Jean H. Leroux

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my Bloc colleague, the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.

The Minister of Finance tabled his budget on Monday, February 27. I rise today in this House to state my position, my concerns and my disappointment in reading this budget. I will also share with you my personal analysis of the negative impact this budget will have on the participation rate of Quebecers in the Department of National Defence. While this budget is well received by the business community in general, and foreign investors in particular, the fact remains that once again low and middle income taxpayers are the hardest hit.

The government wants us to believe that Canadians from every walk of life, including the wealthiest, are affected by its budget cuts, but there is a world of difference between the finance minister's claims and actual fact. The fact of the matter is that the wealthy have until 1999 to convert their family trusts, to shield them from the minister's cuts and not pay any tax on their accumulated and future wealth. Also, the Liberal budget completely ignores the recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada in his last report which made reference to $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes. The federal government does not propose anything to recover that money.

How can the government pass up so much money without immediately taking the necessary measures? Is $6.6 billion not enough money to spur it to take concrete and effective action?

Let me give you another example which illustrates the inconsistency of the budget and fiscal strategy announced at the end of February by the minister, and which shows that the minister's goal of tax fairness is merely an illusion. This example is also taken from the Auditor General's report: In Revenue Canada's opinion, 470 accounts of over $100,000 each, representing a total of $350 million, were at the collection letter stage, which means that no collection officer was involved, except in terms of reviewing the risk of loss.

By not taking action in this specific case, the Liberal government is sending the message that it is easier to get the money from low and middle income taxpayers, than from corporations or wealthy individuals who do not pay their fair share. This system is supposed to be fair, but who profits from it?

In my opinion, the 1995-1996 budget plan includes other examples of unfairness. Take a look at the summary of the Main Estimates, by department and agencies. Two thirds of the departments and agencies will see their budget reduced, while the other third will be getting more money.

Who will get an increase in 1995-96? The Senate, with a total budget of more than $42 million; the Governor General, with a budget of over $10 million; the Department of Indian Affairs, with an increase of $327 million; Treasury Board, an increase of $32 million; Finance, an increase of more than $9 billion, $9 billion to service the debt; the Privy Council, which is responsible for defending the "no" side in the Quebec referendum, will have an increase of nearly $5 million; and the list goes on.

And even worse, the federal government's total estimates will increase by more than $3.7 billion, which will bring total spending up to $164.8 billion. Incredible. With a deficit of $37.4 billion for 1994-95 and a projected deficit of more than $32.7 billion for 1995-96, we are sinking deeper and deeper into the hole.

By the end of the current fiscal year, the net federal debt will be $578.8 billion. Incredible. The federal government's present financial situation is a reflection of what the future has in store. Furthermore, the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance contains no prospects for jobs in the short and medium term. Where are the jobs we were promised in the Liberal red book? Ask the federal public servants who believed those promises.

The steps taken by the federal government to put this budget together fall far short of the expectations of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. These measures are an outright breach of our social contract.

Now for a few words about the Department of National Defence. The budget announced cuts totalling $1.6 billion over three years. The Bloc Quebecois, in the minority report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy, insisted

on additional cuts of 15 per cent, which would put the National Defence budget at $10 billion as of the first year.

I question the federal government's strategy, since additional cuts could have been made in certain budget items in the Department of National Defence, including capital expenditures, materiel and new equipment purchasing policy, the armed forces organization and, finally, program management.

For the same three year period, the Bloc Quebecois proposed cuts of $4.8 billion-three times the government's figure. Unfortunately, the federal government preferred to slash transfer payments to the provinces and cut the federal public service this year.

In this regard, I would like to recall the commitment the Liberal Party of Canada made in its famous red book, which it did not keep. It said that, once in power, it would set up a defence conversion program that would have attractive spinoffs for private enterprise. This was their promise.

What did the budget say about defence industry conversion? Not one word-nothing. For the past 15 years, the federal government and the Department of National Defence have failed in their role of equitable allocators of military expenditures for Quebec.

In a study for the École nationale d'administration publique, made public in February, the author revealed a shortfall of $650 million a year for Quebec.

The situation is very clear. Unfair treatment in the allocation of military expenditures has had disastrous consequences for a number of areas of economic activity in Quebec. Although Quebec contributes 25.4 per cent of the budget for national defence, it gets back a meagre 17 per cent in military spending. It has been the same old story for the last 15 years. This very unfavourable distribution continues to cost Quebec jobs and investment dollars.

Quebec is even worse off when it comes to the funds that the Department of National Defence allocates for research and development.

In 1990-91, Quebec received only 12.45 per cent of this spending-12.45 compared with the 73 per cent that went to Ontario. The situation has not changed since then. In addition, francophones have great difficulty rising through the ranks of the Canadian armed forces. While francophones occupy between 22 and 29 per cent of the lower-ranking positions, they occupy only 10 to 13 per cent of the higher ranks, according to the latest statistics. It is not difficult for francophones to enlist in the forces, but it is very difficult for them to become generals. It always has been and still is.

In 1994, the Minister of National Defence took away the country's only French-language military college, the military college in Saint-Jean. What a decision! Once again, the federal Minister of Finance is asking Quebec to do its share in his budget. The government is closing the military base at Saint-Hubert. Over 600 people will lose their jobs. It is cutting another 285 jobs on the Bagotville base. Before the cuts, less than 15 per cent of all federal military facilities were located in Quebec. What is left? Not much.

What should we tell taxpayers in Quebec who feel that the federal government costs them too much money for the return they get on their investment? If Quebec were to patriate the power to tax and to spend-about $30 billion is in question here-we would be able to set up a system which really is fair and we would make our own decisions. That is how Quebec will best be able to develop and grow.

[Commonwealth Day, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the Bloc Quebecois members, I am pleased to note that today is Commonwealth Day. Last year, my colleague for Laurier-Ste-Marie had the opportunity to express, on this commemorative occasion, the importance of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth and to note that a sovereign Quebec would wish to remain a member of this organization in order to maintain and strengthen its relations with the 51 member countries.

The Secretary of State rightly noted South Africa's return to the Commonwealth. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada applied enormous pressure to bring about the end of apartheid.

This is therefore the time to remind the government today how regrettable it is that it decided to turn its back on the promotion of human rights and democracy, despite what the Secretary of State would have us believe, by setting a course according to its commercial interests alone, with South Africa just now having had its first free elections.

It is this same mercantilistic logic that prompted the government to cut more than $1.3 billion over three years in international aid, thus dropping its assistance to the planet's poorest people and countries to nearly 0.29 per cent of its GNP. This action confirms the government's change in course.

How can this government, which committed itself, in its statement of foreign policy, to moving closer to objectives of 0.7 per cent, justify that, within the international budget, programs intended for the most disadvantaged that are being cut more than those with a mercantilistic focus?

Are we to assume that the international aid program, which has earned Canada the profound respect of the international community, will also be based on the new Liberal policy of promoting business first and foremost? The government will definitely have some accounting to do when it participates in the next Commonwealth meetings in New Zealand. Canada must give meaning to its membership in the Commonwealth.

[Unemployment, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this year, Quebec will experience a shortfall of $118 million in unemployment insurance.

In the past, federalists sang the praises of Canadian federalism saying that Quebec was a net beneficiary of the unemployment insurance program. The fact is that Quebec's rate of unemployment under the federal scheme is systematically higher than Canada's. This is what we get out of federalism.

The government in Ottawa is hindering job creation in Quebec, in particular, by putting only 15.9 per cent of its investments there, although 23 per cent of its revenues come from there.

Not only did the latest budget hinder job creation by precluding the transfer to Quebec of full powers in manpower training, but it proposed no active job creation measures.

[Referendum Debate, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois condemn the remarks made yesterday by Senator Jean-Louis Roux during "Le Point" on the French network of the CBC.

It is simply horrible that this senator from Quebec should make a comparison between the seeming disinterest in sovereignty shown by certain artists in Quebec and the silence of German intellectuals during the Nazi regime in the 1930s.

This comparison is completely wrong and absurd and is a stinging insult to Quebecers of every stripe who are engaging in the debate on Quebec sovereignty in a free and democratic manner.

In stating that he would leave Quebec in the event of a "yes" in the referendum, Senator Jean-Louis Roux is repudiating his fellow Quebecers who are trying to establish a country for themselves through democratic means. It is sad and disappointing.

[Defence Spending, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a study published by an employee of the Department of National Defence found that Quebec is getting literally gypped out of $650 million per year in regional allotment of defence spending.

It is simply scandalous to see that, over the past 15 years, Quebec has received 27 per cent less than its fair share of defence spending. To add insult to injury, the study confirmed that francophones are under-represented in the higher ranks of the army. For example, there is only one francophone lieutenant-general out of nine and three majors-general out of 31. There has been no change on this front for at least 10 years.

This sheds some light on the government's decision to close the only francophone military college. We are tired of seeing that, year in, year out, Quebecers have remained so poorly served by the federal system in Canada.

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-258 put forth by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands respecting the establishment of a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal and Clasp for United Nations Peacekeeping is a way to recognize our military volunteers for their contribution to peacekeeping missions around the world.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the courage and dignity with which our servicemen and women carry out their difficult task on peacekeeping missions abroad. They deserve our admiration and full support. I also have a thought for their families who also go through difficult times worrying about them.

Our forces are not new to this kind of operations. A leader in peacekeeping, Canada has gained in this area experience and expertise that has earned it respect worldwide. It should be noted that since the end of the cold war, regional conflicts and thus the need for restoring and maintaining peace have been increasing.

While a general war is highly unlikely in the present circumstances, we must recognize however that a high level conflict could erupt from any given regional confrontation, should it escalate.

The end of the cold war brought about a new world order characterized by a degree of uncertainty, instability as well as some new tensions. The democratization process under way in Eastern Europe is a good example of the ongoing changes. The instability caused by this transition is rekindling national vitality because of newly rediscovered collective identities.

So, in the context of a security policy, we must help countries such as those of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that choose to become democratic. It must be pointed out that the emergence of new States did not result in chaos everywhere. National emancipation movements carried out though legitimate institutions materialized peacefully.

For example, the Czech and Slovak republics peacefully severed their federative ties. Similarly, Slovenia and the Baltic States achieved independence in an orderly and democratic fashion. That is how they were able to have their sovereignty readily recognized by the international community.

Another case in point is the Ukraine, the independence of which Ottawa was the first capital to recognize after the referendum won by the sovereignists.

We have no intention of burying our heads in the sand and ignore the constraints and challenges that come with the new world order.

Thus, Canada, as well as an eventual sovereign Quebec, must continue to actively promote democracy. It should be pointed out that, before being perceived as a thorn in our diplomatic efforts and commitments abroad-I am referring of course to the unfortunate events which occurred in Somalia-the contribution of our military personnel to peacekeeping missions made Canadians and Quebecers very proud of their forces.

The situation in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, in Rwanda and in Somalia was unprecedented and here is why. The apparent futility of our efforts, the risks involved for our soldiers, the astronomical figures which circulated regarding the costs of these operations, as well as the complexity of the political and military situations in these countries undermined the public support which, until then, was enjoyed by such operations. While in line with previous similar commitments, our peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia quickly took on a very different nature.

The operation in Slovenia and in Croatia was truly a peacekeeping mission. In that sense, our troops had the responsibility to ensure compliance with already concluded peace agreements. However, their role in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia had very little to do with traditional types of intervention. Canadian troops found themselves in a theatre of war, caught between belligerent factions. How can you maintain peace in a country where peace does not exist in the first place, where a political settlement has yet to be reached, and where every ceasefire is violated? That is when things started to deteriorate, particularly after the whole world was able to see on television unbearable atrocities which we thought no longer existed, but which are indeed very real.

There are lessons to be drawn from these operations. Canada's future interventions will have to meet more specific criteria. For example, the costs and complexities of modern-day interventions require the emergence of a new culture on the part of the strategists and the troops which will participate in future peacekeeping missions. Moreover, the recent events in Haiti reminded us of the need to base our interventions on democratic legitimacy and careful planning.

It is important to clearly define, with the United Nations, specific objectives and tasking orders. The Bloc Quebecois feels that one of the primary duties of Canadian forces on the international scene must be to support, through participation, peacekeeping operations. In the future, our troops will have to be disciplined, trained to face the rigours of armed conflicts, adequately equipped, professional in their approach, and under good command.

I will support Bill C-258, but I want to point out that the candidates who served with a UN peacekeeping force and are eligible to receive the medal and clasp must meet criteria which are still not known and which will have to be clearly defined.

[Young Offenders Act, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since June 2, 1994, when Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act was tabled, I have been unable to convince myself that the federal government is seriously trying to make those of us in Parliament and the people in Quebec and the rest of Canada believe that its proposed reform will increase public protection.

As you know, I have more than 21 years' experience in teaching and have learned to trust. I have learned that, in life, you have to offer a second chance. I learned this during all those years. The debate, this debate, is simply a public relations exercise by the government in an effort to reassure part of the population about its public institutions.

The reality is that the existing legislation contains all the provisions needed by the courts and crown prosecutors to give society proper protection. The problem is one of enforcing the provisions in the Young Offenders Act, and not a complete revision of it. In my view, changing the commas and periods in a text will not make it suddenly more effective.

Did the Minister of Justice first make sure that the existing Young Offenders Act no longer met the needs of the public and society before changing it? Did the Minister of Justice first take into account the many recommendations by the principal stakeholders?

Considering that most authorities concerned want more latitude in enforcing the current legislation, and not a repressive and intimidating reform of the act, why is the Liberal government nevertheless going ahead with its crusade against young people?

We can only wonder why the federal government made this one of its key issues. The Liberals' red book holds the key. In fact, the Minister of Justice is using his role in the government merely to keep a purely partisan campaign promise, without regard for its economic, social and moral impact.

It is these kinds of actions which, in my opinion, cause taxpayers to become disillusioned with politics. Such displays of disregard for institutions and the duty of the elected is revolting to the taxpayers of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Furthermore, I do not believe that an act should be amended just because 30 per cent of the population believes that crime is on the rise and that offences are becoming more violent, especially when current statistics prove the opposite. How many times will we have to say it? We will never resolve the problem of violence in society by sending people to jail earlier and earlier on in life.

Longer and heavier sentences, lowering the minimum age for assuming criminal responsibility and extending measures available to repress young people will not resolve the problem either-they will have the opposite effect. The proposed amendments to the bill counter the ultimate goal: protection of society and of young people.

During the last election campaign, I had the privilege-and I mean privilege-of visiting a halfway house, where some 20 young men lived. I spoke with them for over an hour about their future and I left the place firmly believing that they deserved a second chance, even though they had committed reprehensible acts.

I think that the government should concentrate on crime prevention programs. That is where emphasis should be put, and

these programs are our greatest challenge. That is the approach that Quebec is taking, with great success I might add.

In consequence, the bill's main objective should be reintegration. A long term crime prevention program, with the aim of deterring young offenders from continuing to act in a reprehensible way, is what is really needed.

On this issue, Quebec is sending a clear message to Ottawa: "Let us continue to resolve our problems in the way we see fit without imposing rules to follow or amendments that may satisfy other provinces, but do not fit Quebec's experience at all". This is another area where I think Quebec is distinct.

Quebec has a rich experience. Those looking for inspiration need look no further than Quebec's Youth Protection Act. In addition, the work and reports of Quebec's Department of Health and Social Services are also good sources of information. Finally, studies have been conducted recently in Quebec. These studies, the tailor made protection, the jointly devised plan, and the protection of young persons, more than legislation, bring out the valuable experience and background of the Quebec system, as well as a number of problems to be resolved to ensure more effective enforcement of the act.

In Quebec, there is a well established consensus. The consensus in Quebec is that the principles and rights accorded to the child under Quebec legislation must be preserved, while at the same time stipulating the means of implementation and the adjustments required by social change and recent legislative reforms.

In regard to young offenders, Quebec's perspective and experience are diametrically opposed to the reforms proposed by the federal government. Quebec stresses rehabilitation while the federal government's proposals are repressive and hard-line. In other words, Quebec does not regard life terms with repeat offenders as a solution for young persons who are often grappling with serious family and social problems.

In conclusion, to ease matters the Minister of Justice could grant Quebec special status to allow us to preserve this credible experience in regard to protecting young persons and this moral and social duty towards young Quebecers.

[Quebec Referendum, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Daniel Latouche, a professor of political science, set the record straight at a hearing of the Eastern Townships commission on the future of Quebec. He unequivocally stated that there are costs associated with remaining a province, especially in this era of globalization. They must also be discussed.

A no in the referendum would mean that Quebec would not gain distinct status, different from that of the other provinces. It would also mean that the rest of Canada would continue to ignore the distinct character of Quebecers, regardless of the arrangement proposed.

We must not forget that Pierre Elliot Trudeau promised renewed federalism in exchange for a no in the 1980 referendum. His government used the opportunity to quash the legitimate hopes of Quebecers. This is what the true cost of not opting for sovereignty is.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a study made public yesterday, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that francophone and Acadian communities in Canada have good cause to complain.

Bilingualism in federal institutions has been a dismal failure, in spite of the Official Languages Act which was passed 25 years ago.

How can one explain that, in spite of the already very limited number of federal offices outside of Quebec which are designated bilingual, 28 per cent of them still do not provide services in French? In all other offices, even though they are designated bilingual, francophones have to kick up a fuss to be served in their language.

In view of the worrisome rate of assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, what precisely is the government waiting for to assume its responsibilities and to respect the most fundamental rights of the francophone minority?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 13th, 1995]

With respect to the Council for Canadian Unity, or any agency or organization attached to or working for the council, ( a ) have there been any increases in the annual budget(s) since January 1994 and if so, on what precise date(s) did the increases occur and how, item by item, were they allocated, (b) has it undertaken or contracted out the undertaking of any public opinion poll or polls of Canadians or Quebecers and if so, what was the wording of the questions and the result of the poll(s), question by question and ( c ) what are the government's intentions with respect to the council's budget for hiring personnel or borrowing personnel from other departments on assignment for this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year, in actual numbers?