Yvan Loubier

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

No, no.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to respond to my Liberal colleague. As long as we have known him, either as a member of the National Assembly or as a member of this Parliament, we have grown accustomed to his lyrical speeches which bear no meaningful relationship to the political realities and debate now taking place in Quebec and in Canada.

A while ago, he called us prophets of doom and individuals who have taken a hard-line approach with financial institutions. I would remind him that each time financial institutions take it upon themselves to get involved in political debates that concern Quebecers and their democratic right to choose sovereignty, it will be our duty to single them out and to denounce their activities, since they should normally be confining themselves to economic and financial analysis.

Let us look at the financial institutions which have over the past two years harshly criticized in their reports the sovereignty option. The list includes the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC and Scotiabank. When we look at the list of major contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada, we will find the names of the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC and Scotiabank. These are financial institutions which supposedly conduct objective analyses.

Considering that these financial institutions make substantial contributions to Liberal Party coffers-and I am not talking here about small donations of $2,000 or $3,000 dollars, but about $35,000 to $47,000 per year-I would not be surprised to learn that the Prime Minister and these financial institutions hold regular, open discussions on the national unity issue.

Therefore, enough about the freedom of financial institutions to wade into a political debate. They do not have the right to get involved and we doubt their credibility. Personally, I intend, along with all my sovereigntist colleagues, to openly denounce in the coming months any political involvement not clearly based on a serious analysis, whether financial or economic, of the situation.

Earlier, the Liberal Party whip spoke about the fact that we were all one big family. Let me just say in conclusion that the lyrical speech about Canada which the hon. member has just given us is without foundation. It has no basis in fact.

We should look at the real problems facing this country. If you are true Canadians and if you want to build a new Canada without Quebec, look at the problems now facing Canada, economic problems keeping the unemployment rate at 11 per cent, one of the highest rates in the Western world.

Look at the debt rate. Canada is the second most indebted nation in the world and the finance minister's budget will not solve the problem. A week or so ago, the C.D. Howe Institute strongly reminded us that the finance minister's budget will not do anything to bring public finances under control, does not contain any measure except for undermining the rights of the unemployed and cutting their benefits by $5.5 billion over the next three years. As a whole, the budget is so lacking in credibility that the extra interest charges alone will just about cancel out the savings achieved on the backs of the unemployed.

Look at how much Canada invests in worker training and compare its record with that of the other industrialized countries that take control of their own destinies and manage to meet the challenges of internationalization. Look at Canada's child poverty rate. When the UN told them Canada had one of the highest child poverty rates, the Tories were so ashamed-and you too, I think, because you perpetuated the situation-that they changed the formula used to determine the poverty rate. That is Canada's reality.

If you continue with your lyrical speeches-since I have known you, all your speeches have been lyrical-nothing concrete has ever been put on the table and I am not surprised by your arguments-

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Reform Party member for his excellent presentation. I simply would like to point out a few facts.

The hon. member, with whom I have often had the opportunity to work in committee and who does an excellent job, said at the beginning of his speech that we must stop telling Quebecers that their only alternative now is either status quo or sovereignty, and that we should instead talk of a renewed federalism. I am still very young, but ever since I was very little I have been hearing about renewed federalism.

Remember the meeting which took place in Quebec City, in 1964, between the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, for whom I have a great deal of respect since he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest Canadian politician, and Jean Lesage, the Quebec Premier of the time. Remember also all the constitutional conferences and meetings held between the Canadian provinces, or between Quebec and the federal government. Remember the 1971 conference in Victoria, with Robert Bourassa.

Remember also the whole constitutional debate of 1980, when the future of Quebec and Canada was discussed. Remember 1981, after the No victory, when Mr. Trudeau, who was then Prime Minister, said to Quebecers: Say no to sovereignty and you will get in-depth reform and renewed federalism, as you have been hoping for since 1867, when you were told that you could have a place as a nation in this new confederation, which was never a real confederation.

Remember also the forced patriation of 1982, when the federal government put Quebec in its place, instead of making room for it, by imposing a unilateral patriation of the Constitution as well as a Charter, a measure which was almost unanimously opposed by the members of Quebec's National Assembly.

In 1984, Mr. Lévesque, a true statesman, was in charge in Quebec and extended a hand to federalists by saying that Quebec was prepared to take a bold risk. Then, there was Meech with Mr. Mulroney and all the subsequent failures.

Ever since I was a little boy, even a baby, I have been hearing about renewed federalism. Recently, the whole debate intensified with the failure of Meech, the Beaudoin-Dobbie Commission, Beaudoin-Edwards, the July 7 agreement which became the Charlottetown accord, and which also ended up being rejected.

This is not the failure of your country; your country is yours. You love it, you love this Parliament, but you should let us build our own. We do not want Canada's destruction, but we are well aware, after 30 years and particularly in later years, that this renewed federalism is a smoke screen. Right now, there are two options: status quo, which is unacceptable for Quebec, or Quebec's sovereignty.

I wonder if the hon. member, who is a friend, is aware of this saga in which a lot of time was wasted. Every time Quebec tried to find its niche in this regime, and every time promises were made and federal politicians talked about a new place for Quebec within Confederation, every time that happened, our province was put back in its place. (English follows)

[Goods And Services Tax, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance confirm his government's intention to force Quebec to extend the new GST to food items, medical care and medication, and to impose, in Quebec, this new hidden tax which will be even more despicable than the original GST for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers?

[Goods And Services Tax, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this month, finance ministers will meet in Vancouver. It appears that the federal government intends to discuss the main recommendation contained in the preliminary report of the finance committee on the GST reform, and follow up on it. The recommendation proposes that the current GST be replaced by another GST, that all provincial taxes be combined with this tax, and that the tax base be expanded to other goods and services not currently covered.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister confirm that, at this conference, he intends to start negotiating with his provincial counterparts on the amalgamation of the GST and provincial sales taxes to create a single tax, and that the technical aspects, the procedures and the scope of that tax will be determined by Ottawa?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister, earlier, say things that are not totally true. He was talking in a lyrical way, but very cynically, of his vision of Canadian regional development.

The truth is that his government is against regional development. His government has just cut, through its budget, $5.5 billion in the unemployment insurance fund. At the hearings of the sub-committee on Bill C-17, which is the piece of legislation that cuts unemployment insurance, people from the Maritimes came to tell this government, the members of the government, that it was on the wrong track. These people were desperate, because they were being cut left and right where they should not be cut.

That is the government's vision of regional development, to totally destabilize communities, particularly rural communities. The federal government should stop trying to make us cry with the millions of dollars that it sprinkles over Quebec. In case you did not know it, we pay $28 billion in taxes every year. So, those millions are no gift. The government should undertake a complete assessment of federal transfers, instead of looking only at what suits it. For the last five years or so, we have been the losers in these tax transfers, given what we are paying and what we are receiving.

So, the government should stop making us cry with arguments that are senseless, and most of all, demagogic arguments coming from a minister who is always demagogic anyway. The government should stop praising the phantom of the opera, Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Trudeau spat on Quebec's aspirations, and if you are proud of having been part of his government, that is too bad for you. That will just make things clearer for Quebecers. So, is that your vision of regional development, to completely destabilize rural communities of the Maritimes and of Quebec with such a despicable, outrageous and hated bill as Bill C-17? I ask the question to the minister.

[Points Of Order, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Minister of Finance, who is normally a gentleman concerned about fair play, hinted, probably unintentionally, that I was the person who leaked the report on the GST. This accusation is without foundation and I would ask that it be withdrawn.

[Goods And Services Tax, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to an article in this morning's newspaper and I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to promote a systematic attack against the provinces' fiscal autonomy, as well as a hidden tax that would be easier for his government to increase in a deceitful, odious and hypocritical way at consumers' expense.

[Goods And Services Tax, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the Liberal government is thinking not of eliminating the GST as it promised but of replacing it with another GST that would be even more complex than the first one, an odious, hidden tax that goes directly against the provinces' fiscal autonomy.

My question is for the Minister of Finance: Does he confirm his government's intention to implement a GST that would be even worse than the first one and that could apply to currently tax-free products such as food, health care and medicine, which amounts to a systematic attack against the sick and the poorest?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the hon. member's last remark because it makes me a little angry. He said that, instead of criticizing as I do, I should point out the problems of Bill C-17 and propose solutions. Mr. Speaker, we just went through second reading of Bill C-17 and Reform members were too lazy to do anything other than delete clauses. They also voted against their own amendments and they are now telling Bloc members who put forward constructive amendments meeting the concerns of Quebecers and Canadians to make constructive suggestions. So why did they make all these deletions?

In any case, even colleagues with more experience than me had never seen anyone propose such amendments and vote against their own amendments. If they call this being constructive, we also call it wasting our time. If they think the way they acted during the second reading debate is constructive, we have a problem. We, on the other hand, proposed real amendments. We also did some serious work in committee.

In answer to the second point raised by the hon. member when he said that Reform members were present the night the New Brunswickers were thrown out, I would ask him to refer to an article published in the May 11, 1994 issue of Le Droit , where the journalist noticed the same thing I did in the finance committee, namely that no Reform member was present. It is there in black and white. There is a problem somewhere.

In the third point he made, he said that Bloc members felt deep compassion for the people of the Maritimes. Indeed, even sovereigntists can be humanistic and feel compassion for suffering people but we do not feel as compassionate toward those who make them suffer.

Do not forget that the sovereignty plan is open to the world and that we have been reaching out for 25 years to our friends in Canada, the United States and the world to build a better society, a society where measures such as the UI proposal that break the backs of those who do not deserve such treatment will be opposed by sovereigntists. We will fight against that our whole lives because the sovereignty plan is strongly humanistic. You tarnished that term and our plan. Because people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau fought against this plan for 25 years, we must work very hard to restore the true foundations of this plan, which is open to the world, compassionate and humanistic.

Mr. Speaker, that takes care of the three questions raised by the hon. members.