Gilles Duceppe

[Day Care Services, March 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, day care services do not meet the growing needs of families in Canada and Quebec.

The lack of day care spaces and the cost often prohibitive of this essential service is causing a prejudice to women. In many cases, they cannot work outside the home. Not only are they deprived of their right to work, but also, for those who are single parents, they are being condemned to poverty.

However, I want to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the day care employees who do a tremendous job looking after our children, and this for far less than adequate wages.

In this year of the family, it is high time that government acts and invests in a day care network rather than keep saying it is important.

[Point Of Order, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the past-I have been here for three of four years now-, I did not notice that such practice was in effect. As regards the plight of the hon. members sitting close to the curtains, we also had to live with this situation in the past. It is hard on the legs, but good for the health.

[Francophones In The Armed Forces, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Defence how he can explain that between 1990 and 1994, the percentage of bilingual francophone officers rose from 60 to 67 per cent-these are not separatists' figures, figures are the same in French as in English-while among anglophones during the same period, the proportion of bilingual officers declined from 18 to 17 per cent.

Does the minister still agree with the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that the situation had changed a lot in recent years, while studies from his own department show the exact opposite once again?

[Francophones In The Armed Forces, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I will not quote an individual but an internal report of his department, National Defence.

This report of which we obtained a copy and which was quoted in Le Devoir this morning shows us that merging the military colleges into a single institution will attract fewer students from the nine provinces and the territories, reduce the intake of francophone officers and reduce the level of bilingualism in the officer corps.

How can the minister seriously believe that he can protect the French fact in the armed forces when a study by his own department shows the exact opposite?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for interrupting the minister's quotes from favourable press clippings.

It is really incredible. The minister tells us: "You agree this will create 40,000 jobs, and it certainly will, especially since this year we are going to cut 40,000". Now that is quite an achievement. Mr. Speaker, this is like the cha-cha-cha: one step forward, two steps backward. The minister admits that this year he will be cutting 40,000 jobs, and he says that next year, he will save 40,000 jobs.

Why does he not do something right away and save several hundred million dollars in the process? This measure will create unemployment, because-the minister admitted this himself-they want to create jobs because this year they are creating unemployment.

Does the minister feel his policy is responsible, yes or no?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

Last December, the Liberal government raised unemployment insurance premiums to $3.07, a tax increase of several hundred million dollars for 1994. The new Budget reverses this decision but will maintain the tax until next December. The government claims that the rate reduction will create 40,000 jobs, starting next January.

Would the minister agree that a roll-back is necessary right away, and that based on what the minister said, the premium increase, a real tax on jobs, will cost us about 40,000 jobs between now and next December?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this process is a privilege of the Official Opposition and we do not want to call into question the role of the Official Opposition, as the Prime Minister did when he was leader of the opposition. So, we fully respect the normal operations of this House, while also following the example of the present Prime Minister when he was sitting on this side of the House.

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, either the minister misheard our suggestion or he does not want to admit to having heard it. His logic is somewhat twisted. He tells us that, when it comes to taxing the rich, we have to look into the matter for one year. On the other hand, taxing the poor can be done immediately. That he can do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that, in 1987, when the economy was flourishing, over 90,000 Canadian businesses which had made in excess of $27 billion in profits did not pay a cent in taxes, and the Liberals denounced that fact.

Why does the minister refuse to accept the principle of minimum corporate income tax that the Liberals talked about when they were in opposition?

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Wealthy families can use family trusts to avoid paying tax on billions of dollars. It was a Liberal government, in 1972, that created this unacceptable system. Just last year, the Liberals voted against the continuation of these trusts proposed by the Conservative government. But, as we discovered yesterday, the wealthy family lobby has won.

How can the minister justify digging even deeper into the pockets of the unemployed and the poorest of the poor when he will not even touch the privileges granted to the wealthiest? Will the minister admit that he caved in to the pressures of wealthy families and party friends?

[Indian Affairs, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. I would like to know what he has to hide. What is he trying to avoid? Was this government elected to carry out its duties? Does this government not have all the information in hand? Does the minister not read the newspapers, does he not prepare to answer questions? What is this minister trying to hide from us?