Philippe Paré

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said. Granted, certain aspects of Canada's social programs and health programs could be reviewed. But to do so at the expense of UI and welfare recipients is akin to blaming the present economic situation and government finance problems on the have-nots of our society, when we know full well that this is not the case. The system is allowing abuse to continue. Just this week, more cases were identified. Reference was made to tax shelters being commonplace and family trusts being tax exempt. We could also question the $12 billion Canada invested in national defence. Another very concrete example was given this week when the leader of the Reform Party asked why it was that the Governor General did not pay taxes when he is earning something in the neighbourhood of $97,000. It looks good to ask a question like that, but the same people are denouncing social programs as the cause of our current economic problems. That makes no sense. I think that Canadians should be made aware of the need to show compassion for the less fortunate. I am not saying that there is no abuse. There probably is. But, goodness gracious, let us not sacrifice what makes Canada the envy of other nations.

Just this week, we were told that the health care system in Canada represented 7 or 8 per cent of the GDP, while in the US, it was 12 to 15 per cent. It is simply not true that our system is expensive. What is true, on the other hand, is that our public debt is costing us a lot. In fact, it is too expensive and it is the ultimate reason why we apparently have to go and cut social programs. That is the easiest area to make cuts in, because it affects the less fortunate.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment, because I did not understand. The member referred to Mr. Marchand saying the Minister of Agriculture was negotiating the abolition of tariffs. I do not think the member for Québec-Est, critic for the Official Opposition, said that. According to me, what he said was the Minister of Agriculture is now negotiating with the United States and the negotiations deal with the abolition of tariffs. If one country is trying to do away with tariffs, it is certainly not Canada, it is the United States. Still, Canada has to face that first problem, merely five weeks after the signing of the GATT agreements.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, part of the statement by the member for Windsor-St. Clair dealing with the importance of the automobile industry in her riding gives me an opportunity to recall that the auto industry in Ontario has an extremely important position compared to the auto industry in Quebec. Quebec makes only 7 or 8 per cent of all the automobiles assembled in Canada.

That part of the country surely had tremendous economic development due to the auto industry, among other things. In the last recession, the riding of Windsor found out what less well-off cities go through and what tough economic times are like. That does not please me, on the contrary. Perhaps since that part of the country, that part of Ontario, had such difficulties, Ontario may be a little more sensitive to the realities of other Canadian provinces.

I close with a question. It is widely agreed that the Conservative government's monetary policy was partly responsible for the economic difficulties that we are still in. I have trouble understanding, however, with regard to the Windsor-St. Clair region, which suffered a little from this monetary policy-why the Liberal government finally chose the previous governor's deputy to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I have trouble with that because it seems to me that their problems may recur,

since the same people or the same mentality will direct Canada's monetary policy.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

A few comments, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member started his speech saying that the Liberal Party was elected because it provided Canadians with a vision of hope. This is partly true, I suppose, but since that vision does not come across very clearly in the throne speech, I am afraid Canadians' hopes will be dashed fairly quickly.

There is nothing really significant in the throne speech: merely a string of very general projects and good intentions, with very little in the way of tangible proposals.

We must not forget that until the government has decided it will deal with the whole issue of the deficit and the debt, any economic recovery will be superficial. The debt and the deficit are a drag on the private sector because they absorb such a large share of financial resources.

The hon. member also referred to technological innovation. I agree this is important. It was said earlier in the House that Canada's contribution, participation or investment in research and development is well below that of other countries. We invest 1.4 per cent of GDP, while countries like Germany, Japan and the United States invest twice as much in technology, and that creates jobs. There is practically nothing in the throne speech to provide any hope in this area.

The hon. member also mentioned home renovation and the construction industry. In Quebec, we have a major problem with the underground economy. It is all part of the same problem, which is that taxes are too high, and until the government has given a clear signal in this respect, it would be wishful thinking to expect construction and home renovation to pick up.

And now a final comment on national standards for apprenticeship. It seems the Liberal Party, like the Tories, will not learn from past mistakes. National standards are a major barrier to regional development. The federal government likes to suggest and dictate national standards. Initially it provides subsidies to go along with those standards, and then it withdraws them, and the result, as we know, is that the provinces are left holding the bag of financial problems that were, in fact, created by the federal government. Occupational training is a provincial responsibility, and the federal government has no business regulating this area. The members of the Bloc Quebecois, reflecting the position of Quebecers, will demand full responsibility in this area.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with what I am hearing today. I think that what is being said in this debate could contribute to enhance the perception that the Canadian and the Quebec people have of the House of Commons and of Canadian parliamentarians.

I believe that something else will be achieved tonight. This deeply thought out and dispassionate debate will reinforce for Canadians and Quebecers the values of generosity and compassion they hold most dear. What we are really talking about in this debate is respect for life. Canada cannot stand still when there is suffering, and I think that Canadians and Quebecers had to witness with their own ears and eyes this demonstration of human solidarity among Canadian parliamentarians.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since I share the views expressed by the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I will not ask a question but I would like to make a comment. As I try to figure out why the people of Canada and Quebec have such mixed feelings about peacekeeping missions, I can see two ways to explain this. First, it seems to me that we still have a hard time seeing ourselves as citizens of the world. I think that when a larger and larger number of Canadians and Quebecers start to see themselves as such, they will see more clearly the need for our involvement.

The second point is that, as I see it, the peace missions in which Canada has taken part may have been too heavily focused on peacekeeping or pacification, giving a somewhat lower profile to the humanitarian aspect. The hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke mentioned it but I would like to emphasize this point by pointing out that there are over 250 non-governmental organizations in Canada looking to provide humanitarian assistance around the world. I think that, when peacekeepers are sent on a mission, it is to keep the peace of course but also and perhaps more importantly to allow these organizations through which hundreds of Canadians want to provide humanitarian relief to reach the people who need it.

[Speech From The Throne, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said by the previous speaker, who, I am glad to say, is a member of the Reform Party, because I have the impression that if we consider the causes behind the emergence of the Reform Party in western Canada and the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec, there are a number of similarities.

There is of course the aspect of voter dissatisfaction in the west and in Quebec. That explains why these parties suddenly emerged. It is also the very obvious difference between the aspirations of Canadian and Quebec voters, and an apparent inability on the part of the government or governments, and I was going to say the big national parties, to meet people's expectations. I think Canada's very nature makes this inevitable, considering the size of the territory, different needs and the fact that the Conservative and Liberal parties have always insisted on proposing the same solutions from coast to coast.

Where the Bloc and the Reform Party differ is on how to deal with the situation. The Reform Party seems to think it is possible to change the system. Quebecers, after 30 years of attempts at constitutional reform, have concluded, and there is a broad consensus to that effect, that reform is impossible.

Finally, I want to put a question to the previous speaker. He mentioned the Senate, and my question will deal with this institution. At the present time, Senate reform would require the unanimous consent of the provinces. Last summer, in a nationwide survey, more than 60 per cent of Canadians said we should get rid of the Senate.

Considering that the member of the Reform Party seems to be saying his party is concerned with the needs of the people, and considering that the premier of Newfoundland, an old friend of the Prime Minister of Canada, says he will never agree to abolish the Senate, how can the members of the Reform Party of Canada still believe the Canadian system is open to reform?

[Speech From The Throne, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my maiden speech, I would like to begin by saying a few words about my riding of Louis-Hébert. It includes three lovely suburban municipalities in the Quebec City area, namely Cap-Rouge, Sainte-Foy and Sillery, located on the shores of the St. Lawrence.

I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre concerning the infrastructure program and I would like to make a few comments. My first concerns the spirit of co-operation to which the Minister referred. I am very happy that the federal, provincial and municipal governments are co-operating.

This is good to see, except that given the current situation, it illustrates the weak position of the federal government, in view of the size of the debt and runaway government expenses. When the federal government wants to carry out a project, it must work side by side with the municipalities-which in itself is a good thing-and with the provinces. This only reflects the serious state of the government's finances.

The hon. member for York Centre indicated-and I am happy to hear it-that this is not the only job creation program. We will, however, be paying close attention to concrete programs announced later.

The Minister said that the infrastructure program will kick-start the economy. Economic recovery will be difficult, if not impossible, until such time as the government takes serious, radical steps to slash government spending. And there is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the government intends to take this kind of action.