Pierre De Savoye

[Minister Of Finance, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned this morning in Le Soleil about the federal finance minister is more disturbing than anything we could have imagined. According to this newspaper, the trust which is managing the minister's assets has established no less that seven branches in Barbados, for a total of 13 branches in various tax havens.

On several occasions, the Bloc Quebecois urged the finance minister to stem the growing use of tax havens. We even made recommendations to him that would have made these tax havens less attractive.

It is with sadness that the Bloc Quebecois realizes that the Liberal finance minister would much rather cut billions in social programs and take money out of the unemployment insurance fund than eliminate tax loopholes that are very useful to him.

That is the perfect example of a finance minister who says: "Do as I say, not as I do".

[Committees Of The House, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the report tabled by the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages fails unfortunately to mention the considerable anglicization of francophones in the City of Ottawa. In the past 20 years or so, the figure has increased from 17 to 28 per cent.

Accordingly, in the light of these statistics, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a dissenting report criticizing the fact that the committee tried to hide the fact that Ottawa, Canada's capital, is becoming English and anglicizing francophones at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, the report looks more at the national capital region, including the Outaouais. Its recommendations tend in my opinion to anglicize francophone Outaouais.

For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois has tabled a minority report.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your perspicacity. You realize I was repeating what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton just said about the amendment.

Since certain claims were made about the position of certain associations or cable distributors, I assume he realizes that we must get back to the position taken by these people. We will be very close to what happened a few days ago, because we know that the bill before us has come back with an amendment from the other place.

So what happened in the other place on April 8, 1997? As you know, the amendment proposes to reject the amendment from the other place. So what happened? I could not be more relevant.

Well, the Association des consommateurs du Québec-and I was about to say this when I was interrupted by a point of order-the association submitted a brief on the bill. In its brief, it rejected claims that the bill will be beneficial to Quebec consumers and to the French speaking public in Canada as a whole.

Always with reference to what we received from the other place, I would like to repeat certain comments that were made in one of their committees, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. The comments were made by the Hon. Francis Fox. You will recall that not so long ago, Mr. Fox was the Liberal Minister of Communications, and so you could hardly call him a member of the Bloc or a sovereignist. We can assume that these comments are representative of the beliefs of a staunch Liberal.

He said that what is at stake is a long list of concerted efforts by successive Canadian and Quebec governments to provide for the development of a French audiovisual resource offering a wide variety of quality programming. Supporters of Bill C-216, and he did not doubt they were well intentioned-and I have no doubt about that either-were in fact undermining all these efforts to which they seem to be oblivious.

I might also add that, in this case again, I am in agreement with what Mr. Fox said. He goes on to say, and this is particularly interesting, that the bill should be amended and he lists a number of reasons for doing so. First, this enactment flies in the face of all that has been done in the past 15 years. It does not have its place in the main section of the Broadcasting Act, which reflects a positive view of what our system should be. It changes the rules set after careful consideration by the designated authority: the CRTC. It changes the rules ex post facto between licensing and connection, ignoring the most basic rules of natural justice.

Mr. Fox adds that nowhere in the bill is the francophone issue, be it in Quebec, New Brunswick or Manitoba, taken into account, making any plans for new French language services an impossible dream.

He then refers to production and creation, saying that all the commitments made to the CRTC will disappear, whene CRTC decisions were contributing to consolidate state of the art technology in Montreal, for instance, production companies, which are of source of pride to the industry and which owe at least part of their success to this control: Coscient, CINAR, Les Productions La Fête, Softimage, Prima Film, SDA, Malofilm, and so on.

We are talking about a independent producers market worth $350 million. When Mr. Fox makes such comments and the Bloc Quebecois takes the position it has taken, it is to defend the interests of Quebec and those of the Canadian francophone community. For our hon. colleague to feel that we are acting against the wishes of consumers, this can only be explained by his taking an anglophone view to the issue. If I were an anglophone from another province, like our colleague from Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, I would probably jump up and say: "Come on, let us pass this legislation". But I would do so because I do not know what the situation of our francophone population really is with respect to cable distribution.

I want our colleagues in this House to understand that the Bloc's position is not intended to affect anglophone consumers in any way. At the time, at second reading, I urged the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to amend his bill, so that it would only apply to cable services provided in English. Had he done so, I would have been pleased to support his bill. In fact, I have here with me the transcript of the comments I made at the time, on September 16, 1996, but I will not go back to them, because I could be ruled out of order for quoting such antiquated excerpts.

I will say it again. Had the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton had the foresight to restrict the scope of his bill to English-language cable services, there would be unanimity in this House. But the member tried, like many others before him, to get involved in Quebec's affairs. Of course, if we had achieved sovereignty, neither we nor the hon. member would have to deal with this issue. But Quebec is not yet a sovereign nation. It is still part of the Canadian federation and, on behalf of my fellow Quebecers and francophones from across Canada, I must say no to this bill.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak this evening to this bill and to correct the misinformation conveyed by the member for Sarnia-Lambton.

In cable broadcasting, the francophone context is entirely different from the anglophone one. Despite what our colleague from Sarnia-Lambton said earlier, no doubt in the belief he was speaking accurately, it is wrong to claim that cable companies in Quebec agree with his bill. Quite the opposite.

Paul-Émile Beaulne, a vice-president of Radiomutuel, told the press on September 25, 1996 that it threatened the survival of specialty francophone services. He knows what he is talking about. He is right, and, unfortunately, the member for Sarnia-Lambton seems to be unaware of these remarks by an important player in the cable industry.

Earlier, our colleague from Sarnia-Lambton also intimated that francophone and Acadian communities supported his bill. I have in my hand a letter signed by Jacques Michaud on June 20, 1996 stating the very opposite. I would therefore be pleased to show these documents to our hon. colleague to correct his view of things.

I would also like to mention what the Association des consommateurs du Québec had to say.

[Montfort Hospital, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have all voiced their support of SOS Montfort in preserving this francophone hospital which is unique in Ontario. Yet the past actions of this trio contradict their words.

The Prime Minister closed the sole francophone military college in Canada, in favour of the one in Kingston, an anglophone bastion.

Moreover, the President of the Treasury Board forced numerous francophones to work in English, by neglecting to enforce the Official Languages Act, which entitles francophones to work in French in the national capital region.

Finally, by imposing upon CBC the worst cuts in its history, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the fact that CBC French-language services to francophones outside Quebec are only a shadow of their former selves.

The moral of this sad story is this: Mr. Harris, please do what they say, and not-we beg of you-what they do.

[Credit Card Interest Limitation Act, April 14th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-402, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates in relation to credit cards issued by financial institutions, companies engaged in retail trade and petroleum companies.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that, on numerous occasions, the hon. members of this House have proposed, along the lines of this bill I am introducing today, that there be limits set on the interest rates that major companies, banks and petroleum companies can charge on the credit cards they issue for the convenience of cardholders.

This bill is in the same vein. You will recall that I had made a commitment to my colleagues and to the public to introduce such a bill if the banks did not bring their interest rates down to a more acceptable and reasonable level. I have now done so.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased-it is not everyday that we get to start over the same speech-to speak to Bill C-92 to amend the Income Tax Act.

The subject of income tax raises the spectre of government digging into the pockets of individual and corporate taxpayers in order to cover its expenditures.

I cannot help but notice that our finance minister's insatiable appetite is caused by the fact that, for many years, government spending has exceeded government revenues. The Minister of Finance spends more than he earns. In fact, he is like the captain of a boat that is taking on water. Because the Minister of Finance has failed to plug the holes, the ship is sinking.

The finance minister did reduce the deficit. He did slow down the rate at which the water is flowing in. But do you know how he did it? Not by plugging the holes, but by throwing bucketfuls of water onto the provinces' ships. His financial needs and appetite remain unsatisfied. He needs more and more money, which, of course, comes out of the pockets of taxpayers.

It must be realized that the overall situation as regards taxation and public spending, both at the federal and at the provincial level, including in Quebec, is not good, and the basic problem that gave rise to all these difficulties originated in this House, right where the finance minister sits.

We saw how the Harris government, in Ontario, and the Quebec government headed by Mr. Bouchard were forced to take drastic measures and to make deep cuts to the health and education sectors, and even to their own human resources, the provincial public service. Indeed, we witnessed very sad situations experienced by people in Quebec, in Ontario and in other provinces. The public must realize that these problems are not created by the provincial governments, but that they have their roots in this House, right where the finance minister sits.

The minister simply dumped his problem on the provinces, by cutting the funds that were supposed to go to the provinces. He did so in two ways. First, by reducing transfer payments. What is a transfer payment? Under this process, the federal government essentially gives back to a provincial government the money paid by the taxpayers of that province. However, in this case, the federal government simply decided not to do so, with the result that the provinces are no longer getting the money to which they are entitled. We are talking about $2 billion, which was earmarked for health services and higher education.

It comes as no surprise that the provinces, including Quebec, were forced to cut services and budgets relating to health and education, given that the $2 billion paid to the federal Minister of Finance by Quebec taxpayers was never given back to the province.

But there is something else which, in a way, is even worse. The minister has developed the bad habit of taking $5 billion a year out of the employment insurance fund, which used to be called the unemployment insurance fund. Five billion dollars is an awful lot of money. In fact, what the Minister of Finance has done is to artificially create a tax on the backs of workers and their employers.

If we look at it in terms of proportions, we could say that each time a worker or an employer pays a dollar in premiums to the EI fund, 30 cents of this dollar will be skimmed off; not borrowed, not put into a separate fund for the eventual benefit of workers and employers but, when it boils right down to it, diverted from its initial purpose, which was to provide for the future needs of the unemployed, and used to reduce the finance minister's deficit.

Of course the Minister of Finance can then say he has reduced the deficit. Let us be clear. He has not eliminated the deficit, he has not prevented the ship from taking on water, he has not pumped out the water that is already slowing us down. No. He has just reduced the amount of water in the hold. How did he accomplish that? By passing on the problem to employers and employees throughout the country, using 30 cents of every dollar to mop up the consequences of the deficit. It is a tax in disguise that the Minister of Finance will not admit to publicly.

Fortunately the official opposition is here to denounce it, to explain it and to see that people understand clearly that what is happening provincially is not the cause, that the provinces are not to blame, but rather the method of operating imposed by the Minister of Finance, here in the House.

Something must be done about what is going on and, as my colleague mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed in this House appropriate, detailed and carefully thought out measures to rectify the discrepancies that now exist in tax measures. In fact, with respect to individual taxpayers, the Bloc Quebecois has produced a well researched document in which it proposes to the finance minister ways of eliminating unfairness and introducing new measures that would help families and others.

With respect to corporations, old tax loopholes that are to all intents and purposes no longer used, except by corporations rich enough to do so, should be eliminated and replaced by measures more likely to encourage businesses to create jobs.

One of the things I should perhaps point out in closing is that it is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance has not at least implemented one of these measures, which was intended to prevent corporations from deferring taxes indefinitely. As things stand now, corporations are in a position to avoid paying taxes today, next year

and for years to come, because of certain provisions in the Income Tax Act.

The Bloc Quebecois has asked, and will continue to ask the finance minister to take action to eliminate these measures and replace them with new measures that are effective and productive and that, above all, show respect for the citizens of Quebec and of Canada.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

It is your call, Mr. Speaker.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member who spoke before the hon. member from the Reform Party was a Liberal member. If there is to be rotation, it should be-

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased-