Pierre De Savoye

[Bilingualism, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Official Languages Act was passed 25 years ago, we have witnessed an accelerated erosion of the number of francophones living outside Quebec. Statistics Canada tells us that the proportion of francophones outside Quebec has dropped by 40 per cent over a period of 20 years.

My question is this: Does the Prime Minister realize that the alarming assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec is proof that Canada's bilingualism policy is a total flop?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, an electoral map is much more than a matter of paper and lines. An electoral map is not a sheet of paper where we find what we call ridings at the federal level, or, more colloquially in Quebec, counties. An electoral map is above all people that have some common cultural traits, economic resources and infrastructure links.

When technocrats, in an office tower, pore over the map and try to redistribute the population in fairly equal numbers among the electoral districts, lines start to move. We are sometimes left with the impression that the movement of these lines is based exclusively on a mathematical formula aimed at roughly balancing out the 295 electoral districts in Canada.

If this were really the way of doing it, a computer could no doubt do it better and faster. Let us take, for example, the existing electoral map for my riding of Portneuf. There we find, in the eastern most part of the riding of Portneuf, a small portion of Quebec City. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Portneuf there are about 600 constituents who live in Quebec City. They live on the other side of CFB Valcartier, which puts about two kilometres between them and the rest of the riding. They are to be found on both sides of Valcartier Boulevard, along a stretch of about a kilometre and a half.

No matter how hard I try, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I have great difficulty, as a member of Parliament, identifying with these constituents, since their problems are not really related to those experienced by the rest of the riding of Portneuf. So, no matter how hard I try, I must face the fact that those people would be better served if they belonged to the neighbouring riding, strictly on the basis of geography, of belonging to one municipality rather than to another, of commuting to one's work place, etc.

Because of the proposal before us regarding the electoral map, in the next election, if any, these people will now be part of the neighbouring riding further east. But that is not the only sacrilege, if I may use that term, that we can see in the electoral map of the riding of Portneuf. At the other end, on the west side, I have two municipalities that belong to the RCM of Mékinac. These are people who deal particularly with municipalities in the neighbouring riding of Champlain.

Here again, we see the problems with relations and services. For instance, if these people have to deal with the Canada Employment Centre, they will not go to the office in Portneuf, but to the one from the neighbouring riding. And, of course, it is still possible to communicate with that employment centre, but that increases the paperwork. In fact, yours truly has to interact with four employment centres. That is a lot a employment centres, a lot of people to get to know, a lot of contacts to make and to maintain. Ultimately, that creates a waste of time, a waste of effectiveness, and citizens are not being served as well as they could be otherwise.

In fact, just recently, at the beginning of the break preceding Easter, I had the opportunity, with my colleague from the riding of Champlain, to meet the council of the municipality of Lac-aux-Sables. One night, two members of Parliament and a municipal council met at Lac-aux-Sables to consider the possibility of letting my colleague assume my responsibilities at the employment centre and in other organizations in his riding since, for reasons of distance, it would be easier for him than it would be for me to assume those responsibilities for residents of Lac-aux-Sables. My intention was not to give up on those responsibilities but simply to rely on a colleague that I fully trusted and who would be in a better position than I to carry out those responsibilities from day to day.

We discussed the issue. I must stress that the meeting was held at the request of the municipal council. After a long and useful discussion, we came to the conclusion that it would actually be much simpler for the constituents of my riding to be served by the member of the neighbouring county because their belonging,

their spirit, their culture, their ways, their communications were closer to the neighbouring riding.

However, the new proposal regarding the electoral map that we are discussing does not mention anything about that municipality and perhaps the neighbouring municipality becoming part of the neighbouring riding. I want to say, and I might conclude on that, that when a review of the electoral map takes place, it might not be a bad idea for those who are working in office buildings to come and visit the various ridings, to go into the field and see where the real borders are between people.

Again, an electoral map is not a piece of paper with straight borders running across. A riding is made up of people. Those people have needs and I am sure that it would be very easy to communicate with the member from each riding and the members from neighbouring ridings to see how people could be better served.

The decision on where to draw the line has nothing to do with the number of constituents. The basis representation is not only a matter of numbers, but also, and more importantly, of culture and cohesion among people. I think I have spent the 10 minutes I had. I would like to thank the House for listening and I hope that it will listen as carefully to the following speakers.

[Report Of The Commissionner Of Official Languages, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his 1993 annual report.

Many instances of discrimination against francophones were reported again in federal institutions as well as in several provinces. In fact, the commissioner stressed, and I quote: "that the system of providing federal services in both official languages . . .was not yet functioning as it should".

This year again, access to French language education is difficult, if not impossible in certain regions. Also, the issue of school governance by francophones has not yet been settled in several provinces.

The Prime Minister stated recently: "The million francophones outside Quebec, that is my Canada". Unfortunately, this report reveals a huge gap between political rhetoric and reality.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I really want to hear the Reform Party's answer to this question.

Some time ago, because of a similar perception of the debt problem, I was invited to join the ranks of the Reform Party.

However, even though we may perceive the problem in a similar way, it does not necessarily mean that we share the solution. Indeed, our respective solutions may differ.

In this context, I said earlier that in the last decade or two no government was able to control the debt and the deficit.

I submit that the reason for this failure rests with the system itself and that the system has to be changed. I would like to read the hon. member, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the end of the letter dated March 1st which the president and chief executive officer of the Quebec manufacturers' association, Richard Le Hir, wrote about the budget. It is only one paragraph long.

Faced with this situation, the federal government's only strategy is the relentless pursuit of the same policy in spite of all the evidence. Nothing else can explain Mr. Martin's reserve in his recent budget. He and his Liberal colleagues are hoping that, contrary to all expectations, a miraculous upturn in the economy will save Canada from the disaster it is headed for. They are making the same mistake the Conservatives made before them. They refuse to admit there is a structural aspect to the Canadian public finances problem. And for a very good reason! If they did, it would call into doubt the very structure of the system: the sacrosanct Constitution. That would be tantamount to opening Pandora's box. That is why, as we now say in Montreal, `les jeux sont faits, rien ne va plus'!

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the hon. member, who raised points which I wondered about several months ago already, and for which I found an answer. I am going to suggest that answer to the hon. member and, in the process, get his point of view.

The hon. member says that the government must live according to its means. He adds that, for years now, in fact two decades, we progressively got more and more into debt.

I noticed that too, and I wondered not only about the facts but also their cause. It is not enough to say that we notice something. We have to ask ourselves: How did we end up in this situation and why do we still find ourselves in it?

So, I asked myself this very simple question: Why is it that Mr. Trudeau-I think I can name him without violating the rules-started getting us into debt? Is it because he did not realize that it was not a very smart idea to incur debts? Or is it because he was incompetent or acted in bad faith? Certainly not! I am convinced that, at the time, Mr. Trudeau acted in good faith and followed what he believed to be excellent advice encouraging him to do what he did.

Several years later, Mr. Mulroney promised to correct the situation and he failed. Did Mr. Mulroney act in bad faith? I do not think so. I believe that Mr. Mulroney really wanted to reduce the national debt.

Did he receive bad advice? I think that, here in Ottawa, we have extremely competent civil servants who work very hard to make things happen. So, my question is: What happened?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, true, I talk a lot about the deficit but, you see, a few years ago I thought it was my money at stake, but I realized some time ago that it is my children's and perhaps even my grandchildren's money.

The hon. member mentioned many things, one of which I want to correct, if he would kindly allow me to do so. He said that one-third of the tax collected by the government is used to service the debt. Unfortunately, it is a lot worse than that. Zero per cent is used to service the debt. One hundred per cent is used for programs. We do not pay the debt and the interest just adds on. How unfortunate.

However, I have a question for the hon. member if he does not mind. I will read something that was printed in La Presse in Montreal. I will read it in French. I am sure he will be able to follow it through the translation.

"The changes to the unemployment insurance program announced in the last federal budget make unemployed Canadians bear the brunt of over half of all new Liberal cuts", as if cuts could be liberal, "and will cost the provinces $1 billion, including $280 million in Quebec alone".

This is the question I would like the hon. member to address. It seems that the federal government has succeeded in keeping the deficit just below the $40 billion mark by shovelling part of the problem into the backyard of every one of the provinces. How does the member react to that?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member seemed to want to go on for a while, and I thought I would have a little time to respond. I appreciate how he put his question.

I understand the sovereignty of Quebec is very important for everyone from coast to coast and believe me, more so for Quebecers.

Something must be said in this House. The Quebec government over the years and for well over a decade has managed its public finances a lot better than what has been done in Ottawa.

Furthermore I am a taxpayer and have been a taxpayer for a long, long time. I have paid my share I am sure, as all the other people in this country are doing.

We send money to Ottawa on the assumption that it will be used to pay the interest on the debt and to reduce the deficit. I was told that. Everyone has been told that year after year after year for well over a decade by all the governments that have preceded this one. We are told that right now by this government.

I send my money to Ottawa on the assumption that it will be used well. When I see it is not, I wonder why I should not give my money directly to the government that has proven in the past to be more able to take care of my finances. By that I mean Quebec. That is why I think Quebec would better administer the servicing of our debt than Ottawa has proven able to do in the past.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a specific plan for reducing government spending and attacking the deficit.

One of these measures was an infrastructure program, something much bigger that what the Liberal Party offered us. Let me point out here, and perhaps other members will want to react to this, that the federal government is advancing $2 billion for the infrastructure program, but the federal government is now spending $20 billion on unemployment insurance.

Look at the dichotomy. On the one hand, we have $2 billion to put people to work and, on the other, we have $20 billion for them not to work. I would have expected a much more solid proposal from the Liberal government for redirecting unemployment insurance funds to more productive things that are more promising for the future of all these unemployed people.

At the present time, unfortunately, unemployment insurance is a way to help people survive until welfare becomes their only option. Unfortunately, there is no work once these weeks of unemployment insurance inexorably run out.

The Bloc Quebecois's program also sought to redirect a greater share of federal spending to Quebec. You should realize that Quebec pays a total of $28 billion, more or less, in tax every year and receives the same amount of $28 billion from the federal government. The problem is that a large part of this $28 billion is unemployment insurance and what is called welfare. If this money were spent on job creation, and what I am saying applies not only to Quebec but to all of Canada, people who work would pay taxes.

An interesting statistic to which few people refer is the $120 billion paid by people who work and consume. In Canada, about one in four employable persons does not work, which means that if they could work, they would pay $40 billion more in taxes and that is exactly what we need to wipe out the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for to act?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are subjects we discuss with enthusiasm. There are bills that elicit much positive feeling and that are really worthwhile.

Unfortunately, I am somewhat less than enthusiastic about speaking to the matter before the House today. This afternoon, the debate is on the motion of the Minister of Finance for third reading and passage of Bill C-14. And what is Bill C-14 about? Is it something we can applaud? Is this a bill that will give us reason to rejoice and look forward to a happy and prosperous future for all Canadians and Quebecers?

This bill is an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1994. The operative word is borrowing, and borrowing means deficit and deficit means debt. We are

now talking about getting into debt. The subject is the debts of this country and its citizens. Are these small debts? Are these debts we can pay back quickly? Were these debts incurred for capital spending on infrastructures and services that will be useful to this generation and future generations as well? Not exactly.

What we are talking about is the cost of financing a deficit of $40 billion. That is a lot of money, and not many people can appreciate what this amount represents. Put in simple terms, let us say this boils down to $100 million per day. If we consider the bridge for Prince Edward Island, which raised quite a few questions because people felt that $900 million was too much, this bridge would be paid for in nine days, which means that we could afford forty of these bridges, and I mean forty per year.

I suppose that could be called "looking on the bright side", but seriously, we should try and understand why we have to finance a debt of this magnitude. As the previous speaker pointed out, we are not paying the interest on our debt. We borrowed this money more than a decade ago. We borrowed, and since then, we have not paid back the capital and we have not paid back the interest incurred. We have not paid the cost of servicing the debt. Consequently, day after day, month after month, and year after year, the interest we have not paid off is being added to the debt. In fact, and most people who know something about compound interest will realize this immediately, we have a debt that is growing as a result of compound interest.

Are we unable to pay because we do not pay enough taxes or because we spend too much? I suggest we look at the figures and try to draw certain conclusions later on.

To begin with, the citizens of Quebec and Canada pay out roughly $120 billion each year in various kinds of taxes. This is a substantial amount of money and all of us can understand what it represents, since it either comes out of our wages or we pay it in the form of a goods and services tax.

What does the government do with these $120 billion? Well, it spends it on various programs which result in services to the public or in more or less durable goods. All of which means that we spend what we pay out.

The $40 billion deficit did not come about because we purchased services or goods without being able to pay for them. Basically, the $40 billion represents the interest on the debt which we are unable to pay.

And the debt is getting bigger and bigger. It now stands at $500 billion! It may even be higher than that since, as the member before me mentioned, it is growing at the rate of $85,000 per minute. In the few minutes that I have been speaking, the debt has increased by an amount which would allow several people to live quite comfortably for some time.

Imagine, $500 billion! Few people can appreciate what this amount represents. As you know, I am a teacher by profession and a good instructor tries to find ways to illustrate the subject matter he is teaching. Therefore, I have tried to come up with an example which would give Quebecers and Canadians an idea of what $500 billion represents.

So, here goes. The TransCanada Highway is a ribbon of asphalt about 7,000 kilometres long stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Let us assume that the TransCanada Highway has four lanes: two heading from east to west, and two heading from west to East. This is a great deal of pavement, four lanes in all. Now, let me see if I have a coin in my pocket. It is unlikely though because it must have been eaten up by taxes. What if we were to pave this highway with one dollar coins, pave it from shoulder to shoulder, all four lanes, with loonies. Would we be able to get from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick or maybe even Quebec? How about Ontario, Saskatchewan or Manitoba? What about Alberta? Would we make it through the Rockies? Would we get to British Columbia? We are talking about 7,000 kilometres of four-lane highway, and loonies are, after all, a relatively small coin and we only have 500 billion of them.

I will give the House a few moments to think about this and then I will give you the answer. Not only would we be able to pave the highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we could go all the way back to the Atlantic and travel an additional 700 kilometres in the opposite direction. That is what $500 billion represents. Where are we going to get the money to reimburse a debt of this magnitude?

That is obviously a major problem. I have heard on the radio, seen on television, read in papers-claims to that effect were even made in this House-that Quebec's sovereignty poses a serious threat to Canada. I will say this. The real threat to Canada, let us not forget it, is this absolutely enormous debt, this crushing debt, which is going to ruin us all if we do not make the right moves.

Quebec's accession to sovereignty, I might add, would probably be a good time to change the current rules of the game and provide a golden opportunity to all parties to review these rules and finally deal with the public finance problem. Our public finances have obviously not been managed properly for decades and, as a result, an extremely heavy burden will be passed on to future generations.

They will have a heavy burden to bear. We already do. What is the per capita share of this burden? How much does each and every one of us owe on the public debt? Some say $16,000,

others $16,500. It all depends of course on the time of day, seeing that the debt grows by the minute.

For the sake of argument, let us say for the time being that each and every one of us, all 30 million of us in Quebec and across Canada, owes $16,384.22, but this figure grows as we speak.

We also know that, given the current interest rates, the debt doubles every six or seven years. So, unless we act now, unless we start paying off the interest on the debt if not the capital, six or seven years from now, the public debt will have doubled and each of us will owe anywhere from $32,000 to $33,000 on it.

If an individual goes to his or her bank or credit union and says to the manager: "Look, I have debts, about $16,000 worth of debts, and I would like to consolidate all that", the bank manager will frown, of course, but he or she will more than likely answer: "Let us sit down together and see what we could do about your lifestyle. Let us try and work something out".

But six or seven years from now, if you go to your bank manager with a debt of approximately $32,000, I have a feeling that his or her immediate reaction will be: "File for bankruptcy". Sometimes I wonder if we should not file for bankruptcy and just start over under a new name. I can see certain members have understood what I am getting at.

During the holiday season I volunteered to work with the Red Nose organization in my riding. English-Canadian communities probably have similar organizations where, during the holiday season, volunteers offer rides to people who have had a little too much to drink. These people make it home safely without having to drive their cars. It has become an institution in Quebec and in many other countries. The Red Nose organization allows people aware of the dangers associated with drinking and driving to act responsibly.

That being said, I offered to drive people asking for a ride home, and one of my constituents said during the ride, "Why not simply raise taxes to pay off the deficit so that we can get rid of it quickly?" I asked her by how much she thought her taxes would go up and she said, "By a small amount of money". When she understood that we were talking of $16,000 for the interest alone, she realized we had a real problem on our hands.

We are indeed in a dilemma. You see, if we increase income or consumption taxes, everyone will have less available income and, as a result, less money to spend on goods and services.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have only three minutes left so I will be quick. If we raise taxes, consumers will have less money in their pockets to buy things with; if they consume less, businesses will eventually sell less; if businesses sell less, they will lay off workers. And we will just have increased the deficit. However, if we cut spending, again people will be laid off. These people will stop contributing to tax revenues, and again we are in trouble.

We must redirect federal expenditures wisely, cut where it will hurt the least, and ensure that displaced workers can find new jobs. We have our work cut out for us; it will not happen as if by magic.

In conclusion, I must quote the Minister of Finance not because I like his comments, but because they scare me. The Minister of Finance said, "We clearly showed, in the first phase of our budget, that we would bring the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP within three years. It will be the first time-he used the future-in 15 or 20 years that this goal has been achieved". I hope so, but he should have said-it would have been more accurate in my opinion-"it would be the first time". He could also have stated that it was not, unfortunately, the first time such promises were made to Canadian and Quebec voters. Although I sincerely hope that this budget will fulfil the promises made to us, I am afraid that it is just another illusion.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am both surprised and disappointed to see that the Liberal Party did not have the courtesy to respond with questions and comments and failed to appreciate the speech by the hon. member of the Reform Party.

Although I do not have the figures to which he referred, I was interested in what he said about calculating income tax on family income as opposed to individual income.

I would appreciate more information on the subject, and I would ask the hon. member to expand on a topic that should be of interest to the members of the party in power.