René Canuel

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

At least I do not think he would.

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

Our hon. speaker, for one, would not take it.

[Tourist Industry, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Matapédia-Matane is a popular tourist destination.

Today, I wish to congratulate several people whose contribution to the tourism industry was recognized at the gala evening for the Grand Prix du tourisme. Pierrette Molaison, owner of Éditions du Flâneur, a company in Matane, won two awards at the gala evening on the weekend.

Bertrand and François Rioux, also from Matane, are active promoters of the tourism industry in the region. They founded the Riôtel hotel chain which now includes a number of local tourism establishments. Their contribution was also recognized at this gala evening.

Finally, during the same evening, the Camp théâtre de l'Anse de la ville de Maria was honoured for its excellent work. The Comité du centenaire de Causapscal won the grand prize for the event of the year.

Congratulations to all.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister, when Mr. Lesage was Premier of Quebec, we did not talk about separation. The expression was "maître chez nous". It was perhaps a first step, but we did not talk about that. Yet, at the time, the unemployment rate was high. Enough of confusing the issue.

Since we started talking about it, people are increasingly gaining confidence in themselves. Look at the referendum results: the first was 40 per cent; in 1995, it was 49.5 per cent; in a few years, in 1999 or 2000 at the outside, it will be 52 or 53 per cent because

people will have more confidence in themselves. They are also saying that even with Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Bourassa, we got nowhere. We are now at the point where we have pride in ourselves. We have confidence in ourselves and we are going to reach our goal: our own country.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, if the federal government had not cut transfer payments to the provinces, many things would be better. Second, unions in our province have made tremendous progress for many years.

As a unionist, I think we must know what we want from society. We live in a society that is constantly changing, and I congratulate the Quebec premier for going through this exercise with the unions. There are differences of opinion, but there are also many points on which both sides agree. I believe an agreement will be reached as soon as possible.

Some things do not change, though. I am referring to the multinationals and the family trusts. I should also have talked about the banks. Banks make billions of dollars in profits. I understand the banking system, and I know that the profits belong to the shareholders. But why not ask the banks to make a greater effort? Why can we not get a little more out of them? This way, we could provide better protection for the poor.

How dare the government take money from the unemployment insurance fund, which is financed in part by the unemployed and in part by the employers, to reduce the deficit? This is simply outrageous. I almost feel compelled to say it is robbery.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about poverty as well, like my colleague.

We have the case of the man who has a family, who wants to work and has no job. There is the young 24-year old who just got a degree, has incredible qualifications, sends his resume everywhere, and people do not even bother to answer. I could go on for ages, trying to define poverty. Yet, we realize that we are among the seven richest countries in the world. However, in this country we call Canada, there are still places where poverty really exists. I agree with my colleague who gave a very good description of the problem.

How can we make up for this? Poverty exists, we all agree on that. We agree on other points as well, that there is a deficit and we have to deal with it, so as not to mortgage the lives of future generations. My children's generation, and my children are in their twenties, is already in debt. There are other children in my riding who are even worse off than my kids.

Yesterday, I was talking to a woman of 35 who told me she was still paying for her education. That is poverty, too. How can you start a family if you are still paying back a student loan after ten years? When we know that as far as jobs go, the future is uncertain, how can we create hope? If we have no hope in our lives, I think we are only half the man or the woman we could be.

We agree that poverty exists and that we have a deficit to pay off. But it is not up to our children to pay off the deficit, because we created that deficit. Starting in 1970, under Minister Lalonde and other finance ministers, it was paradise on earth: "Anything goes, borrow now and pay later". I fail to understand how brilliant men and women in this Parliament managed to put us into debt to this extent.

Well, it is no use crying over spilt milk. We have to find a way out. And there are a number of ways, as I see it. Some economists also agree. However, and I want to repeat this at every opportunity, why can the government not take specific steps to get as much money as possible without weakening the neediest among us, without creating a psychological threshold which means that in some regions, people do not know what to do any more?

Ask people who have are unemployed, who have lost their jobs and are living on welfare. It is hard on their dignity. It is very hard on children too. In my opinion, we have to turn things around and go where the money is.

I said it earlier and I say it again, I could say it a hundred times, no one is listening, but I could say that I had repeated it: how is it that there are rich people that always manage to be on the right side of the fence, without paying or hardly paying any income tax, when the poor people who have the misfortune to outsmart some of the rules of employment insurance, which I call misery insurance, automatically get nailed?

This year I have run into several cases of people who are honest but perhaps naive and who at some point were without work. They were employed; legally this was not right. Morally, however, they had to feed their family. They were told: "You are going to do so many hours". The calculations were not done right. One of these people owes the unemployment insurance system $40,000, because this situation went on for four years. Some agreements were reached for him to repay, but he has no work. He is suffering from depression.

I realize the officials are doing their job. I accept that. What is not legal is not legal. But, how is it, when I look on the other side of the fence, that I see respect being given to the multinationals whatever they do? Nobody bothers them.

I repeat: so long as this government and this party do not set rules for themselves for the election fund, who will govern? They lack the courage to do what René Lévesque did in Quebec, and he was quite proud of himself for it. Just before his death, he indicated he was proud of Hydro-Québec, yes, but more importantly, of having settled the issue of fundraising, for his party and others. You may know that, in Quebec, corporations are not allowed to contribute millions of dollars to campaign funds. They are not the ones making $100,000 contributions to political parties, only individuals can do that. As long as they will not have the courage to do the same thing, we will keep asking the same questions and getting the same answers.

I listened to several speakers who are very sensitive to the plight of the most disadvantaged and really want to do something about it. I sit on a committee on which there is much talk about the rural and regional community, and the committee members are quite serious. The problem is with the measures being considered. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If financial considerations cannot be set aside so that the government can have its hands free, very free and very clean hands, we will get nowhere. The alternative is to go a long way.

It may have been unreasonable of him to say so, but we did hear the Minister of Finance utter the words, and I quote: "We can see that the worst is behind us, that brighter days lie ahead". I wish the worst were really behind us.

I for one fail to see how the situation has improved, in the regions in particular, these past three years. In my region, where unemployment is on the rise, jobs are hard to find and the minister just steals bread from the mouths of workers, I cannot see how one could say that the worst is behind us.

I remind the Minister of Finance that there are 1.5 million people looking for work in this country, and 400,000 young people waiting to get on the Canadian labour market. In a rich country like Canada, why can the right climate not be created, where everyone would have a job? While the unemployment rate is 5.5 per cent in the United States, it is soaring at 10 per cent here. Something is wrong. Something is definitely wrong.

This government's real strategy is to starve regions like mine, to starve the fishers in the Gaspé, as well as farmers, and to force forest workers onto welfare. What is this government doing for small business? What is it giving small business, farm producers and forest workers? Crumbs. There was the infrastructure program. Great. It was a tiny step in the right direction. But only temporary jobs were created. What the people of my riding and other ridings in Quebec are asking for are good permanent jobs, but the government is not listening.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague says that the federal government has done a great deal for people in rural areas, I wonder if he is serious. With respect to agriculture, he earlier mentioned an amount of $50 million for all of Canada. This is a very small amount for all of Canada. Just before that, they had cut transportation for farmers. We heard the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, Claude Rivard, say on the radio that dairy farmers will have to increase the price of milk, cheese, yoghurt and so on because of cuts. The$50 million they are now talking about does not even match what we were receiving before. It is therefore a cut, not something additional.

As for forestry, there is nothing. I warn you not to tell me this comes under provincial jurisdiction. There is no doubt about that. That is what we want, but since forestry workers pay taxes, they are entitled to a fair return as well.

I could continue for almost all areas of the rural economy. We see that, compared to towns and cities, we are the poor relations. And, to my way of thinking, the government is not giving people in rural areas their fair share.

I ask my colleague if he is happy with this budget as it affects rural areas.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's comments. He referred, among other things, to students. He said the government would lend students more money, and that they would repay their loans three years later. This is not negligible, but there is a contradiction here.

When students get into debt, it is not so bad, since it allows them to pursue their studies. However, what hope is there for a student who is in debt and who does not have a job? Sure, one can say: "There is money available. You get an education and we will lend you money. You will have three years to pay off your debt". I know students who have been out of school for 15 years and who are still paying off their debt. If we lend more money to students, they will still be repaying their loans at the age of 75. There is a contradiction here to say the least.

Let me get to the nub of the issue. Everyone agrees that we must reduce the deficit. It is obvious. But how should we do it? I put the question to the hon. member. This Liberal government has dipped into the pockets of the poor. It has also targeted the middle class by increasing taxes. Everyone pays.

Then there are the taxes on gasoline. The middle class and the poor are always the ones who end up paying. Why is the government letting family trusts get away? The banks appeared before our committee. I asked Royal Bank officials whether their bank would go bankrupt if, for a period of five years, the government taxed banks more. Of course not.

Banks make billions of dollars in profits. If we get $1 billion or $1.5 billion in taxes out of them, over five years, they will not go bankrupt, believe me. Why not go that route to eliminate the deficit? How many rich families do not pay taxes? Why is it that no Conservative or Liberal government can see that?

Do you know what is happening? It is easy to figure out why governments do not go that route. When we asked the House of Commons to adopt the same regulations as Quebec did concerning political party fundraising, who voted against that proposal?

In Quebec, there is an act which provides that the money contributed to political parties must come from individuals, not companies. Who finances political parties here? Who puts money in the Conservative fund? It is the major corporations. How can they go against these major corporations?

I almost have my answer. Still, I would appreciate it if the hon. member could shed some light on this issue.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, whom I would like to congratulate. With the unemployment rate in Canada at over 10 per cent, in the United States at 5.5 per cent, and in Quebec at 12 per cent, I wonder about this inequity.

How is it that, for the past 20 years, the unemployment rate in Quebec has almost always been 2 per cent higher than in the rest of Canada? Sovereignty is certainly not a factor, since it was the same when Mr. Lesage and Mr. Trudeau were in power. Does it mean that things are poorly distributed in Canada, that research and development are channelled more into Ontario and that we are being given crumbs, which I would today call misery insurance?

I would like to know whether my colleague shares these ideas and how is it that the government talks about being prepared to help the weakest regions, from sea to sea, when in my riding of Matapédia-Matane, no matter what we do, no matter what is undertaken, no matter how many Operations Dignity are launched, no matter how many public rallies are held, nothing is happening. But all we want to do is work where we live.

We are not asking for gifts, we just want what we are entitled to. I have a very positive example: investing in forestry is a plus. It pays the government well in terms of taxes. Instead of being given job security benefits, income security benefits or employment insurance benefits, people have a job.

However, we see that the federal government, which had a plan I considered acceptable, profitable for it, made cuts. There is an easy answer to this one, that forestry is a provincial matter-that is true in part-except that forestry workers pay their income taxes to Ottawa, and when they put gasoline in their chain saws, they pay a tax to the federal government.

I would simply ask my colleague from Chicoutimi whether he shares these ideas and what he might propose to have it change?

[Crab Fishing, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last week, the minister released the results of his most recent spring exercise in improvisation, the snow crab plan. Indeed, for the third consecutive year, the minister reduced the harvest rates allocated to Quebec fishers. In total, the minister reduced the quotas for snow crab by 928 tons, which amounts to a loss of $15 million for the industry.

In order to put a stop to the constant transfer of jobs and resources from one province to another, will the minister pledge that Quebec will get its usual share, instead of reducing its quotas as he has been doing for the last three years?