Why have you called for order, Mr. Speaker?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 51% of the vote.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Why have you called for order, Mr. Speaker?
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, there was a report in this morning's edition of Le Devoir . The hon. member is upset by the truth. These people are not Péquists, Mr. Speaker.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Very well, Mr. Speaker.
Then I will simply follow your instructions and comment on this debate and on the position taken by our party and by the government. Obviously, we would like our party and the Reform Party to reach a consensus on the big issue of the allocation of public funds.
We know that Ottawa collects roughly $28 billion in taxes from Quebec each year and we would like to know how this money is redistributed. For the past several years-and the $500 billion debt confirms this-we have been making suggestions. We are always accused of harping on the same old Péquist arguments. However, if the government accepted our suggestions, then we not go over the same ground again and again.
We are calling for an end to duplication of services. This is nothing new. We are calling for an end to cuts in social housing. The situation is pitiful in my riding. There is a shortage of social housing and yet the government is poised to make further cuts in this area. A decade ago, the soup kitchen in my region served up about 35 meals a day. Today, it serves up 400 meals a day. This is completely unacceptable.
We have made suggestions to the government as to what measures should be contained in its upcoming budget. We proposed the elimination of family trusts and we targeted such areas as duplication in the taxation and services fields. For the sake of greater efficiency, we are asking that the federal government withdraw from manpower training programs and hand this responsibility over to Quebec.
In conclusion, let me say that Mr. Le Hir, the president of the Association des manufacturiers du Québec, as well as Mr. Ghislain Dufour, the President of-
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis a few moments ago. I had the honour of serving with him in the National Assembly.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the last two or three speakers and I would like to say I agree entirely with the statements of the member for Roberval. On the other hand, I am concerned by what I heard coming from the government members who have not been reassuring since the beginning of this debate. True enough, nothing has been decided yet as regards cuts in social programs, but I can tell you that this morning's La Presse outlines major problems in the area of social housing in Valleyfield, in my riding. Compared to the average of 16.9 per cent for the province, in Valleyfield, 19.3 per cent of the people have to give more than half their salary for rent.
There is nothing reassuring in the government's remarks on the next budget as far as social housing is concerned. The situation is disastrous and urgent; the government must immediately find a solution and restore financial assistance for social housing.
As far as the workforce is concerned, we have been talking about this for a long time now. Quebec has its own manpower development programs. I see no need for a continuing debate or discussion between the two levels of government since it could slow down the implementation of those programs. I regret that the federal government is asking Quebec for Canada-wide manpower programs. We have our own programs; all we need now is the money to implement them.
You say my time is up, Madam Speaker, but I wanted to stress these two points.
Social Security System January 31st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the last speaker and I generally agree with most of what he said. However, there is one remaining problem which has to be solved as quickly as possible.
When you take a look at what has happened in Quebec over the last two years, you realize that the ministers responsible for manpower training, Mr. Valcourt in Ottawa and Mr. Bourbeau in Quebec, met several times and even argued at times to get the results we now know of. Right now in Quebec, there are over 80,000 jobs available and our employment situation is abysmal. More than 25,000 people have applied for development training, but the funds allocated to the institutions delivering those training programs are frozen. This situation is unacceptable.
What we are asking for is for Ottawa to give to Quebec all the money earmarked for training. In Quebec, we know what kind of manpower development is required by the industy. We have very specialized needs at times and they are different from what Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any other province need. So, let us give the money to Quebec in order to enable Quebecers to look after the development of their own labour force.
Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I must say that her reasoning seems rational to me, just as rational as the reasoning of my leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. In a certain perspective, they seem to make a lot of sense.
It is difficult to argue against what was said in either speech. Given the military capabilities of Canada, its striking power, it is clear that should we come under attack we would require American support. We do have agreements with the American defence and an almost perfect co-operation with them, and I am pleased about that.
However, there is a moral side to war, and that is what bothers me a little. Clearly, from a technical point of view, given our mutual agreements, our defence capability in co-operation with the United States, it is logical, defensible and coherent.
However, when I consider that the cold war has recently ended, that we are entering a period of disarmament, that we should strive to achieve peace, I have some doubts about allowing the tests we are talking about today, and that will be conducted over the Northwest Territories. Before I can be convinced that we should accept those tests, I will need to hear more arguments.
There is also the environmental side which remains an unknown quantity to me. When will we deal with the environmental aspect of this issue? You are asking me to hurry up, Mr. Speaker. I would like the hon. member to comment on the environmental issue and on the cost of airplane crashes and losses of military personnel.
Speech From The Throne January 24th, 1994
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I have a question and a few comments for the hon. member who just spoke.
I for one consider that what the hon. member just said is fair for any one who still believes in the Canadian system and its effectiveness. Personally, I believe everything has been tried over the past few years. How long have we been telling the federal government that duplication between Ottawa and Quebec is horribly expensive?
The hon. member himself admits that even accountants do not trust the Income Tax Act any more. He himself has lost confidence in it. We, in Quebec, have understood that the Canadian tax law was working against us. It is too expensive. The entire Canadian system is too expensive, starting with the size of the public service, our embassies and the very operation of the Canadian government. That is why the national debt has reached $500 billion in Canada, creating a $40 to $45 billion annual deficit. I respect what the hon. member said, but as far as I am concerned it is nothing more than pious wishes.
I do not believe that in the present system the federal government can solve the problem with studies and analyses.
I do believe, however, that it can be solved. My question is the following: how would the hon. member feel about Quebec opting out of the Canadian Confederation, bringing along its $28 billion in taxes to administer on its own? I would put more faith in that approach that in the one the hon. member has put forward.
Speech From The Throne January 20th, 1994
I want to give the hon. member time to respond, if he wishes, so that will be all, Mr. Speaker.
Speech From The Throne January 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. member of the Reform Party.
In my opinion, he touched on two critical points. The first is the high cost of social assistance for the less fortunate and the poor in our society. The second is the concern over the cost of administering the government. As of yesterday, the deficit topped the $500 billion mark. This is absurd, frightening and, I would even say, dangerous.
Obviously there is reason for concern about Canada's ballooning debt. The daily interest alone on the debt is astronomical. Why is it that the first reflex we have when it comes to putting our finances in order is to target those who are the least fortunate?
There are many other things that we should consider before turning our attention to the disadvantaged, the poor, the sick, welfare recipients and so forth. This morning's edition of Forum tells the story. There are at least five to six pages of examples of government mismanagement.
Mention is made of the $25 million spent on travel by ministers. Twenty-five million and perhaps ever more, according to the Auditor General. There is a reference to administrative oversights regarding tax breaks for resource companies. I cannot remember the exact amount quoted, but the figure was enormous. I think it was $900 million. Then there is the enormous cost of running our embassies.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to review each administrative item separately and clean house. I am certain there is a considerable amount of money to be recovered. Then, if further cuts were needed, perhaps then we could look at the most disadvantaged. However, we should not start with them. We must start by trimming the fat.
Mention was made of a kitchenette and bathroom installed for the head of Investment Canada at a cost of $125,000, according to what was said this morning. That is enormous. You may say that these are mere drops in the bucket as far as the overall budget goes. However, these are the kinds of expenses we have to tally and eliminate before-