Lucien Bouchard

[Government's Credit Rating, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas and the minister knows it. Let us think about the family trusts he is protecting in a rather special fashion.

I am convinced that the reason the financial community lowered Canada's credit rating is not because we cut too much, but because we did not cut deep enough, contrary to the commitments that were made.

I would ask the minister to comment on the government's timid spending reduction efforts combined with its obsession with fighting inflation, which is almost non-existent, causing a rise in interest rates, and I ask him specifically whether it is right that the upward pressure on interest rates should compromise the already slim chances of economic recovery and job creation, with the well-known negative effects on businesses and the unemployed.

[Government's Credit Rating, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party shouted from the rooftops that its economic program was based on creating jobs, on reducing the deficit by cutting government spending, and on a monetary policy balancing job creation with the fight against inflation.

The government failed at every level. Its first budget got a negative reception from the financial community as illustrated by the lowering of its credit rating announced the day before yesterday.

Does the Minister of Finance admit that this lower credit rating is due to a negative response from a financial community disappointed by the timid and inadequate budget measures to reduce departmental operating expenditures?

[Human Rights, March 22nd, 1994]

The Chinese leaders are not going to be impressed by our dollars. What they will respect is an international conscience which Canada has always brought to bear throughout the world and on which its present prestige in the world is based.

There is a clear lack of continuity between the great international accomplishments that are largely the work of the Liberal Party, and its heirs here in the House today, who are frittering away that legacy.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this means that on his trip to Mexico, he will not raise the issue of human rights violations in the province of Chiapas with the Mexican President, although as a trading partner, he will be in a position to do so.

[Human Rights, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by letting commercial interests prevail over human rights, Canada is relinquishing its historic responsibility, since the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that polite comments behind closed doors will have no impact on foreign leaders who systematically violate human rights? I would like to ask him whether that is why Canada did not express public support for U.S. protests against China on the issue of human rights.

[Human Rights, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Without waiting for the results of its foreign policy review, the government has already made its decision. It has made a 180 degree turn and set a course that is guided by strictly commercial interests, thereby turning its back on protecting human rights.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would confirm that his government intends to promote Canada's trading relations at the expense of human rights. I also want to ask him whether on his trip in China, he will allude to the oppressive policies of this dictatorial regime only in very polite terms and in private, on the weak-kneed advice of his Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Employment, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he admits that his budget is going the wrong way on employment by attacking the unemployed rather than unemployment and its structural causes. I would ask him to admit that he will not stimulate employment by reducing 85 per cent of the benefits for unemployed people.

[Employment, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if these words are not followed by concrete action, we can only conclude that it was hot air. When the minister boasts that his own proposals were supported, if no action follows, I do not see how he can talk about support.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we must ask him today to tell us clearly if he intends to establish this kind of tax credit for companies that create or maintain jobs. Can we expect a ministerial statement on this and not just hot air?

[Employment, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week, the Minister of Finance took part in the G-7 jobs summit, where he proposed a tax credit for companies that create jobs or that maintain jobs in spite of technological change. Furthermore, the G-7 countries agreed to make employment their priority in 1994.

Now that he is back from the summit, does the minister intend to implement a real job recovery strategy based on concrete measures in order to give back some hope to the million and a half people who are now unemployed in Canada?

[Question Of Privilege, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker. I feel that, while answering a question today, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions violated my privileges as a parliamentarian by attempting to put some of the blame on me for his government unacceptable abdication to the American giant Paramount.

What he suggested is absolutely false. I have never been associated in any way with this issue. It is the minister's responsibility to name the anonymous entity behind which he is taking cover to justify this abdication on the part of his government.

No minister has the right to cast such a doubt on me when the government knows who is the guilty one but will not name him.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to ask that the member have the decency to withdraw these allegations.

[Human Rights, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, never in my five years in politics have I denied statements which the print media ascribed to me. I am not one of those who deny statements which the newspapers attribute to us.

Mr. Speaker, there appear to be two policies, one for poor countries which are guilty of human rights violations-and here, Canada takes a very harsh stand-and another for wealthy countries which are also guilty of human rights violations. In their case, however, the government turns a blind eye.

Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was laying the groundwork for his trip to China, a wealthy country, when he made this statement outside the House? Could it be that the Prime Minister, in an attempt to restrict the focus of his trip to China to trade issues, was hoping not to have to deal with the human rights issue in China, even though dissidents have been waging an admirable fight to bring democracy to that country?