Ghislain Lebel

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my friend opposite said. Unfortunately, I am not quite clear about what he said, and I would appreciate it if he could explain a few things to me.

Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister was questioned by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who asked him if he intented to hold a socio-economic summit like the one in Quebec City just yesterday. He said no. His answer was that the necessary public consultation had taken place at the time of the general election, in which his party was elected, and that that was enough.

But it has been 24 or 26 months since the federal election. On the subject of culture, I remind the House that yesterday Mrs. Lambert, the Montreal architect, stressed the role Montreal plays in tourism and culture, as well as the need to preserve its architecture, and so on.

Am I to conclude from the Prime Minister's answer-the hon. member will tell me-that he has innate knowledge and, more to the point, limitless knowledge, or should he not show humility instead and consult with his social, economic and cultural partners in the Canadian community?

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the words of the hon. member from Alberta with considerable interest, as he described Alberta as the bastion of free enterprise. We have been aware of just that, on several occasions, at the time the Act to amend the Interest Act was introduced in order to restrict the banks and financial institutions to a penalty of three months interest when loan capital is paid back before the due date. The Reform Party voted against this.

We also saw the Reform Party oppose an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, which introduced by a member from the Quebec City region, more precisely the member for Portneuf, my colleague to the right here. What he wanted to do was to put ordinary workers and low income people at the top of the list for collocation of creditors in the case of a bankruptcy, in front of banks, guaranteed creditors and so on. Again, the Reformers voted against this.

This is not the first time the Reform Party has been against anything that could show a little compassion, bring a little relief to the low wage earner, the most disadvantaged of our society. Then, to be really sure to have the upper hand over this group, the Reform Party recently sent one of their gang over to Asia to learn about caning and corporal punishment of offenders.

The hon. member referred to the vacancy rate in Montreal, referring I believe to unoccupied office space. It is true, unfortunately, that it is much more related to the tax policy of the City of Montreal than to the political situation currently prevailing in Quebec or in Canada.

I would like to ask the Alberta member who has just spoken, whether just once, some day, or once in a while, these people could show a glimmer of compassion? I would imagine that, even in Alberta, the bastion of free enterprise, not everyone who lives there, who moves about the province, who eats, sleeps and lives in Alberta, is a millionaire. I assume there are also some people who are less well off, and some who are poor, as there are everywhere, and these people need some compassion.

Would it be betraying their mandate if, for once, during the 35th Legislature, these people showed a bit of compassion for the least well off, the poorest, the disadvantaged, those less gifted to succeed financially? We have never yet had any evidence of this, in two and one half years.

I would ask once again: before taking the irreparable step of voting against the motion by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, just try to understand the poor, the disadvantaged, those members of our society whose need is greatest.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. Unfortunately, he does not address the issue on the order paper today, this famous committee of experts set up by the Minister of Finance to analyze business taxation.

This is what we have been saying for the close to three years, and the Auditor General of Canada told the minister in his 1993-94 report that business taxation was deficient. But the minister does not appear to understand or to hear.

I would simply like to recount a short anecdote that the hon. member may find helpful. One day, a Japanese minister threw out a challenge to his Canadian counterpart, probably the finance minister, to see which of the two groups, the Canadians or the Japanese, would be able to row across the St. Lawrence River the fastest. The Japanese team showed up with four rowers and a coxswain. The Canadian minister of finance, mightily amused, turned up with one rower, two section chiefs, one director and an assistant deputy minister.

The race began. Half way across, the Japanese were already ten minutes ahead of the Canadian team. No matter, not to worry. The Canadians added another section chief, to motivate and encourage the rower. On they went. Three quarters of the way through the race, the Japanese had a 20 minute lead. Something had to be done. The deputy minister himself was called in, took up his spot in the boat and on they went. The rower must not lose motivation. Not surprisingly, the Japanese won the race hands down, with a 30-minute lead over the Canadian team. What had happened?

There was a post mortem . Many months and many hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a report concluded that they had fallen down in organization, productivity had not been good, and communications between management and employees poor. So they abolished the position of rower.

This joke is instructive. What we have here is the same thing. A committee will be created, that we in the Bloc Quebecois do not necessarily want-but since it is the wish of the Minister of Finance-a committee of experts to analyze business taxation. We say to you: "This committee should include members of all parties, who could contribute their knowledge, speak directly to the friends you have appointed, and try to get them to face the facts".

No, you say. You have things to protect, but it will end up the same as the joke I just told. After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, and probably holding hearings across Canada, the conclusion will be that the rower was no good. In the end, it is the economy that is no good, with all your interfering.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech and I appreciate it. What we mostly wanted to consider in this House today is the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, with regard to the famous committee set up by the Minister of Finance, which-as the hon. member for La Prairie pointed out-is comprised of friends of the government. This is not a bad thing per se. This is not so terrible. These friends of the government are there to give advice to the Minister of Finance. They also make large contributions to the Liberal Party's coffers.

What the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot proposes is to include in this committee parliamentarians from all political parties represented in this House, including Reform, who will be happy to attend and participate, as well as the Bloc Quebecois. Of course, the party in power, not wanting to be left behind, will also delegate some of its members.

The hon. member refers to parliamentary committees. It must be pointed out that most parliamentary committee members come from the party in power. It is simply human nature. If I were in their shoes, I would probably do the same. However, they sometimes make decisions that are contrary to common sense just to avoid embarrassing the government. Government members on the committee will use their majority to give priority to their own interests. This is what is happening in the parliamentary committees the hon. member was talking about earlier.

I would remind the hon. member that, despite all the good faith shown by parliamentary committees in the last 30 years, we still have to deal with a $600 billion debt. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, this $600 billion debt was not run up by the Bloc Quebecois. Yet there it is, bigger than ever.

The hon. member wanted to know why we wanted parliamentarians to sit on this committee set up by the Minister of Finance. It is precisely to explain things to those outside the party in power who have expertise in this area. Bloc and Reform members would simply like to show these people the auditor general's 1994 report, which referred to some cases of abuse by corporations with foreign subsidiaries.

Let us take an example: suppose it costs a mining company on Quebec's North Shore $20 to produce one tonne of iron ore. The company sells that ore to its affiliate in Nassau, Bermuda, or somewhere else, for $21 a tonne, thus making a profit of one dollar, which it reports to Revenue Canada and on which it is prepared to pay tax. However, the Bermuda affiliate did not do anything with the ore; it did not pay anyone. It resells the ore for $75 a tonne, thus pocketing a profit of $55 without having to pay any tax in Canada.

The hon. member says that the affiliate should not have to pay anything, since it did not do anything in Canada. Why should we tax some poor foreigners? The Auditor General of Canada raised the issue in his 1994 report. This is precisely what the Bloc Quebecois is discussing.

Obviously we have no interest, nor any right, in taxing a company in Timbuktu that does not even know that Canada exists. This is not the idea. We want to target Canadian affiliates that are set up on the sly, in a tax haven, to avoid paying considerable sums of money to Revenue Canada.

This is our goal, and I ask the hon. member who just spoke if he realizes that there are many such cases and that something ought to be done.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is something profoundly unhealthy in today's exercise.

As I listen to government members, I realize that they have all made up their mind. The member who just spoke has already made up his mind. This is unhealthy. Maybe the hon. member for Charlesbourg should not have done that; personally, I would not have done it. An hon. member said earlier that this is not a real court. However, the consequences are worse than in the case of a real court, since a legitimately elected member of this House may be prevented from sitting in this place.

After listening to all those who spoke here on behalf of the government and the Reform Party-and I have no doubt that they are unanimous in this case-how can you expect the committee to disregard their comments and make an enlightened, impartial, fair and honest decision? This is hogwash.

I have a question for the member who just spoke. Last week, in the riding next to mine, in Saint-Hyacinthe, about 100 people held a protest against the UI reform. My friend and colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and myself, went to that demonstration.

Do the Liberal Party and the hon. member who just spoke view our action as seditious, since we told these people to not get taken in, to assert themselves, that they had a right to protest and not be pleased with that reform? This is seditious stuff.

Are we also going to accuse the 30 or so policemen who were there of complicity, since they did not step in and beat the heck out of us? They, too, are guilty of something. I would appreciate an answer.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

We do not see that very often.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the leader of the third party had to say. He has just confirmed that the judgment we are about to pass on the member for Charlesbourg is a question of political opportunism. It boils down to this: Was what the member said in this House or outside acceptable to the leader of the third party or did it offend him?

Does this means that from now on, whenever we ask an embarrassing question of the Prime Minister, a question that might be considered politically embarrassing by Canadians at large, or embarrassing for the government or whatever, the leader of the third party will rise and say: "Hand this guy over to a House committee". This is tantamount to throwing a lamb to the wolves.

And yet, this is what he is asking you to do. This is what is happening. We can no longer ask legitimate questions, questions our constituents are asking, and rightly so. This is all about political opportunism. We are told: "If we do not like what you are

saying, we are going to parade you in front of this wolf committee; you are the lamb and you are going to be torn apart".

[Privilege, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege please. The member said earlier that the House of Commons is a court. The member just made some declarations based on hear-say, without any evidence. If this is really a court, then the appropriate rules still apply.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Would you be please quiet. It is a bit as if I took the minister's hat size, divided by his shoe size, less his waist size and said: "There is the amount of your debt". If he puts on weight, it does not work anymore. The same is true for the GDP.

We want Canadians to know that they are in debt to the tune of $20,000 each, babies born this morning arrive with a $20,000 debt. In the past two years, we have added $3,700 to their debt load and to that of those who are not yet born, but are on the way.

I do not think we can close our eyes. The government appears to be acting like a windsurfer who has just come off a great big wave and is on the flat part of the wave. He is turned sideways and is getting ready for the next wave, whenever and however it comes.

This is what a budget plan is. You have to invent, think of the next wave. Right now we are talking about 10 per cent unemployment. Some 400,000 workers in Quebec alone were added to the welfare rolls last year. They are not considered unemployed anymore, and our statistics are therefore lower. But there are people who are not eating or eating very little. The member, with every good intention, I am sure, refuses to see the data of the problem.

My question is as follows: Does the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance meet his expectations? Is he ready for the next wave? He has not convinced me that he is.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks by the member who just spoke and I am tempted to ask him the following question: "Could it be that his political partisanship is making him totally blind?"

When comments are made on a budget as important as the one tabled yesterday, people have the right to know what it will cost them, what awaits them, what are the risks in job terms, what about their own jobs, how big is the debt. The Minister of Finance talks of 2 per cent of the GDP, 3 per cent of the GDP and 15 per cent of the GDP.