Debates of March 24th, 1995

Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

No, we were for it. The economist who prepared this plan for the Minister of Finance was Pierre-Paul Proulx. When he realized that the Minister of Finance was dropping these principles, the man who was writing the speeches of the Minister of Finance joined the Bloc Quebecois, saying: It is hopeless. He was fed up and that is what he did.

I believe that the finance minister himself understood that had he been elected in Calgary, he might have implemented the plan for Montreal, which, I must admit, he knows well. But, because he preferred to be a minister with all the accompanying trappings, rather than being true to his ideas, he gave them up. Six thousand seven hundred jobs were cut in Montreal and nothing was done about it.

And yet there were groups in Montreal, organizations working to get the economy going again. I am thinking of community and economic development corporations or CDECs which work with community groups, employers, labour, and municipal, federal and provincial governments.

This is what we call partnership. During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberals promised the moon to these groups, giving them specific examples. Especially the minister responsible for Quebec regional development, who can still deal with community and economic development corporations, though he is prevented from dealing with other types of corporations. Such is the case of shipyards he can no longer be involved with since he has an interest in them. The same is true of trucking, and air transport, in both of which he also has an interest. He has lots of interests, but little time or no availability to get involved since he would be in conflict of interest. And yet, he still is responsible for regional development. These corporations came and still come under Human Resources Development.

The province and the federal government accepted to extend the agreements for three years and Human Resources Development for six months. For now, the development of these corporations has come to a standstill. We are told in confidence that the CDECs are expected to no longer come under the Department of Human Resources Development, but rather under the Federal Office of Regional Development. Considering the tripartite agreement that was reached, why not give immediate approval for another three years? The government is jeopardizing not only the very existence of these corporations, but most importantly all the work they carry out. This is crucial to the current situation in Montreal, because employment in this area will be affected not only by government cuts, but also by the lack of

measures to help workers and private corporations to adjust to NAFTA.

We were promised these measures by the government during the last election campaign. What good did they do? Hitachi is leaving; Northern Telecom is leaving. They are all leaving Montreal. Now I have heard some Liberals tell us: Yes, they are leaving the Montreal area. But why? Because of political instability. Of course. Now that the sovereignists are in office in Quebec, private companies are fleeing to settle in a more stable environment.

This is incredible. What about the stability in the country they have chosen to settle in, Mexico. The former president has fled the country, because his brother is charged with killing another candidate, with an assistant charged with killing two people. There is the rebellion in Chiapas. What a stable country. These people have the nerve to tell us that they are leaving Quebec to settle in a stable country, Mexico. That reminds me of Laurent Beaudoin, of Bombardier Inc., who stated in 1992 that investors are not interested in politically unstable countries. It made the headlines. And all the federalist politicians started saying the same thing without really trying to understand. If Beaudoin says it, it must be true because he is our friend, he pays. We help him and we have only nice things to say about him.

However, in the same week, there was a meeting at Bombardier and Beaudoin told us that the company's largest international investment at that time was the purchase of North Corporation. I do not want to frighten you, but North Corporation is in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Does it ring a bell? These kinds of arguments are worthless. We have to get back to this budget. Let us look at unemployment insurance.

[An hon. member]

It bothers them.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

There would be a lot to say on this, my friend. It is the Liberal's turn. If you want to speak, just rise. If you do not have anything to say, then stop. The unemployment insurance fund will suffer a 10 per cent cut again.

We are being told that there are fewer unemployed workers in Canada. It is just like a physician saying that there are fewer sick people in the hospital because they are all dead. People who are no longer on unemployment insurance are now on welfare. And the government is proud to have reduced unemployment.

How can unemployment be reduced? By creating employment or by reducing access to unemployment. The Liberals thought that it would be easier to reduce access to unemployment. They look at the statistics and say that there are fewer unemployed workers. They are magicians. Choquette, the famous magician, looks like an amateur compared to them.

They can make unemployed workers disappear in an instant; they just reduce access to unemployment insurance. No unemployment insurance, no unemployed; no unemployed, no unemployment. Easy. Again, it will cost Montreal millions of dollars, because there are more unemployed people in that city than in the four Maritime provinces combined. That is terrible.

They take on the unemployed, not unemployment. Yet, how often did the Liberals talk about this when they were the opposition? In Montreal, 29 per cent of families live below the poverty level. I suppose that in the next budget they will decide to reduce that to 15 per cent: the poverty level now being set at $20,000, they will drop it to $10,000 so that there will be fewer people living below the poverty level. That is Liberal magic. This is a hocus pocus government.

The red book contained a hidden promise: Vote for us and you will be in the red. That is exactly what we see happening. I have to say that it is a promise well kept, no doubt about it.

The Biosphere and the St. Lawrence Centre plan come to mind. What is happening with this plan? Two or three press conferences were held about it. Actually, under the Liberal strategy, nothing happens before it has been announced ten times in press conferences. Therefore, it will be announced regularly over the next few months and then it will get under way.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

We have to make repeated announcements, so that you can understand.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes, and all the announcements are patterned after the original, to repeat the same message. And the Liberals are happy about that.

The design and fashion industry support program also comes to mind: we have heard nothing yet about it. I am reminded of all those programs like the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada that will be affected. One has to have a lot of nerve to make all those promises during an election campaign and go on and on about Montreal, only to come up with such meagre results. However, we have to wonder if the government, during the 1995 referendum campaign-

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

When?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In 1995, my friend. There are twelve months in a year. I see that my time is up. We will soon continue the debate about Montreal in greater detail.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. Members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Under Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred to Saturday, March 25, 1995, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to have the recorded division deferred until next Tuesday, at 5.30 p.m., instead of Saturday.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion.

Agriculture

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 314.

When we debated the motion last month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food told the House that the federal government had been taking steps for some time to reduce overlap and duplication and that we had been doing so in close co-operation with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector.

I will not go into detail about the initiatives we discussed in the House at that time, initiatives that clearly demonstrate the ongoing efforts of the federal government to reduce both overlap and duplication among the various governments.

However I should like to remind members of some of them. They include in depth discussions among the federal government, the provinces and the private sector regarding the implementation of a Canadian inspection plan, a federal-provincial protocol for the development of trade and the promotion of new markets, and talks we are holding with the provinces aimed at increasing the efficiency of the delivery of financial services to the agri-food sector.

As far as the last point is concerned, the Farm Credit Corporation and interested provinces are discussing strategies to reduce duplication of government services in the sector. As part of the process the FCC has acquired the $37.4 million portfolio of the New Brunswick Agricultural Development Board. We are also attempting to combine the lending services of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Alberta Financial Services Corporation into a single delivery point. Needless to say the initiative is exactly what is needed.

I could go on at length about the federal government's initiative to reduce overlap and duplication but I am limited by time constraints. Today I will focus on the content of Motion No. 314 and certain key aspects of the discussion on the motion, the basis of which I find puzzling.

The motion attempts to provide a starting point for negotiations based on the following three questions. First, what does it mean to reconfederate agriculture and why do we need to do it now? Second, what role should government play in agriculture? Third, what role should the agri-food industry play?

If the motion were adopted, the federal government would have jurisdiction over trade policy, trade distortion adjustment support, whole farm income stabilization programs, health and safety standards, and macrophysical monetary and taxation policy.

The provinces would be responsible for human and material resources, while the private sector would be responsible for all aspects of the business plan, from design to the sale of goods and services.

While all the reforms put forward in the motion may at first glance seem clear cut, a number of points are far from clear. Let us begin with the transfer of responsibility for all income stabilization programs to the federal government.

Such a measure is inconsistent with the significant progress recently made by the federal government and the provinces together, in the interest of Canadian producers. As a result of their concerted efforts, much progress has been made in this area.

We can think back to the situation that existed in Canada in the area of the income stabilization programs in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The federal and provincial governments had their own completely independent rival income stabilization programs which distorted market signals to some extent.

In December 1994 after extensive discussions with the provinces we reached a federal-provincial consensus aimed at developing a renewed national whole farm income stabilization program. The program is an example of close co-operation between the government and is more in line with the interests of the sector.

In addition, as announced in the federal budget brought down on February 27, the $600 million allocated to the annual costs of the new whole farm safety net program will be increased by a contribution from the provinces and from the federal government, bringing total annual government support to producers to $1 billion.

A rational and effective national delivery system is what Canadian producers including the producers of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River wanted. That is what we are attempting to give them.

It is in the interests of both federal and provincial governments as partners to play an active part in becoming financially responsible because their common goal is to contribute to a stable economy that will benefit all producers, in fact all Canadians.

A second point in Motion No. 314 that puzzles me concerns the proposed trade adjustment assistance program designed to counter the export subsidies imposed by the United States and the European Union. It seems clear to me that the cost of the proposal would be exorbitant and that it is largely inconsistent with our commitments under GATT and the World Trade Organization.

Adopting Motion No. 314 would be a large step backward. Given the current trade regime, no producer, processor or government can afford to lose 15 or 20 years of partnership, close co-operation and dialogue.

We owe it to Canadians including the people of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River to move forward with the current policies and to build, to be innovative and to demonstrate ingenuity. The government has already initiated serious discussions on the issue with the provinces and the private sector. It has also launched many initiatives that have allowed it to transform itself into an innovative, flexible organization that is ready to face today's market and the market of tomorrow.

Therefore I feel I must defend the interests of a sector that is so important to me. Consequently I urge the members of the House to reject Motion No. 314.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House today in support of the motion of my colleague and friend, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

I do not think I need to spend a lot of time explaining why overlap and duplication are not good. We talk about that all the time in the House. My colleagues have dealt with or will deal with various issues concerning jurisdictional problems that exist in the agricultural industry at this time. However there is one aspect of the matter that I want to discuss in the time allotted to me today, that is the general thrust of the bill.

Members of the House have heard me refer on many occasions to the recent observation by the Auditor General that there is widespread failure in our national government to carry out proper evaluation of legislation. We see a problem; we pass a law. We see another problem; we pass another law and so on. We never ask ourselves whether the problems we see are the sorts of things that can be solved by legislation at all. Often they are not. Nor do we really ask ourselves whether it is the right piece of legislation. Often it is not. The old line parties all too often fail to ask whether many of our problems are not the result of legislation in the first place and not a lack of legislation.

During the debate on any given bill the government says it is a good bill and the oppositions say it is not a good bill. However the government, having more members, will make sure that it passes in the House. The government keeps on saying it is a good bill and the opposition keeps on saying it is bad. Neither of them says how it should be measured.

When another election comes along both sides promise a lot more laws to solve a lot more problems, real or imaginary. However how often do say they will get rid of a law? I leave aside the promises of current government members to abrogate NAFTA or eliminate the GST because by now everybody knows they were just kidding. That is what I am supposed to say.

The result is that we keep getting more laws. We do not revisit them. Government bills on the whole ought to contain sunset clauses. Every law should have a sunset clause that would require it to cease to exist after five years unless it was specifically reauthorized. That would mean that Parliament would spend a lot less time passing new laws because it would be too busy re-passing old ones.

It would be good because it would be much easier for government to get rid of a law that had been a mistake if it could just quietly not re-pass it. It would be a lot easier than having to stand and say: "Gee, we goofed. We are sorry", which is what it would have to do now. I am in favour of a sunset clause because I do not believe that we need a whole horde of laws, certainly not a whole horde of new ones. We need to get rid of some old ones.

For instance, we were saved forever from scary guns that go bang by drastic gun controls in the 1970s. Now we are considering even more drastic gun control legislation. Should we instead be pondering whether to bother re-enacting the old law or whether the whole enterprise should be scrapped? Maybe we

should stop measuring political success by the number of laws passed and start measuring it by their quality.

American humorist P. J. O'Rourke talked about this point in his book entitled "Parliament of Whores". After quoting the purposes of the U.S. constitution, which are "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of a liberty to ourselves and our posterity", he asks: "Are we done yet? When can we quit passing laws and raising taxes? When can we say of our political system let's stick a fork in it and see if it is done?"

Our federal government exists to provide peace, order and good government. That is a bit of circle, a government that exists to produce good government. When can we stick a fork in the government and say stop passing laws; we have enough and they are the right ones? The essential first step would be to stop passing new laws all the time and start spending some of our time evaluating the old ones.

I urge the House to support Motion No. 314. Let us stick a fork in our agricultural policy and ask whether it is done. If it is not thoroughly cooked, let us ask if it is even cooking. Let us make sure we have not put a roast in a shoe box instead of an oven. Let us start evaluating our laws to see if they are working and abolish or replace old ones that do not work before we pass new ones. Let us start right here with this motion.