Stéphane Bergeron

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, a while ago the minister hinted that the Canadian business community had asked to be consulted on the question of the General Preferential Tariff. We are pleased to hear this and we can understand its position. The minister indicated that he was willing to go along with the request and that he would consult with the Canadian business community.

My question is the same: Does the government plan to consult with members of Parliament or will the minister, as he has been hinting since the beginning of these proceedings, let individual members of Parliament or the committee take the initiative of asking the government to consult with them? With respect to the General Preferential Tariff, does the government intend to pursue the same policies that it has been pursuing since the start of this session? In other words, does it plan to consult, or at least make some show of consulting with, members of Parliament on this issue?

The minister also implied that, all things being equal, the General Preferential Tariff was only a very minor aspect of our foreign policy. This may be true as far as we are concerned, but it is certainly not the case for developing countries seeking at all costs markets for their products.

I would invite the minister to reflect upon this point, and I would also ask him to be sensitive to the fact that-and this has been clear from the beginning of this debate-the General Preferential Tariff can have a major influence on our international relations. That is why we are asking the government today to consult members of Parliament on this issue.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to ask my second question again. The minister has been implying since the beginning of our committee's proceedings that members of Parliament and committees can ask to be consulted on issues like that one.

Since the beginning of the present session, the government has been saying it wants to consult members in this House or in the various committees. As they said during the pre-budget conferences, they even claim they want to consult the population. Is it the intention of the government to consult members of Parliament on graduation from the GPT by certain countries, which profit from the General Preferential Tariff, as it is their intention to consult business people?

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the minister was saying that the classification used by the federal government is based on the United Nations classification. The question I am asking myself is whether we should consider South Korea or Singapore as less developed countries or as developing countries. Of course, the answer is crystal clear and self-explanatory: Singapore and South Korea are no longer developing countries, but newly industrialized countries.

I would have two short questions for the minister concerning what he told us earlier. Does the government intend to reassess the general preferential tariffs allowed to newly industrialized countries such as Singapore or South Korea? The minister was pointing to us, rightly so, that the United States, for example, had removed the general preferential tariffs allowed to those countries, but that Japan and the European countries had not yet done so.

Does the Canadian government intend to follow the United States or the wait and see policy of Japan and Europe? I would like him to inform us on that matter.

I also have a sub-question relating to the first one. The minister is somewhat leaving up to parliamentarians and committees the initiative of asking the government to consult them. I ask the minister and the government, through him: Does the government intend to directly submit the matter to parliamentarians, through the Committee on Finance or the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, we would like to see parliamentarians consulted about any changes in the GPT, simply because of the political overtones and possibly the political consequences that these changes might have.

The reason I mention this-in fact, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert and I both brought this up in our speeches is that today, some countries that benefit under the GPT can no longer be called developing countries, and I am thinking specifically of Singapore and South Korea. If we reassess the relevance of granting these countries GPT status, I think this might eventually have a political impact on our relations with those countries.

We also expressed the hope that respect for human rights would be a consideration in the case of certain countries benefitting under the GPT. One example is the People's Republic of China which, at 33 per cent, I think, is the main beneficiary of this general preferential tariff. My question is therefore whether we should eventually reconsider granting the GPT status to countries that openly violate human rights.

I think parliamentarians should be able to consider any reassessment of the GPT status of the countries involved.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Chairman, I assume that at this stage we can put questions to the minister before the bill's single clause is passed. Clause-by-clause consideration should not take very long!

On second reading of Bill C-5 a few days ago, we expressed some reservations about this bill which mainly concerned two questions. Under the new GATT agreements, we will eventually have to reassess the preferential tariff for developing countries. The minister had said he intends to do this with the co-operation of the business community. The question we asked at the time, and which we are still asking, is: Does the minister intend to consult parliamentarians in any way, either in the House or at the very least in committee, either the Committee on Finance or the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[Trade, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the Prime Minister. Given the considerable economic interests at stake, does he not believe that the time has come for him to take up the matter directly with his US counterpart in order to put an end to the harassment that Canadian industry is experiencing?

[Trade, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of a recent visit to Washington, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Canada had made a number of major diplomatic concessions to the United States, particularly on the issue of air strikes in Bosnia, the Freedom space station and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The minister expressed the hope that this would have some impact on certain trade issues between our two countries.

Following the incredible, in-your-face ruling of the United States International Trade Commission reversing the decision on softwood lumber reached by a panel of experts, and given that we are facing an unprecedented US offensive with respect to such products as uranium, beer, wheat and steel, does the Minister of International Trade really believe that his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has adopted the right strategy?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is already the second time I have the opportunity to discuss directly with my colleague from St. Albert on budget issues and, each time, I am under the impression that the hon. member for St. Albert does not listen carefully to what I say.

Duplication was mentioned as one of the factors behind the lack of budget efficiency within the federal system; other causes could have been indicated. So, if he wants, I could meet with him in private or simply make a speech on the factors inherent to the federal system that are responsible for the staggering costs to the country as a whole.

You suggested-and I find it a little sad-that the Official Opposition only knows how to criticize and never has anything positive to suggest. I cannot help but think that you must not have been present in this House very often to say that, since the Official Opposition has not ceased, these last few months, to put forward several budget proposals which the government has not taken into consideration, as I have already mentioned in my speech on the budget.

Moreover, the hon. member has also suggested that Canada is a great country and that it had to be acknowledged that Quebec receives a lot from the federal government in the way of transfer payments. I will put to you that these transfer payments are in the form of unemployment insurance and social assistance benefits and that one does not congratulate oneself on receiving from a federal state investments which are not going into research and development or a job creation program, but which only reveal the poverty of Quebec society within this federal system.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The hon. member commented on one part of my speech where I most specifically addressed the issue of costs inherent to our federal system. I mentioned of course the costly overlap and duplication, but I could also have talked about the scattering of public moneys all across Canada, supposedly to defend regional interests and to avoid offending regional susceptibilities. This is one aspect of Canadian federalism which, because of our vast territory, is at the root of some of our financial problems.

To reduce overlap, the hon. member suggested that Quebec opt out of the immigration field. At the outset, I find it horrible that members opposite would only take note of the fact that we find that overlap costs us a lot of money. First, we were expecting a lot more from them. We thought you would act energetically to eliminate overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments. Second, Quebec negotiated with the federal government a special immigration agreement which, in a certain sense, does not involve additional costs either for the federal government or for Quebec. This agreement only transfers the responsibility for managing the case files of immigrants and applicants. In my opinion, what the member suggested was somewhat irrelevant, since it has more to do with the Quebec government than with the prerogatives of the Official Opposition.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the stage in today's proceedings, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, when we resume debate the budget speech. For several days now, members have had the opportunity to voice their concerns about the budgetary provisions. However, I think we can rightfully ask ourselves the following question: What is the government going to do with the views expressed in this House on the budget?

Given the government's obstinate refusal to change its mind about closing the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, I think the answer to this question is obvious: Nothing! The government has no intention of acting on the concerns expressed during this debate. It has no intention of listening to or taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the members of this House. Just a few minutes ago, my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, mentioned several suggestions made in this House that the government has chosen to completely ignore.

It was not so very long ago that the government was boasting of wanting to consult Parliament and the public before drafting its budget. Yet, it does not seem to be able to benefit from the opinions, suggestions and concerns presented. The Liberal government, which appears to be suffering from acute "consultationitis", spent vast sums of money staging mock pre-budget conferences and was unable to draw little, if any, inspiration whatsoever from the opinions expressed.

However, by holding these conferences which were given wide coverage by the media and which provided an opportunity to float a series of trial balloons, setting Canadian taxpayers up to expect the worst, the government deliberately maintained an atmosphere of austerity. As a result, the vast majority of our fellow citizens were fully prepared to do their share to help bring the deficit under control, provided all segments of society were asked to make equivalent sacrifices.

Did the government take advantage of the implicit consensus among Canadians and of the admirable movement of collective solidarity? No, it foolishly let this opportunity slip away by tabling a highly disappointing budget designed so as not to stir up the waters too much. In some respects, the budget is a reflection of the Canadian government's powerlessness in the face of the catastrophic state of public finances.

After unemployment, the deficit is one of the biggest concerns of Quebecers and Canadians. This government wanted to work on three objectives at the same time: first, to promote economic growth; second, to stem the increase in public spending so as to reduce the deficit; and third, to carry out at all costs the promises made during the election campaign. In doing so, the government literally overlooked two objectives to which it should have given the greatest importance: deficit reduction and job creation.

It seems that this government was not able to attain both these goals at the same time. In fact, instead of attacking the problems, it chose instead to go after the citizens themselves, especially the most disadvantaged.

Indeed, 60 per cent of the too small deficit reduction projected for 1995-96 is due to the new measures reducing the amounts allocated for the unemployed. Furthermore, the government is increasing the tax burden of seniors and eliminating a tax break that benefited the middle class.

Let us consider for a moment the structural deficit, which is approximately 3.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. The Bloc Quebecois and many Quebecers are convinced that Canada is running up such huge deficits because of the very way this country is structured. Federalism is inherently inefficient with the many overlaps, wasted energy and contradictory policies.

The structural deficit is due to the huge government bureaucracy. What is the government doing in the 1994-95 budget to improve the poor management practices that exist and are perpetuated in this bureaucracy? What is it doing to eliminate the waste which the Auditor General has made a point of denouncing many times in successive reports? Very little.

One of the solutions put forward by the government is to cut transfer payments to the provinces by $2 billion, $466 million in 1995-96 and $1.54 billion in 1996-97. Of course, the Minister of Finance defends himself by saying that he will spend $800 million to finance new approaches to social security. What are these new approaches? Can he assure us they will not, once again, lead to federal government intervention in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction?

It is disturbing to see that one of the solutions considered by the government is to increase the tax burden of middle-income seniors and of middle-class taxpayers in general. How can they justify their decision to reduce the age credit? In total, between 1994 and 1997, this measure will take $490 million from the pockets of seniors, while high-income taxpayers are still benefiting from tax shelters.

On the other hand, when the Bloc Quebecois called for stimulation of the job market and lowering of the unemployment rate, it did not ask the government to shift the responsibility for its problems to Quebec and the other provinces. Unemployment insurance reform will neither motivate people to work nor, of course, increase the number of jobs available. It will in fact put more people on the welfare rolls.

The government's dithering is impossible to explain and unforgivable when every wasted minute aggravates its financial situation as well as the suffering of individuals and families hurt by unemployment and poverty.

The government seems to count mainly on economic recovery to fill its coffers. Recent experiences have taught us to be wary of such calculations. We should have expected the government to take vigorous measures, but it has not done so.

The Desjardins Group, the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund and the Conference Board all forecast an unemployment rate of around 10 per cent in 1995. How did the government come up with this more or less realistic and much too optimistic percentage of 8 per cent?

The sluggish recovery is mostly due to the excessive tax burden and unacceptable unemployment rate. No wonder Gallup pollsters found out last November that participation in the underground economy is considered acceptable by 33 per cent of Canadians and 42 per cent of Quebecers.

The only real solution to the underemployment problem proposed by the government to Quebecers and Canadians is the infrastructure program. It is better than nothing but it is far from being the solution to all our problems. Furthermore, the short-sightedness with which this program was designed is alarming. In fact, it will only provide 45,000 short-term jobs in economic areas having rather little value-added, so it does not stimulate Canada's international competitiveness. Quebec's 437,000 unemployed are perfectly entitled to question the government's good faith.

Yet, when all available means must be used as efficiently as possible, the government does not seem to understand that enhancing the production and export capability of the thousands of small and medium-sized businesses throughout Canada and Quebec can truly create jobs and produce wealth. The government recognizes that two million jobs depend on exports, which

account for more than one quarter of the GDP. It also acknowledges that priority should be given to increasing the exports of the small and medium-sized business sector, which account for only 10 per cent of the total volume of exports. It fails, however, to take concrete measures to realize its wishes.

The Minister for International Trade himself declared that measures to stimulate expansion in this sector are insufficient, overlooked and therefore inadequate. Several members received complaints from heads of small and medium-sized businesses who say that they cannot get the information, the expertise or the logistical support needed to access foreign markets. It is therefore urgent for the government to correct the situation and ensure that the information, which apparently exists, is made available.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. This sector's real problems result from the treatment small and medium-sized businesses receive from banks and their inability to access funds. In this regard, the minister does not have anything concrete to propose apart from planning a vague consultative process between himself and Canadian financial institutions, but, of course, without the main stakeholders, namely small and medium-sized businesses. Once again, the Minister only uses the future tense. Unfortunately, action must now replace discussions and pious wishes.

We know that, in the past, the governments of some provinces, especially Quebec, made efforts to promote small business development. What is the federal government doing to coordinate its initiatives with those of the provinces? The fact is that small business assistance programs, particularly those related to exports, are not only inadequate, but often competing and conflicting.

Solutions to problems are deferred. After being so alarmist for several weeks, the government finally tabled a budget which had no real direction and managed to make everyone unhappy. Once again, the government resorted to a policy with no long-term vision, thereby leaving us with the poor result that we know.

This budget reminds us of an administration which, not long ago, was vehemently criticized by the Liberals themselves. This budget, like the ones tabled by previous governments, fails to reach the original objectives set by the government.

It does nothing to reduce the deficit. It does not provide adequate measures to create employment. Moreover, it targets social programs, instead of eliminating costly waste and overlapping in government expenditures. One could almost think, and I will end on that note, that it was Michael Wilson or Don Mazankowski wearing the Minister of Finance's work boots, last February 22. And that certainly does not augur well for Canada and for Quebec.