Jean H. Leroux

[Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as part of the celebrations marking la Semaine de la Francophonie, author and songwriter Luc Plamondon was the 1996 winner of the Mérite du français dans la culture.

Over the past 25 years, Luc Plamondon has written more than 500 songs as well as musicals like Starmania, La légende de Jimmy, and Sand et les romantiques. On March 30, live from the Quebec National Assembly, Luc Plamondon will give a dictation he will have written himself as part of the third Dictée des Amériques, in which about 100 finalists will be competing.

I would also like to congratulate other winners: Métallurgie Noranda, for their workplace francization campaign; the Fédération des secrétaires professionnelles du Québec, for the use of French in the workplace; Paul-Sauvé school, in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Laval, for Pousse-Mine , its newspaper; as wells as many

radio and television shows such as "Le 6 sur 6" on CKOI, "Vidéo Rock Détente" on the Unimédia network-

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

I did read the budget, as he suggests. Some facts are undeniable. Regardless of what the secretary of state may say, the debt has gone up $112 billion, and that must be pointed out. That upward trend seems endless. The federal government offloaded its deficit onto the provinces. It took $5 billion from the UI fund. Do you think this is how we will solve the problem in a lasting way and create jobs in Canada? Absolutely not.

Of course, the secretary of state will not agree with the suggestion I made toward the end of my comments, because he is satisfied with small traditional methods that do not work. However, if we managed to lower the rate of taxation, more money would circulate; people would spend and invest more. In the end, there would be a lot more money for the government.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state tried to be insulting. He tried to promote his doctored budget. He did not pay any attention to my comments.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my remarks today is to offer some few clarifications concerning the 1996 federal budget tabled on March 6 by the Minister of Finance.

We must admit that, overall, this year's budget was perceived in a very positive light by the people of Quebec and of Canada. Their general impression of it was there there will be no new direct tax increases for individuals this year.

This is a budget that did not make any serious waves, and left everyone feeling that they had been let off the hook, but appearances are deceiving. The Minister of Finance pulled it off very well, we must admit. He pulled off a really good one this time.

This year, the deficit will be a mere $32.7 billion, which shocked few people. According to most of the experts, the Minister of Finance has presented a good budget, because the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada were expecting the worst.

I would like to point out, too, that the Minister of Finance has managed to have a lesser deficit than his predecessors, which seems to be a great accomplishment. It was managed in two main ways. First, by passing the buck. The buck was passed on to the provinces by reducing transfer payments for education, health and social programs by $7 billion over two years, which means $1.2 billion in additional cuts for Quebec alone, or possibly more. Second, by dipping his hand into the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, to the tune of over $5 million.

In concrete terms, this means no tax reform, no public debate on social programs, no intention to review the question of tax havens for those who are not paying taxes.

Furthermore, this budget provides absolutely no measures to revive the labour market. Nothing new to create jobs. Already they have run out of ideas; the Liberal government is already worn out.

The government continues to hold out for a long-overdue economic recovery to carry it along. Why are the Liberals in Ottawa not delivering the promised jobs? Page 89 of the Budget Plan tabled in the House of Commons provides, and I quote: "-the average level of output in 1996 is forecast to be 1.9 per cent higher than in 1995-" This means that the federal government expects a moderate growth of 2.5 per cent for 1996. Reality, however, is quite different from the budget plan the government drew up for itself in order to create the jobs that never materialized in 1995, but were the watchword of the red book of the 1993 election. Unfortunately, in 1995, growth was no more than 0.6 per cent. However, in the 1995 budget, the government forecast a significantly higher level of growth, a level of real growth of 3.75 per cent, which is six times less than forecast. What a minister.

The fact of the matter is that, since the Liberals came to power at the end of 1993, the economy has not stopped collapsing, and the deficit has not stopped growing exponentially, despite appearances of sound management of public funds and reforms that have not stopped expanding the gap between rich and poor. It is a very sad state of affairs.

The cost of the public debt of the federal government is the prime component of federal spending, representing 29 per cent of all expenditures in 1995-96. In 1996-97, debt charges will represent over 30 per cent of the federal budget. I should also point out that 36 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue collected in 1995-96 currently goes to paying interest on the federal debt. It is written in black and white on page 121 of the Budget Plan. At this rate, less than two years from now, debt charges will be the federal government's single largest item of expenditure.

In 1993-94, the first year the Liberals were in power in Ottawa, the deficit was $42 billion. The second year, it was $37.5 billion. And the third year, $32.7 billion. After three years of Liberal

government, we have accumulated $112.2 billion in debt. That is a large sum of money. What the government is doing is playing the financiers' game. Lenders are getting rich at our expense.

Just to service the debt in 1993-94, Canada has paid its creditors $38 billion. In 1994-95, creditors were paid $42 billion and, in 1995-96, we paid $47 billion to service the debt. Since the last election, in 1993, the government in Ottawa has added $112.2 billion to the deficit; as a result, the people of Quebec and Canada have paid more than $127 billion to our happy creditors. And they would have us believe that the deficit is being reduced. On the contrary.

Debt charges will be increasing faster, even if the annual government deficit is getting lower. Interests are making the deficit increase at an alarming rate. The total federal debt for the past fiscal year was $578.4 billion. This means that, next year, debt charges should be about $47.8 billion, or an $800 million increase over last year, in spite of cutbacks.

For 1997-98, according to government forecast, debt charges should be $49 billion, or a $1.2 billion increase in just one year.

At this rate, the federal government's debt will climb to $603 billion by this time next year. This is the unfortunate reality of Canada's public finances. Where does all this money go? Who benefits? Who pays the bill at the end of the day? It is taxpayers like you and me, more specifically the middle class. These people are getting sick and tired of being squeezed like lemons. Taxpayers are fed up with random reforms that do nothing to address the problem so that, at the end of the day, it is still the same people, and especially the middle class, who get stuck with the bill.

This year, individual Canadians will pay a total of $60.5 billion in income tax. Workers and employers will contribute $18.5 billion to the UI fund. Taxpayers will shell out over $17.2 billion for the GST. In 1995-96, taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will pay a total in excess of $130.6 billion into the federal government's coffers.

Does the government realize what it is asking taxpayers, and more specifically the poorest in our society?

Here are some realistic suggestions to help the government reduce its deficit and thus restore confidence. First of all, this year, the Governor General of Canada will cost taxpayers over $9.8 million and the Senate, $40.7 million. How much longer can we afford such luxury?

Do we still need a budget of more than $10.5 billion for national defence? There is still $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes this year. What is the federal government doing to collect these unpaid taxes? How long must we wait for the federal government to close the numerous tax loopholes, including family trusts that shelter billions of dollars.

In conclusion, why should the federal government not cut Canadians' tax rate? Is this an unrealistic or silly idea? Not at all. Reducing the tax rate would help stimulate the economy by increasing consumption, thus creating jobs while raising government revenue.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the public hearings of the parliamentary committee that will review the UI reform project, renamed Bill C-12, are underway.

The federal government has not contributed one penny to the UI fund since 1990 and should give the money of that program back to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet the needs of their population.

Why would Ottawa not let provinces that are interested manage the program?

Workers and employers pay over $18 billion annually for insurance, in case of a period of unemployment. In the current austerity context, it is unacceptable for the federal government to directly take money from that fund to make its books look good, while systematically dismantling the program.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to that.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we are looking at a case submitted to the House through a motion of the Reform Party. We are entitled to ask what is going on in this House.

We are into our second day of debate on this issue and, meanwhile, important things are going on in Canada that should be dealt with, and the deficit continues to grow. In fact, during these two days, the deficit will have grown by $280 million. I think that we in this House would have many other things to consider rather than discuss a document that I would characterize as a job offer to Quebecers who now serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The motion brought forward by the Reform Party talks about francophone members of the armed forces. However, it is clear in the document that it is addressed to Quebecers. Last Monday night, in Montreal, the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, met with representatives of the anglophone community and opened his arms to them. This document is in the same spirit. It is addressed to Quebecers, all Quebecers who are interested.

I will take the document and review it with you because there are important things in it that have to be looked at.

The document was translated in Canada's both official languages and members will remember that it was released on October 26 of last year, that is about four months ago. It has already been four months since the document was released, and thank God Canada is not governed by the Reformers because it took them four months to react on a document that, to me, is nothing more than a job offer.

I would like to look at certain parts of the document with you and make some comments. On page 2, it says:

Mr. Jacob believes that Quebec needs a defence force, especially to watch over and intervene on its territory-

This refers to the territory of Quebec which, on October 26, was a would-be country. For those who do not remember, the referendum was held on October 30. The member said in his document that we would have to develop certain policies. There is nothing in it that says that members of the armed forces should vote yes in the referendum. In his document, the member never incited Quebecers who serve in the armed forces to anything. The document was released in Quebec. Nowhere in it does the member ask members of the armed forces to vote yes in the referendum.

You know, we can imagine that people were talking about politics on the military bases around October 25 and 26, because soldiers do have the vote. They have the right to vote and they have the right to be informed about what is going on. There was a referendum going on. I think that the Reform Party does not know what a referendum is and did not know what the last one meant for the future.

Had the referendum been won, Quebec would be on its way to becoming a sovereign country. During the referendum campaign, we proposed a partnership with the rest of Canada and, of course, it was clearly stated that after one year of discussions with the rest of

Canada, Quebec would have been entitled to declare itself a sovereign country.

What would have done Canada with its extra soldiers? I sit on the national defence committee and right now, we are studying ways to downsize. We are reducing the number of soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Quebec contributes about 24 per cent of the national defence budget. However, we do not get that share in defence spending, we receive a lot less. At that time, I think it was normal for the Bloc Quebecois' critic-the hon. member for Charlesbourg was and still is the Bloc's critic-to set out the facts and to inform Quebecers who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces of what would happen if, and only if, the yes side were to win. He did not say in his communiqué that the yes side was going to win, he did not ask them to vote yes, he only told them that should the yes side win, Quebec would create its own army and that it would only be normal for trained soldiers who wanted to to join the Quebec army.

If some soldiers want to stay in the Canadian forces after a yes win, they can do so. I can hardly believe that we are discussing this motion today. When interviewed on the subject, the Reform Party defence critic at the time, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in British Columbia, said:

"But Reform MP Jack Frazer said: Jacob's press release has been misinterpreted. I don't think this can be considered inciting mutiny', said Frazer.We have to accept that in the Canadian forces right now are some people who were in favour of separation. From a Canadian point of view they'd have to relinquish their commitment to us and swear allegiance to Quebec. Had there been a separation this would have happened"'.

The member who said that was in the air force for several years. He is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He said that on November 4, in other words after the referendum and after this statement, and I think that the member was quite right to say what he said.

You see, the Reformers perhaps think that when Quebecers hold a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty, it is just so we can try to negotiate a little bit more for ourselves.

But that is no longer it at all. Take my own case and that of most of my colleagues. We were born in Canada, I was a Canadian and still am, I was Canadian to the core, I grew up in this country. Even at a concert, as one of the Petits Chanteurs de Granby, I sang O Canada. That was meaningful for me at the time. Now I am older and wiser.

In the first referendum held in Quebec I voted yes. At the time I wanted to give my premier, René Lévesque, negotiating power. At the time, I believed that it was perhaps still possible for Quebec to survive as a people, as an entity, within this country. I continued to reflect on the question. I came to the realization, and I still believe, that this is no longer possible.

There are two countries within this country. That is what must be understood. When he made his statement, the member for Charlesbourg was perfectly within his rights. We were in a referendum period. It was important at that time for us to inform people, to explain things.

If I may be permitted, I have here a document that summarizes the various positions, militarily speaking, of a sovereign Quebec. You will understand that these documents were prepared before the referendum. It is normal, in preparing for an important event, to have documents.

One part of this document, which is a document drafted by the Bloc Quebecois, says: "Without necessarily creating large armed forces, Quebec could nevertheless adopt a coherent defence policy suited to its needs".

I am a member of the Canadian national defence committee. It is the same thing there. We try to have a defence policy suited to our needs and aspirations. If one takes a closer look, the vote of our young soldiers on and around bases, because those in Quebec did vote in the last referendum, is comparable to the vote in other areas. Actually, there are people in the armed forces who are inclined to vote yes to a referendum. Not all of them are sovereignists, but there are some among them. I would say there are as many there as in other groups in society.

This does not mean they are traitors, far from it. They have sworn an oath and they stand by it as we speak. They carry out the duties assigned to them, and they do it well.

They do their job well and very often they have to fight to preserve their language and their culture. Francophones who are in the Canadian Forces have to fight on a daily basis to speak their language.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Meritt, the author of this motion, seemed to believe and appeared to say that there is total and perfect bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have here a quote from this member. In 1994, there was a reform, and suggestions were made to the government. A joint committee of the House and Senate travelled all around Canada to see what had to be done and then made recommendations to the government.

Now, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was very frustrated during his visit to Quebec. I have a document here saying "French only briefing angers MP", a press clipping of the time, dated May 8, 1994. The hon. member for Okanagan was frustrated because the briefing at a Quebec base was in French. This frustrated the poor man since he does not understand French--

there was interpretation into English-he felt frustrated. So the hon. member says:

"The English speaking committee members were provided with translators who translated while the briefing was going on, but for Hart that was small consolation. You can bet that if the situation were reversed there would have been screams of outrage".

I toured the country and, as you know, in several places we accepted briefings by members of the Armed Forces who did not speak French, yet that did not frustrate us in the least. On the contrary, it was no surprise at all.

I do not mean to say that efforts are not being made, for they are, but one needs to be consistent when making statements in this House. At that time, the hon. member was surprised to hear French being used in the Armed Forces, and surprised that it was used to address guests on a francophone base in Quebec. That surprised him. Probably he was not familiar with the Official Languages Act at that time, since he was a new member.

I think it is important to tell it like it is. Quebec, if it becomes sovereign, has set itself some objectives, which I shall read because they are so close to what we are hearing here: "To ensure that Quebec's commitment to the installation of a lasting peace and the recognition of international law as the basis of relationships between the nations will be translated into concrete actions subscribed to by all the people of Quebec".

It was also stated that "a sovereign Quebec will make concrete commitments in this regard, and these will be given priority once the post-independence transition period is over-and will oppose any use of force as a solution to disputes between nations"-I believe that is to be expected, here in Canada-"will seek active membership in the United Nations Organization; will seek to become an active member of the Organization of American States, the OAS, and work with it in building; will seek to be part of the UN peacekeeping forces"-according to our means, Madam Speaker-"and to maintain its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, NORAD". And so on.

There is therefore absolutely no doubt that the document which is the subject of the Reform Party's motion was what I would call a job offer. Its aim was to provide some security to people in the Canadian armed forces-young Quebecers who are in the Canadian forces-and let them know that, if Quebec became sovereign, they would have a place in the forces, a career in the Quebec armed forces.

This is why I ask you to consider this document for what it is, a job offer and an update.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to our honourable colleague, who gave us an interesting and very different viewpoint. I think, in the present matter, we have to ask ourselves what rights members have. A member should be entitled to speak and to act. Time is also a consideration.

I think what is happening is that the rest of Canada did not understand what was going on in Quebec at the time: the members of the Bloc Quebecois elected to this House are getting ready for the big day. The big day is the day Quebec becomes sovereign, fully sovereign. We are getting ready. We are involved in committees of the House of Commons of Canada. We are learning about defence, a federal jurisdiction at the moment. We are learning.

I remember, when I was on the joint committee on national defence, going to Edmonton when we were touring Canada to hear witnesses. I asked three eminent professors, experts in the field of defence, Canadian anglophones: "Do you think a sovereign Quebec should have its own army?" Two of the three agreed that Quebec should have its own army. The other said it depended. According to him, there could be agreements between Canada and Quebec and perhaps there could be a shared army.

I would like to ask my eminent colleague whether he thought that the member for Charlesbourg said things in his communiqué that were contrary to what one ought to expect?

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct to record. All communiqués released by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the records are always in both official languages. So this communiqué was written in both French and English. That is my first comment.

Second, I wish to set the record straight before putting a question to the hon. member. The communiqué in question was released on October 26, a few days before the referendum. The polls were then saying that the yes side would win, which aroused some fears in certain sectors, including perhaps people working for the Canadian Forces. There were some fears.

As you can imagine, one hears all sorts of things on military bases. "If you vote yes, you will lose your job" may have been said here and there on some military bases. The defence critic, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, therefore released a communiqué designed to reassure people. Does the hon. member believe that, in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, Canada would have been able to afford to keep all those soldiers? That is my question to him.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in its minority report on the defence committee, the Bloc Quebecois made suggestions to improve NORAD's performance, if I may use the term.

We feel that regional defence structures require a new framework for our continental defence agreements. As you know, NORAD is a military organization. The decisions are made by members of the military. I think that, in a changing world, it would be interesting to also have a civilian NORAD organization that could participate in the decision making process.

As I said earlier in the other language, the beautiful language of Shakespeare, I think that NORAD should be the ultimate organization for the Americas. In order to achieve this goal, we will have to develop our relations.

Later, one of my colleagues will talk about the economic and trade implications, etc. He could elaborate on this. The Bloc Quebecois also feels that the Canadian government should do an in-depth analysis of the consequences of all its defence agreements with the U.S.

As you know, there are over 800 defence agreements in effect between Canada and the U.S. There are also 149 working committees and subcommittees. I think what matters is to have a consistent, affordable defence policy, which is what Canadians and Quebecers expect from us.

We are currently enjoying a climate of relative peace and I think we must never forget that every dollar we spend comes from the pockets of Canadians and Quebecers. We must always think of why we spend this money: to ensure the best possible protection and security for our taxpayers.

We support the NORAD agreement because it is not costing us a lot of money. We receive a great deal in return for paying about 10 per cent of the costs. I think that $300 million is a reasonable amount to pay to enjoy safer air space. I think it is quite reasonable.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. If Quebec were to become a sovereign state it would be most interested in being part of NORAD because NORAD is part of North America and we are part of North America.

The world is changing tremendously. I hope the member agrees that the Americans are one part of the world we must organize today. It could be the new mission of NORAD to organize this part of the world.

When there is a conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina some people say that Europeans should take care of it, should deal with it. If there is ever to be regional conflicts in the Americas of which Quebec is part, the Americans should be asked to send blue berets to that part of the world to take care of them in a very specific way.

I said in my speech that we no longer have the money to go around the world on these missions. I believe it would be wise for Canadians, Quebecers, Americans, and perhaps Mexicans and others, to have a regional organization of the Americas in which we could take care of them.

Like I said, it seems important to me to review the role of NORAD. This agreement will be renewed in 1996, but it will have to be reviewed again later on. I think now is the time to start thinking about that and about the kind of arrangement we could have. The organization of NORAD is important. It has changed over the years, and I think its future role could be to defend the Americas. That is the point I am trying to make.