Nic Leblanc

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks of the fact that, a few weeks ago, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce surveyed its members. It asked whether federal policies encourage businesses to leave the country. As mentioned in the headline, Canadian business people are not satisfied with the way this country is governed. You see, Quebec sovereigntists are not the only ones thinking that the country is poorly managed at the federal level; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its members think so, too. According to surveyed members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 22 per cent of these business people have partly left the country, are in the process of leaving it or have left it entirely. It is because of federal policies that business people gave such a straight answer to the questions asked by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its survey.

This proves that Canada is poorly led, that the policies of the federal government, of the finance minister, do not meet business people's requirements. When the Minister of Finance says he wants to create jobs, he does not talk about what business people need to survive. It is business people who create jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. Why are they telling the minister that 22 per cent of them would rather leave Canada than continue to work and create jobs in Canada?

It is so serious that we in the Bloc Quebecois have decided to promote Quebec's sovereignty. We sincerely believe that Quebec's sovereignty will enable us to manage our affairs with honour and dignity, to meet the needs of Quebecers and those of our small and medium-sized businesses so they can survive, to reduce unemployment and create prosperity. Does the hon. member agree with my comments?

[The Budget, February 14th, 1994]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I was expecting this answer. Nevertheless, does the Minister of Finance not realize that in all fairness, lowering the ceiling on RRSPs will deal a direct blow to self-employed workers who, unlike other workers, do not have an employer-sponsored pension plan?

[The Budget, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With a view to increasing government revenues, the Minister of Finance is considering broadening the tax base in the next budget, and specifically, lowering the ceiling on RRSPs, which primarily benefit the middle class.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to promise that the measures contained in his upcoming budget will not increase the tax burden of the middle class?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the President of the Treasury Board is refusing to set up a special committee. This would not be the first time we have special committees. We have had them for finance and in various other areas.

We know very well that the President of the Treasury Board does not manage the treasury, because there is no more money in it; rather, he manages the debt and the deficit. He should be a little more serious and accept the support we are offering. We want a neutral position to be taken so that the government can make the right decision.

Since I am the critic for Foreign Affairs and I am speaking to the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to know if he intends to consider cutting the spending of our embassies and representatives abroad, but especially of our embassies.

Every time I went abroad, with my friend the member for Beauséjour, who is here, the ambassador always told us: "You know, this embassy did not cost very much. We paid very little for it 20 years ago". I tell him: "Twenty years ago, I too bought a house that is worth $200,000 today, but I paid $20,000 for it". They are always trying to justify themselves, because in my opinion and that of many others, our embassies are probably more in keeping with the standards of a country like the United States, France or England, whose population is two, three or ten times as much as ours.

I think that we should seriously consider having embassies more in keeping with our standard of living and our spending power. That is why I ask the President of the Treasury Board the question. It is up to him to do it and I hope that he will do it because we just learned again that we spent $75 million to build the embassy in China. I think that is huge for a country like Canada. We also spent $95 million to build the embassy in the United States, in Washington. I think that is huge too.

I do not know if the President of the Treasury Board, who manages a debt rather than a treasury, will be able to stop and think, even if he does not have a committee because he does not

want one, and will be prepared to cut the spending of our embassies which is much too high, without being given a hand.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I see, thanks to the Liberal member, that the government's intent is not to cut spending. Indeed, we heard the finance minister say earlier this week that he would probably increase corporate and other taxes when we know very well that Canadians and Quebecers are already overtaxed.

I find such statements from the government quite troubling and I am pessimistic and concerned as it is well known that we are in debt up to our necks, and I am unhappy to see that my children will probably have trouble keeping their heads above water in the coming years. This government is taking things far too lightly.

We are proposing a common review to give this government some political freedom of expression and allow it to take concrete action with the support of the Official Opposition. That is why we are proposing today the creation of a special committee. We are not talking about the existing standing committee but about a special committee with a mandate to turn around the country's economic situation. I wonder why the party in office, the government, is against us giving it a hand.

The hon. member was talking about my political experience. Indeed, I have been sitting in this House for nine years and, during these nine years, I have learned that government decisions are often made for electoral reasons, to win or rather not to lose votes. The government always makes short-term decisions in order to stay in power; it is a power play. What we are now proposing is this: We will give you a hand to help you make an apolitical decision. It is something new.

We in the Bloc Quebecois do not want to come to power here in Ottawa. So take advantage of this situation! We are not the usual opposition, like the Liberals were under the Conservative government I was a member of. So take advantage of the fact that we are neutral because we do not want to come to power here in Ottawa, far from it. We want to give you a hand and help Canada to reduce its debt, because every time Canada increases its debt it also increases Quebec's and we do not like it.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign, the Bloc Quebecois said that, considering the circumstances and the massive debt, it would make sure that the new government struck a special committee responsible for the review of the federal government's public expenditures.

In the motion, we added "in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada". There is also a mention of the overlap between federal and provincial government programs. Definitely, there are a lot of questions to be asked if we are to cut expenditures equitably and efficiently, in order to come up eventually with a balanced budget.

We all know that each time the federal government goes into debt, it is forcing Quebec into debt also. Quebecers are really concerned about the way the federal government is spending. We are aware of the fact that we are getting poorer and poorer since our debt keeps on growing.

If Quebec ever gains sovereignty, which I truly hope will happen, we will have to take over our share of that debt. That is why we are anxious to see the federal government lower its expenditures, so as not to keep on growing poorer every day. Canada's debt now exceeds $500 billion. If we divide this amount by the number of Canadian citizens, we come up with a frightening figure, but when we divide it by the number of families, the figure is even more alarming.

Once again, for these reasons we need to sit down and take a serious look at the situation and come up with real answers to this terrible debt problem.

During the 1970s we listened to Mr. Trudeau tell us that we could afford to borrow. These years were considered to be somewhat less prosperous ones. We were told that once the country grew more quickly, once economic growth was stronger, then we could pay the money back.

Not only did we take out loans, we also incurred long-term debts which we are still reimbursing. How are we supposed to reduce an annual deficit when we have 30-year commitments? The federal government has incurred all sorts of 30-year debts.

Mr. Trudeau and his government made a blatant error at the time as far as long-term obligations were concerned, one that has proven extremely difficult to correct today.

Throughout these years, from 1970 to 1992 or 1993, we always heard that Canada was a wealthy country and that it ranked first among all industrialized countries in terms of its standard of living. During the referendum, we also heard that Canada ranked first among the industrialized nations of the world. However we would be deluding ourselves if we believed this.

I will give you an example that I have often used to illustrate this point. Take a 20-year old who owns his own house free and clear. The home is valued at $200 billion. He also owns a car free and clear. Year after year for a period of 20 years, this person has had to take out a mortgage on his house to survive.

Twenty years later, in 1993, his house is mortgaged at 95 per cent, because that is the maximum amount he can borrow. He has a loan for the full value of his automobile because it is rented, and he has reached the spending limit on his credit cards. All the while, he has maintained the same standard of living. That person is inclined to say: My standard of living is very good and I have maintained it for the past 20 years. However that person is in debt up to his neck and is on the verge of tumbling into the dark hole of poverty.

This example describes exactly what is happening in Canada today. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We say we are wealthy, but it is only artificial wealth. We have lived on credit for the past 20 years. That is the legacy left to us by the Liberals and we are still being taken in today.

In 1984, I was elected along with the Conservative government and I said exactly the same thing to my constituents at the time.

In 1984, economic growth was good, around three per cent. In our caucuses we would say: "We must cut expenses. This is insane; the public debt is close to $180 billion". Ministers agreed that cuts had to be made, as long as their department was not affected. So, we kept spending more and more.

In 1985, 1986 and 1987, when economic growth was quite good, we could have cut expenses even at the cost of creating a little unemployment. When cuts are made, the government pumps less money into the economy and this results in slower growth. With a 3 or 4 per cent growth at the time, we could have sacrificed one per cent by cutting spending. But we did not. Why not? Because we did not have the kind of all-party independent committee that we are proposing this morning.

We propose that an independent committee, a committee with no political ties or partisanship, be set up. It is imperative that such a committee, made up of representatives of all official parties, be struck to made recommendations so that the government can act without fearing blame, since it would automatical-

ly have the support of the three or four parties. That is the great advantage of our proposal.

That is why it is so important. If you are the least bit familiar with how things work in politics, how politicians react, you know that there comes a time when we must set our political interests aside and take steps to help the government act without being criticized.

Basically, what we are proposing today is a way to provide support to the government so that it can make some headway and bring the debt down. We must all set partisanship aside and deal immediately with this monstrous debt that is bankrupting this country.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Témiscamingue for his excellent speech. He talked a lot about equity and I would like to make a few comments in this regard. When we talk about equity, we are talking about a fairer redistribution of wealth among the provinces. What we should be asking ourselves is why some provinces are poorer than others. We could look at the problem before distribution and ask why Ontario is a wealthy province while Quebec is not so well off. I do not like to hear that my province is poor or not so wealthy.

When we are making every effort to succeed in life and some higher authority, the federal government for instance, keeps us from developing to our full potential, I do not like to be seen as poor. I would like to use every opportunity to develop to my full potential, as the hon. member said earlier. For example: why did Ontario receive research and development contracts worth $1.2 billion more, in 1989, than Quebec. Would research and development not enable us to make money and to help our businesses grow? Is this not the reason why Quebec is a little poorer than Ontario? I do not like to be seen as poor. I would like to be able to give money to other provinces, as the hon. member said earlier. But it is not the fault of Quebecers if their province is poorer, it is the fault of the federal government that does not give Quebec the means to develop to its full potential. It is for these very reasons that we want to leave.

Here is a flagrant example of the other reason: in 1989, I asked the head of Statistics Canada how their employees were distributed across Canada. I was told that they were distributed very fairly, with about 180 employees in Ontario, 150 in Quebec, about 80 in the Maritimes and 80 in the West. I told the head of Statistics Canada that there was something wrong with his calculation since their total workforce is about 4,000. He said yes, but 3,500 people work here in Ottawa. But where is Ottawa? Ottawa is in Ontario. These people pay taxes in Ontario. They are fuelling the Ontario machine. They are helping Ontario to prosper. It is for these reasons that Ontario is better developed and richer than Quebec. For all these reasons. One does not have to look very far to see that Ontario is richer and more successful because the federal government treats it better.

The hon. member for St. Boniface should pay more attention so he can understand all this. He would then realize that he, too, is being penalized. He should react a little more, too.

I would like to say, once again, that the hon. member for Témiscamingue has delivered an excellent speech. He did an excellent job of outlining the problems we, in Quebec, are facing. I totally agree with what he said in his speech.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the hon. member when she says that we definitely should not raise taxes.

We have reached the limit and people are just about to break out in revolt. Her leader said that people would rebel and I think he is right. People are going to look for all sorts of ways to stop paying taxes.

It is obvious that the middle class is overburdened with taxes. Those who have a bit more money or a better education are leaving Canada. Last year, more than 400 physicians left Canada for United States. It costs the nation about $2 million to train one physician and we have a situtation here where 400 moved to United States.

What we should do, and I think my hon. colleague is right about this, is find better ways of managing our social affairs. There is a lot of waste at the management level. I do not want to see less services, but I want to see a lot less management. We have to decentralize, to make individuals, municipalities and provinces more responsible. The federal government could set the guidelines, but social affairs should be managed at the grassroots level if were are going to provide services to people who need them rather than to bureaucrats.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, an excellent speech by a 28-year veteran of this House who is very experienced in parliamentary matters and also very knowledgeable about Quebec, since he comes from Quebec.

However, there is something that surprises me. I have been a member of Parliament for nine and a half years, and from time to time people have come to my office with serious problems caused by inconsistencies-we have mentioned this before-in the area of manpower and training programs. In fact the situation is far worse than we think.

I would like to mention one example I think is absolutely inhumane. Some people who were on unemployment insurance after losing their jobs were taking courses funded by the federal government. These people, who were between the ages of 30 and 45, had decided to finish their fourth and fifth year of high school in order to graduate. They were in fact encouraged to do their third, fourth or fifth year. Unfortunately the unemployment insurance regulations are inconsistent with the rules of the Quebec school commission. For instance, these people had to take classes during the summer to finish their course. The Unemployment Insurance Commission told them they could not stop working or stop taking courses for more than two weeks.

As everybody knows, in Quebec, because of the unions and the government, teachers have to stop for a month during the summer, which meant the courses were automatically cancelled. Most of these people had almost finished their courses but they could not continue because Quebec's regulations were not consistent with Ottawa's. As a result, these people who had

worked very hard for one, two or even three years were penalized, because if they wanted to continue later on, they would have to pay for the courses themselves.

Now this is an incredible example. It is inhumane, when you consider the time and effort involved. I would like to ask the hon. member who is an experienced politician whether as a member from Quebec, he intends to work on this issue and ensure that manpower training is transferred to Quebec as soon as possible, so that Quebecers can take their courses and keep their dignity as human beings and also save some money. The duplication and inconsistencies make this system truly inhumane. Does the hon. member, as a member from Quebec, intend to ensure this problem is dealt with once and for all?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, in Manitoba, focused on the infrastructure program. I would like to ask him the following: Does he not think that it would be a bit cumbersome if the federal, provincial and municipal governments all sat down to set priorities for an infrastructure project, for roads, sewers and small bridges for example? Does he not think it would make management a bit too cumbersome if civil servants from Ottawa were to meet with their provincial and municipal colleagues to make decisions on such a project? To me, that seems to go against management efficiency.

We all know that our country is faced with an enormous debt, which exceeds the 500-billion mark, and we all realize that if the federal government gets involved in such a project, it will become more difficult to manage and a high percentage of the expenditures will go for management, or should I say mismanagement.

I would like to know, just like Quebec wants to know, how the federal government will manage to hand the money over to the provinces, who consider the municipalities a bit like their equals and work with them to review various projects and set priorities, and refrain from interfering, making the management of the infrastructure project more complicated and boosting cost of the management.