André Caron

[Petitions, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition containing the signatures of 1,500 Quebecers opposed to the closing of the VIA rail line between Montreal and Jonquière.

The petitioners are asking Parliament for a one-year moratorium on the anticipated reductions in service. They are also asking the Canadian government to hold public hearings so that those affected by losses of service can make known their disagreement with this decision.

As a representatvie of a remote area in Quebec experiencing serious economic problems, I support the action undertaken by the coalition to save the Montreal-Jonquière passenger train. I am opposed to the systematic dismantling of our rail infrastructures under the pretext that rail travel is an outmoded, antiquated form of transportation too expensive to maintain.

Without the railway, Quebec is deprived of an infrastructure that could be important to its economic development in the years to come.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will now continue the speech I started before Question Period. I may recall that I was commenting on the bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, which proposes to change the name of the department and define certain powers, duties and functions with respect to research on and processing of agri-food products.

I indicated that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill, but I note, after reading the bill and listening to the minister, who explained the role played by his department in the agricultural industry in this country, that there is considerable potential for overlap.

If we look at what the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada are doing in the agricultural and agri--

food sectors, there are many activities that are practically identical. The Government of Quebec also supports farmers, promotes market development, supports research and also supports activities connected with the inspection of agricultural products.

It is, more or less, what the federal government is going to do as well. This is a typical example of overlap. And if we consider that historically, federal spending on Quebec's agricultural industry has always been less than Quebecers would consider their fair share as part of the Canadian federation, this may be yet another instance of Quebecers paying twice for the same service. They pay for agricultural research and development activities in their province and, since they pay federal taxes, they also pay for what is being done elsewhere.

If federal spending in Quebec could be said to be more or less on a per capita basis, we could say that we are not paying more to get the same services or services that are almost identical to what the federal government can offer. However, that is not the case.

If I am not mistaken, federal spending on agriculture in Quebec has never exceeded 20 per cent, and has often been considerably less.

I am not surprised, because this has been going on for quite some time in Quebec, but I am surprised that the minister failed to include in his bill a number of provisions to keep to a minimum any overlap with activities in this sector that are covered by the Government of Quebec.

I feel very much involved in this particular debate. As we heard during Question Period and statements by members, in the past three years, and especially during the 1992 referendum in Quebec, Quebecers have paid for the referendum they held under Quebec's legislation and also paid for the referendum held in the rest of Canada. Since Quebecers pay taxes like everybody else, part of the money spent by the federal government on the referendum in Canada-Regina and Toronto and St. John's, Newfoundland-came from taxes paid by Quebecers. They paid for this referendum and they also paid for their own referendum. This is an obvious case of overlap.

Quebecers understood their Premier had received assurances from the Canadian Prime Minister that they would get the money back. Quebecers believed Premier Bourassa. They did not necessarily think Mr. Bourassa was lying. Mr. Bourassa spoke from his seat in the National Assembly. Today, we are told that the word of the Premier of Quebec is not enough to prove that the federal government owes money to Quebec.

That is why I would have liked to see in the agriculture minister's bill provisions stating that the Department of Agriculture will consult with the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture in order to avoid overlap, to ensure that there are no cases where Quebecers will have to pay twice.

I would have liked to see that in the bill because I realize that if it is not written in black and white before a witness and recorded by a notary, when provisions are not perfectly clear, nothing ever gets done. So we say that even if promises were made by a prime minister, there is no guarantee if it is not in writing.

That is why I would have liked to see in the minister's bill clear indications that real efforts will be made to avoid overlap so that Quebecers will not again-as in many other cases-have to pay twice for the same service.

I will not keep the House any longer. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois endorses the spirit of the bill. We will review it in committee. In particular, we will ask that the matter of inspectors be clarified. The definition of "inspector" in French seems slightly different from that in English.

Bloc members will ask for clarifications in committee, because it is very important to convince and assure Quebec francophones that the French version of a bill says the same thing as the English version.

I thank you for your attention and let me assure you that our Bloc colleagues who sit on the agriculture committee will see to it that this bill is improved in the interest of the people of Quebec and Canada.

[1992 Referendum, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can we trust a federal government that repudiates verbal agreements made with the former Premier of Quebec and member of the great Liberal family?

Everyone saw Mr. Bourassa say in the Quebec National Assembly that there was an agreement on referendum costs. The government's attitude is astonishing, when we consider that the same federal government, on the basis of a commitment by an unknown individual, approved a transaction that was totally unacceptable, in the case of Ginn Publishing.

This government's double standard shows that many Quebecers are right to distrust federal politicians who fail to keep their word once they have won the election.

It is a sad reflection on democracy, and Quebecers will not forget that in Canada, they must pay twice for the federal referendum and that the word of a Quebecer who is Prime Minister in Ottawa does not mean a thing.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-49, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture to amend the act governing his department.

Essentially, the bill changes the department's name to Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. As the minister explained during his speech, the new name confirms that today the government's agricultural responsibilities are not restricted to helping farmers; their economic well-being and survival are largely dependent on the need to process, market and distribute their products.

I think a country has a responsibility to ensure the smooth development of its agricultural sector, whose impact on the lives of nations and peoples is well known.

In his speech, the minister identified his responsibilities with respect to marketing. I think it is an important sector. In Quebec, I heard about demands made by fine cheese producers, for example, who saw their industry's problem as one of marketing. I hope that this bill will enable the department, in cases like these, to help our producers market their products.

Of course, in a modern state, the agriculture department's responsibilities go beyond dealing with agricultural production as such. I think a modern state's responsibilities extend to marketing and to helping and supporting agricultural producers and processors. With the globalization of markets, we must export abroad.

I think, as the minister pointed out in his speech, that the time for exporting raw commodities is over. We, for instance, used to export enormous quantities of wheat to Russia. I think that we must refine our policies in this area and take steps to process our products right here, because agriculture-as the minister also mentioned-is a major source of jobs in Canada. The downstream sector in agriculture, the whole processing industry, is very important in that respect.

It is therefore important that the Department of Agriculture work to improve our competitiveness, our independence from foreign countries, and to ensure the future of our agricultural system, and that the department do its part to promote research. The bill points out that the department has responsibilities in this area.

I would like to point out how ironic it is that Bill C-50 on the Canadian Wheat Board, proposing that checkoffs be made from sales proceeds to support research, was tabled last Monday. I do not know if, in the future, other agricultural sectors will be asked to make the same effort. If not, one has to wonder whether we are not asking wheat producers to subsidize agricultural research twice through their taxes and the checkoffs? It remains to be seen.

You can see from my remarks that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill, even though it does not address at all the matter of overlap. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify what I mean after Question Period.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. This legislation will regulate the work of those who lobby government departments and agencies on behalf of their clients' interests.

I have read the bill and support a number of its provisions. Naturally, I support the fact that the bill requires lobbyists to disclose the nature of their activities. I also agree that the departments and agencies who are being lobbied must be identified. I also believe it is a good idea that the identity of individuals or corporations involved in lobbying be clearly disclosed.

These are the main provisions I see in this bill. Basically, we expected these provisions.

Other positive aspects of the bill, to my mind, are the fact that it calls for the establishment of a code of ethics governing lobbying activities and the appointment of an ethics counsellor to oversee the application of the legislation.

Generally speaking, these are the positive sides to this bill. It would be rather ridiculous if we only had negative things to say. However, if we examine the bill in relation to what has now come to be known as the Pearson Airport scandal, we see that as it is now worded, the bill would not have prevented this scandal from occurring. We would not have received any new information besides what we already have.

With this bill, we would have learned that some lobbying took place with respect to the privatization of part of Pearson Airport. That is nothing new. We would have learned that the Department of Transport was also lobbied. But we knew that already. Perhaps an inquiry would have been called by the person responsible for the application of the legislation. Well, an inquiry was held into the Pearson Airport deal. The Prime Minister appointed a special investigator who looked into the deal and released a report, which explains why certain facts came to our attention. We have learned in particular that there was something in the wind because the investigator did not have the power to force people to testify, so that we could find out what really happened.

The bill before us provides for a code of conduct which is not a statutory instrument and cannot force people to testify.

Having reviewed the bill before us, I submit that this bill would have been of no use to us in getting to the bottom of the Pearson Airport scandal.

As you can see, this bill is seriously flawed. I will try to describe briefly the flaws I see in this bill and explain how I would like to contribute to future debates on this bill.

Flaw number one: the ethics counsellor is appointed by the Governor in Council, in other words, the government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, as in the case of Mr. Nixon, who was appointed to investigate the Pearson Airport deal. I would say his being appointed by the government undermines his authority. As I see it, he should have been appointed by the House of Commons, just like the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. This gives him unquestioned prestige and authority.

Flaw number two: the code of conduct is not a statutory instrument. This code, as described in the bill, seems to be little more than a pious wish list. Lobbyists are advised to behave in a certain way, but the code is not a statutory instrument. This is going to make it difficult for the person responsible for its application to summon witnesses, to question their statements, to shed light on suspicious deals. I think the non-regulatory status of the ethics code is a major weakness of the bill before us.

Another shortcoming is that lobbyists are not required to make public the amounts involved. When a lobbyist receives $10,000 for his services, I think he is not in the same situation as if he received $1 million or $2 million.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who spoke before me, said that he thought of disclosing the amounts paid to lobbyists. The argument he just put forward to justify his change of mind is that there would be so much information that it would be impractical for potential lobbying researchers to dig out the figures. I think the hon. member changed his mind a little too fast because of an apparently flimsy justification. Whether there are 5,000 or 10,000 reports, Canadians interested in democracy will make an effort to look at them. Whether there are 10 or 20 people looking, if they see problems, they will be able to warn the population, and I think journalists will be smart enough to use this information. I think it would be important to know how much lobbyists received for their services.

Another element of the bill that has not been pointed out but should be in my opinion-I will be told, I am sure, that it has to do with the Income Tax Act or with other tax laws-is that the government has kept the tax deduction for lobbyists' fees. It is somewhat ironic that, on the one hand, the public is denied this information and that, on the other hand, since the people who hire lobbyists benefit by being allowed to claim a tax deduction, this information is provided to the Department of Revenue.

It could be said that lobbyists want to have their cake and eat it too. It means that when things are not favourable, they want to keep it a secret, but when they can benefit financially, there is no problem as long as tax confidentiality is preserved. I think that this tax deduction is very questionable, especially since President Clinton of the United States, who wants to regulate lobbying, is thinking of eliminating it.

The bill also makes a dubious distinction between two types of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists paid to make representations on behalf of their clients and in-house corporate lobbyists whose main duty is to lobby departments and governments in order to obtain benefits for their companies. The bill is tougher on consultant lobbyists than on in-house lobbyists.

But we must say that in-house lobbyists are often employed by large corporations which can afford their services and which must be accountable to the public. So I think that the lack of uniformity in the way this bill treats the various lobbyists is a major weakness which may bring the public to question the effectiveness of this bill.

Another feature I find particularly surprising is that lobbyists are not required to name the people they contacted in the agencies concerned. A report might say: "So-and-so contacted the Department of Transport, the Department of Human Resources or the Department of Justice". But we would like to know whom this person contacted. Was it the minister or a senior official? I think that it is important to find out what went on and to shed light on lobbying activities.

I shall conclude because my time is almost up. Basically, Quebecers and Canadians want to know who is lobbying. They want to know for whom the lobbying is done. They want to know how the lobbying is done. They want to know why the lobbying is done and how much it costs. I think that it is important and when the principle of this bill is considered, my party will seek to ensure that this law has all the necessary provisions so that the people of Canada and Quebec are kept informed of lobbyists' activities.

[Kanesatake, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the Indian affairs minister tell us what specific guarantees he has obtained from the band council to reassure the residents of Kanesatake, who are afraid to see this patrol force become a police force?

[Kanesatake, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned about the establishment of this patrol force.

Was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development briefed on the discussions which took place between the Kanesatake Band Council and the Department of Human Resources Development concerning the establishment of such a patrol force at Kanesatake?

[Kanesatake, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

We have learned that the Department of Human Resources Development is about to provide substantial financial assistance for the establishment of a parapolice patrol force on the Kanesatake reserve.

Given the very serious problems with security on the reserve and the tense relations between Chief Jerry Peltier and a substantial portion of the Mohawk population, many people have expressed serious fears about the addition of-

[Food Distribution In Canada's North, June 16th, 1994]

I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean which calls on the government to take the necessary steps to make food distribution in Canada's North more effective, and therefore more economical, in order to enable the Inuit to purchase higher quality food at a lower price.

I listened closely to the speeches given by the hon. member for Saint-Jean and by my Reform and government colleagues. They have certainly defined the problem of food distribution in the North quite well.

I want to use my time to focus in particular on the situation in the Nunavik territories, that is in northern Quebec and certain parts of Nunavut which correspond to what used to be called Keewatin, Baffin Island and Kitikmeot. Everyone no doubt agrees that the major problem with food distribution in the

North is distance. On average, food is shipped over a distance of roughly 2,200 kilometres, and in some cases, of up to 3,000 kilometres.

Air and sea transportation modes are commonly used, with sea routes open only a few months of the year. To all intents and purposes, air transportation is the sole mode used. Obviously, transportation costs are astronomical, because after all, these territories are not inhabited by large numbers of people. Furthermore, considering the climatic conditions, costs can be exorbitant.

The big problem for the people of these territories and the people concerned-in the territories that I looked at, involving 27,000 people, including 8,000 in northern Quebec-is due to transportation costs and the cost of living. In these territories, the cost of living can be one and a half times or twice as high. So we see that it is a serious financial situation for these families. The situation is even more serious in that northern Quebec and northern Canada as a whole have a big problem with employment and inadequate incomes. For all practical purposes, salaries in these regions are modest, even very modest, and the cost of food is high.

The impact on the people's health is great. Many studies done in the South and some in the North show the connection between health and diet. That is why I wanted to speak on the motion of my colleague from Saint-Jean, because it really is a problem. I think that Parliament and the Canadian government must take the necessary action to deal with this situation for the good of the people concerned.

For the territories I am considering, food is transported by air from two places: Churchill and Val-d'Or. From these places food products are sent to the North. There is no distribution from major cities such as Montreal, for example, where wholesalers and retailers could send their products directly to the North. Goods are distributed through the two communities I mentioned.

Of course, it is not only a matter of costs but also of transit times, since goods sometimes take several days to reach their destination. It is a real problem but there are, of course, solutions. Many things are now being done to feed or help feed Northerners. There are government measures and subsidies, and I think the federal government's contribution is very worthwhile.

But there are still some problems. Costs are very high. Additional transportation costs to the North range between $0.70 and $7.75 a kilo, so we can see why costs are prohibitive. But there may be solutions we can contemplate. It was brought to my attention that the Inuit designed a project promoting the establishment of a distribution centre in the North, in order to combine the goods brought on the same plane, thus reducing costs and ensuring adequate distribution to the villages concerned.

I do not want to speak for and publicize the measures that may be taken by people who formed a private venture, but I think this project should be carefully analyzed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because it seems likely to lower food costs in the North and because this initiative comes from Northerners. There as elsewhere, the people directly concerned are in the best position to take the measures required to improve their economic and social conditions. Since this project is sponsored by Inuit, I think it could be of interest to the Department of Indian Affairs.

This project also promotes the employment of Natives, of members of Inuit communities in the North. I think this should be one of our goals. Given the high cost of food in the North and the initiatives taken by Northerners, I urge the Department of Indian Affairs to consider the motion of my colleague from Saint-Jean and take the necessary steps to make food distribution in the North more effective. And if we can thus support Northerners willing to invest their money and energy in developing their communities, I think we should not hesitate to do so.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

The way the federal government is acting here exemplifies, in a way, the failure of the Canadian federal system and can explain, to a large extent, why a sovereigntist political party like ours was voted into the House of Commons of Canada.

Student financial assistance is obviously an education matter. And in Canada, under the existing Constitution, education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The government, the English Parliament that passed the British North America Act in 1867 had clearly defined the jurisdictions of each of the two levels of government we have in Canada: the federal government and the provincial governments. And each of them have exclusive powers within their jurisdictions.

Under section 42 of the British North America Act, education was defined at that time as an area of provincial jurisdiction. But for years, actually decades now, the federal government has been invading this provincial area of responsibility. By virtue of what authority? By virtue of its own power to spend.

It is somewhat ironic to see, while jurisdictions are clearly defined in the Constitution, the federal government is intruding in an area under provincial jurisdiction, saying: "We are rich. We have loads of money. We have money to spend. Therefore you have to take our money".

The bill before us speaks volumes about the government managing to ignore the uniqueness of provincial governments in the end. In time, this practice has caused the federal system to fail in Canada, with the result that communities like ours, in Quebec, have decided to take responsibility for themselves and run their own state business in their interests, according to objectives set by and for themselves.

This bill sets out standards any provincial government would have to meet to avail itself of something we have been enjoying in Canada for over thirty years, namely the possibility of opting out. As you know, since the 1960s, many voices were raised in Canada to warn the federal government: "You are interfering in such and such an area of provincial jurisdiction". With things heating up, the federal government of the day put forward the opting-out formula, which means that a provincial government can invoke its right to opt out, get full compensation for and administer certain programs in the interest of its people.

Quebec opted out of a number of these programs, including the loan and bursary program.

This bill preserves the opting-out formula, but the conditions each province must meet in order to exercise the right to opt out are so stringent that the day will come when opting-out will not be in a province's interest.

The bill says that if a province wants to withdraw, its program must have essentially the same criteria as those of the federal program. So what are they really telling the province? They are telling it to administer-repeat, administer-the federal program in such a way as to obtain the same results.

At first glance, we could say: "Yes, it is quite normal in a federation. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all parts of the country and all citizens are treated the same way". We would then completely ignore one important aspect: Within the Canadian federation, there are some very obvious local differences. British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec often face particular situations that require adjusting the programs from which they asked to withdraw. Also, they cannot always pursue the same objectives and effects if they want to ensure that the people who stand to benefit get the most out of the programs.

I think it is rather obvious in the area of education. I myself am a teacher by profession. Before being elected to the House of Commons, I worked as a guidance counsellor in a secondary school. I saw that the Canadian education system has its peculiarities. It was quite obvious every year during Canada Career Week. Schools then received boxes full of brochures suggesting activities, in French, of course, because we are still Canada's French-speaking province. We received documents in French suggesting activities geared to the various levels.

Every year, it was something of a novelty for everyone. We were eager to see what was proposed. The school's guidance counsellors and teachers tried to find out together what Canadian people elsewhere thought up for us in French and wanted us to do during Career Week. Often, it was written in acceptable or sometimes even in excellent French. We had difficulty understanding the type of activities proposed and figuring out to which students or levels they were aimed at. The various systems work differently and also the values underlying them vary from province to province. So, in the vast majority of situations, we simply could not use the material provided to us.

Nevertheless, we would do like the rest of Canadian schools and have a career week, except that we would use material prepared in our own school, and it would work very well. This example illustrates how, in a field as critical as education, Canadians and Quebecers have different approaches, views and ways of doing things.

At the time, we more or less did what Quebec wants to do in the next few years, in that we decided to act independently. We told ourselves: Our school will have its own career week, based on our own methods, objectives and procedures, and activities will be geared to our students.

This modest work experience has taught me that, in fields as important as education, the needs of citizens and provinces must be taken into account, and those needs are not the same throughout Canada. That is why the bill before us is a bad piece of legislation. It includes several clauses promoting such standardization, and some provinces might not be able to make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the system runs smoothly.

Let us go back to clause 7, which refers to the interest-free period for a borrower who ceases to be a student.

Why does that clause impose a standard procedure for every province in the country? We all know that the unemployment rate varies from province to province. It is not true that a student in a given province has the same chances of finding a job when he graduates as a student in another province.

Yet, based on that clause, the situation is presumably the same right across the country. I will conclude by simply asking the House to support the amendment tabled by the Bloc Quebecois to delete this provision which forces provinces to adopt and implement standard procedures, thereby making the option to withdraw from the plan non applicable for all intents and purposes. If this bill is passed in the form proposed by the Liberal government, it will confirm once again that Canadian federalism cannot work in the current context. Consequently, those who are looking for an alternative in the interest of their community have no choice but to withdraw from it, as I hope Quebec will do in the next few years.