André Harvey

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I vote nay on this motion.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote no on this motion.

[Road System, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government announced a $4 billion investment to improve the greater Montreal area's road system. It welcomed the participation of the federal government and the private sector.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and the greater Quebec City area are still waiting for a modern and safe road system to link them to the major North American trade corridors. The region's economic health and development are at stake.

I realize that the greater Montreal area is experiencing major problems, but this is no reason to neglect the regions. If public and private consortia, with federal government's participation, are acceptable in the Montreal area, they are just as acceptable in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and in the greater Quebec City area.

[Division No. 1274, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, exactly. Vote No. 1 was applied, but we are also making a correction to the vote on Motion No. 1 by voting no. If it is applied to Motion No. 3, therefore, it is no in both cases.

[Division No. 1274, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, because it was a free vote, we had not provided our voting reports earlier. Application of the vote was sought but I want to make sure that the members who voted yea were considered to have voted nay on Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 1. In other words, for the two votes it is nay.

[Division No. 1274, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before proceeding to the motion for concurrence at report stage, I want to make sure that when the government whip asked for the results of the vote on Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to be applied, Progressive Conservative members who voted in favour were recorded as having voted against Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 1.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think the main problem lies in the attitude of the federal government.

I have an example of co-operative decentralized federalism. I recall, at the time of former Prime Minister Mulroney, that in the negotiations on regional development plans the provinces were held in the highest respect. At the time, it was a real partnership in both democratic and constitutional terms.

We will recall the Meech Lake accord. Was it scrapped by western Canadians? It took five or six Liberals, no more. Back in 1990, 92% of Canadians were in favour of reconciliation, control over federal spending and respect for the regions, particularly Quebec's cultural identity. It was a historic setback to the development of the country.

Both economically and constitutionally, I think it is through negotiation and mutual respect that people will arrive at a federation that could function effectively.

I repeat that the disaster of the failed Meech Lake accord, which was a landmark event, was due to four or five Liberals, not to all Canadians, and not even to Albertans or British Columbians. It took four or five Liberals, goaded on by a former prime minister and by the man who is now Prime Minister, to scrap the Meech Lake accord, which would have given us constitutional peace and would have freed us up to work on other more constructive things. If it had been signed at least it would not have been necessary to pass Bill C-20, which I think will remain in the back of the minds of all French Canadians and Quebecers.

I think that this will be a major weapon, should there one day be another referendum, to remind Quebecers that the federal government wanted to force them to stay in the Canadian federation. Force is not the way to keep someone in a family let alone seven million people in a country.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Right now, there is no strength in the federation because the taxation system benefits the federal government. Instead of giving the provinces the tax resources they need through the transfer of tax points or otherwise, and instead of giving them the opportunity to carry out their responsibilities properly, it cuts left and right and intrudes everywhere.

The federal health act exists to protect universality. The government has to stop treating the provinces like big municipalities. This government treats the provinces and their premiers like children. It wants to see the provinces beg.

In my opinion, forcing the provinces to beg is not the best way to build a strong federation. The provinces do not have the budgets to carry out their responsibilities. The federal government grabs all the money and then haggles with the provinces on education, health services and the infrastructure programs. The federal government wants to do everything for the provinces and its spending power is out of control.

I believe that the only way to find a solution would be to hold negotiations according to the respective mandates of the provincial and federal governments. But I will not hold my breath. This has been going on for 30 years.

We all know what former Prime Minister Trudeau used to do with government members from Quebec. For 16 years, he won the elections by thumbing his nose at Quebecers. He was always speaking from both sides of his mouth. I think that the future of the Canadian federation should not be based on provocation or on the fact that the federal government sees itself as the father of all provinces, that it sees them as big municipalities. It is contemptuous.

I would not bet on the future of the Canadian federation if we go on with a government like this one, which does not respect provincial jurisdictions and forces the provinces to come begging to the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here on this day, April 7, and to have taken part in the speedy passage, with all the parties in the House, of a bill to change the names of two ridings in my region.

The riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, currently represented by a member with whom I have had the opportunity to work, will now be called Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. As for my own riding, Chicoutimi, it will now be called Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, a name that will better reflect the reality of the whole riding.

A process in under way to bring together all the municipalities in that region. I think everyone will be happy to be represented in the House under a name that accurately describes the geographic reality of the riding. I am very happy to have taken part in the speedy passage of this bill to change the names of certain ridings, including mine and that of my neighbour from Lac-Saint-Jean.

I am now pleased to speak to Bill C-25, which amends the Income Tax Act, and to the whole issue of our tax system.

I am pleased but, at the same time, I am also very disappointed. When the people in our ridings are waiting for a budget, they are very anxious and, sometimes, they have great expectations. The measures contained in these budgets are always spread out over several years. They are almost like Soviet plans, spread out over three, four or five years.

The problem in all this is that the measures that would normally be the most beneficial to our fellow citizens are always postponed by three, four or five years. Try to go and tell people who live from hand to mouth, have trouble surviving and barely manage to provide for their family that, in three, four or five years, the picture will look rosier.

After the budget, I often hear the same comments at home, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is always the same after the tabling of the budget by the current Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, since, as we know, budgets are dictated by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is involved in the drafting of the budget, and the Prime Minister tells him “Look, you are going to do this and that”. That is the way it is done usually. The comments I hear most often from my fellow citizens go something like this “Are they ever going to give us a budget for just one year with a real impact over the current year?”

Let them stop giving us Soviet-like budgets that keep on telling us that in five years things will start looking up. We want change this year. Canadians should be able to benefit this year from the measures taken by the previous PC government.

I have often said that the current government does not have an agenda of its own, that it is benefiting from measures passed by the Progressive Conservatives and that took years to be passed.

When we ask a question here in the House, day in and day out the answer is “Ah, the Progressive Conservatives”. In one sweep, this brings us all the way back to the beginning of Confederation. I can say this however. This year the GST, which got the Liberals elected after promising to scrap it, will bring in $24 billion for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.

What they do not know is that when the GST was adopted in the 1990s—it goes without saying that the measure was unpopular at the time—its purpose was to bring about real tax reform, to scrap taxes.

This government pockets money daily from the measures adopted by the Progressive Conservatives, which unfortunately did not have the time to implement real reform, to scrap taxes. In 1993 I thought this government would at least be honest enough to say “The measures passed by the Progressive Conservatives make good sense but one element is missing. Our mission as the new government is to continue with real reform”.

What did the Liberals do? They increased taxes 50 times. Not many people know that.

They take in an annual surplus of $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion in the employment insurance fund, instead of lowering contributions to $2 per $100, as they promised to do in the last election campaign. Consider how much they benefit from free trade. They campaigned against us and now they go around the world praising free trade.

Here again, they failed in their mission, which was to complement what we did. We said that once free trade was passed certain compensation measures would be required because it would involve all of the people affected by the globalizaton of trade. The government did absolutely nothing.

Do members know what that led to? A 50% increase in poverty, particularly among young children.

I have often asked the government why, given that it abdicated its responsibilities after the 1993 election, after the passage of the GST and free trade, it did not pass measures to lower taxes. It did not pass compensatory measures to offset the poverty arising from globalization.

I often have to say “Focus, quick”. There are 40 or so programs to help families in need but they accomplish nothing”. I say why not follow the lead of the European Economic Community? Why not follow the example of Portugal? Why not follow the example of the Government of Quebec which is going to put the issue of a guaranteed minimum income on the agenda in May?

Why will the federal government not be progressive for once in seven years and say “Yes, we will look into the question of a guaranteed minimum income?” This is something that has been called for by Quebec academics and those involved in social affairs, such as Michel Chartrand. They have taken the trouble to write a book about it.

Each time a question arises, the answer they give is this: “You Conservatives left a deficit behind you”. Yes, we left a deficit of $40 billion. That is the same level as in 1984. We inherited a debt of $200 billion, which had been multiplied eleven-fold by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in ten years. The Mulroney government only doubled it; in the meantime, however, it adopted measures which have now made it possible for the government to have wiped out the deficit.

This is why I say this government has no economic or social agenda. What does it do? It passes a bill like C-20 on clarity. It is unbelievable how many people on the street are now talking to us about the importance of passing a bill on referendum clarity. I have never met anyone at home who told me “Sir, you did a good thing in the House of Commons. You passed legislation on referendum clarity”.

It is only too clear that the sole purpose of this bill was to annoy Quebecers, to score points in the rest of the country and to try to divide the other parties. That is the government's game plan.

Worse yet, we were given to understand that there would be an electoral reform. The government passed electoral legislation to muzzle third parties, which are hard up for funds and cannot even field any candidates in the next election because they will not even have enough money to meet the requirements of the new electoral legislation.

I would like one example of something that will improve the lot of Canadians. We are debating Bill C-25 to amend the Income Tax Act. This still just skims the surface. We have the impression that this government does not want to govern. Unfortunately, we sometimes wonder whether that is not what people want: a government that is not there. We on our side continue to say that a government is important to a country.

We often read in the media that people do not want a government. However a government is necessary because the present government manages the money for taxpayers. People tell me “André, we are working and every last cent of our pay cheque is spoken for”.

People no longer have anything to show for their efforts. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are going too far. It is a bit much. And we think this is a democracy. The government says “We are at 45% or 50% in the polls. This means that people are happy”.

People are not happy. I want them to realize that this government is pocketing their money, that its measures do not meet the needs of their children and families, and that they do not help the development of outlying regions, which are slowly dying.

Let us take a look at what is going on in all the regions of the country, whether the Gaspe Peninsula or in my riding. Thousands of jobs have been lost because the government is only interesting in reaping the benefits of the measures taken by the former Progressive Conservative government and its Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney. When the Liberals were campaigning against us on the GST and free trade, they did not mince their words.

I am proud to be here to defend the former government's track record. I said so during my last speech and I am saying it again: I am prepared to defend our record before anyone from the current government and to show that the structural measures that we implemented at the time needed to be followed up with other measures. This government abdicated its responsibility to continue the work that had been started.

This government has no economic agenda and did not continue the reform undertaken. Sometimes, as members of parliament, we make speeches and we criticize the credibility of all politicians. I deplore this, because the vast majority of my colleagues are doing an excellent job. I am thinking, among others, of the hon. member for South Shore who works very hard for his area and for the whole country. Let me quote a line that is not from a member of this House.

Mr. Asper, the executive chairman of CanWest Global Communications and chairman of the board of Global Television Network, said to the minister, about the Canadian tax system, that it is a nightmare because of its complexity. That comment was not made 50 years ago. It was made on Wednesday, during a meeting of CEOs of the Business Council on National Issues. He said it this week.

This is not the member for Chicoutimi speaking, but Mr. Asper, who said that the Canadian tax system is a nightmare because of its complexity, that it is an ocean of uncertainty. He added that this system has an adverse effect on the business world, the private sector, entrepreneurship, and so on.

This means that the government is absolutely not carrying out its mandate. Instead of presenting these Soviet-style budgets over a five year period, the government should bring down one year budgets. Moreover, instead of meeting the needs of the provinces, the government spends its time quarrelling with them. We know the Prime Minister has been in politics for 30 or 35 years. Canadian federalism has been in trouble for 30 years now. We know why.

Mr. Speaker, you are a well informed man. You have followed politics over the last 30 years. Why did the sovereignist vote in Quebec go from 15% to 49.4%? Is it the Progressive Conservative government's fault?

I cannot name all Canadians, because not all Canadians are responsible for the mess the Canadian federation is in, but I can name three, four, five or six members of the Liberal Party of Canada. If the country is in trouble, and I think the bad times are far from being over, it is because of the demagogic attitude of some politicians.

Instead of working toward reconciliation, they continue to play on concepts that will always be divisive.

They play on concepts like roots and founding nations of this country and they enjoy making political hay at the expense of 7 million French Canadians, particularly Quebecers, by passing divisive legislation. This will be at the back of the minds of French Canadians and of all Quebecers in the next referendum.

I have a few small things to ask this government. Instead of continuing to be divisive by alienating western Canada, and sometimes Quebec, and to govern with 37% or 38% of the votes, I am asking the government to give money back to the provinces so people can have surgery when they need it.

Is it too much to ask for the government to give back what provinces were getting in 1993 so that members of our families can get an operation elsewhere than in the United States? I think we can agree on that. Health is what is urgent. Let us give the funding back to provinces. Let us stop creating new programs.

Just think for a moment about home care: as far as running home care is concerned, my riding is far from Ottawa. If we want to work toward national reconciliation, can we give back to the various Canadian provinces the capacity to carry out the responsibilities they have under the constitution?

Let us talk about the millennium scholarship fund. A new program has been created, whereas, as we know perfectly well, that is not what was needed. The federal government does have to collect money, but it has to understand that people are sick and tired of paying.

People have accepted the GST and free trade. What irritates and disgusts them is that none of the money is coming back to them. On Friday night, the working father and mother want to see their work reflected on their pay check. They want to be able to support their family and to work for themselves, not for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. That is where the problem lies in Canada.

We should not be surprised if there are grumblings of discontent out west and in Quebec. Provincial premiers keep meeting, not to demand foolish things, but essential things for the future of each province in Canada.

What will make the Canadian federation perfect is the perfection and good performance of each provincial government. It is perfection of the sum of all the parts.

In pursuing its campaigns of provocation and harassment against the provinces, the current government, the Liberal Party of Canada, wants to continue to stay in power with 37% or 38% of the vote, or about a third of the vote. It is very important for this government to understand that on taxation people want to see and touch what belongs to them. They want the fruits of their labour to be given back to them.

People understand very well that our exports have been multiplied by 2.5 on the American market and that we are in a globalization period. They want the fruits of their labour back home in their families. They do not want the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to manage surpluses for them.

I hear this every day from people in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Not one of my colleagues from the other provinces told me that Bill C-20 on clarity in a potential referendum was very important. However, what I hear is “Sir, is there a way to have money on our pay cheques? Is there a way for my parents not to have to wait four, six or eight months for surgery?”

What is happening in hospitals in the country makes no sense. We will have to wait months for the provinces to have the maximum budget to effectively manage health care. In the meantime, the federal government is creating new programs and squabbling. It occupies the premiers by letting them convene meetings, where they almost always end up asking the same thing “Will you give us the money that is rightfully ours?”

I am sorry but maybe what this country really needs is a true confederation, with people from the west, from Quebec, from the maritimes and from Ontario coming together. Certainly, through a redefinition of our respective roles, we would.

Members opposite do not stick to their role. They keep intruding into provincial jurisdictions. We should clearly redefine the roles. The federal government should stop piling up money at the expense of the provinces, of the citizens in Quebec and in the whole country.

I hope things will change in the next election. I know the members opposite are quite nervous. Support of 38% is a bit shaky. The 101 members from Ontario are concerned about their fate, and I can understand that.