René Laurin

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Markham, who seems to be blaming the government for not abolishing a tax that the Conservatives brought in when they were in power, that is, before the Liberals.

He blames the government for not keeping its promise but what I do not understand is where he stands on the motion we put forward today? Is the hon. member for Markham, who blames the Liberals for not keeping their promise and who recognizes that this tax has not been as beneficial for the Atlantic provinces as he could could have hoped, ready to adopt the motion which our party has put forward today?

If the tax has not been good and if the Liberal government has not kept its promise, we suggest today to him that they have at least one opportunity to restore justice or to correct the unfairness created by this tax. Are the hon. member for Markham and his party ready to support the motion put forward today by the Bloc Quebecois?

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, our colleagues on the other side seem to forget one thing when they say the sales tax harmonization was profitable for Quebec.

Of course we benefited from that, but we paid what was required for it before we could reap the benefits. I would compare that situation to a landlord investing $100,000 in renovations on a house in order to increase the rents afterwards.

Members opposite are saying: “Because the landlord refurbished his house, he earned a higher income from the rents, so it was profitable”. But the $100,000 the landlord spent on repairs in order to harmonize his building with standards, they refuse to take it into account, they will not give it to Quebec. However, they grant it to the Atlantic provinces because they presumably suffered some losses.

The costs of harmonization for the Atlantic provinces are reimbursed, but Quebec is denied compensation for the same costs. They will only take into account revenues and advantages obtained by Quebec because it implemented harmonization voluntarily but they will refund New Brunswick since that province was somehow forced into harmonization because the Liberal government wanted to show it had changed its GST.

When comparing things, one should do it properly. If the government is so certain it was not both judge and jury in this instance, it should submit its figures to a committee, as we are asking. Let the government submit its data and let the committee look at them impartially.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of examining a problem such as this one is to ensure that fewer people will be victims of accidents caused by impaired drivers.

A study of the statistics would, I think, show that the problem does not lie with the need to lower the allowable blood alcohol limit. How many accidents would be avoided if the level were dropped from 0.08 to 0.07, 0.06 or 0.05?

I think that, as a general rule, the people who cause most of the automobile accidents when driving impaired are those who are way above the limit. Whether we put it at 0.05 or 0.08, generally speaking, the drivers who are killing people while impaired are those with blood alcohol levels of 0.20, 0.30 or 0.35.

So making a change of a few tenths of a point is not going to solve the problem. I do not know what my Reform colleague is thinking, but is he contemplating changes in the penalties for impaired driving? This reminds me of the problem of children playing with matches.

Matches are not banned because they are dangerous, but they are kept out of the way of children, as is poison in the medicine chest. And the chest should be locked to keep children out.

Could the same reasoning not be applied to a person incapable of driving a car, who does not know whether or not he should drive because he is not sober? It might be possible to attach a boot to a car for one, two or three months, because the individual drove while under the influence, even though it was only at a blood alcohol level of .08 or .07.

This deals with the immediate cause. An individual who is not sober and cannot get his hands on a wheel will harm no one. You cannot allow such a person to decide whether he should use his car, as he is incapable of making a decision.

I would like to know whether the hon. member has given this any thought. I would like him to comment on whether we should change the approach and act on the cause of the accident instead of tightening legislation and creating more criminals without resolving the problem.

Too many people have lost their licence two, three, four or five times and have not been dissuaded from using their car when they have been drinking. So, perhaps the solution does not lie here. We could discourage them by using a Denver boot, for example. A man with his car in the driveway wearing a Denver boot can get as drunk as he likes, but he will not be able to use the car because of the boot, or some other similar device. Some way has to be found to stop him using his car. I would like my colleague's comments on that.

[Computer Systems, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

With respect to the year 2000 computer problem, the auditor general said in his latest report, and I quote: “Systems that are most critical in supporting major programs may fail and could affect public health and safety and other essential services to the public”.

While the government's priority seems to be lavish spending to celebrate the year 2000, can the President of the Treasury Board give an immediate assurance to citizens who depend on pension, unemployment and disability payments for their survival that they will not be affected—

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted to hear comments such as the ones that were just made, particularly by the last two government members.

They are telling us things could not be any better. They even made up a poll to demonstrate their point of view. The government is hiding the facts. Canada is the greatest country in the world, Canada is the richest country in the world. Every time such comments are made, someone rises to remind the government that our country has the highest unemployment rate, that it has the largest number of poor, hungry children, that it has the most trouble with its debt.

What does it mean to be the greatest and the richest country in the world? Where is this wealth? With so many unemployed, so many poor children, so many people having a hard time finding jobs, where is the wealth?

It must be in the hands of those who control it. We are asking the government to stop.

We agree that debt reduction should be a priority. However, we disagree with the means used to achieve this result. We are telling the government: “The idea is good, but do not implement it in this fashion. Stop asking the weakest in the family to make an effort to pay off the family's debts. They should not have to do that. They will do their share, but the other family members must also do theirs”.

Let us stop putting the burden on the most vulnerable ones. This is what we are asking the government, but it is so concerned by its public image that it no longer sees reality. It merely says: “We are the best, we are the finest. We meet with world leaders. We go to Russia and bend over backwards”. Meanwhile, 1.4 million Canadian children go hungry. The national unemployment rate exceeds 10% and the government is burying its head in the sand.

I wish the Liberals would wake up and realize it is time to set more appropriate objectives, such as those proposed this morning by NDP members, even though we do not fully agree with them. We tell them too that the target is right. However, in order to hit that target, they seem prepared to give up all the powers granted to the provinces and give them back to the federal government. This is what concerns us, and we will discuss this issue. Again, even though we may agree on a given objective, different means must be used to achieve it.

[The Environment, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Twenty-four years after the Irving Whale went down in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the people of the Magdalen Islands are still waiting for a proper decontamination of the floor of the Gulf of St. Lawrence polluted by 150 kilograms of PCBs.

When will the minister deign to listen to the watchdog committees, including that of the Magdalen Islands, that are calling for action to deal once and for all with what the government itself is calling a time bomb.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

They make cash contributions.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the difficulties of the province of Quebec, and of the other provinces as well, arise mainly from the fact that it has a revenue shortfall in what it was receiving from the federal government in the form of what were called transfer payments.

The cuts by the government of Quebec account for 54 percent; 54 percent of the cuts made are the result of transfer payments which are no longer coming from the federal government as they did in the past.

This is not surprising. It is as if, in a family budget, one parent required the other to clothe the children, but cut his or her budget in half at the same time. So something would have to be cut somewhere. Then, when the other parent is unable to meet the children's needs, the first one comes along to say “I will get you some fancy shoes and clothes, a nice hat, a nice dress”. So, of course, one of the two parents comes out looking good, but he or she has done this with the other's money, because only one of them has had to make any sacrifices.

What did this federal government, which was supposed to be cutting departmental spending by 19%, do? The fact is it has cut spending by only 9%. That is barely half as much as promised.

Instead of making the sacrifices it was supposed to make to reduce its deficit, the federal government had the provinces make them, asking that they do without the funding they used to receive from the federal government in the form of transfer payments. The government asked them to do without so it would not have to do without too much itself and have fewer cuts to make. No wonder the provinces are experiencing difficulties now and having to make cuts.

See what is going to happen. As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, Mr. Massé made a statement to that effect. At a time when the provinces are experiencing difficulties, the federal government is blessed with a better than expected income and is about to start playing Santa Claus again because there is a provincial election coming in Quebec, and because that election will be followed by a referendum. To have the taxpayers believe that their future, comfort and security depends on it, the federal government will try to start investing again in health, education and social assistance, all of which are areas under provincial jurisdiction.

That is what the federal government will do. Every time the provinces put their fiscal house in order, the federal government steps in. The government is responsible for every deficit in the past 30 years. The provinces also had deficits, but the federal government failed to play its role properly. That is why today we are speaking in favour of the motion put forward by the Reform Party.

We do not necessarily agree with everything the Reform Party said on this issue, but we agree with the principle of distributing surpluses, because we want them to be distributed differently and, on that basis, we will give our support.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, there is something surprising in this debate and in the Speech from the Throne presented by this government.

In its throne speech, the government makes a commitment: it is as if it was wondering just how it could keep on doing exactly the same thing it has been doing for the past 27 years while appearing to be doing something new. In other words, to keep on spending taxpayers' dollars to make them happy, gain votes, gain popularity or score political points at the expense of the provinces.

With budget surpluses within reach, the Liberal government is wondering if it could not carry on pleasing people, without their noticing what is going on.

It takes a profoundly irresponsible government to forget, as the Liberal government is doing, that, while the deficit could apparently be reduced to zero by the year 2000, this government, this country is still $600 billion in debt. A zero deficit does not mean Canada's debt burden has been made any lighter.

Since this government took office in 1993, the Canadian debt has grown by an additional $75 billion. It is one thing to say I now have enough money in my pocket to buy groceries, but I will have to use some of the money I will save to reduce the debt I accumulated over 30 years.

But right now, the Liberal government seems to be favouring a formula that would once again shift the responsibility onto the provinces, which would be left with the dirty job of making cuts in health, education and social programs because the federal government has apparently decided to use funds earmarked for the provinces to repay its debts.

If it wants to reduce taxes, ensure that social programs benefit taxpayers to a greater extent and see the taxpayers' debt at every level of government go down, all the federal government has to do is give back to the provinces the money it took away from them.

Let the government give back to the provinces the $4.5 billion in transfer payments it cut, and the provinces can then maintain their social programs. They can also then cut taxes.

But no. This is not what the federal government wants, because it wants the glory of being the one to give taxpayers the most. It wants to give the provinces the thankless job of making the cuts, and once they are suitably hated and detested by taxpayers, the federal government will ride in as the saviour and say to these taxpayers “The federal government, the best and strongest government, can now give you what the province denied you or deprived you of”. That is what is hateful about the situation.

This business started years ago. We need to look back at our history. When the federal government asked the provinces during the first world war for the loan of their power to tax directly, the provinces agreed to come to the aid of the nation at risk, to protect its future. However, the federal government hung on to this power, refusing to give it back to the provinces. The first theft, this country's greatest theft, started then, when it took over the power of taxation from the province, supposedly on a temporary basis, and never gave it back.

This is the power the federal government is now using against the provinces, selling its bill of goods about a strong government in Ottawa and a subservient one in the provinces. No wonder Quebec is now thinking of sovereignty, of autonomy. It is tired of having to play the heavy, the one to make the cuts to the taxpayer, while the federal government, because of the taxation power the provinces have given it to collect taxes in its stead, has equipped itself with a tool for making the provinces subservient.

The transfer payments, which should have been used to share the wealth and rebalance the means of meeting the needs of the population, are being used far more by the federal government at this time to make the provinces subservient to its centralizing domination.

The provinces, Quebec in particular, are tired of this situation. The government of Quebec wants to be able to tell its taxpayers that it is able to meet the needs of social programs, education, health, which are its responsibility, provided it has the taxes we are paying for that, and not just a portion of them with which it can meet some health needs, while the rest of the taxes go to the federal government so that it can say that it will also meet another part of health needs then leave it to the taxpayer to judge which of the two governments is doing a better job of fulfilling those responsibilities.

The same taxpayer is paying taxes to two governments at the same time. One too many governments is involved in this, and Quebeckers feel that theirs is not the one that is superfluous. They pay twice to two institutions, and end up exploited and with fewer services than they ought to have. Our federal government, with the Liberal Party at its head, ought to think first of all of saving money, instead of making more cuts and more expenditures, if it wants to have money to spare.

Recently once again, the newspapers have reported—and this was really not a new discovery, since the auditor general has been saying so since 1993, without the government doing anything about it—that the auditor general has spoken out against the fact that they are trying to put a new computer program in place for processing the old age and income security pensions.

In the beginning, it was supposed to cost some $260 million. Four years later, the cost has reached $365 million and the computer system is still not operational. The people in charge of setting up the system are poised to ask a further $150 million to do so, four years later.

The federal government has not seen fit to wonder whether it was on the right track. Are we on the right track with this computer system we are having trouble setting up?

Imagine, $500 million for something which initially was supposed to cost $260 million. The auditor general has mentioned it in his reports a number of times, but the government has done nothing about it. This is where money could be saved. This is where the government should have saved money instead of cutting transfer payments to the provinces to be able to act later on and appear to be a generous big brother, a kindly father willing to meet the needs of the nation.

Quebeckers can see through all that. So do Canadians as a whole. I believe maritimers, who also are faced with high unemployment and poverty, must be wondering what the federal government is waiting for to enter into partnerships with other governments, with the provinces. In this case partnership means “Here is the money we collected, take it and meet your taxpayers' needs in your areas of jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution”.

This is called showing respect and making better plans for the future.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, are we having questions and comments, or resuming debate?