Yvan Loubier

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak seriously and without demagoguery.

When a minister receives an audit report that makes charges as serious as those contained in the report tabled in 2000 by the department's internal auditors, it is clear that the PMO and the Privy Council are aware of the situation.

How could we believe that the Quebec political lieutenant of the Prime Minister, Minister of Public Works Alfonso Gagliano, could have received this report without acting on it and without discussing it with the Prime Minister or the PMO?

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall just what a marked increase in federal propaganda we experienced around the 1995 referendum. Last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that, for him, all means are acceptable for crushing what he calls “the separatists”.

With such a statement, is the Prime Minister not revealing that this entire operation had his blessings, even though he had been aware for two years that the rules of ethics and good management were being flouted regularly?

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Why did Groupaction come after that?

[Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was just in the process of talking about my eminent colleague, the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve and the values of Bill S-40, but also the debate surrounding the prospects of creating a Canadian securities commission.

Before going to the core of the bill, which the Bloc Quebecois will support, please allow me to digress for a moment. With respect to the Canadian securities commission, my colleague from the Alliance mentioned that there was almost unanimous support in Canada to harmonize, streamline and have one single organization regulating securities.

I would like to inform him, for his own education, that Quebecers will oppose the creation of a Canadian securities commission. Why? Because the Quebec securities commission was recently reorganized as an organization to oversee the entire financial sector. We are approximately fifteen years ahead on the evolution and streamlining of the financial sector, and approximately ten years ahead on what was known as the interaction between financial sector segments.

We did not do all of this to start a debate, or because certain Canadian provinces lag behind Quebec when it comes to integrating and monitoring the financial market as well as monitoring those who enter it, leave it and make securities transactions. We will never accept—this is an old debate that resurfaces every two years—the creation of a Canadian securities commission to replace all of the securities commissions that exist in Canada.

Incidentally, the only person who has fought hard to have this Canadian securities commission has been the president of the Ontario Securities Commission. At that time, he knew very well that if a Canadian securities commission were created, he would be the one to run this commission and that Ontario would wind up calling the shots for the entire securities sector in Canada.

My Liberal and Canadian Alliance colleagues will find their way blocked by Quebecers ready to fight to the last to hang on to the securities sector, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and which we want to jealously guard for ourselves in Quebec.

The government is all too ready not to respect the Canadian constitution in this area, by pointing to how wonderful it is when it suits it to respect jurisdictions, but by ignoring them when it comes time to promote federal government policies, which consist in further centralizing all powers and forgetting about the Canadian constitution.

Let us now come back to Bill S-40. Like my colleague, I am not happy about the fact that this bill originated with the Senate, not for the same reasons, because the Senate is not elected, but not from the same perspective as the Canadian Alliance.

In our view, the Senate should be abolished, and all bills of importance such as this one should originate with elected representatives, who have specific mandates from all segments of the population to do this kind of work. We are never happy when a bill originates with the Senate because the Senate is made up of people who are appointed, who represent no one but themselves. We could have done this work as elected representatives accountable to the public and accountable for the smooth operation of the financial industry, which is what Bill S-40 is about.

Nonetheless, we are going to support this bill, because it is of great importance. We spoke particularly about securities, but also about the whole question of collateral, which will now go to those conducting the transactions in the derivatives sector, and which will give the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation, a subsidiary of the Montreal Stock Exchange, a legal means of protecting those who buy and sell these products.

Right now, when someone buys derivatives from Canadian corporations, there is no legal guarantee that he will ever actually be paid. No legal guarantee exists.

Nowadays, with globalization, the free movement of capital and the fact that, in North America, the derivatives market is extremely competitive, stock exchanges in the U.S. offering legal guarantees can attract investors who will buy derivatives from Canadian societies. The Chicago Stock Exchange is not the only one. All the stock exchanges in the U.S. dealing with derivatives, because they offer legal guarantees against bankruptcy or default of payment, can be appealing for investors who otherwise would do their transactions at the Montreal Exchange, the only one in Quebec and in Canada that specializes in derivatives.

Bill S-40 rectifies that situation from a legal standpoint and provides that the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Montreal Exchange, will now be able to offer a legal protection similar to what we see in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

We will support this bill. This new protection will be an additional marketing and publicity tool for the Montreal Exchange to attract investors, potential derivative buyers, and sellers of course.

Once Bill S-40 is passed, and I think most of my colleagues here will support this legislation, promotion for derivatives provided by the Montreal Exchange will increase.

With supply and demand for derivatives rising, the Montreal Exchange will speed up capital projects through online transaction services. Among additional benefits, jobs will be created for highly skilled workers in the financial sector.

Free flow of capital at the international level has led to increased mobility for highly skilled workers in the securities sector and other related fields. In the past, many of our highly skilled workers have left for the United States and even for some European countries. Creating greater opportunities and having the Montreal Exchange specialize in derivatives can only make for a better future in this area as well as better prospects for the highly speciallized jobs the bill is bound to give rise to. For all these reasons, my colleagues and I will be supporting Bill S-40.

However, this support comes with the warning that I gave earlier regarding any attempt to go further on the part of the federal government, that is any attempt to establish a Canadian securities commission, as it has been trying to do for the last 12 years. This would be totally unacceptable in Quebec, especially since securities come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. If the other provinces want such a commission, Quebec certainly does not.

Over the last 15 years, we have done a lot to modernize the financial sector in Quebec. We even created an organization that oversees the whole financial sector. It regulates it, monitors it and sets standards and rules.

Quebec will certainly not let the federal government try to go down that road again. Based on the comments made by my Canadian Alliance colleague, it is obvious he was visited recently by people promoting the creation of such a commission.

There is a warning that I must put on the table right away. If the federal government intends to come back with this idea that we have fought in the past, it will find us in its way, as well as the Government of Quebec and Quebec's whole financial sector. In the meantime, we will support Bill S-40.

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since 1999, the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe has been fighting to keep its accreditation with the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Without this recognition, the school, the only such French language school in North America, which is located in this agri-food high-tech hub, will lose its research expertise and will not be able to survive.

Will the minister of agriculture tell us when the federal government will do its part and come up with the $59 million needed for the school's survival?

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that here, in the House—

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion by my colleague from Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey. This is the second time we have discussed this motion.

In October 2000 we supported this motion by our Liberal colleague. It was not passed at that time. Since then, I think a fair bit of progress has been made by my colleague and the members of each of the parties. We have expressed the wishes of our firefighters in Quebec and Canada. It is also our wish to do justice to their profession by supporting a motion like this one.

Being a firefighter is a profession that involves protecting the public, yet is it one of the few such professions that does not enjoy the status it deserves when it comes to pension plan accrual rates.

The pension plans of all other professions involved with the public safety, police officers for example, have a 2.3% annual accrual rate.

I am particularly sensitive to this issue because I have friends who are firefighters. I have a cousin, Gilles Archambault, who has been a firefighter in Montreal for almost 25 years. He lives with this high level of risk related to the profession, which will require that he retire in a few years, earlier than in other professions.

I also have a childhood friend, Benoît Desjardins, with whom I grew up. He is also a firefighter, and has two children. He deals with extremely high risks as a result of his job on a daily basis, the risk of poisoning, the risk of building collapse, the risk of death as well.

On September 11, we realized that firefighting is a very high risk profession, one which even includes the risk of death.

Firefighters are expected to retire at 55 years, or 60 maximum, but 55 is the most common age of retirement. This is expected because it is difficult to continue working beyond this age in this high risk field without endangering one's life and the life of one's colleagues.

In the United States, this has been recognized for some time now. Firefighting is recognized as a high risk profession, with annual accrual rates of 2.5%.

We in the Bloc Quebecois enthusiastically support the motion put forward by the Liberal member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey because we believe in it and because, for the past two years, the Association des pompiers du Québec and the Canadian Association of Firefighters have made us aware of a reality with which we were previously unfamiliar, but which has been only too clearly brought home to us since the events of September 11.

I therefore hope that all members of the other political parties will support this very deserving motion.

To paraphrase the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, whose father was a firefighter all his life: it is vital that we give them an equaly opportunity, despite the risks. We need them and we are proud of them. So, we support them.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, they are still carrying on over there. Could you ask them to calm down?

Obviously, it is painful to hear something as true as that. Again, my congratulations to the hon. member for Fundy--Royal for this excellent initiative.

Unlike our Liberal colleagues and my colleague from Medicine Hat who has just spoken, he can differentiate between a government expenditure and a government investment. When education is concerned, it is an investment. My colleague has the wisdom to ensure that education, and the contribution a student makes to it, are treated as an investment.

It is an investment not just for the student himself or herself, but for society. It enriches society, thus ensuring that, from the standpoint of the economy and of the reputation of Quebec and Canada, we may achieve a level of intellectual development that is appreciable, comparable, even economically advantageous, and ultimately train and retain our best minds.

Earlier, I heard my colleague from Medicine Hat say “Yes, they go to the United States because of the better standard of living. They can pay back their student loans after two or three years of working”. He neglected to point out, however, that after those two or three years, they stay there. They stay in the States and do not come back here. Perhaps a very few of them do, but most stay in the U.S.

In Quebec, as in Canada, if they had a better chance right from the start, better conditions—I am not saying that the proposal by my colleague from Fundy--Royal is going to solve everything, but if we added such a measure, if we treated them better from the start—maybe these students would stay instead of leaving. Perhaps they would not take off for the States, perhaps they would stay here and contribute to Quebec and to Canada. Perhaps also the brain drain would not be becoming more and more of a sad reality in Quebec and in Canada.

I support such an initiative. I regret the fact that we have, across the floor, people who love to quash initiatives, admirable initiatives such as the one of my colleague from Fundy--Royal, people on the side of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who go around quashing worthwhile initiatives.

Since I have a few minutes left, I would like to go back to some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who seemed to be criticizing this worthwhile initiative without reason.

He said, “There are better ways of helping students in Canada”. Sure, but which ones? Which other means did this government put in place over the past few years, other than make drastic cuts to the Canada social transfer, to help post-secondary education in all the provinces, including in Quebec? The parliamentary secretary said that “thanks to the Liberal government's initiatives, 80% of the students do not pay taxes”.

I should point out that the hon. member's proposal does not directly target students who are still in university, but those who have graduated. The Liberal member seems to forget that the reason 80% of the students do not pay taxes is that they do not have sufficient income to do so in the first place.

The measure proposed by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal is primarily designed for those who are completing their education, those who are on the labour market and who want to have the best opportunities from the start and thus be able to live without stress, as they begin their professional career.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Canada education savings grant. It goes without saying that this is a good initiative. In fact, when the Minister of Finance introduced this program, we welcomed it, because it is very good. However, this program is designed for the parents of children who will eventually pursue a post-secondary education. It is also designed for parents who have the financial means to take advantage of it.

In order to fully benefit from a registered education savings plan such as the one introduced by the Minister of Finance, parents have to invest at least $200 per month. So, this is not for everyone, and this program overlooks a reality in that an increasing number of students no longer rely on their parents. They pay for their own education and, when they graduate, they must pay off the debt they have incurred. Therefore, we must help these students.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will happily, enthusiastically and readily support an initiative such as the one proposed by the hon. member for Fundy--Royal.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fundy--Royal.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Progressive Conservative member for Fundy--Royal on this marvellous initiative. As he mentioned in his speech introducing the motion, it is rare that we talk about helping students in this parliament. Once a year, when he brings down the budget, the Minister of Finance boasts about his measures to help students. But a closer examination shows that, since coming to power, the Liberal Party has done nothing but reduce any assistance for post-secondary education.

Before speaking to this issue, I would like to pick up on what the member for Fundy--Royal mentioned earlier. It is true that the Bloc Quebecois supports his motion. We will support it with all our strength, because it is an initiative to help those students who have invested effort and money for years and, with school now behind them, are just starting out on their career and find themselves in a difficult situation, even in a period of economic prosperity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has perhaps forgotten all this because it has been so long since he was in school. When one is starting out on a career, it is extremely difficult to break into the job market and prove oneself, and still have the stress of paying back student loans accumulated over four, five, and even six years in some cases.

Reducing the tax burden of students who invest in an education and in our society is not, strictly speaking, an issue which is constitutionally contentious. It is not, for example, like asking the federal government to invest directly in education programs or to interfere directly in education. It is a tax measure to provide relief for young men and women who have invested in an education for the greater good of our society. That is the distinction.

When the government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, tells us that the federal government is investing heavily in student assistance, that is incorrect. The Canada social transfer and provincial transfer payments for post-secondary education are the lowest they have been in 30 years. That is what last year's figures show.

For every dollar invested by the provincial governments in post-secondary education, the federal government's share is 8 cents. Some provinces have decided, given this drop in federal funding, to increase tuition fees at the post-secondary level.

In Quebec, we chose to make up for this drastic funding cut to post-secondary education transfer payments elsewhere. Some provinces could not do this and did not go that route. As a result, tuition fees have risen dramatically. When we talk about student debt, we need to look closer at where this debt comes from.

This debt comes from increased tuition fees. Tuition fees have been raised in most provinces of Canada because the federal government has cut its contribution since 1995.

Since 1995, $38 billion should have flowed into provincial government coffers and Quebec to fund health, post-secondary education and social assistance. This figure is based on the level of investment of the Canada health and social transfer that existed before the drastic cuts implemented by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government. This figure of $38 billion is an indexed figure. They may cry about it on the other side, but this remains a fact. When we compare the federal government's contribution in 1994, before the Minister of Finance slashed the budget, and if we take annual inflation into account, we come to a shortfall of $38 billion.

Some have raised tuition fees specifically to compensate for the federal government withdrawal. This is the reason for the student debt load. That is why I congratulate—

[Microbreweries, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to grant a reduction of the excise tax to microbreweries, on the grounds that there is not enough time to draft a complex piece of legislation to eliminate the injustice done to microbreweries, whose foreign competitors benefit from a highly preferential excise tax treatment.

Since there is very little on the legislative agenda, will the Minister of Finance pledge to immediately start working on a bill to modernize the Excise Act for microbreweries, and introduce this legislation before the end of the parliamentary session?