Gilbert Fillion

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that she did not consider the consequences of our very large debt on investment and employment in Canada.

This debt has a very negative impact on job creation. To finance our debt-I already said, but it is worth repeating-we are forced to offer a premium to foreign investors. This premium increases as the debt grows, which means that the Canadian taxpayer cannot consume as he or she should. The consequences of that is that there is less and less work, and more and more people on unemployment insurance.

Now, because of new eligibility criteria they must rely on welfare. Therefore, the impact is very negative. Here is my question: The present federal system offers only status quo, which means compromises, clumsy compromises between two groups. In our area, we call that endless complaining. The status quo means eternal resignation to a dreary existence. Is it what you are going to offer to the upcoming generation? This status quo is simply jiggery-pokery and fiddling.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague. I will especially dwell on his two or three first sentences. He said without any distinction that the current instability in Canada was the result of the actions of the Bloc Quebecois here, in this House. I am sorry but I think that all the Bloc Quebecois has done since its advent has been to inform Canadians of the position they are really in.

I say that the political instability in Canada only reflects the situation of the federal system. I do not want to address again here all the issues that we raised, but I will simply go back to the theme of the debt.

The debt has become so huge that the federal government is forced to borrow overseas to meet its commitments. It is as if one of my constituents visited his or her bank manager each and every year to ask for a loan to be able to keep afloat and assume his or her family obligations.

The instability also stems from the written word, from the daily newspaper reports.

Instability was created, in January 1995, when the Wall Street Journal , New York's main financial newspaper which investors from all over the world refer to, compared Canada to a third world country. It openly evoked the possibility that Canada could go bankrupt. The Bloc Quebecois did not bring Canada to that level. No.

My question is this: It is easy to see that, due to the budget, Canadians are now taxed more, $2.2 billion more. One cannot deny that, or that cuts of $13.4 billion will be made over two years. This is not the work of the Bloc Quebecois. Cuts will be made, but not in the right places.

The government also offloaded some expenditures onto the provinces, so it taxed, cut and transferred other things, raising the debt by 17.4 per cent over three years. So much for putting our financial house in order according to the current government. Is this the direction in which the federalism will go? If so, the solution we have in Quebec is to become sovereign.

[Taxation, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada have lost confidence in the Canadian tax system. The underground economy is spreading. Tax accounts outstanding exceed $6 billion, and in the case of the GST, $1.3 billion.

Furthermore, the tax system is full of holes. Wealthy taxpayers and large corporations can afford to pay tax experts for advice on how to take advantage of tax loopholes. For instance, they can take advantage of the fact that Canada has signed at least 16 tax treaties with countries considered to be tax havens. Every year, ten of thousands of profitable businesses pay no taxes at all. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is letting individuals pay 65 per cent of the tax increases in his last budget, while family trusts will have to wait until 1999.

In spite of all this, the Minister of Finance still refuses to proceed with a complete overhaul of the tax system that would eliminate fiscal inequities.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble commending this government when the status of women just keeps deteriorating. Women, whether young, middle aged or seniors, see their standard of living going down continually.

Take the freeze on student loans for young people who want to further their education, for example. The point was made earlier that, by the time they get out of school, university graduates will be in debt over their heads. That is what Canada has to offer. It was also clearly demonstrated, with figures to back this up, that no new day care spaces will be opened to allow women to re-enter the labour force.

Again, that is what this government has to offer. Furthermore, there is no indication anywhere that something will be done about social housing. Cuts, cuts, cuts. I say this is a disgrace. In the red book, which in my view has turned black, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of positive measures concerning the status of women.

Of course, one can argue that the government does have a Secretary of State for the Status of Women. But what does she have left besides her title since the advisory council has been abolished? What can she do? With no budget, she cannot go very far now. So, let us eliminate this title, which does more to pay lip service to the government's intentions than to further the cause of women.

[Supply, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am naturally in favour of the motion tabled by the hon. member for Québec, which asks:

That this House denounce the government for its insensitivity and its inaction regarding the adoption of concrete measures to promote the economic equality of women in federal areas of jurisdiction.

I therefore denounce the government's insensitivity to the situation of women. I would like to take this opportunity to address one aspect, old age pensions, and to show that the present government, despite all the action it has taken in this area, is not preventing an increasing number of older women from falling below the poverty line. The 1995 budget is definitely sounding the knell of the universality of social programs, including public old age security plans.

By way of example, the ceiling on pension benefits based on the previous year's income puts an end to universality. Even though few seniors have incomes over $53,000 a year, seniors far from being rich often may earn higher family incomes in one

year by liquidating assets they have accumulated over the years, withdrawing RRSPs or transferring the latter.

This provision of the budget will affect them directly the following year by reducing their pension benefits. It is a known fact that the old age security programs to which seniors have contributed have virtually stopped being universal since 1989.

I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government keeps going after this sector of the population, who, we must not forget, built this country. They are the government's preferred target, the one is bent on destroying by imposing unacceptable measures year after year, budget after budget, on these, society's most disadvantaged.

People then wonder why Quebecers want to throw off this federalism and become sovereign. The various old age security programs and the guaranteed income supplement are the principal sources of income of people over 65 years of age. These people, especially women, are much poorer than the population as a whole.

Is there anyone in this House who does not know that seniors are more disadvantaged because they are on pension and have lower incomes if they have not worked outside the home. This is the case of our mothers.

Their work at home was not paid nor used to calculate their retirement pension. Their only income therefore in the years to come will be the Canada pension cheque. And for how many years to come?

It is an injustice and the government amplifies it by declaring that old age security pensions will be based on family income in the future. This measure will force a great number of seniors, most of them women, to hand back their pensions.

According to Quebec's minister for the status of women, this measure would set women back 50 years. During that time, they have succeeded in being recognized by society as individuals, but now, because of budget cuts, they will see themselves forced to be viewed in relation to their spouses and to family income, once they retire.

We can justifiably wonder in what direction the federal government is headed when it comes to women's rights. My colleague from the government of Quebec is right when she adds that the principle of family income completely transforms the retirement income security program, replacing what was an insurance program by a social assistance program for needy families.

Canada made very clear public commitments in favour of gender equality and also took statutory measures to reach this objective. I refer to a Canadian document on violence against women. Section E.61 of its action plan states that Canada is committed to analyzing all of the proposed amendments to the tax system in order to expose all of the discriminatory or negative effects that they will have on women. This principle has now been shelved.

Section E.66 of the same document states that Canada is committed to raising and ensuring full indexation of the threshold at which old age security benefits start being clawed back. Once again, this commitment has not been met.

Canada's commitment is very clear in this document: We are supposed to take all of the necessary measures, in particular legislative measures, to amend or abolish acts, regulations, customs and practices which discriminate against women. Is this what the government delivers in its budget? No. It has thrown all of its principles out the window.

The Minister of Finance offhandedly casts aside studies which have cost taxpayers a great deal of money and ignores basic principles in the name of deficit reduction. On the contrary, instead of going forward and giving seniors, in particular women, the means to attain these standards, the budget places these standards further out of their reach.

Let us be serious. I understand very well that everything has a price and that there is a cost associated with this initiative. However, why not hit banks, tax havens and family trusts and leave seniors in peace. They have sweat blood and tears to build this country which, today, is rejecting them. Is this federalism?

Have seniors not already given enough by working all of their lives and paying their taxes? Who else do you think filled the government's coffers?

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that Quebec's sovereignty does not jeopardize senior's incomes. The threat to old age pensions comes from the federal government. That is the price to be paid for maintaining the status quo, the price to be paid for voting no in the upcoming referendum.

In a sovereign Quebec, a matter like the one mentioned at the beginning of this speech, namely the government's insensitivity to the situation of women, will not even be an issue. Equity will be the order of the day.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that Quebec has been trying for over 100 years. Quebecers delegated members of Parliament to this House to defend their ideas.

We realized, at the end of debates, that our very simple questions were getting very little response. Whether it is agriculture, rail transportation or natural resource development, Quebec has always had to fight harder to achieve its goals. Today, with what we are offering Quebecers-and rest assured that we will be able to sell our dairy products, regardless, because they are quality products-

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not so sure the question as such has a direct connection with the budget. However, I will respond to the issue raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and tell him that, for the time being, everything is on the table.

If the hon. member for Sherbrooke had any suggestions for the Government of Quebec as to the form and substance of the question to be asked in the referendum, he could have participated in a democratic exercise in which the National Assembly of Quebec gave all residents a chance to be heard. He failed to participate in this exercise which would have given him a chance to explain his position before the public.

I could also mention the outcome of the election in Brome-Missisquoi. I think voters made it quite clear to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that what he represented was not what they wanted. His party came in fourth or fifth.

My position is that, with our natural resources, with our culture and with everything we have developed in Quebec in recent years, the people are ready for this question, and they are ready to say yes.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague from Manicouagan.

On Monday, February 27, the Minister of Finance tabled his 1995 budget before this House. Make no mistake about where I am coming from. I am, of course, in favour of streamlining public expenditures. I am also for a fair and efficient method of taxation by which the rich pay more and the less fortunate are protected.

How can this government keep hitting on the same group of people time after time, with each new budget measure, penalizing middle income taxpayers and digging into their pockets for millions and millions of dollars when it would be so easy to deal with the real problem and collect substantial amounts in a jiffy by making those who can afford it pay their share?

With its new budget, this government will cut $560 million in subsidies paid to railway companies with respect to grain transportation. At the same time, milk producers are seeing their subsidies cut without any compensation. It will be no news to anyone if I tell you that half of milk produced in Canada comes from Quebec. Yet, let it be known that our province is not as fortunate as Western provinces. No one told us about the rise in the price of milk, bread, butter and other dairy products that will result from this budget.

Who will foot the bill, if not the little people? Stop cutting essential public services and social assistance, which are so vital in these times we are going through. Why wait until 1999 to enforce the 21-year rule with respect to taxing capital gains on investments in family trusts? Why not start right now? Can you tell me why this four-year delay is necessary? Must I remind you that the Liberal government is thereby forfeiting hundreds of millions in revenue each year? Can we afford to do without such revenue at this time? Not likely.

And what about tax havens? There is nothing whatsoever in this budget concerning the 16 tax treaties Canada has signed with countries considered as tax havens. What are we to make of a $100 million temporary tax on the capital of banks, when the Royal Bank's net profit for 1994 was $1,169,000,000? The same year, it paid its president $2,740,000. I wonder at what rate that salary was taxed.

What is the result of that nice performance? The Royal Bank laid off 3,500 employees.

Let us recover the unpaid taxes and GST payments. According to the auditor general, thousands of companies owe several billion dollars in unpaid taxes on their profits. This is unacceptable.

Can the Minister of Finance put himself in the shoes of an ordinary person, who does not share his philosophy and certainly not his definition of philanthropy?

The speech made by the hon. member is laudable, honourable and perhaps justified, but can the same be said of his motives, or are those merely related to the referendum?

The money saved by making cuts to the UI program and transfer payments to the provinces is now used to finance part of the provinces' spending on welfare, post-secondary education and health.

I do not understand why these cuts do not apply to 1995; they are being postponed until 1996, 1997 and 1998.

Does the minister really think that no one will notice? I am convinced that, faced with the same situation, the federal government would have noticed.

On February 26, it was reported in the media that Quebec was deprived of $650 million in the national defence sector. What better way to correct that injustice than to eliminate 285 direct jobs at the Bagotville military base? The same could be said about the Saint-Hubert base. Yes, 285 jobs and, in the process, an elementary school with 10 classrooms. The fact is that over 1,000 people will be affected by these cuts. Once again, a decision was made without those affected being consulted. Entire families will be uprooted from their community. Following these cuts, how many small businesses from my region will have to lay off people or even shut down? The local population just does not accept that decision. It would be more appropriate to refer to my region as the queen of unemployment rather than the kingdom of Saguenay.

That decision will result in the loss of several million dollars for the region. While the province of Quebec is starting to recover from a hard recession, our region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is sinking deeper and deeper into an inescapable economic slump. Our young people are leaving in droves.

Just take a look at the most recent data released by Statistics Canada. Last month, our unemployment rate jumped by one per cent, while it went down by one per cent just about everywhere else in the country.

The ICI organization in my region summed it up well when it stated that, and I quote: "Our region is a group of distinct communities which, as everyone knows, contribute a lot, in their own way, to the social, cultural, economic and political enrichment of Quebec and Canada".

What better way to thank that region and its residents for their support than to cut over 285 jobs in the military sector?

In addition to holding many surprises for the years following the referendum, the 1995 budget does not deal with the real issue. It does not deal with unemployment.

The Liberal government refuses to use the surplus in the UI fund to implement concrete job-creating initiatives. The government wants to reduce the deficit, but it does not resort to concrete measures and prefers to transfer the problem to the provinces.

I realize once again that, with its budget, the Liberal government is showing all Quebecers that the federal system does not work and that it would be much wiser on our part to get rid of it.

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on February 14, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada tabled in this House his firearms bill to strengthen control over such weapons. It was high time. I support this bill, although my feeling is that it does not go far enough. I consider it is about time a country such as ours enacts legislation to protect all citizens.

We all know that gun-related crime has increased dramatically. We all remember the tragedy that occurred in the Quebec National Assembly, ten years or so ago, and the dreadful massacre at l'École Polytechnique, just a few years ago. Every day that goes by we hear about firearms being used to assault, threaten, intimidate and kill. Possessing a firearm gives criminals a great illusion of power, authority and strength.

In November, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police commented that the issue of legal possession of firearms was not a game. The public, including hunters, competitive shooters, collectors and shooters, all people for whom I have great respect and law-abiding citizens, should consider these controls as reaffirming their rights and responsibilities. It is up to them to act on reaffirming their rights and responsibilities.

There is no doubt that a more structured control system, providing among other things for the registration of all firearms, will help make this country a safer and more peaceful place to be for all of us. Indeed, weapons are dangerous and there is a need to legislate in this respect. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is on the right track with Bill C-68. However, I firmly believe, as stated previously, that this bill does not go far enough and that the minister should use coroner Anne-Marie David's report, released on January 26, as a model.

As Ms. David suggested, has the time not come to revise the wording of regulations concerning the safe storage, display and transportation of firearms so as to make it more easily accessible to all? While ignorance of the law is no excuse, is it not the justice minister's role to make it easier to understand? Time has come to review regulations and require businesses to lock up, and even render inoperative, any firearm for sale.

Also, restricted firearms should only be stored in a vault. These regulations should not authorize weapons without a safety locking mechanism to be delivered to anyone. I would even add that the Minister of Justice should amend the Criminal Code to provide that firearms will systematically be confiscated if regulations are not complied with.

Instead of spending millions of dollars on useless bodies such as the one on Canadian unity, should the government not invest these moneys in education and information programs for the public at large and for specific groups such as hunters, gun collectors, members of shooting clubs and others?

Several provisions in this bill need to be clarified. By spreading over an eight-year period the registration process for gun owners and firearms, did the Minister of Justice simply give in to the gun lobby, or did he want to please some members of his caucus? I am sceptical as to the deterring effect of such a reform.

The gun lobby encourages people to buy arms to protect themselves. Yet, it is proven that people are safer when they are not armed. A firearm kept in a house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of that household than an intruder. Why wait eight years, considering that a homicide is three times more likely to be committed in a home where a firearm is kept, while a suicide is five times more likely to occur?

Canadians, health specialists and particularly crime prevention experts all ask, and rightly so, for greater control over firearms. In Canada, 42 per cent of women killed by their spouse are shot, four times out of five with a gun or a rifle. Moreover, 78 per cent of these firearms are legally owned. Again, I ask the

question: Why spread the whole registration process over an eight-year period? I am convinced that, as elected representatives of the public, we could help save human lives simply by reducing as much as possible that registration period.

Is it really reasonable to allow 13,000 military-type automatic weapons in the country, considering that such firearms are designed for rapid fire in a combat situation?

More than 560,000 Quebecers and Canadians signed a petition asking that military-type weapons be banned. Yet, the new legislation allows gun collectors to own such firearms. Why? Why this fixation about firearms?

According to a recent survey, 84 per cent of Canadians, including 71 per cent of gun owners, support a ban on military weapons. Again, I find it unacceptable to make it perfectly legal for the owners of these 13,000 firearms to keep such weapons.

We need a more rigid form of gun control.

In my opinion, current legislation is inadequate, and Bill C-68 still does not go far enough, both in terms of its restrictions, as well as its deterring and punitive effects. It is our role to protect members of the public, often against their wishes.

[Young Offenders Act, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought what I said was fairly clear. First and foremost, we must find out the causes of crime. Environment is everything. When the environment is a healthy one, we give our young people every opportunity. If they do not have every opportunity, there comes a time in their life when they may well do something wrong. On the other hand, are they always to blame for such action? When the parents are not home, when there is no money and no work, these are all factors.

As to the second question, about identifying, publishing the names of offenders, I am totally against it. This is not the way to remedy things. Let us give our young people access to people who can look after them, experts in various areas, places to stay where people will listen to them and where they can go and talk about their problems.

Let us listen to their demands. You will see that, if we keep listening to them and giving them work, pride will come out on top, and the crime rate, although dropping now-it was at two per cent in 1992 as compared to five per cent in previous years-will continue to drop.