Patrick Gagnon

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have just been advised of this case, and I will make a note of the opposition critic's question.

[Quebec's Cultural Communities, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two days, the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert and his colleague from Chicoutimi have missed their chance to make amends for the racist and discriminatory remarks they made about Quebec's cultural communities.

After their leader had rebuked them, these two members found nothing better to do than issue releases stating that they regret any embarrassment their remarks caused the Leader of the Opposition and any harm they have caused their colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois or those involved in building a sovereign, open and profoundly democratic Quebec.

The truth of the matter is that the two Bloc members are probably not sorry they made such blatantly racist and discriminatory remarks about our cultural communities; they are just sorry their party and the separatist cause may have been hurt by their remarks.

How can the people of Quebec believe in their plan for an independent, supposedly open and profoundly democratic Quebec, when in fact the very people responsible for promoting this plan, like the two hon. members opposite, have no regard for the most fundamental of principles?

We demand no less than formal apologies to be made in this House to our fellow citizens newly established in la Belle Province de Québec.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I find it strange that the opposition critic objects to this transfer of some areas of jurisdiction to the provinces. Even though the role of the opposition is to criticize the government, in this case, it is still criticizing federalism.

We talked about the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund. Certainly, these past few years, we have been forced to review our programs, to seriously reevaluate them, in order to see where we are in these programs which have existed for more than fifty years or so. We certainly must make some adjustments. We must face the new challenges of market globalization, and I believe that the federal government is fully aware of the importance of taking some corrective measures in this regard.

I would like the opposition critic to tell us what she thinks about the fact that the government has decided to do more in counselling services, in basic training abilities, as well as in training and experience in the workplace. It also intends to do more in child care services. It is even looking at the opportunities relating to the income supplement. I would like to know if, in her opinion, these are not new ways of doing or seeing things which are highly commendable and which will certainly work towards the well-being of the people of Quebec.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We must keep in mind that we can count on a secure market of almost 30 million people. It is important to stress that this market is very important for Quebec products.

That said, the Canadian federation remains a system where we give priority to financial equalization by helping those provinces always in need of financial or infrastructure support.

Let us look at Quebec, for instance. As you know, for the last year, Quebec will receive over $3 billion in equalization payments. Quebec comes out a winner as a result of belonging to the Canadian federation. I find it regrettable that they question federal government services such as Telefilm Canada, the Canada Council and Radio-Canada. The Bloc Quebecois is wrong to say that the system never worked for Quebec, when we know full well that Quebec receives nearly 40 per cent of federal budgets allocated to certain federal government services. That is something we must keep in mind, Mr. Speaker.

They also talk about international markets and say that things are not going well for Quebec, but we must remember that well-known Quebec businesses such as Bombardier and Tembec and many other new small businesses received help from several federal agencies. They received help because of the partnership with the federal government.

We must not forget that many of these officials are from Quebec and believe in Quebec products within Canada.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the rather passionate but highly erroneous speech by our colleague opposite.

I find it strange to hear them describe the Canadian federation as being bankrupt. I do not think this is true. I am sure that if you look around you, and I see the hon. member opposite-

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I can assure you it was never the intention of the Liberals to introduce budget cuts at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society, and I said as much in my speech.

As the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and like the hon. member from the North Shore, I represent a riding that has to live with financial, economic and social problems.

However, in his comments he referred to the fact that people needed security, and I also heard him say that people thought we spent too much money on the installation of the new Governor General of Canada and all the activities that were organized around this event. I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that the Premier of Quebec is going to spend, not two million, as he promised, but more than five million on the commissions going around Quebec that want to discuss only one topic: Quebec's independence. There is nothing that makes my constituents feel more insecure, and I hear people say this. I hear this from people in Quebec's remote areas, when they see a provincial government that is intent on only one thing: the break-up and, in fact, the end of the best country in the world.

The only way we can survive is by introducing a new fiscal policy, making certain cuts and reallocating our spending priorities. Reallocation is necessary to ensure that we can become leaders in important fields.

However, we must stay together, because dividing Quebec and dividing Canada and making all kinds of statements, as the opposition sometimes does, is not the answer. I am not necessarily referring to members opposite, but it was the Quebec finance minister who said recently that he felt Quebec was not necessarily obliged to meet Canada's international commitments in terms of paying off loans and servicing the debt.

In concluding, we want Quebecers to feel secure, and I think we are going about it the right way. This is a caring government, and I think the Chrétien government has proved repeatedly during the past one and half years that we are in touch with the grass roots, that we are fully aware of our financial obligations in terms of the national debt and that we also realize that the federal government has an obligation to take care of the neediest in our society.

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I think I will include some of the very favourable remarks of the hon. member opposite in my next householder.

Yes, being a Liberal I am somewhat confident. There is confidence out there in the general population that the Liberals can deliver. The minister said it very clearly when he said that he would bring the deficit from a high of 6 per cent down to approximately 3 per cent of GNP within the next three years. This is something we are striving to do.

Of course it will not be done without any pain. We might be talking about short term pain for long term gain. We are not going to cut indiscriminately in every area. We still have social

conscience on this side of the House. I believe it still exists among certain members on the benches opposite.

After hearing what the member told me earlier I am convinced a number of the members will recognize the efforts made by the government to decrease the deficit and to make sure that we eliminate the deficit by some time at the beginning of the turn of the century.

It will be a long term process. This is what we have to prove to outside investors and Canadian investors. Canadians are expecting us to make sure that we come out with a reasonable budget, given the situation we are faced with, so that we can look at the future with hope and encouragement, thanks to the first steps taken by the Minister of Finance. In the next few weeks the course will be set.

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, a motion introduced by the Reform Party regarding the government's next budget was debated in the House yesterday. Now the Bloc Quebecois is taking a crack at it. Both parties' motions clearly demonstrate that neither has what it takes to accomplish this imposing task or to run a country like Canada, let alone an independent Quebec.

In both cases, political grandstanding takes precedence over real and credible action. The two motions also prove that the two opposition parties do not dare acknowledge the budgetary principles the Minister of Finance applied in last year's budget.

I know that the historic budget he will soon table will be based on these principles. The minister repeated several times that the emphasis of this budget will be on spending cuts and not on tax

increases. And he stressed that if tax measures must be taken, their purpose will be to make the tax system fairer, not to increase the tax burden of low income taxpayers, as the opposition claimed today.

We have also clearly indicated that we believe that the first steps that must be taken to pare down the government machine are to downsize it and cut fluff and waste. This is what the opposition has been telling us. We have already taken real action on the issue.

Last week, the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal tabled a bill to dissolve or reorganize 22 organizations. Taxpayers would save almost one and a half million dollars. I understand that this is very little, really just a drop in the bucket, but I know that this budget will be the result of the most extensive review of government programs and operations ever undertaken in recent history in this country.

I am also convinced that the budget will demonstrate to all Canadians that we have the courage to do what we say we will do and to keep our promises. We need to take action to reduce the cost and size of government because it is vital to the deficit reduction goals we set last year. And it is precisely this question of the deficit, in the debates yesterday and today, which brings out clearly the fundamental shortcomings of the two opposition parties.

As for members of the Reform Party, eliminating the deficit but without tax action seems to be their only concern. They seem to think that deficit action alone will ensure Canada's economic success and renewal. They refuse to recognize that there is a role for government in promoting economic development and in protecting Canadians in real need.

It is also interesting to note that where Reform sees only the deficit, the Bloc seems to have completely forgotten it exists at all. The result is a motion on the budget that ignores Canada's real fiscal problems.

After all, the Bloc's separatist cousins in Quebec City include a finance minister who feels that Quebec's obligations with respect to the national debt need be honoured only when it is convenient to do so. But our government refuses to slough off its responsibilities. We are aware of the burden of decades of debt and galloping deficits, which have given rise to an increase in taxes and interest rates, and a certain mistrust on the part of investors; all are factors detrimental to growth and job creation.

You know, the latest statements by the Quebec finance minister did not help the province's ratings, and it is the middle class that will pay the price.

However, our government is determined to do what is necessary to maintain growth and create jobs in all regions of the country, including Quebec. And in order to reach these objectives, it is essential, and Canadians themselves are demanding it, that we put in place an effective financial reform strategy.

Our government believes that winning the debt challenge starts with laying a clear, concrete and credible foundation. That means keeping to the deficit track we set out on to bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP in three years.

That is exactly what we will do, as the minister said, "come hell or high water". The federal deficit now near 6 per cent of GDP has not been as low as 3 per cent since 1974-75, 20 long years ago.

In addition, setting specific deficit reduction goals is a significant change from past practices. That is why our government used a different approach. We set realistic goals and we will take all necessary steps to achieve concrete results. Our success in this regard will make our long-term objective of totally eliminating the deficit more credible.

We believe it is best to set out short term targets, concrete milestones, and achieve them. With short term targets there is no excuse for delay, no acceptable grounds for not taking tough action to address the problem. When we set unrealistic long term goals, we can always find a reason to avoid tough action today, tomorrow and the tomorrow after that.

Let us remember that we have done more than just set out a goal. Last year's budget took dramatic bottom line action. It set out measures to deliver $20 billion in deficit reduction over three years. For every $1 of revenue action there were $5 of spending cuts. No budget in a decade moved so strongly to cut spending.

We also know that even stronger action might be necessary. The problem is interest rates. They are much higher than we or the private sector expected.

There is no mystery about the pressures at work. To begin with, there is action by the U.S. central bank to control American inflation. There is also the lingering concern about the Quebec situation and the worry over Canada's debt and deficit burden.

The problem is our accumulated $500 billion debt. It is so big that an increase in rates has been a frightening wallop. Let us remember that last year the interest charges on the debt consumed almost $40 billion of taxpayers' money, the single largest expense of government. Every time the rates go up one per-

centage point our carrying costs jump by $1.7 billion, and that is just in the first year. By the third year it is a $3 billion penalty.

It is this punishing dynamic of compound interest that makes tough budget action the right action. The fact is that we have always recognized the need for continued fiscal action. The 1995 budget process started the minute we introduced the 1994 plan. That is why we combined immediate action with a sweeping series of program reviews on government operations, defence and social security reform. These have set concrete foundations for this year's budget and the tough decisions needed.

In this regard let me remind both opposition parties, given their calls for eliminating government waste and inefficiency, of the six questions that have framed our program review of government operations.

(1) Do the program areas continue to serve the public interest?

(2) Is there a legitimate and necessary role for the government in this area?

(3) Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or can the program be realigned with the provinces?

(4) What programs should or could be transferred to the private or voluntary sector?

(5) If the program continues, how can its efficiency be improved?

(6) Is the resulting package of programs affordable?

Before concluding my remarks I should also reiterate a point made yesterday on the issue of tax increases. Only a foolhardy politician would ignore the real "tax fatigue" felt by Canadians. It is felt on this side as well. That is why cuts in government spending must and will be our priority in reducing the deficit. We proved that last year when we cut spending by $5 for every $1 in revenue measures.

However, most Canadians know that in order to cut taxes in the future and, in the short term, to ease the pressure on interest rates and the dollar, we must bring the debt under control. And this will only be possible after we achieve our deficit reduction goals.

Given the magnitude of this challenge, I understand why the Minister of Finance will not promise a budget without measures to increase revenue. But, if such measures are included, I am confident that they will be aimed at improving the tax system and closing loopholes. To those who are opposed to tax measures, I ask this: Do you really feel that the existing system is totally effective, that there are no loopholes or unjustified advantages? Given our financial situation, Canadians do not want or need such stupid political games.

I could say much more but I think that the budget will be more eloquent. Yes, we have a long road ahead of us, but I think that we are off to a good start. I am confident that the budget to be tabled in late February or early March will show all Canadians and world markets that our government meets its financial commitments.

By doing this, we will reinforce the conviction of the vast majority of Canadians, including my fellow citizens from Quebec, that this country, Canada, will fulfil its destiny of greatness and unity it deserves.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, one of which calls upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

It does not really matter, but I would like to know how many applications we get from all the Canadian consulates or embassies throughout the world.