Pierre De Savoye

[Income Tax Act, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have examined Bill C-9. I know there are people who are watching us on television. This is Bill C-9.

There are all kinds of interesting things in this bill and one may think that, with its proposals, the government wants to increase business competitiveness and enable people to improve their situation. For example, it talks about reducing the unemployment insurance premiums to promote the creation of extra jobs. It is very interesting to see how the government is concerned with businesses.

However, how are businesses going to learn that these new provisions will take effect? The day after this bill is proclaimed, will their accountant rush to the phone and tell them: "Here, in your case, you really have a wonderful opportunity"? I doubt it and what saddens me is to see such nice intentions-the extension of the small business financing program, venture capital corporations for workers, the extension of the home buyers's plan-that will not necessarily be communicated with the

appropriate timing and in a usable way to businesses and individuals who could otherwise benefit from them.

I would like my colleague from the Bloc to share his thoughts with me on this.

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest the remarks of our colleague of the Reform Party. It is obvious that Quebecers and Canadians as a whole have to deal with a level of taxation which is definitely very hard to support for the population, those who have a job and even those who do not have a job, given all the consumption taxes.

I remember preparing my first income tax returns years and years ago. It was a plain sheet printed on both sides and very easy to fill out. You would arrive in no time at a result that was not too frightening. But ever since, with all those schedules you have to deal with in order to be allowed various deductions, the whole process has become very complicated. There are so many

calculations to be done and, in the end, the amount you have to pay is often horrifying. Which goes to show that more is not always better.

There is a saying in English: No taxation without representation.

With that level of taxation, people have been represented to death. I think they gave their verdict about that in the last election.

The fact is that the government is still facing a deficit and has been for many years. It tried several solutions, but also systematically raised taxes. We could very easily draw the curve of tax raises and realize that as taxes were increased, the deficit went up. So, if there was a new tax hike coming, we could almost predict by how much the deficit would go up even further.

Perhaps we should find another way of using tax solutions to avoid increasing the deficit. You see, Madam Speaker, every time someone is paying taxes, they have less money left in their wallet. And if there is less money in their wallet, they are less able to buy things. However, some say that in order to have a recovery, the consumer must buy things. I hope the government will not take any more money from consumers, because they will be even less able to buy things.

Of course, we can also talk about expanding the tax base. And if we tax new fields, we will be in a situation where goods and services will become more expensive because, ultimately, businesses or individuals who will be taxed will try to compensate by raising prices. And we will perpetuate the situation that we have experienced for many years, here in Canada and in Quebec, that is an inflation one of the main components of which was our short-sighted vision on taxation. If the government tried to make money now by raising taxes, it would very quickly bring Quebec and Canada back into a situation where they would have an even greater deficit.

I would like the hon. member to respond and would be curious to hear his comments.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciated the presentation by the hon. member of the government party. I think he painted an interesting picture of the crisis in which the previous government had plunged the country for nine years, I would, however, like to have his reaction to or views on some of my concerns which he touched on.

Earlier on, we had the opportunity to discuss transfer payments. At that time, I expressed a number of reservations and received some answers.

Now we are looking at the issue of established programs financing. Regarding this matter, we know that if the trend continues, as the hon. member mentioned, then in a few years time, Quebec will no longer be receiving any funding at all. Eventually, a number of provinces would see their share also reduced to zero.

In 1977 the federal government made a commitment to the provinces in the area of established programs financing. At the time the commitment was based on the formula that the hon. member mentioned a while ago. On the strength of this commitment, each province set up its own health care and post-secondary education programs.

Over the past ten years or so, the government has gradually reneged on its commitments. At the same time the taxpayers in each province must continue to pay their full share of taxes. The money that the taxpayer was giving to Ottawa was not being reinvested in his or her province, as the federal government and the provinces had agreed it would be in the late 1970s.

Could we not call this a misappropriation of funds? I will ask the hon. member to comment on this point in a few minutes. The fact remains that under the present circumstances, this approach would seem to be the safer bet. I would like to repeat what the hon. member said.

We want to put a certainty into the EPFs. We do not have that at this stage and have not had it for the past 10 years.

The best guarantee we could have that the provinces are receiving their fair share is if the taxpayers in each provinces remit directly to the province, and Quebecers to Quebec, the money which is now sent directly to Ottawa and which is not fully reinvested, and less and less in each provincial health care system.

I will conclude with a question for the hon. member. Does he not think that each province should have exclusive jurisdiction over health care?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's presentation, but I am particularly puzzled by some points in it. First, he says that if transfer payments had not been so high, people would have emigrated because of the lower payments. Perhaps they would have tried something else and found new resources where they were to ensure their economic vitality.

Also, I would point out that if Quebec receives transfer and equalization payments, the total it receives from Ottawa is the same as what it sends to Ottawa, about $28 billion. Unfortunately the money comes back in the form of transfer and equalization payments, when it could come back as normal federal spending, such as Ontario receives.

Thus Quebec wants to break free from this system. Many times we proposed the way to do it. Perhaps that could satisfy our member of the Reform Party. Does he have an opinion on that?

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Minister of Health recognizes that the Canadian Hemophilia Society is the organization most directly concerned by this issue and that, consequently, the minister will immediately undertake to give it the necessary support so that it can provide the best possible input at the hearings?

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following the tainted blood scandal implicating the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society wants all the circumstances surrounding the contamination of several hemophiliacs with the AIDS virus to be fully explained.

Will the Minister of Health tell us why she is trying to gag the Canadian Hemophilia Society by limiting the financial assistance needed by this organization to testify at the hearings on the issue of tainted blood?

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for Algoma and I join with him in praising the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra whose speeches are indeed impeccably thought-out and delivered.

What I appreciated the most about the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma was their great sincerity as well as the fact that they touched upon a great many of the real issues confronting us. However, there is a point on which I disagree and that is the three-step consultations that his party is proposing.

I could introduce the hon. member for Algoma to a fair number of residents of my riding who do not need lengthy consultations to tell you what the real issues confronting us are. As we speak, there are 25,000 people waiting for training in Quebec, and I would imagine that the situation is the same elsewhere in Canada. As we know, if you do not have adequate training, you cannot find a job, so you are unemployed and then you get health problems and so on. You are locked into this vicious circle.

I would like the hon. member for Algoma to tell my constituents, who are probably watching us at this time of day, and to those in Bloc Quebecois ridings throughout the province, in what way delaying these three-step consultations further will help solve the urgent problems facing these 25,000 young people waiting to be enroled in classes, which the SQDM would be prepared to arrange immediately but is unable to due to this government's inaction.

I hope that my colleague from Algoma will be convincing because I, for one, find this situation extremely difficult.

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has replied to the question I put to his predecessor who, by the way, left his parents to get married. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said:

"The federal government is preventing the provinces from putting health care under control by threatening to cut transfer payments". And he is right.

I like what the hon. member said because it is exactly what we feel in Quebec. This means that, both in the West and in the East, the federal government threatens the very principles of universality and accessibility. And that is a serious problem. A few moments ago the question was asked as to whether the provinces were in a better position to maintain these principles. Let us take a good look at the situation: in the last ten years or so, the federal government has been systematically cutting transfer payments and has now become the biggest threat to universality and accessibility.

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest. He emphasized the family as a basic core for the way people live and come together in Quebec and Canada. He is quite right, the family is a fundamental value. He also highlighted the fact that governments, our government, are jeopardizing this family unit. He

even used an expression, "The death certificate of the family has been written prematurely".

There is another kind of family in this country, namely the provinces. Indeed, does Ottawa's passion for centralization not endanger not only the family unit but also the provinces' ability to meet their responsibilities for their own people? Of course, I am talking about Quebec, but not just Quebec-all the other provinces. What is his experience? What is the hon. member's experience in his community?

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is very kind of you. In a way I am glad you interrupted me, because the hon. member has said things I did not hear in the speech of the previous speaker who has now left.

The hon. member spoke about training. He was proposing that manpower be upgraded to a level which would allow it to fill the more technical jobs now offered. In that sense, I quite agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Lincoln.

This being said, I am sure that the hon. member will agree that, in Canada, industries and companies differ according to the local natural resources or the contacts with our neighbour to the south of the 47th parallel. Therefore, the needs are different.

Is it possible to direct an operation of such complexity and such diversity from Ottawa? I do not think so, but I would like the opinion of the hon. member on that.

I would like to mention a solution that works in Quebec, but would probably work even better if the federal government was willing to follow up on it. Perhaps he heard about the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. This organization would be more than willing to undertake precisely what he mentioned. In my opinion, it is high time that his colleagues in the Liberal caucus take into consideration his brilliant ideas, especially the previous speakers. I wish he could propose a regionalization of actions with the help, for example, of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. I would like to hear the comments of the hon. member for Lincoln on that.