Nick Discepola

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Centre opened up his debate by questioning our 3 per cent GDP target and spent almost 70 per cent of his time wondering whether we would achieve that 3 per cent GDP target.

In his preamble the hon. member stated that the 3 per cent GDP target was arrived at by looking at an area on the map of the world because of geography, demographics and natural resources. It seems to me those same criteria apply even more so to Canada.

In 1993 in terms of objectives, there was a party that had zero in five, another party that had zero in three, and another party that had three in three. Canadians spoke and said that a target of 3 per cent of GDP was acceptable to them.

I question the whole approach of the Reform Party today. Whenever we talk about the deficit, with each dollar we look at there is always one aspect we must remember as parliamentarians: there is a person, a human being behind that dollar. We are going to touch every single human being with the decisions we make.

Yes, a 3 per cent GDP target may not be ambitious for financial institutions and others, but it is an interim target. It is something Canadians can hold on to dearly. Even if we achieve that target the Minister of Finance in his address to the finance committee admitted publicly that we must strive for the day when we will have a balanced budget.

I ask the hon. member where in his party's platform do they see that compassion, that understanding for the human face that is behind every dollar? Their proposals go after the weakest provinces, after those on welfare, after the unemployed and after seniors. We must show compassion, as the hon. member said.

[30Th Anniversary Of Canadian Flag, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to speak on behalf of my fellow Quebecers on this occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the Canadian flag. Internationally, the Maple Leaf is a symbol of generosity, democracy and freedom. At home, it symbolizes strength, unity and pride.

The past thirty years have seen profound changes in Canada. Rather than passively submit to these changes, our country has shaped and adapted them to the principles and values of tolerance, justice and fairness that we hold dear.

Canadians from coast to coast proudly display our majestic red and white flag. Businesses spend thousands of dollars to develop a trademark, but Canada has the finest trademark in the world, the Maple Leaf.

Long may it fly! Long live Canada!

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it was with considerable interest that I listened to and participated in the debate this morning. I listened closely to the speeches by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and my colleague from Témiscamingue, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I do not always agree with them and I would even say that I am almost in complete disagreement with their option, but I do agree with one point that both members raised this morning, in this House.

The member for Témiscamingue has just concluded with the remark that flexible federalism, or a flexible status quo, if I may so describe it, is the cause of the problem we are now facing daily in Canada. In this regard, I am in complete agreement with him. It is because of the debt load that has plagued the country for years now.

I also agree with another of their observations, which is that the debt load and particularly the deficit we have had for a number of years are not the result of social programs.

There are two factors, first of all the debt load, which is very high, and the political uncertainty, which has resulted in an incredible jump in interest rates.

As the member has already pointed out, since the report was tabled in December there has been an increase of 300 base points, or 3 per cent. I would remind this House that an increase of 1 per cent represents an additional burden of 1.7 billion dollars. This is why, with the budget soon to be tabled, we are 12 to 14 billion dollars short of our objective to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product.

I would like to put a question to my honourable colleague, who said that our problem is one of the main reasons why their future is brighter in an independent Quebec. I cannot believe that an independent Quebec will be in a better position to offer the services that taxpayers now receive.

Take the debt, for example. It is a very good example. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe told us himself this morning that he was prepared to absorb 25 per cent of the debt. Some economists say that this additional burden would drive the debt of an independent Quebec up to 215 billion dollars. That would be 123 per cent of its gross domestic product. There is no way that an independent Quebec can offer the same services that taxpayers are receiving today.

Could the member explain, for the benefit of all those who will soon have to make a decision, how he expects to offer the same services in an independent Quebec without extensive cuts, when the debt burden is so heavy and there is the risk of a premium on interest rates that would add to the load?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf made a speech on the costs of federalism, but he forgot that all the costs always entail benefits as well. His colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe, who sits on the finance committee, himself estimated the costs of overlap and duplication at $3 billion. Even Mr. Le Hir, the PQ minister, estimated the costs of overlap at $3 billion.

But in the magic formula, they always tend to forget one thing: Quebec receives $4 billion in equalization payments and Quebecers collect $1.2 billion in unemployment insurance.

In their bill, will they say that Quebecers must cover 25 per cent of the national debt, as the member just said, which amounts to $550 billion and the costs that it will entail? Will they tell them that milk producers will lose their protection and that it will cost all milk producers millions, if not billions, of dollars?

By chance, the member's calculations overlooked that Mr. Parizeau himself had said that all federal civil servants would keep their job and would be protected. Add that to the calculations and we get into the real debate on the costs of federalism versus the costs of separatism.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Are those cows from Vaudreuil too?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Quebecers are offered an alternative. They should have the courage to ask the question correctly instead of writing 18 sections and after that asking the real question that is required by the Referendum Act, yes or no. They should find it in themselves to ask the relevant question: Do you want to separate from the most wonderful country of the world, yes or no? But do they have that kind of courage?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

To become masters of their own destiny? They already have control over their own tax system and their own legislative system. They have full control over education, language, culture and immigration. They have all that within Canada.

To meet the requirements of the Referendum Act, which is the authority on which all referendums and plebiscites are held in Quebec, it is clear that there have to be two parties: a yes and a no side. Is that democracy? The so-called democracy that we are being offered in that draft bill? Where are the two parties?

Clause 1 provides that Quebec is already a sovereign country. What other choice is there for those who do not want Quebec to be sovereign? Where is the consultation process? Do they really want to know what other people think? I wonder where democracy stands when 13 members of the 15 commissions proposed are separatists and only two of them are federalists. Is that democracy?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague from Laval East had to say. I cannot help thinking that ever since I was elected to this House, the members opposite have been criticizing us and telling us that the status quo is unacceptable. With the draft bill that is proposed, I wonder what choices Mr. Parizeau, the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Parti Quebecois really have to offer Quebecers. We are being offered the same Canadian passport. We are being offered the same Canadian dollar. We are being offered the same international treaties. As well, they say in the draft bill that they want to be a member of the most important organizations in the world such as the UN, GATT and NAFTA. Quebec and Quebecers already have those privileges. What more do they want?

[Bloc Quebecois, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this House recently witnessed a scene that was more like theatre than parliamentary debate.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata protested against a statement made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in which he indirectly associated the House of Commons with theatre.

The member of the Bloc said that the minister's comments "cast discredit on an institution such as Parliament, implying that what goes on in this place has more to do with play acting than real life".

Would the hon. member feel more comfortable with what was said by her own colleague, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois? In an article in the Journal de Montréal , he stated: ``We consider both the question and the tone we want to use. Sometimes, all we want to do is get the information. Occasionally, the question is intended to embarrass the minister''.

Quebecers and Canadians expect Bloc Quebecois members to take their parliamentary responsibilities more seriously.

[International Trade, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and interest that, like all Canadians, I followed Team Canada's great performance in Asia. I wish to express all my admiration to the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and thank him for successfully leading the largest mission ever seen in China.

Mr. Prime Minister, you showed the entire world that Canadian expertise is an exportable asset and that our products are among the best in the world. Through your firmness, assurance and patience, you have rallied the provincial premiers and the cream of business people in Canada and Quebec around you.

Whether Mr. Parizeau likes it or not, Quebec was represented very well by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.

What more could we ask for?

Mr. Prime Minister, I pay tribute to your know-how. The contracts and trade agreements you have managed to secure for Canada are a coup that even Germany, an exporting country par excellence, could not score.