Yvan Loubier

[International Trade, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not against protecting investments, but we will never accept being exposed to legal action by multinationals. This is totally irresponsible.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is this contradiction due to the fact that, in reality, there are two scenarios: the reassuring one that the public can find on the Internet, and the real one, the one that is on the table, the one that is hidden from the public and that says that Canada wants to replicate chapter 11?

[International Trade, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has always depicted himself as a model of clarity and transparence with regard to his negotiating positions on the FTAA. However, the remarks made yesterday by a senior official contradict the federal position stated on the Internet, which says, and I quote:

Canada is not advocating the replication of the NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the FTAA.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that the position of a senior official can be in total contradiction with the official government position as stated on the Internet?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15 and I am telling the House at the outset that my party will support its referral to committee. I am sure that my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will see to it that the bill is improved through the many amendments and suggestions that the Bloc Quebecois has already proposed at the drafting stage but that were not included in the bill.

We applaud some of the improvements presented earlier by the parliamentary secretary, but they are only minor changes. What can be said about these changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act is that lobbyists are powerful in curbing more substantial reforms with regard to the laws and regulations that affect them.

In fact, what we want to know when we talk about improving control over lobbying activities on Parliament Hill and in the various departments is the intensity of such lobbying and anything related to this intensity, meaning the ability of lobbyists to influence decision makers, whether it be senior officials or ministers themselves.

Who are these lobbyists? What is the history behind each of these lobbyists? What ability does a lobbyist have to influence decisions that might be made, included in a bill and introduced in the House of Commons? This is the most important thing. What is the relationship between this lobbyist and the government, some members of the government, some members of Parliament, some ministers or some deputy ministers? This is what is important.

We agree with the broadening of this act. We agree with the removal of some ambiguities that existed and that will continue to exist before this bill on the registration of lobbyists is passed. We agree with the streamlining and harmonizing of the rules concerning for profit and not for profit businesses. That is not the question.

The question is to determine whether the legislation will really ensure that we reach the goals intended by the bill. The question is not only to have an independent ethics commissioner appointed by the House of Commons. It is also to have a commissioner who can enforce regulations that have real teeth.

Let me remind the House of some amendments that the Bloc Quebecois has already suggested to the Lobbyist Registration Act, to determine the intensity of lobbying and also to ensure that we know who we are dealing with when there are lobbying activities.

First, what we want in this new bill—and we will again be proposing this amendment—is for lobbyists to be required to disclose their meetings with ministers and senior officials, not just with the department concerned, but also with individuals, that is, senior officials, public servants, middle managers and the minister himself. Any lobbyist can go to a department, but if we do not know with whom he had dealings, it is impossible to know just how much lobbying went on, and to analyze the decisions made by this government as a result.

Second, for the new lobbyists registration bill to have teeth, consultant lobbyists as well as in-house lobbyists must be required to disclose their professional fees. We ought to know the price we pay for these lobbyists to attempt to influence the government.

Third, we would like to see in the new bill a provision explicitly prohibiting any sort of conditional fee, regardless of the activity performed. Such a provision is important so that we do not end up with earnings proportional to the amount of the subsidy a firm could get from the government and which, let us remember, is money which belongs not to the government but to taxpayers.

We would also like the new bill to include a provision whereby consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists would be required to disclose positions they have held and the employment period as it corresponds to a federal administration or political party. They should also have to disclose unpaid executive positions with political parties, the number of hours of volunteer work, in cases of more than 40 hours per year for a party, or leadership candidate for a party, or riding association.

We also want to know what kind of mandates these lobbyists received as elected representatives at the federal level as well as which election campaigns they took part in, including the unsuccessful ones, and last, how much the various candidates received from their political party.

In other words, as I mentioned at the beginning of this debate, we want to know who exactly these lobbyists are. Knowing exactly who they are enables us to have an idea of how influential they might be and better assess government decisions. That is what we want to know.

Sometime by a sheer fluke we find out there is a link between a decision made by the government and how much money was given to the Liberal Party of Canada. We often draw this kind of parallel. Major corporations were the beneficiaries of a particular government policy and later on we found out, in the report tabled by the chief electoral officer, that these corporations had supported the Liberal Party of Canada to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars.

This kind of information is of public interest. In a democracy, this kind of information should be made public so that people can better assess decisions made by the government, often involving the money they contributed to the federal government as taxes. It is important to know that.

At the present time, under the current legislation on the financing of federal political parties, we only have a partial picture of the contributions made by firms engaged in lobbying since it is only during elections that we get a clear picture. Outside of electoral periods we can be told anything at all; there is no control over the funding of federal political parties.

The strengthening of the Lobbyists Registration Act should include changes, further reforms, both to improve the way federal political parties are funded so that the system is more transparent, more open with regard to the disclosure of contributions, and to know who exactly are the lobbyists who meet with the government, ministers and senior officials, and who might influence the government's decisions.

Those are only a few of the changes we will continue to push for in committee, but you can rest assured that we will not be satisfied with a few cosmetic changes such as these. We want to see a real reform to increase transparency and openness in the government, and to know who exactly are these people who lurk in the hallways day after day trying to influence the government. They meet with ministers without our knowing it in order to influence the direction of government policies.

We may on occasion be surprised at the actions taken by the government, but if we had information on the nature and identity of lobbyists, we would have a somewhat better understanding of why a government may choose directions that on occasion seem illogical to us, but are in fact extremely logical, given the meetings they have had with lobbyists the week or month before.

It is, I think, a matter of our desire to have a transparent legislative process, to be answerable to the public, and to be able to evaluate the actions of the government.

I would like to cite an example from this morning's newspapers. They report that a senior official of the Department of International Trade, who is also a negotiator for the Free Trade Area of the Americas has recommended that chapter 11 of NAFTA be extended, despite what the minister has said in the House. This chapter makes it possible for large corporations to sue the government for measures they see as having the potential for losses in the areas of the environment, education, health and so on. Why is the negotiator defending this position so vigorously? Since the minister knows only too well, why is he hiding it from us?

If we were aware of whom the minister, or the senior official, had met with in the past two years of the FTAA negotiation process, we might have a slightly better understanding that there could possibly be some big business interests behind all this.

There are, perhaps, interests involved which lead the government to go in a certain direction that is totally contrary to the public interest and totally contrary to the defence of the interests of the public it claims to represent. Perhaps what lies behind all this is a powerful lobby of transnational corporations.

We would like to have a clear picture of the situation, in this case and in many others besides.

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's replies are always the same. As regards the educational role of the veterinary school, the Quebec government has already done its part in March, with an amount of $41 million.

We are talking about the mission to protect animal and human health. We are talking about food safety, about food inspections, matters that come under federal jurisdiction.

Will the federal government do its part before it is too late and before the only French language veterinary school in North America shuts down?

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in December, that is in a few weeks, the American Veterinary Medical Association will decide whether or not to maintain the accreditation of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, the only such French language school in North America.

How can the Minister of Agriculture justify the fact that, after giving me assurances regarding the financial involvement of the federal government to maintain the standards required, four months later and barely a few weeks before the evaluation, the federal government still has not done anything, thus jeopardizing the very existence of the school?

[Speech from the Throne, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister missed a golden opportunity to leave a legacy and, more importantly, to make up for his devastating treatment of the sick and the unemployed.

Despite the fact that the health care system is crumbling, no real measures were announced for short term relief, and thousands of unemployed workers who do not qualify for EI will have to wait, as the speech contained nothing for them. For the Prime Minister, the fiscal imbalance is nothing more than a figment of the imagination, not the pernicious distortion of a system that contributes to impoverishing the population.

The Prime Minister is offering up more of what characterized his 40 years in politics: squabbles with Quebec. After interfering into education via the Millennium Scholarship Fund, he does one more by signing an announcement on a National Summit on Innovation and Learning, while at the same time announcing that it is taking over the securities sector.

The good intentions in this Speech from the Throne are spoiled by the actions of the past nine years and the Prime Minister's wish to go one last round with Quebec.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I would like to extend the condolences of myself and my family to the family of Mr. Duhamel, who passed away last evening.

The throne speech is often an opportunity to inform the public on the government's choices of priorities for the coming weeks, if not months, in this House.

Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister, through the Governor General, missed the mark a bit in that he omitted several priorities that ought to have been part of the throne speech, an omission that may have been deliberate.

One of these was employment insurance. The Speech from the Throne is totally silent on this subject, despite countless promises that have been made to the public in the past by representatives of the Liberal Party of Canada and despite demonstrations by representatives of the unemployed in all parts of Quebec and Canada, thousands of whom have been pushed out of the employment insurance program by this government in the last six years.

We might have expected a Prime Minister who was presenting his final throne speech—a kind of political last will and testament after 41 years in politics—to be sensitive to the fate of people who are getting kicked while they are down, that is those who have already been hit by job loss and now find they are not eligible for benefits, as is particularly the case for seasonal workers.

The Prime Minister was also off the track in omitting to mention a fundamental and urgent problem, that is health funding. There was no need to pay for a commission to travel the length and breadth of Canada in order to find out that there was a problem in the health system. All that was needed was to turn on the TV. Every day from morning to night, there are reports on the problems from east to west, from coast to coast to coast, as the Prime Minister is so fond of saying, particularly the situation in emergency rooms and the underfunding of the health system.

It does not take an astrophysicist to know that one plus one makes two, to figure that if $30 billion is cut from transfers to the provinces since 1995, thanks to the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former Minister of Finance, and also to the Prime Minister, that there will be underfunding in the end. Two plus two equals four, four minus two equals two. It is basic arithmetic. When cuts are made on one side, there will be problems on the other side. Everyone everywhere agrees unanimously, from Quebec to British Columbia, including the maritimes. I will make a special detour.

During their last meeting, the premiers of Canada and the ministers of finance put the issue of health care underfunding back on the table. They reached a consensus. As the Romanow commission recently stated, we have been talking about the underfunding of the healthcare system thanks to the thoughtless acts of the member for LaSalle—Émard and the Prime Minister for a long time now.

The premiers and ministers of finance of Canada came together with one voice to call on the federal government, which has accumulated considerable surpluses in the last three years, to increase health care funding. There is not one word about this. There is reference to the possibility that some day certain things may be corrected, but there is no firm commitment in the Speech from the Throne when it comes to health care, when everyone was expecting that there would be some firm commitment to increase health care funding.

It is easy to pen a fine Speech from the Throne, with carefully crafted phrases and carefully chosen words, but it is quite a different ball game to head a provincial government and manage the health sector, which is in constant crisis from week to week, across Canada. There is not one word about this urgent need for additional funding.

One would also have expected that the urgent situation created by the softwood lumber dispute and the measures taken by the Americans would be echoed in the Speech from the Throne. But the government is silent on this issue, as if the softwood lumber crisis and the situation in numerous regions affected by job losses and an economic slowdown did not exist. There is a limit to the government ignoring priorities, particularly in a government program that will guide our proceedings in the months to come.

The throne speech is also silent on the WTO negotiations that will begin this fall, except for small minor references to globalization. It looks good to talk about globalization and new technologies in a document. It looks very good. But what is Canada's position regarding this round of WTO negotiations?

There are major issues at stake in these negotiations, including cultural diversity and agriculture. There are memos signed by ministers that are circulating. They are drafted, signed, then re-drafted and re-signed. These memos are saying that Canada is prepared to sacrifice the supply management system for the dairy, poultry, table eggs and hatching eggs sector. In this regard, the minister told us during oral question period that it is out of the question, that they will fight tooth and nail during the negotiations to protect this system.

I remember that, in 1988, another minister, sitting almost in the same seat, said the same thing when the agricultural industry asked that article 11 of GATT be maintained. At the time, this article protected Canadian borders by controlling import volumes for dairy, poultry and eggs. These imports were strictly regulated because, in Canada and Quebec, a strict production system has been put in place, whereby farmers produce only what the market needs. This way, imports that could destabilize this system are regulated.

We are being told the same thing today. But a memo to the Canadian negotiators says that they can sacrifice the supply management system to save international grain markets, for instance. At some point, the members opposite are going to have to wake up, just as the Progressive Conservatives did. It took at least five major demonstrations in Ottawa in the late 1980s for the government of the day to understand that the supply management system is not for sale internationally, that it is working, and that it does not cause distortions.

Right now, we have the same situation again, with a Minister for International Trade telling us that he believes firmly in it. If that is so, let us have no more memos circulating with his signature and the signatures of two other colleagues, which serve as mandates for the Canadian negotiating team acting on behalf of Canada in Geneva as part of this WTO round.

There is fiscal imbalance and much harm is caused by too much money going to Ottawa and not enough to the provinces to finance such things as health, education and social assistance. There is not a word about fiscal imbalance, as though it did not exist.

Once again, there is unanimity in Canada. The provincial ministers of finance have even called for another study to look into what fiscal receipts in Ottawa and the provinces will be like in the years to come, as well as the size of the federal surplus and the provincial shortfalls.

Once again a conclusion has been reached: a third such study. We have had the Séguin commission, the Conference Board, and now Conference Board 2. What more does the goverment need before it understands that there is fiscal imbalance and that this imbalance is having serious impact on the health and education sectors in both Quebec and Canada.

But no, it is as if there had never been such a thing as a fiscal imbalance. Never such a thing as regions, either. There is very little reference to them in the throne speech, although there are specific problems with regional and rural development. There is just one small mention of the fact that new technologies should be accessible in the regions. This is just the same wish list we have been hearing since 1993.

We would have expected an action plan, but all we got in this throne speech was bla bla bla and repetition. There are even some passages, which I can point out later, that say essentially the same thing, or just about, as in the 1993, 1997 and 1999 speeches. The same words, the same things.

The Prime Minister could have taken advantage of this unique opportunity afforded him at this point in political career to ignore the mandarins and advisers who are pushing him to take a certain direction, but not to go too far, because the potential successor, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, does not want to go too far in this or that direction. In short, we are dealing already with the machinery that is in gear for finding his successor. The Prime Minister could have taken a stand and said, “I want to end my political career by solving real problems, by seeing that the real priorities of the people of Quebec and of Canada are dealt with in this Speech from the Throne, and that there is follow-up action”.

Here too, when there is a Speech from the Throne, not only does the work plan have to be mapped out and the priorities defined, but the government must follow up. Since 1993, there have been surprises on this score. Often, there have been contradictions between the intentions expressed in the throne speech and subsequent action, and sometimes no action at all.

Some of the statements, including those about the disabled, which have appeared in the various throne speeches since 1993 have also surprised me. It is embarrassing to be sitting opposite a government which claims to be so concerned about the disabled. This frequently comes up. At the same time, my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and I more often than not have heard stories in our riding offices of flagrant cases of unfair treatment of the disabled. These involve cases where Revenue Canada was unbelievably harsh with disabled individuals.

Because of bureaucratic changes in definition, people who had been allowed the federal disability tax credit for the past 10 years had their eligibility questioned—despite the presence of a disability and often even one that was growing worse.

People were not examined. No doctor was sent. Revenue Canada did not send a doctor to examine people and determine whether they were still entitled to the disability tax credit. They were simply denied it. Despite examinations carried out by doctors supplied by the disabled, the government would not budge on this unbelievable ruling precipitated by Revenue Canada.

Now, after having blocked the right of the disabled to the federal disability tax credit for nine years, we are treated to a Speech from the Throne where it looks good to talk about the disabled and the concern the government has for them. It is a real disgrace.

It is the same thing for aboriginals. I asked for copies of the throne speeches for 1997, 1999 and 2002. I did not go further back, because one has to stop somewhere. I found the same wishes expressed, but no follow-up with respect to aboriginal health, to take one example.

The 1997 Speech from the Throne said that the government wanted to work with aboriginal communities to find solutions to aboriginal health problems.

In 1999, we were told that the government would “continue to address the serious health problems in aboriginal communities”. The speech said “continue to address”. This means that it was already being addressed before. However, the government wanted to “continue to address” the problems, not solve them, but “continue to address” them.

Yesterday, the speech mentioned possible measures that could be established to fight fetal alcohol syndrome in particular. It is high time the members opposite start acting and stop simply paying lip service through the Speech from the Throne because it looks good to talk about aboriginals and their health.

As regards aboriginal peoples, I found other interesting things about past throne speeches. I am referring to the throne speeches from 1997, 1999 and 2002. If we look at how this government's position has evolved, it is clear why a bill on governance was tabled before hearing the Speech from the Throne yesterday. The governance bill will be carried over.

In 1997, we were told that the government wanted to “develop relationships with aboriginal people based on the principles of partnership and transparency”. In 1999, the government said it wanted to “building stronger partnerships with aboriginal people”. The 1997 speech talked about partnerships, in 1999, the government talked about building stronger partnerships and, in 2002, it no longer mentions partnerships, but talks about adopting legislative measures to establish First Nations governance institutions.

The bill that was tabled and that will be carried over has been widely criticized by aboriginal communities as extending the paternalistic guardianship of aboriginal nations that is already found in the Indian Act. Aboriginals continue to be treated paternalistically. The language has evolved from 1997, when it referred to partnership. In 1999, reference was made to partnerships between nations and now, of paternalistic governance for aboriginals.

It is shameful that things evolved in such a direction. If the government does not come back to better provisions, it may well run into problems with aboriginal communities in the coming months.

I will take a few minutes to discuss the aboriginal issue, since it is part of my new responsibilities.

Aboriginal communities released their first nation plan in February 2002. I will quote an excerpt that will show how aboriginal nations envision the future, the notion of self-government and aboriginal rights inherent to their self-government. We will see that, given the governance bill and the infantilization of aboriginal people with the Indian Act and with reserves everywhere in Canada, there is an incredible margin between how aboriginals envision the future and what the government thinks.

This excerpt is from the first nation plan released in February 2002:

First Nations must re-draw constitutions which will lead to the establishment of the basic governmental institutions, including the designations of laws and courts and the confirmation of citizenship criteria and procedures. First Nations will then be in the position to run their own schools, maintain their own health and social services, deal with family matters, regulate many economic activities, foster and protect their language, culture and identity, regulate the use of its lands, waters and resources, levy taxes, deal with aspects of criminal law and procedure, and generally maintain peace and security within their territory.

This is the sovereignty of aboriginal nations. This is not an act on governance that infantilizes them and maintains them in a state of dependency, as the Indian Act has been doing for decades. The act keeps them on reserves which, traditionally and silently, have served to assimilate them rather than to ensure that they become full partners.

This must stop. There must be a return to the situation in 1997, indeed in 1993, one when there was talk of true partnershp, which led in fact to the Nisga'a agreement, and now to the negotiation with the Innu of Quebec. That is what nation to nation is, not paternalism, but dealing one nation with another. That is all I will say for the moment about the aboriginal nations.

As usual--and we should be used to it after 41 years, and not be surprised--in his Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister has laid the foundation for squabbles with the Government of Quebec. They no longer even try to conceal it; the Prime Minister has become the specialist in invading areas of provincial jurisdiction. From a reading of the throne speech, this is even more flagrant than before.

Not only has he invaded education, an area exclusive to Quebec, with his millennium scholarships, but he continues to do so. He is at it again here. With his reference to a summit on innovation and learning, he is getting into education through the back door. Again, when he speaks of securities regulation, this too is excusive to Quebec and the provinces. If he wants to please Toronto, that is his political choice, but in other parts of Canada where there are other major securities commissions, there is opposition to that idea.

In conjunction with the securities commissions, we have developed harmonized regulations as well as centralized procedures, the latter being necessary in order to keep securities costs to a minimum. As well, administrative procedures have been reduced to a minimum.

The federal governmetn has no need to meddle in this sector. In coming days, my colleagues and I will have an opportunity to revisit some of the questions contained in the throne speech. We will, moreover, also have an opportunity to do so in the weeks to come, as the government tries to implement certain negative aspects of the throne speech.

[Quebec Agricultural Co-operatives, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Coopérative fédérée de Québec pulled out of the Canadian consultations because the federal government, unlike the Government of Quebec, is refusing to consent to a tax deferral on dividends paid to shareholders in the form of preferred shares.

Why is the Minister of Finance refusing to implement the same tax measure at the federal level, which would allow Quebec's agricultural co-operatives to grow and remain competitive by increasing their levels of capitalization?

[Canada Pension Plan, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, you have no idea what an honour and a pleasure you are giving me in allowing me to speak to Bill C-58, an act mainly consolidating the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

At the outset, I am announcing that the Bloc Quebecois will support this government's initiative by wishing it as much success and joy as has resulted from the creation of the Caisse de dépôt et placement 36 years ago.

Contrary to what our colleague from the Canadian Alliance has done, we are going to provide a totally different picture of the Caisse de dépôt et de placement experience, to enlighten our Canadian friends on what they could do with this major instrument, the Pension Plan Investment Board, the positive things they could do, as opposed to the negative things, as our Alliance colleague has mentioned.

I remind the House that for Quebecers the Caisse de dépôt et placement is the main spearhead of their financial autonomy. With the nationalization of electricity, the creation of the Régime des rentes and the Caisse de dépôt et placement, to manage Quebecers' savings, is probably the cornerstone of what we, Quebecers, have become financially and economically in the last 36 years. It is our cherished child, so to speak.

Our colleague having painted a dark and negative picture, we can only disagree and be somewhat upset about the way some people feel about the Caisse de dépôt et placement.

Like him, this is how many Canadians keep on depicting the Caisse de dépôt et placement year after year, because it has become a major force on Canada's financial scene. This scares many people, including the big financiers on Bay Street, who have done everything they could to try to weaken the Caisse de dépôt et placement since it was first created. This is something that is a bit visceral with Canadians and Canadian financiers, especially those in Toronto.

When they see how much Quebecers have saved over 36 years through the Caisse de dépôt et placement, how much wealth its decisions have created during that period, and what a formidable financial force the caisse, which started out with capital of $1 million in 1966, has become, they are upset. The caisse is so formidable that it has become the 12th largest manager of general funds in North America and the largest in Canada. It ranks eighth in real estate holdings.

Naturally, this does not please everyone, and it has not pleased everyone in the past. I will come back to this, however. I will talk about the attempt in 1982 and the aborted attempt in 1983 to weaken the caisse.

I will begin by painting a positive picture of the past 36 years.

The Caisse de dépôt et placement was created in the wake of the quiet revolution by one of the founders of this revolution, the main one, because he was then Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage. In 1964, at the Quebec City conference, Mr. Lesage had a bit of a creative temper tantrum in reaction to Mr. Pearson's desire to impose a Canada-wide pension plan run by one manager, which of course was the federal government at the time.

Quebec had already given thought to setting up a typically Quebec pension plan with just one caisse to manage these considerable savings.

I find it hard not to mention all those who laboured, both politically and technically, in the 1960s to build the Caisse de dépôt et placement. One of those involved was the late Michel Bélanger, who had been president of the Montreal Stock Exchange and a member of the Bélanger-Campeau commission. At the time, he was a senior government official and one of those who had come up with the idea of the pension plan and the Caisse de dépôt et placement. There were also Claude Castonguay, whom everyone knows, André Marier, Marcel Bélanger, Roland Giroux and Roland Parenteau.

There was also the first president, Claude Prieur, who started off in a little office in downtown Montreal, with very few means when he began as president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

I would like to quote Mario Pelletier, who wrote an excellent history of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, because it really has been excellent, contrary to the bleak picture our colleague from the Canadian Alliance painted earlier.

Mr. Pelletier wrote that, in January 1965, Claude Prieur, the first president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec—a manager with the powerful Sun Life company until then—he was a pretty sharp tack, as they say—moved in all alone to the decrepit office on McGill street.

During the two months that went by before any income came in from the Régie des rentes, he was forced to take out loans in his name, with no help whatsoever from the government, in order to set up what would later become the Caisse de dépôt, which today has some—hang on to your hats now—$133 billion in capital.

Today the Caisse de dépôt does $10 billion worth of transactions every working day. That was last year's average. Listen carefully, because this is important to highlight: $10 billion worth of transactions each working day.

Last year alone, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec carried out $2 trillion in transactions, or three times Canada's GDP. I am talking about the word billions in French, I mean trillions, there are thousands, millions, billions and then trillions. There were $2.5 trillion worth of transactions last year, three times Canada's GDP, or more than $10 billion every working day.

We are talking about the 12th largest manager of global assets in North America; it is the eighth largest in terms of real estate holdings. This is no small institution.

There is also another person who was involved in creating the caisse, whom I neglected to mention on purpose. It was Jacques Parizeau. He worked very hard to make the Caisse de dépôt what it is today, an institution that has stood the test of time, with a few updates, mostly since the early 1990s, with respect to the Caisse de dépôt's international activities.

Mr. Parizeau was known at the time as a brilliant economist, recognized as such, a senior government official, a great builder of the Quebec state, and he would become, some years later, Quebec's finance minister, then premier.

Mr. Parizeau did not only contribute to make the Caisse de dépôt what it is today, being one of its main creators. Indeed, he has played a key role in everything that has to do with the modernization and dynamism of Quebec's financial sector.

Mr. Parizeau drew from the experience he gained with the Caisse de dépôt et placements and with the Quebec pension plan, which allowed him later on, when he was appointed to such strategic positions as finance minister, to develop modern tools to move Quebec forward, to move the Quebec business sector forward, a business sector which, in the late 1960s, did not resemble at all what it is today.

Among other things, the creation of the Caisse de dépôt et placements marked the start of a move toward a greater participation of small investors in Quebec's economic and financial evolution. This goes back to the Parizeau commission on guaranteed investment funds, which means guaranteed deposits.

Mr. Parizeau initiated this commission, which created the Régie de l'assurance-dépôts, allowing small investors to be sure to keep a portion of their deposits in financial institutions. Their investments were guaranteed.

From 1967 on, it has been a big help to small investors in Quebec, enabling them to take part in the economic and financial evolution of the country they love and cherish.

Mr. Parizeau was the one behind the stock savings plan created in 1979. Once again, this was an effort to get everyone involved in the economic and financial progress of Quebec. It was also the basis of the modernization of the tools for monitoring and properly administering our securities, such as the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec and the Inspecteur général des institutions financières.

Building on this experience with the Caisse de Dépôt et de placement et de la construction and the ensuing construction, and particularly on the original stakeholders behind its creation and the addition of fundamental and democratic tools to democratize the financial sector, a Caisse de dépôt et placement was created. It has evolved over the years and contributed to the creation of various companies that have grown into major undertakings, such as Alcan, Hydro-Quebec and Bombardier.

In this connection, let us keep in mind that the first government involvement was via the Caisse de dépôt et placement, with investments in Bombardier, Domtar, Vidéotron, Noranda and Canam Manac. In 1985, the decision was made to focus more on small and medium businesses that were creators of employment in the regions. Investments were made in 63 companies, with an average performance of 30%. This is nothing to sneeze at, although my Canadian Alliance colleague looked down his nose somewhat at these figures, but for startup companies this is an extraordinary performance.

So much so, that the Caisse de dépôt et placement became an incredible agent of the economic and financial development of Quebec and it was ranked tops among fund managers in Canada in the 2000 Reuters Survey, which Tempest carried out by contacting—not just anyone—but TSE 300 companies.

In the year 2000, the biggest companies in Canada considered—and this still holds true today—the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a source of pride and a vital tool that has played a cutting edge role in the financial emancipation of the people of Quebec since the late 1960s, to be the best money manager in Canada. Let my colleague, who has nothing but disdain for its accomplishments and those of the economic stakeholders of Quebec, put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Since I have ten minutes left, I shall speak on a situation that occurred in 1982, although some may feel this is ancient history. However, it still has echoes today, particularly since 1993.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, and we meet business people from across Canada. As I mentioned earlier, some people show contempt toward the Caisse de dépôt et placement. The Canadian Alliance member is one of many. We met Bay Street financiers who hate the Caisse de dépôt et placement, even though it makes a positive contribution to the Canadian economy and has become a key player in a number of so-called Canadian businesses that make Liberal, Conservative, Canadian Alliance or New Democrat members so proud.

Still, some continue to despise the Caisse de dépôt et placement and to say that it is bad, that it is rotten. Because the Caisse de dépôt comes from Quebec and has become Canada's largest manager, there is reluctance on the part of Canada to recognize achievements by Quebecers. This is because until this financial emancipation occurred, it used to be said that Quebecers were not cut out for business, economic and financial matters. But now that we have created something as fundamental as the Caisse de dépôt et placement, they are a little less blunt about Quebecers.

In 1982, the federal government decided to table a bill, Bill S-31. We still remember that. Bill S-31, introduced by André Ouellet, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, prohibited the Caisse de dépôt et placement from holding more than 10% of the stocks of major businesses in Canada. At the time, the Caisse de dépôt was considering investing in Canadian Pacific.

This generated incredible controversy. Owned by Quebec interests and built on Quebecers' savings, the Caisse de dépôt et placement would become CP's main shareholder. This created an incredible uproar in Canada, so much so that business people from English Canada decided to wage a war against the Caisse de dépôt et placement.

They decided to put unbelievable pressure on the federal government to get it to introduce Bill S-31, which provided that the Caisse de dépôt et placement could not hold more than 10% of the shares of companies involved in interprovincial transport.

This did not target Canadian Pacific alone—it was clear that the railways affected all of Canadian business. Do you want to know why? Because all Canadian businesses at the time had a stake in transportation. If it was not air transportation, it was shipping, in the oil industry, for example, it was in pipelines, it was in the railways, which was a secondary activity, but which was added on to manufacturing and also the service sector.

For the year that the saga of Bill S-31 dragged on before the government decided to withdraw the bill due to pressure from Quebec business, during that whole year, from 1982-82, we Quebecers lost incredible opportunities to invest the significant sum at the time of approximately $17 billion that the Caisse de dépôt et placement held in capital.

During that year, we lost the ability to benefit from the increase in value of Canadian Pacific shares. In 1982, CP shares were worth $30, in 1983 they were worth $50; we could have made a $20 profit per share if the Caisse de dépôt et placement had been allowed to own more than 10% of CP shares. The caisse lost some $15-$20 million dollars, with CP alone. We have to assess all opportunities that were lost, involving the purchase of shares of other Canadian businesses, given the provisions of Bill S-31 that were retroactive.

Before this bill, we were told it would be retroactive. If the Caisse de dépôt et placement had invested more than 10% in the specified businesses, it would have had to get rid of the difference. Selling shares when you are being forced to do so means you end up selling off shares at a loss.

This is what they were going to force the Caisse de dépôt et placement into, as it was getting too powerful for the liking of English Canadians. The president of the Toronto Stock Exchange at the time, Mr. Bunting, launched an incredible offensive to bring down the Caisse de dépôt. All of the big Canadian corporations like Bell Canada, Stelco, The Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank, Dominion Textile, Nova, Inco and Hiram Walker fought against the Caisse de dépôt et placement to keep us from moving forward.

Totalling the losses, for example for 1982-83, we lost $100 million in opportunities. This is a plausible figure because for CP alone it is around $15 million or $20 million. Given the average yield of the Caisse de dépôt et placement, between 1982 and 2001, this means over $1 billion of potential capital lost to Quebecers.

Thus today the value of the Caisse de dépôt et placement is not $134 billion but $133 billion. Quebecers would have had $1 billion more to invest and to build up their savings with.

Because of the Bill S-31 episode, we have $1 billion less, and that is a real drag. Today, here we are faced with your bill, which creates and consolidates the activities of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. We are here to support it, despite our memories of Bill S-31. We said to ourselves “Let us put that in the past for now”.

People take much delight in recalling this episode. But we are supporting you in this wonderful plan to create another sort of caisse de dépôt et placement in Canada, using the money in the pension plans of Canadians outside Quebec, because it will open up opportunities and thus democratize the economic growth of Canada.

I wish you—as do all my colleagues—as much success with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as we have had with the caisse de dépôt et placement.

But I hope that nobody puts obstacles in the way of this wonderful initiative such as we have had to face since 1982. And there were all sorts of subsequent criticisms of the caisse de dépôt et placement. There were all the smear campaigns I have seen since I became finance and economic critic. It is unbelievable.

When one visits Toronto and talks about the caisse, it is as though one had mentioned the plague. People are afraid of it. We are flattered by this reaction. But, at the same time, it would have been nice if, in the past, you had been as enthusiastic about the growth of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as we are now about the creation and consolidation of the activities of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

It would also be nicer if we did not have such outrageous comments from our colleagues about the experience of the past 36 years, the marvellous experience of the caisse de dépôt et placement. I will have an opportunity to come back to this later, because you are indicating to me that my allotted time is up. I will have about 20 minutes when we resume debate on this bill and I will have more to say about this fabulous experience.

[Government Contracts, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about mistakes when there are criminal investigations underway in some of the cases. My supplementary question for him is about the performance bonuses.

Given the devastating conclusions in the 2000 report and the fact that the problems are far from being solved, can the minister assure us that those in charge of the program, including Pierre Tremblay, did not receive bonuses for 2000-2001 and subsequently?