Jean-Guy Chrétien

[The Senate, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion M-221 moved by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and dealing with the abolition of the Senate.

For quite a number of years now, this issue has been surfacing regularly. Consequently, the government, and in fact all the members of this House, must give greater consideration to a situation which, over the years, has tarnished the reputation of

Canadian politics, and particularly the credibility of our role as parliamentarians.

In this context, the government should consider an in depth reform of federal parliamentarian institutions, so as to make them more effective and better adjusted to modern reality.

I am fully aware of the Senate's role in the traditional British parliamentary system and of its historic contribution. However, we are faced with a serious dilemma. On the one hand, the current economic context does not allow us to maintain a symbolic institution whose costs are in excess of $65 million a year and whose effectiveness is rather dubious.

On the other hand, as we approach the 21st century, it is clear that the governmental and legislative structures have not managed to modernize themselves. In fact, this archaic institution plays a role quite remote from its original raison d'être. Instead of protecting the public from the excessive ideologies of elected representatives, the Senate is now an instrument used to delay legislation on a purely partisan basis. In this regard, I wish to remind the House of the position held by the current government when it formed the official opposition.

At the time, the Liberal Party was open to a Senate reform. Now, it has a totally different attitude. The Liberal government does not seem to give the same priority to such changes, because it now controls this parliamentary structure, taking advantage of the situation. The most blatant example of this is undoubtedly the appointment of Mrs. Shirley Maheu to the Senate to make room for the new member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in a by-election last winter. The government thus made sure it had one more voice in favour in the lengthy legislative process, in addition to legitimizing the hasty appointment of the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

However, the contemptibly partisan political scheming behind these appointments pales in comparison to the image the public has of the Senate. Before preparing this speech, I took the time to consult with some of my constituents in order to find out just how they perceived the Senate, and especially what their concerns were.

In this connection, I would like to tell you how the upper House has dropped in the opinion of the people in my riding of Frontenac. The first image to come to people's minds is undoubtedly that of the senators lulled fast asleep by speeches that we would have thought were very interesting and compellingly delivered.

Ask anyone what their boss would think if they fell asleep on the job, and what would happen. The lineups would be even longer at the employment centres. Yet, as citizens and taxpayers, we tolerate a totally intolerable situation. It gives new meaning to the expression "asleep at the switch".

In another vein, I suggested to my constituents that they write to their senator, as they do regularly to their federal MP. They all seemed interested, but nobody knew to whom they should send their letter. Of all the constituents I met with, no one could say which senator represented, if I could put it that way, the Frontenac area.

At best, a few could name a few members of the upper House, including Senator Hébert, Senator Jean-Louis Roux and Senator Gérald Beaudoin. But these individuals were known to the public before they even became senators. And there is worse. No one could give the name of our Senate division, leading me to conclude that, in addition to being useless, the Senate is not well known.

On a more theoretical note, the reason for which the Senate was created no longer obtains. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Senate originated out of a certain concern regarding the representatives of the people. The Senate was to provide a legislative alternative to the incompetence and excesses of members. But history has shown us that this aspect of parliamentary life has largely improved and that legislation introduced by the House of Commons responds satisfactorily to the expectations and needs of the public, and respects its interests.

The House of Commons, like the National Assembly of Quebec and all legislative assemblies of Canada, is a sovereign and democratically elected assembly. Why, then, hang on to an outmoded institution whose costly operation does nothing but slow down the operation of Parliament, and adds to taxpayers' dissatisfaction with how politicians are running the country?

My colleague representing the Liberal government spoke earlier about the primary goal of his party, aside from creating jobs and putting its fiscal house in order. Here are $65 million it could save year after year, and it is afraid to lift its little finger today and make it happen. Of course it will do nothing, given the appointments just made by its leader.

I see Sharon Carstairs. She was his friend, his ally in the fight against the Meech Lake accord. He appointed her for the next 23 years, at an annual salary of $64,000 and all the benefits that go with it. He appointed her for the next 23 years, until the year 2017. It is shocking. The same goes for Céline Hervieux-Payette.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise at noon today to speak to Bill C-12, a bill which, by the way, the official opposition is prevented from debating as fully as it would have wished because of the gag you have just allowed, when all we want is to defend the poorest members of Canadian society.

First of all, Bill C-12 sets out to change the name "unemployment insurance" to "employment insurance", as though it were a disgrace to draw UI benefits. So, from now on, it will be called employment insurance.

I had a discussion with a member of the Liberal government, who tried to win me over to his way of seeing things by explaining that employment insurance should operate on the same principle as car insurance, the idea being that if you have a car accident, fine, two accidents, not quite so fine, and, after three, your insurance rates go up because you are a high risk case. This same MP tried to convince me that seasonal workers depended on UI for a living.

Since those who grow Christmas trees, woodcutters, or fishermen, for example, must turn to UI year after year, they would be poor clients for the insurance company, which would either have to raise its rates or lower its benefits.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are ill, at a low ebb, you have cancer perhaps. And their idea of gratitude is to bump up your health insurance premiums, whether or not you can afford it. Or perhaps they would say: "You are ill, we will take less care of you". Yes, just like you are going to do with employment insurance. You will penalize the so-called frequent users. It is crazy.

Worse yet, the surplus in the fund this year will be over $5 billion. Those $5 billion will be taken mainly from the workers' pockets, in a variety of ways, but particularly by increasing the number of weeks worked.

Your reply will be that I have misunderstood, that what we are looking at is not insurable weeks any more, it is hours. But in your calculations-of course I mean the government's calculations-a week is 35 hours, but all hours are counted. So the logger slogging away in the woods could accumulate ten 84 hour weeks. With his 10 weeks at 84 hours a week, he would become eligible after 10 weeks, because that would total 840 hours, assuming he is not a first time user of UI. He would be eligible because the 840 would be divided by 35, which would give more than the 20 or 22 weeks required.

Now to take the example of Mrs. Blouin, of Saint-Nazaire Street in Thetford Mines. She works at Cooprix, a supermarket, and averages 15 to 24 hours a week. Because the unemployment rate in the Chaudière-Appalaches region is 8 per cent, this lady will have great difficulty in becoming eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

According to Bill C-12, and using the example of the Chaudière-Appalaches region with its 8 per cent unemployment, this lady would have to work 18 weeks at 35 hours a week which, by my calculations, makes 630 hours. This lady works a very few hours, although she would love to have 35 hours a week. There just is not enough work.

I would also like to point out that, in the various regions, calculation of the unemployment rate is sometimes very roundabout, I would not go so far as to say the figures are fiddled with, but obtained in a roundabout way, yes. It is strange, however, that in the Chaudière-Appalaches region the rate of unemployment is only 8 per cent, down 2 per cent in the past three years, yet there has been a 4 per cent increase in welfare recipients.

So there we have the see saw effect, take people away from the UI side and put them onto the welfare side. To all intents and purposes, the federal government assumed an area of provincial jurisdiction in 1940, imposing itself on an area that was not within its purview, over the objections of Maurice Duplessis. Now, in order to make that area more cost-effective, it is pushing the most disadvantaged off onto an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely social assistance. You will share my opinion that the trick of changing unemployment insurance into employment insurance is both mean spirited and crooked.

It had been the wish of the Bloc to withdraw eligibility from those who leave jobs of their own free will. In the bill, those who quit would have serious difficulties in drawing employment insurance, unemployment insurance benefits. It is comical to see how the folks in the Liberal Party are changing their tune.

In 1990, when it was in the opposition, the Liberal Party had emphatically and fiercely objected to the conservative government's plan to penalize workers who voluntarily quit their jobs. You know as well as I do what is going on in some plants. Their was an article in La Presse two weeks ago saying that some plant managers literally exploit their employees. Many of them have to quit before they drop dead on the job or suffer a breakdown. Their notice of termination of employment indicates that they left of their own will. Some employers-fortunately not all of them but their will always be some-take advantage of their employees and will do it even more in the future.

The hon. member for Malpeque, fortunately for him, was not a member of the House of Commons in 1990. Had he been part of the Liberal clan at that time, I believe he would have acted the same way. When Liberals were in opposition, that rule was not acceptable to them. It had to be eliminated in order to prevent abuse. Now that they are in power, the Liberals once more take advantage of the neediest.

Another measure I find deplorable is that all gains over $39,000 are no longer insurable. In return, the maximum amount of benefits to which workers could be eligible will be reduced. Since my time is already up, I would like to urge this government and the finance minister to look at other avenues, other alternatives before reducing their deficit on the back of the most disadvantaged people.

I invite the finance minister, through you Mr. Speaker, to register all his boats in Canada and to pay a little more income tax. He can afford it. I also invite him, when he purchases new ships, to buy them in Canada rather than in Asia, for instance. That would create jobs here.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Another gag order. This is outrageous. This legislation is too important for that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could you tell him he has done nothing to protect dairy producers? Of course, he is going to answer: "I am from Montreal, there are no farmers in my riding". He should tell his constituents that there are many consumers among them and that they will have to pay more for their butter and cheese. Cheese will be around 50 cents more a kilo and butter 28 cents more a pound; but he will not say a thing. His constituents mentioned it, he will not be seen anymore. They saw him during the campaign, but they will not see him any longer.

Of course, Bernard Landry, now a Quebec minister, was one of those who supported harmonization back then. He was not sitting in the National Assembly at the time, but he agreed with Robert Bourassa that harmonization was the way to go. It is a lot more convenient. I was one of those who had to fill in the infernal GST-QST forms every month. It was very costly and time consuming, and the amount of tax was very little since my business was not international.

This being said, when we harmonized, did Ottawa give us $1 billion? Certainly not. Quebec could get carried away and say: "Let us raise the sales tax, the QST, to 19 or 20 per cent as in Newfoundland" and then several months later, it would decide to harmonize. It seems that this would cost Quebec $1.2 billion. The province could then tell the rest of Canada: "Give us $1.2. billion". This is the way it works.

Essentially, what the finance minister did is use taxpayers' money to buy three provinces to start with. Prince Edward Island should follow in a few months. This will bring the number to four, but there are many other provinces missing. In Alberta there is no sales tax.

Alberta will most certainly not come on board, neither will British Columbia, or Quebec; Ontario is not interested. In Ontario, they do not want to increase taxes, they want to lower them. These four provinces account for close to 80 per cent of the total population, or at least 75 per cent. This is a strange way to fe fair.

To conclude, I will remind the House that to be accepted, a tax must be fair and simple. What the finance minister is doing is neither fair nor simple. It is far from being fair.

The international cooperation minister did not tell me if he checked how much taxes he paid last time he filled up his car, how much taxes he paid when he bought a quart of liquor or a case of beer, how much taxes there is on cigarettes. This government is being hypocritical in attempting to hide the GST it criticized so vehemently when it was in opposition.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

It is. If you got out of Montreal, you would learn some regional expressions.

I wonder if the minister would not be more proud of his Minister of Finance if he bought his ships at home. He would create jobs and if he registered them here, he would pay taxes here.

On the subject of compensation to the three maritime provinces that signed on, and that were penalized because they lowered their

sales tax by five per cent, why do you not leave them where they are at right now? They are already paying 19 or 20 per cent. You are making them a gift; they will be paying less tax. I am the one who is going to compensate their governments, innocent that I am.

The governments of the maritime provinces would rather have a big provincial sales tax and less income tax. That is their choice. It is not up to us to meddle in the way a province is administered, as my colleague for Chicoutimi pointed out. He talked of respect for provinces and jurisdictions. We will respect them.

In 1991, when Quebec harmonized its sales tax, the QST, with the GST, you did not give us one red cent. We do the collecting and we split the cost fifty-fifty. It costs you $88 million a year.

In the maritimes, Ottawa will pay the whole shot. Strange idea of fairness in this party and this government. What did you do when dairy subsidies were cut over five years? It will mean an average of $8,000 per farm. You, a fine representative of Quebec-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

It is an expression from Lac-Saint-Jean, I will have you know.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Oh, that is wonderful. You are fair, Mr. Speaker, a rarity these days in this party.

I am grateful for the question raised by my colleague in this House, who was elected with a 60 per cent majority. I might remind him that a kid was elected in Lac-Saint-Jean with a 76 per cent majority, and you in the Liberal Party poured everything-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Come on now, this is not about election results. Get back to C-31.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

He is off the topic. We were not referring to results at the polls.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31 introduced by the Minister of Finance. This bill makes me somewhat uncomfortable in light of our basic duty, namely debating issues in the public interest and trying to meet as adequately as possible the real needs and basic concerns of those who elected us, without being gagged as is now the case.

In a way, I feel bad about having to speak to such a pernicious and insidious bill. I deplore our having to debate such a bill, which results from a long and laborious plot orchestrated by the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard and supported by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice, who both represent Quebec ridings.

I must tell you, however, that the support I received from those around me and from many of my constituents have made this a memorable moment in my life as a member of Parliament: acting as the spokesman for an entire community for whom the minister is nothing more than some sort of abstract entity.

When a family man, who turns out to be one of the many victims of the axe wielded by this federal Liberal government, comes to my office to ask for my help in finding work, I feel proud of what I am doing now in condemning this insidious bill as vigorously as possible.

The hon. minister has probably never experienced a situation like that of the family man I just mentioned, at least not personally. Yet, his bill directly affects hundreds of thousands of people who are not necessarily among the disadvantaged or the poor, far from it. This bill, a hodgepodge of tax provisions contained in the last budget, concretely affects the middle class commonly and bluntly described as overtaxed.

While government members applauded the minister's cosmetic budget on March 6, we warned the people against the negative, hidden impact of that statement, whose only purpose was to win votes. Well, here we are. We must now discuss the absurdity and emptiness left behind by the March 6 budget.

The bill in question stems from the same logic that has dictated the government's actions ever since October 1993, and it was acting in good faith-I repeat, in good faith. In fact, the government is enacting a whole series of legislative measures that are so underhanded that it is actually pulling a fast one on the public.

Watching the minister struggle with the media these past few days, I came to the realization, with some astonishment, that all the government is trying to do is to lull the public, deliberately playing with abstract concepts, to make almost everyone lose interest in the process. Who are the big losers in all this? All politicians. Such strategies, understandably, shatter the public's confidence in its politicians.

I have been repeatedly calling the House's attention to a recent opinion poll in which, out of a sample of approximately 40 professions, people were asked which professionals they felt they could trust the most, the least and not at all. You will be surprised to hear that barely four per cent of Canadians trusted their politicians. Although, when we see the Prime Minister, during oral question period, arguing high and low that he did not say that the government would abolish the GST he had condemned so strongly and taking his red book out-which is against the rules-to read a little excerpt that comes in real handy to get him out of this mess, it is understandable that the percentage is not any higher.

It is a good thing that modern technology enables us to produce videos of the 1993 election campaign, in which the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice, in Quebec, can be heard saying, in his very colourful words: "We hate the GST and we will kill it. We will scrap it". This is a strange way to scrap it. Today, he is proposing to hide it, through harmonization, at Canadian taxpayers' expense. We will have to pay the tidy sum of $1 billion to try to hide the mistake he made during the 1993 election campaign and the Liberals' mandate in the opposition, when their friends filibustered in the other place.

Now in power, these same politicians are gagging us. The two young Quebec scholars who recently joined the Liberal team must not be too proud to see the government act against their principles of justice and respect for the people. This is tantamount to saying "we love you", but not showing it. And it is because of prime ministers and members like these that barely four per cent of the population trusts politicians. Our sholarly friends were better off in

their universities; indeed, the confidence rate in universities is significantly higher.

I am not trying to criticize the government's goals to reduce the deficit and to improve the state of public finances, quite the contrary; these are very noble and praiseworthy objectives.

However, I strongly condemn the method used by the government to reach its goals. I am merely trying to show this House the true colours of this government formed by the Liberal Party, the party of forgotten promises, the party that has become a master at promising changes without ever doing anything.

As you know, these blunders cannot be attributed to the government's good faith. I often use the expression "good faith", because the Minister of Finance seemingly made an honest mistake. An honest mistake, can you believe it?

Abolishing the GST was the Liberals' favourite theme during the October 1993 election campaign. Today, in all good faith, they decide to keep this tax and to hide it, as is the case with the taxes on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol products. I challenge members opposite to tell me that, when they last filled their tank, bought a pack of cigarettes, or got a bottle of alcohol or a case of beer, they inquired about the amount of money they were paying in federal or provincial taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that even you did not check that. Yet, it would be a good thing to do.

This government, and more specifically the Minister of Finance, will hide the GST in at least three provinces. This takes some nerve. While they sat in opposition, the Liberals were opposed to hiding that tax because, they said, the government would gradually increase it. Yet, these same Liberals will turn the GST into a hidden tax.

This really contradicts what the Liberal Party said in its red book. But this does not seem to affect the logic of the members opposite. Even individual promises are not being fulfilled. Indeed, as we are speaking, the Prime Minister should normally be in the process of replacing the Deputy Prime Minister, since she had pledged to resign. She made that promise. Remember, you were there. If such is the governing authority in our political system, let me tell you that I prefer, by far, my status as a member of the opposition to being associated with and sitting behind this Prime Minister and this Deputy Prime Minister.

Government members should show more judgment when developing their election promises instead of having to eat humble pie, as the finance minister did, in shouldering the full weight of the Liberal pipe dream when he admitted several times that he had made an honest mistake.

Ultimately, knowing what the Liberal Party is capable of, we could very well have accepted the notion of harmonization of the GST and PST, had it not been for these concepts of compensation. Unfortunately, the government only succeeded in jeopardizing once again the fairness and the balance in this country's tax system. When Quebec harmonized its sales tax with the GST in 1991 under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, it did not demand compensation.

Five years later, Liberals have the gall to pick the pockets of all consumers and voters to the tune of $1 billion for three provinces, to get them to come on board and get out of a mess they got themselves into, in the first place.

I figure that we, in Quebec, will fork out close to $250 million that will be paid to these three Maritime provinces led by Liberal friends, including Brian Tobin, a former member of the rat pack who sat in opposition with our Prime Minister and who went on to become the premier of Newfoundland. Quebecers will pay $250 million to these Liberal friends literally to buy off these provinces, namely Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. It seems that the net result of this operation will have to be figured in votes and not in terms of economic recovery. A provincial election is expected in Prince Edward Island very shortly and then it will only be a matter of days or months before a fourth province joins the process.

In the end, the Minister of Finance will have bought the support of four provinces for only $1.2 billion. That is $1.2 billion of your money, Mr. Speaker, and the money of the new minister, who is considered an intellectual in Quebec, by the way, as well as my money and the money of all the people who have elected us to represent them in this House. The worst thing of all is that the Prime Minister is heartily approving the poor performance of his government since the beginning of the 35th Parliament.

This is what the Liberal government of Canada stated: "This government has consistently acted on the principle that the state and the people need to be able to see structural change coming and to adjust to them". Right now, Canadians are trying to adjust to the broken promises of the Liberals. Many arguments are used to try to relate all this to current events, but that usually puts the government on the spot. It is obviously some kind of strategy.

Now for justice and fairness. This great principle does not seem to have been included in the honour code of the Liberal Party currently in power, at least not as far as the distribution of adjustment assistance is concerned. As an example, a reminder, here is one of the many erroneous, if I may so express myself in this House, statements that were made: "We have provided resources to ease the adjustment in response to the elimination of the Crow rate, $1 billion". You are signalling me that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to tell members what a number of my constituents said to me last week about the finance minister. A group of citizens pointed out that the most influential

shareholder in Canada Steamship Lines, our very own finance minister, registers several of his ships in the Bahamas. Dominique Joly, Hélène, Josée and Vincent told me that the finance minister registered a number of his ships in the Bahamas, apparently to save on taxes. As they told me: "If that is a good finance minister, then Heaven help us". They also told me that he often bought his ships and had them refitted in Asia, because it seems that it costs less there.

This is a fine sort of government. When the Minister of Finance goes all the way to Asia to buy things, when we have, right here, factories that can build very good ships, ships that Canadians would be proud to build. In fact, there is a great factory in Saint John that could build the ships needed by the finance minister.

In closing, I wonder if the Liberal MPs are proud of their government. I can tell you that the day after that party turfed out one of its members, with my name bearing as you know such a close resemblance to that of the Prime Minister, I received seven calls in the space of an hour and a half-Patrick Saint-Jacques can confirm this-from citizens in the Ottawa area who were telephoning my office here, in the belief that it was the Prime Minister's office, to speak out against the way the member from the Toronto area was treated.