to such suggestions, then they are doing the petty politicking, and they have no interest in the future of Canada, although they claim otherwise. They are doing the grand standing, in other words.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member for Lethbridge say that his party is dedicated to helping the most vulnerable, I find that hard to believe, considering what was said on the finance committee by him and his colleagues about the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario or western Canada. It is nonsense. It makes no sense at all to say that we should cut $16 billion in our social programs in the next three years, to help the most vulnerable. This is a complete distortion of reality.

They are not describing reality. They are distorting reality. When they say to the government that the only way to clean up our public finances is to cut unemployment insurance even more than the government has already done, and that it should do the same with the Canada Assistance Plan, post-secondary education and programs for senior citizens, is that what helping the most vulnerable means? Is that concern for social justice? On the other hand, when we talk about inequities in the tax system, they will not listen.

That is the extent of their real concern for the most vulnerable members of our society. Their only concern is that the privileges of very rich Canadians and very big corporations, despite the tax inequities applying to both groups of taxpayers are concerned, should be maintained. That is the only issue of interest to them in this debate.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is so concerned about the economic development in Quebec, in Canada, even throughout the world, if he is equally concerned about the economic development in the Magdalen Islands. I would like to know if he is at all concerned, for example, by what was reported today in the editorial pages of his local newspaper, that is, that the Minister of Environment appeared all confused on TV about the Irving Whale story, saying that both the booms and the boat needed to scoop up the oil in case of a catastrophe were also at the bottom of the water.

Is he not concerned to see that his minister does not seem to understand this issue which is so crucial for the economic future and tourism of the Magdalen Islands, a situation which could cause one of the worst ecological catastrophes in the area, and should he not see to it that the Irving Whale be refloated in a more competent manner than that described by the Minister of Environment? I am wondering if he is really concerned about economic development or if he is content to merely repeat day after day in the House the rhetoric and buzzwords he has memorized, along with some rather strange items.

So, I put the question to him, because I think that what is happening in the Magdalen Islands is very serious and that he should take his work seriously and not only make beautiful speeches he has learned by heart. The issue of the Irving Whale is a serious issue for the people of the Magdalen Islands and for all Quebecers. So, what does the hon. member answer to that, Mr. Speaker?

[Goods And Services Tax, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance be honest enough to tell things as they are and admit that the Minister of Finance of Quebec told him that he would reject any proposal to replace the GST and the PST with a national sales tax?

This being said, will the minister admit that by practising as he did over the weekend a domineering, cynical and dreadful kind of federalism when he proposed a national sales tax, he is heading straight for a deadlock because he is attacking the provinces head-on on their taxation jurisdiction?