René Canuel

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Yes, they are caught in Sept-Îles and eaten in Matane, and they are excellent.

In philosophy, we say words are very important, so let us stop saying that words like “unique” and “distinct” no longer mean anything. Even Claude Ryan said these words were meaningless. When we ask our hon. friends opposite whether they are prepared to recognize us as a founding people, they all start to stammer and stutter. They do not have the guts to say they cannot recognize us as a founding people because, when it comes down to it, they do not recognize us. Well at least they are consistent. They are afraid to come out and say so. That I can understand, and I thank them for being consistent. I can follow that.

The government, however, is doing everything it can to diminish us, to reduce us to the level of some ethnic group. I may recall that aboriginal peoples were here at the very beginning. Everybody recognizes them. Then, we had two founding peoples. Everybody acknowledges that. But today, it would be nice if members opposite were able to say yes, you are a people.

I was in Vancouver during the holidays. A very nice place, but I could not feel at home there. Perhaps the Vancouverites who come to Quebec feel the same. I respect that. There is something missing, however. Are we treated as equals? I think not. The people down home have a rather colourful way of speaking, and I am going to adopt a bit of that. Such a lovely way of speaking. They do not mince words.

They are sick and tired of commissions, of all the different commissions. They are also sick and tired of the attacks on our integrity. They are disgusted, too, by the psychological profiles of the premier of Quebec. They sick and tired of seeing the multinationals using tax havens to get rich. They have been demanding action on this for a long time. Yet nothing happens. They are sick and tired, as well, of seeing the rich families protected by family trusts. Sick and tired of seeing banks making billion dollar profits.

I asked a big banker “Would you go bankrupt if Canadian taxes were raised a little?” He said “Not at all”. Do you know why? Do you know why the rich of this country are protected? That is easy to understand. Big businesses are the ones contributing to campaign funds, and then they find the Prime Minister's door wide open to them, the ministers' doors wide open to them. “We gave, so now it's our turn”. That works out very well.

There was an attempt made here to get a little bill passed on political party fundraising. No way would the Conservatives or the Liberals vote for that. Ask yourselves why, ladies and gentlemen. My fellow citizens know very well why not. We can see that the hands of the members opposite are tied. The people at home and even the people in the Atlantic provinces have not forgiven them.

Employment insurance, which I call poverty insurance, is causing problems at home. Some people are going to find the winter long: 910 hours to start. Some mothers and fathers are short 50 or 75 hours. Will they go on welfare? If they do, as you know, when you have children, they will have to sell their house. Obviously it is a last resort. We are entitled to a few thousand bucks in the bank.

That means those people are without hope. I have seen people crying in my office because they found this legislation so totally inhumane. This government has not the heart to change it.

I hope that those who do have a little heart will understand people living in poverty. What is there in the speech from the throne for the rural community? One little, very little, minuscule paragraph: “It is our good intention to—”. Go ahead and read it again. I have not got time to read it, but read it carefully.

What is in it for fishers? Nothing. What about forest workers? Absolutely nothing. And farmers? Nothing. A fine country, great and rich. They are busting with pride.

Our people are no fools. The people in my riding voted 64 per cent in favour of sovereignty in the last referendum, and the vote will be even higher in the next one, because the government is totally inhumane and unfair to rural communities. It says: “Let us feed the rich, because they support us”.

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will share the 20 minutes allocated to me with my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I would like to start by thanking my constituents in Matapédia—Matane. The riding is so big it could be a country. I say this for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite, because many have never set foot in my riding, except to make an announcement and wave the Canadian flag during election campaigns.

My riding extends from Saint-Moïse to Maria and from Baie-des-Sables to Madeleine. This is 750 kilometres. In other words, as far as Amqui to Ottawa. It takes about 10 hours or a day to travel the perimeter.

I want to thank my constituents for putting their trust in me. Some of them reelected me, others elected me for the first time. The people of Matapédia—Matane elected me to a second term. This is when I made the best showing. I served them well for four years, and I got a substantial majority. In Avignon and Denis-Riverin it was a little harder, because I was not as well-known. So I think we can say that Bloc members have to get out there and meet people and also cover a lot of ground.

People put their trust in me because I was there for them, but it is more than that. They trusted the man who defended sovereignty during the election campaign. I was very frank. I told them that if they wanted to elect a federalist, there were some very good ones. There were some outstanding candidates. But if they wanted to elect a sovereignist, there was only one choice. And today, I am here. Again, I thank the people in my riding.

These people are not stupid. They are sick and tired of hearing meaningless terms like “distinct society” and “unique society”. Some people, one of them a fisher, said “as unique as Matane shrimp”. What does that mean?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

$2,000.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

The companies.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Yes, yes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

But that is different.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Of course.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Just let me explain. It is because we are not trying to form the government. I do not think we will ever form the

federal government. Therefore, because we are not trying to form the government, we can be impartial.

In fact, we are the only party that is not interested in holding such power. In any case, it is not the real power. The real power is held, as we know, by the financial world. Until we can dissociate ourselves from these companies and family trusts, everyone knows that our hands will be tied. The government may try, it may make an effort sometimes, but it cannot do a good job.

I ask the hon. member: If his party is re-elected, will he have the courage to promote a bill that would correct this problem with campaign funds? The result could be similar to what was achieved in Quebec, thanks to René Lévesque. Mr. Bourassa himself congratulated René Lévesque a few years later, because it is a lot easier to be honest with voters and tell them the truth. I ask the minister if he will sponsor such a bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister used the word "truth" a dozen times with great conviction. It seems to me that the truth speaks for itself. One needs not make a big production of describing what it is. When one says: "We are on the side of truth", then the case for truth is made. I have my doubts about what he said because what do you call the Prime Minister saying he would kill the GST and not doing it? There is a long list of similar situations.

Now, of course, everyone agrees that the deficit must go down and even disappear completely.

Everyone agrees also that we should be paying off our debts. We all agree with that. But how do we go about doing this? That is the problem. Unfortunately, the Reform Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have nothing better to offer in that, until this place passes an elections act like the one passed in Quebec under René Lévesque, under which large corporations are forbidden to buy, so to speak, governments, regardless of their affiliation, I assure you these governments will have their hands tied. There will be no end to family trusts, and families earning $100,000 and more per year will pay almost no tax because lobbyists will still have easy access to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the other ministers.

Until a government passes this kind of legislation, every Quebecer and Canadian will be justified in doubting the authenticity of the government and doubting, when promises are made, the truthfulness of these promises. Not that I doubt the ministers and the Prime Minister as individuals, but it takes political courage to pass this kind of legislation. When the suggestion is made that it be passed, the major national parties balk. Why? Ask yourself why they do not want such legislation passed. It is either because they have their hands tied or because they lack courage.

When companies contribute $10,000, $20,000 or $100,000 to a party's campaign fund, they are friends and the party is indebted to them. This is the truth.

Earlier, the minister told you, Mr. Speaker, and I have a great deal of respect for you, that you are impartial. That is true, but I believe that, except for you, the only party which can be impartial in this House is our party, and I will tell you why.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 22nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is entirely normal that he make a comment and then ask a question, but the comment must be about what the hon. member said and not about any old topic.