Benoît Sauvageau

[Child Abduction, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, like the minister, I too hope this agreement will be signed soon. As I said, one of the children is very sick.

For the past two years, Mrs. Robitaille has been sending the children, who are still Canadian citizens, money, clothing and medicine. That is how she has been keeping in touch with them. She was using the child tax benefit to do that.

But last March, Mrs. Robitaille was not only informed that she would no longer be entitled to the benefit, she was also asked to pay back $7,000 in alleged overpayments.

My question to the minister is this: Could the minister state in this House that he will be pressing his colleague at National Revenue to maintain Mrs. Robitaille's entitlement to this tax benefit for the sake of her children and as a means of keeping in touch with them?

[Child Abduction, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Child abduction is on the rise. All too often, children are abducted by a parent who illegally takes them out of the country. That is what happened to Suzie Robitaille's five children, who were abducted by her former husband two years ago and are still in Egypt. Mrs. Robitaille has been fighting ever since to get her children back; one of them is very sick.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what his department is doing right now in practical terms to bring Mrs. Robitaille's five children back home in Canada?

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Now we are going to get to the heart of the matter, the ways and means motion for last year's budget.

I would like to quote from a book that I am sure you all read regularly a few years back, and that you were only too keen to forget about once we had read it too. I am talking about the red book. We are still waiting for the second volume, the one on promises kept, which will perhaps be as thick as this piece of paper. I would therefore like to quote from the red book. I will read what my friends across the way said on page 13:

Today, after nine years of Conservative government, Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and plant closings.

I repeat, this appears on page 13 of the red book.

What has become of the fine words of the Liberal Party, of the compassion that we read about in the red book, but that never actually materialized, because in concrete terms we have seen nothing? What have they done after three years? We will give figures, but not the Bloc Quebecois's figures, because as our friends across the way tell us, the nasty separatists tend to play around with figures. We will therefore give figures provided by Statistics Canada, Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada.

So, instead of the 1.6 million unemployed Canadians they complained about in the red book in 1993, there are now, according to Statistics Canada, 1.5 million Canadians without jobs. In 1993, they wrote about "millions more on welfare", but Statistics Canada tells us there are now 3 million Canadians in this situation.

Instead of "a million children living below the poverty line", as they told us in 1993, Statistics Canada reports that there are now 1.5 million such children, 500,000 more than before.

In 1993 they wrote in the red book about "record numbers of [-]plant closings"-they did not give a figure because it was not true-while today Statistics Canada tells us there were a record 86,253 bankruptcies declared between January and November 1996.

Before speaking about the budget, it is very important to remember the compassion expressed by the Liberals in 1993, and the failure of the Liberals to take action since that time. The figures in the finance minister's budget can be interpreted any number of ways, as the secretary of state just demonstrated, and as other government members have shown, in trying to praise this government and cover up mistakes in the budgets and this government's failure to act or its blunders when it did.

We could also go on about a number of things, a number of critical sectors of our economy, our society, our culture, our history and our trade. I believe that the most important figures, the ones that will really make the public sit up and take notice in the next

election are these: the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, and the bankruptcy rate.

Before having a firm political ideology, before having intentions, projects, hopes, we need a bare minimum, that is to say enough money to realize our ideology, or enough money to realize our hopes and dreams for the future.

With a record as pitiful as 3 million people on welfare, 1.5 million children living below the poverty level, according to Statistics Canada, I do not believe the Liberals can pat themselves on the back and boast "We are proud of our performance record. We can present you with a budget and describe it as having successfully bolstered the social and economic fabric of this country". This is false, and who says so? Not us, but-I repeat-Statistics Canada, Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada.

The government could, perhaps-and I suggest it do so, as it has in other sectors-tell us that the head of Statistics Canada must be wrong, that he ought to be sacked, that someone new should be hired who could change the figures. We know that is a Liberal tactic. They would put a good Liberal in charge, a few figures would get changed, and then something more attractive could be reported.

Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, and fortunately for us and the man or woman in charge of Statistics Canada-I do not know which it is-this tendency, or way of doing things, from the past is no longer in use. The chief statistician and the heads of the other departments I mentioned will be able to stay put and keep giving the real figures, the results of this government's failure to act.

As I said before, the government has nothing to be proud of in this respect, and I think it has an obligation to explain these results to the public. Meanwhile, what was the Bloc Quebecois doing? Was the Bloc Quebecois, as an opposition party, shooting down everything that moved? In a way yes, but in another way no.

Yes, the Bloc Quebecois objected to various bills that were introduced and that, in our opinion, were skewed towards these figures. But at the same time, the Bloc Quebecois made certain proposals. We offered both negative and constructive criticism. So what did we propose? We proposed a plan for corporate tax reform and another one for personal tax reform.

In the new riding of Repentigny, if the Minister of Finance bothered to listen to us and realized that the proposals made by three excellent researchers of the Bloc Quebecois, not the slew of researchers that can be found at the Department of Finance, if he bothered to consider and implement the recommendations we made, he would realize that what is needed is not new money or an increase in the deficit. By reallocating amounts that are already in the tax system, an average family-for instance, a Repentigny family of two adults and two children with an average income of $40,000, these are not wealthy people, this is an average, modest income-if the Minister of Finance were to implement the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois, this average family in Repentigny would pay $821 less in income tax. This proposal would affect more than 50 per cent of the families in my riding.

Unfortunately, this family will have to pay $820 more in income tax because of poor decision making by the Minister of Finance. It may not be a lot, but for the average family with a modest income of $40,000, this is a lot money that could be funnelled back into the economy and could create real jobs.

However, the Minister of Finance has trouble going along with proposals made by an opposition party, a party that objects when something does not make sense, but also makes suggestions on how things should be changed in the interest of fairness.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before discussing the ways and means motion on the previous budget, I would like to take a minute to thank some people from the new riding of Repentigny.

You referred to me as the member for Terrebonne but, after June 2, that is after the next election, the Speaker who will be in the Chair, and I hope it will be you, will have to refer to me, assuming I am re-elected-but I am not overly concerned about this, since things are going very well in our riding-as the member for Repentigny, the first one to represent this new riding.

In a few years, if things go well, I will have become the first and last member for Repentigny, because that riding will not have a very long life. It will go through only three stages: first, the election of the Bloc Quebecois; second, the election of the Parti Quebecois; and third, the holding of a successful referendum. It will be a tie-breaker after the dead heat we had the last time. Therefore, the riding of Repentigny will exist for only a few years.

My nomination meeting was held yesterday evening, in Charlemagne, one of the municipalities in that beautiful riding. On that occasion, people expressed their confidence in me by agreeing to let me represent them at the next election, as a Bloc Quebecois member. Therefore, I sincerely thank the people of Repentigny, Charlemagne, Lachenaie, Mascouche and La Plaine, for their support in the past three and a half years, and for their renewed support last night in Charlemagne. Over 150 people were in attendance and showed they are eager to get on with the next election campaign.

[U.S. Helms-Burton Legislation, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we recently marked the sad occasion of the first anniversary of the Helms-Burton legislation. Despite all the pressure brought to bear by the official opposition to have this legislation declared illegal, the Canadian government did nothing to force Americans to change their behaviour.

The Bloc Quebecois deplores the government's failure to take action in this regard. Out of fear of the Americans, the Liberal government is still refusing to challenge the Helms-Burton legislation before a special NAFTA committee, as it has been in a position to do since July 1996.

Now that the government can no longer take refuge behind the European Union's complaint to the WTO to decline to file a complaint under NAFTA, will the Minister for International Trade finally have the courage to implement the only effective means of challenging this extraterritorial legislation and finally put a stop to this violation of Canada's trade sovereignty?

[International Business Development, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could thank the minister on tabling this report, but that will unfortunately be impossible for a number of reasons.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on the report on international business development entitled "Achievements, International Business Development Programs" tabled today.

But before I do, I would like, if I may, to tell the Minister of International Trade, through you, how the unacceptable attitude of his government and his department has saddened and annoyed me. Once again, this government and the minister's department have

shown disrespect for the opposition by waiting until the very last minute to tell us about the tabling of the report on international business development. This hardly gives us enough time to become properly acquainted with such an important report and to fully absorb all of its contents.

We know that documents could have been made available to us by the minister's office yesterday, and we would have known not to release this information, because we thought there was honest and sincere co-operation. We hope there will be honest and sincere co-operation in the future. This is not the first time that I have to raise this point publicly in the House. We do hope this issue will be addressed.

I will not go on about this, except to say that the government was unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure that we could carry out our duties properly; otherwise, we would have been afforded the opportunity to read and prepare comments on the report on international business development before it was tabled. After all, is that not what we are supposed to be doing here today?

According to the minister, his report responds to the recommendations made in the November 1996 auditor general report. The report includes the following:

-in spite of the some $375 million spent by the federal government every year to promote trade, the data on the results of this activity is not gathered systematically and is not sufficiently objective. Moreover, a systematic and more objective feedback on the results would allow the government to be better informed about the eventual benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication process is required when co-ordinating and distributing its resources.

Finally, the auditor general pointed out "that the government must inform Parliament more systematically about the activities and achievements made under the international trade development program".

In short, the auditor general is saying that the government invests $375 million per year in a program, without checking to see where that money goes. This is what the auditor general is saying.

Moreover, the auditor adds: "I noticed the same thing 10 years ago, and no change has been made since". So, $375 million are invested to help small and medium size businesses, to help businesses export their products. Does the program work? Maybe, but we do not know, because the government does not conduct any audit regarding a meagre $375 million invested hapharzardly.

In light of all this, you can imagine my surprise when I noticed at the last minute that the report tabled today by the Minister for International Trade does not in any way address the Auditor General's recommendations, any more than it addresses the report of the committee on assistance to small export businesses. Because the minister was not called to order on one occasion, he has now been called to order twice: once by the Auditor General and once by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We would have expected the Liberal government to explain in this report how it was going to come up with systematic and more objective feedback on the results obtained in international trade that would allow it to be better informed about the eventual benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication process is required when co-ordinating and distributing its resources.

Instead, the report tabled today looks more like a pre-election score sheet of the Liberal government's accomplishments with respect to international trade. The report, the minister's speech, far from making specific recommendations, only goes over the mechanisms already in place within this program, as well as the general directions taken by the government.

The minister should have done his homework. He wrote the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade asking for an examination of existing mechanisms. We did as he requested and, what is more, concluded our study and tabled our report. And they replied to it. They are telling us they will reply at some point. I am telling him he has already done so.

Moreover, the Minister for International Trade's letter of presentation with this report clearly stipulates that the mechanism for measuring the performance of resources allocated to the international business development program is not yet in place, and that further details will be forthcoming.

The auditor general has said: "We have been waiting ten years for it", and now the minister tells us that he is well aware of the fact that he needs to put feedback mechanisms in place, and that he will do so in future.

I would like to point out that we can easily be a bit sceptical about this. The government also wrote in its red book that two groups were going to be set up to examine trade disputes and anti-dumping problems. Both were to report to Parliament by December 1995. They are saying: "Trust us. We will make the reports by these two groups available during the next election campaign".

Asking the Canadian public, and particularly the official opposition, to trust the government is perhaps asking rather a lot of them. One might have expected that the government and the Minister for International Trade would have taken concrete steps to respond to the auditor general's concrete recommendations. It was not the nasty separatists, nor the Reform Party, but the auditor general who asked the Minister for International Trade to take concrete steps to correct the situation. The minister tells us: "Trust me, and you will see that, in future, we are going to coeect this situation".

In closing, I remind him that former Prime Minister Kim Campbell also said "Trust me" during an election campaign. So now there are only two of them left.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are pleased to take part in the debate on the budget and on the Bloc Quebecois' amendment.

During the last election campaign, and ever since, we have heard so much about the red book that at some point we decided to read it for ourselves. There are some passages that, after three and a half, almost four, years leave us wondering whether the people who wrote it have lost their memories, are suffering from Alzheimer's, or at the very least should be ashamed to see what this book has produced after three and a half years.

I will quote you a short passage from page 13 of our Liberal friends' red book:

Today, after nine years of Conservative government, Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and plant closings.

Like I said, that was from page 13 of the Liberal Party's red book.

What compassion. What fine words. I do not know whom they hired to write such wonderful prose, but they should have hired somebody else to carry it off.

It has been three years now, and I would remind members that there are not 1.6 million unemployed, but 1.5 million Canadians still without jobs; there are 3 million Canadians on welfare. Instead of one million children living below the poverty line, there are now 1.5 million in this situation. The number of bankruptcies has reached a record level in 1996, and these are not Bloc Quebecois figures, these are not figures provided by nasty separatists, but figures from Statistics Canada, Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada. These figures are very interesting when starting off a speech in reply to the budget speech.

What have the Liberals who were so appalled by the situation in 1993 done after three and a half years in government? They have made things worse than in 1993 and today they are telling us how wonderful they are.

I wonder whether, in the next campaign, the Liberals will dig out their red book and parade it around, saying: "Look, we have kept 80 per cent of our promises". I wonder if they will use the Statistics

Canada, Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada statistics to show that we are not the ones contradicting them, but that it is their own organizations instead which are saying: "The government has not met its objectives, has not kept its promises". Not just little promises, but the major promises of the election campaign: jobs, children, and bankruptcies. In other words, things that affect the pocketbooks of the men and women of Quebec and of Canada.

If I were a Liberal MP, I would make sure no red book came anywhere near me, and I would make the rounds of the bookstores and the MPs' offices to make sure there were none to be found, for I would be embarrassed to be seen with one in my possession.

As critic for international trade, however, I will make reference to the Minister of Finance's budget speech, four key points in particular. First of all, back to the red book, which contained promises on respecting democracy and human rights throughout the world, international trade versus human rights, respect for democracy and the Liberal Party vision of foreign affairs.

What has this government done in the past three years about international trade and foreign affairs? As you will see, on this first point, I will be able to demonstrate to you that they have not done much. On the contrary, they have backtracked. Not just inertia, but backtracking with respect to their promises, their positions as set out in the red book.

How has the Liberal Party backtracked on aid for international development? How has the government backtracked on the question of encouraging democratic rule in the various parts of the world? Here is one simple example.

First of all, CIDA is responsible for administering some 80 per cent of the Canadian Official Development Assistance program, or ODA. This supports sustainable development in the developing countries, in order to reduce poverty and contribute to the creation of a safer, more equitable and more prosperous world.

In 1997-98, spending by CIDA will total $1.6 billion or $160 million less than had been estimated in 1996-97, to keep a promise the government had made to help countries that wanted a greater measure of democracy to prosper and provide for sustainable human development. What is the Canadian government doing? What is the Liberal Party doing? In its budget, it cut Canada's official development assistance by 10 per cent.

The International Development Research Centre examines the problems of developing regions throughout the world and tries to find ways to use and adapt scientific knowledge to improve the economic and social well-being of these regions. The government subsidy for the International Development Research Centre for 1997-98 will, according to the budget of the Minister of Finance, total $88 million, $8 million less than in 1996-97, which means another 10 per cent cut.

I repeat, the Liberal government said it wanted to defend and promote democracy and human rights throughout the world. However, we see a 10 per cent cut in official development assistance and a 10 per cent cut in funding for the International Development Research Centre.

I hope they are not going to brag about how they kept those promises during the next campaign. In any case, I hope they will be embarrassed if they ever do, because they know they will be stretching the truth, to avoid using another term that would be unparliamentary.

Because of the cuts initiated by the Liberal government, official development assistance has been reduced to less than 0.7 per cent of GDP. The United Nations, the OECD and its development assistance committee had suggested 1 per cent of GDP. The Canadian government had also promised to maintain a significant level of international aid, and among the G-7 and the OECD countries, the objective was to give 1 per cent of GDP to development assistance. During the three years it has been in power, the Canadian government has reduced development assistance from its already inadequate level of 0.7 per cent to less than 0.7 per cent.

Is development assistance important? Should charity not begin at home? Let me tell you that in Canada, one job out of four depends on foreign consumers; one job out of four in Canada depends on our exports. Is it important to ensure that our customers are in good shape socially, economically and politically? It is essential.

The Canadian government has no choice but to defend, promote and encourage political, economic and social stability in those countries. Eighty per cent of the world's population will soon need greater stability to be able to buy and acquire our products. If only from the strictly fiscal and economic point of view, we must ensure that these countries enjoy a certain level of growth and stability.

We should also promote research and development here in Canada. This will only take a few seconds. In a document by the OECD on employment, we read: "The main cause of rising unemployment and the increased number of low paying jobs is the growing gap between the need for OECD member economies to adjust and innovate and their ability and political will to achieve this". Does the Canadian government have the political will? No. The Canadian government has put nothing in its budget, the Minister of Finance put nothing in his budget to help businesses and international development.

[Customs Duties, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

In December 1995, the Canadian government unilaterally eliminated customs duties on car parts manufactured outside the country, but assembled here. The companies that benefitted from this measure would now like the Liberal government to eliminate customs duties on finished vehicles.

Given that Canada has a substantial automobile industry employing over 500,000 people and generating billions of dollars in the economies of Quebec and Canada, will the minister commit today to not reduce or eliminate customs duties on imported vehicles?

[U.S. Helms-Burton Law, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for months now, the government has talked, expressed its point of view and taken various steps, but it has done little of a concrete nature.

I will address my supplementary to the Minister for International Trade. Late last week, in order to comply with the U.S. anti-Cuban legislation, Wal-Mart withdrew Cuban-made pyjamas from its Canadian shelves.

Does the minister agree that the credibility of the government's action is seriously compromised and that the only way to restore it is to rigorously enforce Canadian law?

[U.S. Helms-Burton Law, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday, in Washington, the Minister of Foreign Affairs met for the first time with the new U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. One purpose of the minister's visit was to make preparations for the next meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

Could the minister report on the discussions he had with his American counterpart concerning the Helms-Burton law?