René Laurin

[Regional Rates Of Pay, October 23rd, 1995]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Regional Rates Of Pay, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time is left. Normally speeches are 10 minutes long. When they are 20 minutes long, there are 10 minutes for questions and comments. And I think the 10 minutes must be nearly up. It would be difficult to allow an extra 5 minutes, as the member across the way announced earlier.

I think that when 10 minutes are used up, by one party or the other, it is a total of 10 minutes.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that Canadians in the rest of Canada had paid for 80 per cent of federal assets in Quebec. The minister finds it exceedingly complicated for Quebec to retain ownership of federal assets located on Quebec territory after sovereignty.

Naturally the minister neglected to add that, in fact, Quebec has paid for 23 per cent of federal assets located elsewhere in Canada or abroad. And custom and international law stipulate that federal assets located within Quebec will become the property of Quebecers ipso facto . Canada loses nothing in the transaction, as only 17.5 per cent of all federal assets are located in Quebec.

Obviously, Quebec will want to deduct this shortfall from the portion of the federal debt it will assume the day after a yes vote. Once again, the minister has attempted to bend the truth about what would happen in a sovereign Quebec the day after October 30.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Gander-Grands Falls has decided to turn himself into a member of the opposition, I would be delighted to invite him to cross the floor and join us. We have several other causes to defend against his party. We would be delighted to welcome you, Sir.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that what I was saying was very relevant to Bill S-9, since it addresses partnership with another country, the United States. I was therefore attempting to demonstrate that the proposals made concerning other bills before the House deal with exactly the same problem. There was a

problem between the United States and Canada. Tax collection was not harmonized, estate taxes were not harmonized.

A way has been found by two sovereign countries to discuss and to reach agreement on changing our laws in order to harmonize them and ensure that Bill C-9 benefits the citizens of both countries equally.

What I have attempted to demonstrate to this hon. house, with examples, is that this would be equally possible in other areas. I am well aware that my colleagues opposite do not like to hear anyone telling them that it is possible for the partnership to be a success. They cannot be hearing that word much these days. They only wish to hear it used in connection with other countries, but when Quebec becomes a country they will hear it more often. We think that at that point they will be prepared to come to the table.

At any rate, whether they like to hear us talk about it or not, this is a decision for Quebecers alone. And just as Quebecers, via their elected representatives here in the House today, agree to support Bill S-9, tomorrow morning Quebecers will also agree to support their representatives in the Quebec government and ask them to offer a partnership that is respectful of our neighbours in the rest of Canada, a partnership that will be advantageous to both parties, a partnership that will become the sole solution to our common problems.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

You are right, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "the Minister of Finance".

Even the Czech and the Slovak republics, which have just achieved sovereignty, have had the advantage of this accelerated process, the process of joining the World Trade Organization, despite the fact that their economies were far less developed that Quebec's.

The Minister of Finance also contended that Quebec will not be able to sign NAFTA before achieving sovereignty, which, according to him, would take time. However, Quebec retains its legal status, so long as it remains a province of Canada, in my opinion and according to all the experts. As a province and so long as it has not declared its sovereignty, Quebec remains a party to NAFTA.

When we come to declare our sovereignty, we will have had time to talk with people. We will continue to be a party to NAFTA as a Canadian province, and the day after sovereignty, negotiations will be complete, and we will become another member of NAFTA, this time, not as a province, but as a sovereign country. His reasoning falls short here again.

The Minister of Finance raised a third point. He ignored an aspect of the international reality and existing practice, in stating that the American Congress was not keen at the prospect of new negotiations. The Americans have never behaved this way, because state successions promote the continuity and stability of international treaties.

If the United States ever did ignore this rule, it would be to Canada's full advantage to sign a partnership with Quebec, without altering the economic reality of Canada and Quebec, but permitting

continued membership by Canada and Quebec in NAFTA, as provided in article 22.04 of the treaty.

It would be advantageous to both Canada and Quebec, because we must not forget that, if the United States wants to renegotiate with Quebec, it will surely want to renegotiate with Canada, which will have seven million consumers fewer than when it signed the treaty.

A Canada with seven million fewer inhabitants is not the same Canada. It is not the same NAFTA partner. And if Canada wants to maintain its economic weight in NAFTA, it should sign a partnership agreement with Quebec, because it would be to its advantage and to Quebec's to do so.

According to another of Mr. Martin's arguments, the United States will no longer want to allow new members to have a dispute settlement board. This is a half baked argument and should be quickly rejected because it is based solely on a letter written by a candidate for the Republican Party nomination. Just a letter from a candidate making this claim.

Furthermore, Mr. Martin has conceded that the negotiations with Chile include the dispute settlement board. They are currently negotiating, they have recognized the existence, the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of a dispute settlement board, yet they are telling us that the Americans are no longer interested. How can the Americans want this mechanism for Chile but not for Canada? They are consistent.

This makes it difficult to take seriously the finance minister's statement that Quebec will lose a million jobs and endanger 90 per cent of its exports. Just imagine. This is no laughing matter.

This just goes to show once again that ridicule never killed anyone, because the Minister of Finance would have died a long time ago. We can see how exaggeration often leads to absurdities.

We are proud and happy to participate in Canada's development by supporting Bill S-9, because it goes in the direction that we have always advocated. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to build a country in Quebec, and we want Canada to remain prosperous as well. We want to live in renewed harmony, no longer from coast to coast but side by side. And the only way to live side by side is to support legislation that will make for more harmonious relations between the two countries.

Witch hunts must be stopped. They must stop telling Quebecers that Quebec is too small, that they cannot administer themselves without help, that they will not succeed in their endeavour. Quite the contrary.

Quebec's history has shown that every time Quebecers have really taken their destiny into their own hands, their endeavours were successful. They succeeded. And when Quebecers will decide, as they will on October 30, to become autonomous and to make their own decisions, they will be able to collect their own taxes and to sign their own treaties. It will enable them to make decisions on their own and to invest in projects that better serve the interests of Quebecers the $30 billion in tax money they will no longer have to pay the federal government.

The Laurent Beaudoins who come and tell us that Quebec would be too small to meet the needs of large businesses like their should be reminded that countries smaller than Quebec have about 20 and sometimes as many as 30 companies that are twice, three times and even four times as large as Bombardier. Businesses larger than the one run by Mr. Beaudoin manage to prosper in countries like Switzerland, Norway and Denmark. The strength and vitality of a nation is not dependent on its size, but rather on the resourcefulness of its people, their commitment and their self-respect.

Naturally, Quebecers will want to invest mainly in research and development because this creates jobs. The Chinese have known this for a long time. An old Chinese proverb says: "Instead of handing out fish that will feed the hungry only for one day, teach them to fish". Teach people to fish and they will be able to feed themselves for the rest of their lives.

That is what Canada did with Quebec. Only with respect to unemployment insurance were we favoured. Quebecers did get more in UI benefits than they paid into the plan. That is the fish we were fed. Meanwhile, Ontarians were taught to fish, and teaching fishing requires research and development grants, which we did not get. And they thought we would go for that.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the purpose of Bill S-9 is to ratify a protocol to the Canada-United States Tax Convention.

This convention regulates most tax provisions, as the hon. member explained earlier. This means it regulates most tax provisions between Canada and the United States. Canada has similar conventions with many other countries throughout the world. The purpose of these conventions is primarily to avoid double taxation. It would be unfair for a Canadian or a Quebecer who works a few months in the United States to be taxed first in the United States and again in Canada or Quebec when he files his income tax return at the end of the year.

So considering the extent of our trade relations and the proximity of the United States, the Canada-United States Tax Convention should be as harmonized as possible, although it is still detailed and very complex.

The bill before the House today will make it possible for both governments to help each other collect taxes from their taxpayers. It is often said that one good deed deserves another. The United States will help Canada collect taxes owed by Canadian taxpayers abroad and in turn, Canada will help the United States collect taxes from Americans when they are on foreign soil.

Following the free trade agreement with the United States, both countries decided to operate even more closely to simplify fiscal exchanges between the two countries. This enhanced co-operation and harmonization are all part of the trend towards free trade that is now sweeping the international community and is forcing governments to become more efficient in the way they tax companies and citizens of the two countries that are signatories to this convention.

The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the trend towards free trade, as we have done since the negotiations began and as Quebec did as soon as the issue of international free trade was broached, since the Province of Quebec, unlike the federal Liberal government at the time, had come out in favour of free trade. Since we support the free exchange of goods in the greatest possible harmony and on the most equitable terms for Canadians and Americans, we have not

changed the position we took at the time and today, we want the government to know that we will support this bill.

We know that without the firm support of Quebec and all major players in the province, the free trade agreement with the United States would probably never have materialized.

As I said earlier, Jean Chrétien's Liberals and even the Province of Ontario were strongly opposed to the agreement. Quebec was not only in favour of this agreement between the United States and Canada but also supported expanding the agreement to include Mexico and still supports this grand design for a free trade zone. With President Clinton of the United States, we would like to see this free trade zone extend from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

We could draw a parallel between this situation and the situation we see now in the political context involving Canada and Quebec. I must say that our support for the bill before the House today is entirely consistent with the position we would take on agreements with the rest of Canada.

Millions of dollars are at stake in Bill S-9. Millions and even billions of dollars will be at stake tomorrow morning before a partnership between Quebec and Canada.

For instance, some businesspeople told me that they could not decide on the matter because they needed both supporters and opponents of the bill to earn a living.

Both before and after October 30, we will need clients from both sides in order to ensure a climate of harmony, of beneficial exchanges between the two parties. If we have no need for both, as we are doing in this bill, why would businesspeople want to stop dealing with those clients who voted with the other side after October 30?

Businesspeople and companies who need both Yes and No clients before October 30 will continue to need them after October 30. That is why we say that they can only hope for a partnership between both countries, just as the Bloc Quebecois is now supporting the partnership advocated by Bill S-9 to harmonize taxes, estate tax rates.

Yet, with this bill, if Canada refused to sign a protocol with the U.S., it would not claim to be weakened, that this would be an obvious way to avoid co-operating with the U.S., or that the U.S. would be the only one at a disadvantage. Canada understands that it is in both parties' interest.

In the same way, when people from the no side tell us that tomorrow morning, we will have Canada and a separated Quebec, I think that what we have here is a new definition of separation. Where I come from, when a couple separates, it is not just one party who is separated; both the woman and the man say they are separated.

After October 30, once Quebec has proclaimed its sovereignty, we will not have a separated Quebec and a complete Canada. We will have a separated Quebec and a separated Canada. Both parties will likely be weakened in their positions if people in Quebec and the rest of Canada refuse to conclude harmonious free trade agreements between them so that their economic and trade positions would be strengthened by new links. There can be accommodations. An economic and trade partnership could therefore be arranged not only for taxation but also for international trade and the free flow of goods and services in general, in the interest of this country's two founding nations.

The bill does not specify how many millions and billions of dollars are at stake in this protocol. We do not know which country-Canada or the U.S.-will benefit the most from this tax liberalization protocol. We do not know, and the bill does not say. Perhaps the party in power has done studies on this? We simply do not know.

But we nonetheless agree because this is a principle of justice that can only benefit Canadians and Quebecers. It would not be normal for a Quebecer working in Florida for three or four months a year, for example, to pay more taxes for these three or four months than he would pay in Quebec if he had worked only in Quebec.

Bill S-9 will ensure that Quebec or Canada, as the case may be, will be able to claim from the U.S. the share of withholding tax on this person's compensation, under conditions that will be similar or identical in both countries. Hence the advisability of supporting this agreement.

Especially if trade and trade opportunities between two countries are involved, considering that $1.3 billion is invested every year in manufacturing in Ontario cars, trucks and automotive parts for sale in Quebec, it would be sheer folly for the Ontario automotive industry to miss out on this market. Is Ontario going to refuse to come to an agreement with Quebec, claiming that it can no longer sell cars and trucks in Quebec because we have decided to achieve autonomy? That would be silly.

Also, Alberta sells us oil and natural gas worth more than $850 million. Would our Albertan suppliers decide overnight to stop selling us oil and natural gas worth $850 million because we have chosen to make our own decisions from now on?

For Bay Street, the heart of Toronto's financial district, Quebec represents a $2.8 billion market for financial and insurance services. How can one believe that these people would not find it in their best interest to maintain harmonious business relations with us?

Integration of businesses in Quebec and Canada as well as the need to integrate businesses in Quebec and Canada with American businesses make it imperative that we maintain harmonious relations among ourselves. In turn, maintaining harmonious relations forces us to maintain the existing economic union, but under new terms, whereby each partner has a say in problem solving.

Where the shoe pinches right now is that one country is divided, with one partner claiming to have all the answers and be in a better position to manage the other one's taxes and imposes its will by force of numbers. That is why we were never able to find a solution: we realize that we are so terribly different.

When I was in college, we had a professor who used to say: "My friends, always remember that, when confronted with a problem, unless you hold the solution or are part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

That is the kind of situation we are in at present in Canada and Quebec. Over the past few decades, we have come to realize that we were facing certain problems. We told Canada: "Here is a possible solution: If you agree to a redistribution of powers between our two peoples, so as to allow greater fairness, greater autonomy and greater respect for our two peoples, we could find a solution for this great united Canada".

Unfortunately, Quebec, particularly over the last 30 years, has constantly clashed with the federal government and the rest of Canada, which want to keep control over the province's tax system, over its decisions and, in fact, over any major decision that a nation has to make regarding its future.

We feel that Canada was more part of the problem than part of the solution. This is why we initiated a referendum process, a democratic process which will allow Quebecers to freely express themselves and tell Canadians: "Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow morning we wish to offer you a new sharing of responsibilities; we wish to offer you a new partnership whereby we will decide together, on an equal footing, what should be done to ensure the best possible future for us".

Let us not forget that soon, when Quebec becomes sovereign, the rest of Canada will no longer be in as strong a position, relative to other foreign countries. It is wrong and it is misleading to suggest that the rest of Canada will still be a strong country, while Quebec will have become a weak nation. A Canada without Quebec is a weaker Canada and a Quebec without Canada also takes on a different dimension. This is why we will have to find a way to pool our skills and strengths to maintain as best as we can our trade relations with other countries.

Should this not happen, Canada will not immediately go bankrupt, nor will Quebec: our two new countries will have to face international conditions different from those which currently prevail, something which might be harder to do. Clearly, it is easier to enter into a partnership to solve issues, rather than try to find solutions to the same problems separately. This is obvious. But we cannot do it right now. We are told: you are already in a partnership, why do you want to leave? This is an illusion. We want out because we feel that we are not in a true partnership arrangement. We are in a minority position in a country where our province accounts for about 25 per cent of the population, and where half of the taxes paid by Quebecers are controlled by the majority.

We want more than that for Quebecers. We mentioned commercial reasons regarding free trade agreements. We could also provide reasons related to the number of jobs. We are not talking about the loss of one million jobs. We are not even talking about a loss, because we know that our partners of tomorrow will not let 250,000 jobs in Ontario disappear. Indeed, there are 250,000 jobs in that province that are directly related to goods sold in Quebec, particularly in the automotive industry.

In western Canada, 75,000 jobs are directly related to trade between those provinces and Quebec. We buy 50 per cent of the beef produced in the west. Tomorrow, Quebecers will not want to stop eating western beef, nor will western producers want to stop selling us their beef, because 75,000 jobs are at stake. In Atlantic Canada, we are talking about 26,000 jobs. Maritime provinces will not risk losing 26,000 jobs by eliminating economic and trade activity with Quebec.

In Canada, a total of 352,000 jobs depend directly on the trade between the rest of Canada and Quebec. I imagine that on October 31, businessmen will start calling their Premiers and ministers to tell them: Gentlemen, let us be serious. Let us get down to business. Let us get back to basics and sound business practices. Keep protecting our markets and our jobs. Sit down and talk to each other and stop being so obsessed with your own policies.

I did not make up these examples. They exist today. This is the reality of trade, whether we like it or not.

The same goes for NAFTA. They want to scare us. They say that the next day we could no longer enter into an agreement, be part of NAFTA. However, tomorrow morning, for instance, we can enter into an agreement with the United States on estate taxes.

Americans who own securities or property or factories in Quebec or who come and work here a few months every year, tomorrow morning, these Americans will want to adopt the same bill, either with Quebec or a united Canada. Why is this bill before the House today? Because we realize that some Americans are penalized by differences in legislation, just as some Canadians and Quebecers are penalized by the law as we know it today.

If Canada is prepared to acknowledge that harmonization of the legislation of our two countries is mutually beneficial, why should we be more reasonable with the Americans than with a sovereign Quebec, if it benefits our citizens? Personally, I think that the day after a declaration of sovereignty, the United States and the rest of Canada will sit down at the same table and will want to negotiate.

Quebec's production figures are four times those of Chile, which is expected to be the next country to sign NAFTA. Four times. Quebec's trade with the United States is eight times what it is with Brazil, Argentina and Chile combined. Canada tells us: "We are willing to let Chile become a member tomorrow morning", but they are not prepared to do the same for Quebec. Yet Quebec has eight times the trade exchanges with these three countries combined.

The American president has already stated, as I have already said, that he wanted to create a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, which I imagine includes Quebec. He did not say "a free trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego excluding Quebec". That is not what he said. What he did say is that it is to everyone's advantage in this great economic space in which we live to liberalize trade. Some governors of northeastern states have already announced their firm intention to continue trade relations with a sovereign Quebec. Laurent Beaudoin is not the only one who has made a statement.

The government of Canada strongly supports Chile's application, as I have said already, and yet Chile has 148 times less trade with English Canada than Quebec has with English Canada. This is a key point. Another country like Chile would be accepted yet Quebec, with 148 times more trade links than Chile, would be rejected. That makes absolutely no sense. Nothing but bogey man scare tactics. We will not stand for such a thing.

During a trade visit to South America, the Prime Minister of Canada made a strong and convincing plea in favour of broadening NAFTA to include all of the Americas. There is, however, a lack of logic in the no side which they are not prepared to acknowledge. Again this week, Mr. Martin has made himself the spokesman for the no side with respect to NAFTA. Yesterday in a speech to the Association professionnelle en développement économique du Québec he raised three key points preventing Quebec from joining NAFTA quickly.

First, membership in the World Trade Association. With respect to this point, I must tell Mr. Martin that he is wrong, although I cannot tell whether or not his error is deliberate. I do not believe so, I think he might be acting in good faith, but it is obvious that he is in error. True, it could take several years for a country to conform to the World Trade Organization's rules before being accepted for membership. But he must acknowledge at the same time that Quebec already meets all of the World Trade Organization's membership requirements. WTO rules contain provisions for accelerating the process for countries that are already in compliance with the rules.

Quebec would certainly have access to this fast track, which takes about two to three months. In the past five years, the latest countries to declare sovereignty or independence were all recognized immediately by the WTO. Perhaps one or two countries have still not yet been accepted, because they do not meet the basic requirements, because they were not part of a free market economy. That is why the delay. However, a sovereign Quebec, which already satisfies all the conditions, could join the organization quickly-within two or three months, and not two or three years, as Mr. Martin suggests. Even the Czechs and the Slovaks have had the advantage-

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote nay.

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the choice is there, but the result is always the same.

Would the President of the Treasury Board agree that federal public servants in Quebec working in the Ottawa-Hull region are treated by the federal government as second-class citizens and that only the sovereignty of Quebec would be able to make French a language of work in government offices located in the Outaouais?

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

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

According to the Official Languages Act, public servants in Ottawa-Hull have the right to work in their own language. However, in his latest report, the Commissioner of Official Languages confirmed that only 11 per cent of francophone public servants regularly write in French and that for three-quarters of francophones, English is still the only language of communication with their boss and at meetings at work.

Will the President of the Treasury Board acknowledge that the federal policy on language of work has failed pitifully in the Ottawa-Hull region and that once again, francophone employees are paying the price?