Pauline Picard

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the information he just gave us to add to this debate.

I totally agree with him. One can wonder why this bill raises from 10% to 20% the percentage of shares of large banks that can be purchased by an individual.

The smallest bank, namely the National Bank, is based in Quebec. It is still a big bank, but, as my colleague explained, it operates in a smaller area since it is based in Quebec. An individual could hold 65% of the shares, which means that there is a greater risk of unfair competition.

A business person who holds a 65% interest in a bank like the National Bank could deny a loan to another business person, because this competitor could probably hurt his or her business. That is why we are saying that it could lead to unfair competition.

We cannot have one set of rules for the other big banks and another one for Quebec-based banks. What was the minister thinking when he decided to include this provision in the bill? Was it just another way of putting Quebec in its place?

Our economy is booming. Things are going well, but Quebec should not benefit from all that.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this important bill. We have been talking about this bill for more than seven years, and we are at least two years late in dealing with legislation on financial institutions.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, on his hard work in the finance committee, his exceptional contribution, and the amendments he has moved on the legislation of banks and financial institutions.

World competition is increasingly fierce. The six major banks in Canada are small, compared to their international competitors.

When we compare our big banks to the American or the Asian banks, especially those in Japan, we find that what is needed is a legislative environment conducive to increasing the ability of our financial institutions to hold their own against international competition as well as the competition that will inevitably begin to appear within the markets of Quebec and of Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the spirit of the proposed legislation and several of its provisions. However, if the amendments that we will put forward are rejected by the House, we will vote against Bill C-38 for three reasons.

First, Bill C-38 grants many powers to the Minister of Finance to determine all by himself what the future of the banks in Quebec will be.

Second, Bill C-38 provides no guarantee that the minister will take into consideration the specificity of Quebec's financial system.

Third, there is no concrete measure in Bill C-38 to ensure better access to financial services for the poor.

Under Bill C-38, which was introduced on June 13, 2000, the Minister of Finance will have the power to decide on his own the future of banks in Quebec. It is unacceptable for this discretionary power to be as strong as the act itself, if not stronger.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the fact that a single shareholder could, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, hold a 65% interest in the National Bank, the largest Quebec-based bank.

There is no need for the Minister of Finance to allow this kind of excessive control to give the National Bank the flexibility it needs to continue to prosper.

How can a shareholder holding 65% of the shares of a bank give more flexibility than 65 shareholders each holding 1% of the shares? We need legislative guarantees against any negative impact these new ownership rules might have on employment of professionals, consumer services, small businesses, decision centres and the role of Montreal as an international financial centre.

The stakes are just too high to rely on only one man, the federal minister, especially since there are no legislative guarantees in the bill. Bill C-38 does nothing more than list some elements to consider that are under the sole control of the Minister of Finance.

Worse still, Bill C-38 is full of phrases like “The Minister may deem necessary” or “such and such a section of the Act will cease to apply if the minister so decides”.

In other words, this bill can be made to say whatever Ottawa and the Minister of Finance want, in terms of deciding on their own the future of Quebec's banks. It is not obvious that the finance minister's bill will bring about more healthy competition on the national market. But competition is more important for our future economic development than the creation of big banks to compete on the world market. Nonetheless the Minister of Finance has decided to make a law for big banks, even if that means sacrificing Quebec banks like the National Bank, which is the institution for small businesses in Quebec.

As far as consumer protection is concerned, the Minister of Finance remains vague and the bill is more wishful thinking than real political action. The bill establishes the financial consumer agency, which is intended to protect the consumer, according to the minister.

The Bloc Quebecois is a staunch defender of consumer rights. This is evidenced by the debate that we led regarding the privacy legislation, Bill C-54, which became Bill C-6.

We remind the government that Quebec already has legislation dealing with this issue, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Privacy Act and acts relating to insurance, trusts, credit unions and securities.

The establishment of a new agency is likely to create new regulatory overlap with the measures already taken by Quebec in an area which, after all, is a provincial jurisdiction.

The bill includes a provision called “low-fee retail deposit account” which, according to the minister, seeks to ensure access to financial services for low income people. No one except the minister really knows what this “low-fee retail deposit account” is. No one except the minister knows who will be able to open such an account, and no one except the minister knows whether this account will be accessible everywhere. Why? Because all these issues will be dealt with through regulations. For the time being we must be satisfied with the minister's fine rhetoric, but this is not enough of a guarantee to state that consumers will be better protected by the new legislation.

A notice by the bank is the only thing provided in Bill C-38 in the case of the closure of a bank branch or a reduction of services available to consumers. With such an unrestrictive provision, how can the Minister of Finance claim that there will be increased access to financial services? The minister is the only one convinced of that.

There are a number of problems with this bill and we intend to propose amendments at report stage. It is not an easy task, given the countless pages of the bill itself and of its schedules, all 900 pages of it. We realize that the discretionary power given to the Minister of Finance is much too great for a single individual.

It is like this Liberal government and its leader, the Prime Minister, who appoints all the ministers, senators, the Governor General of Canada, the lieutenant governors in all the provinces, the justices on the supreme court, and government officials, including those abroad.

Until recently, one man, the Prime Minister, had at his disposal the personal files of 34 million individuals, dead or alive, in Canada in the longitudinal file of Human Resources Development Canada. He also has a file on most journalists, concocted by the Canada Information Office, the official propaganda organ. And now we have the Minister of Finance going a step further and wanting to decide on his own, at his discretion, the future of Quebec's major banks. This sort of thing would make certain dictators drool.

Throughout the bill, whenever there are provisions concerning banks, insurance companies, trusts, anything to do with the financial sector, the minister always reserves the right to determine, based on criteria known to him alone, whether or not an operation is acceptable. He alone defines certain concepts such as low-fee retail deposit accounts.

Generally speaking, we would have liked more clarity regarding the decision making process and also more specifics regarding certain concepts, such as the low-fee retail deposit accounts for the poor.

We do not oppose increased consumer protection. However, we do oppose provisions that duplicate and overlap those that are already included in the Quebec consumer protection act. Consumer protection is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal government has a tendency to want to centralize everything. It is systematic, disgusting and often insidious.

As I said, the bill is important. It was also important that it be introduced in the House, but we oppose certain provisions and if our amendments are not approved at report stage, we will vote against this bill.

[Petitions, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in this House a petition signed by 400 people from central Quebec and the Eastern Townships.

Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump and for various other reasons, the petitioners are calling upon the government to pass a resolution to thwart the world oil cartels in order to bring down overly high gasoline prices and to allocate adequate funding to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near future, Quebecers are no longer forced to turn to oil as a main energy source.

[Species At Risk Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his very relevant remarks. I also want to congratulate him. He highlighted the good job the Bloc members have been doing in the House since 1993. He is one of those who has been doing an excellent job defending the interests of the people of Quebec.

My colleague asked me to give a few examples of infringement and overlap. We have seen quite a few since 1993. This government is always trying, with every new bill, to encroach on and stick its foot in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been its leitmotiv across Canada. This is what it was seeking with the social union. When they signed the social union agreement, the provinces sold out their birthright. They are now realizing it with the health care issue.

Health care is one example. If there is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it is health care. We can see what the government is doing these days.

Education, with the millennium fund, is another example. We have been a prime target in Quebec. It took a number of interventions and a great deal of efforts on the part of the Bloc Quebecois to denounce this state of affairs. And what about parental leave.

Now we have this environment bill on endangered species.

[Species At Risk Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Jonquière, who is the Bloc Quebecois environment critic. She has done a lot of work and put a lot of heart into her defence of the interests of her fellow citizens, of everybody in Quebec, and by the same token, in Canada.

I would also like to indicate that I support the amendment by the Progressive Conservative Party. It is clear to us that this bill should be reconsidered, or at least hoisted for six months.

The title of Bill C-33 is an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Biological diversity in itself is the result of evolution, which has been going on on our planet for more than 4.5 billion years.

In the last few years, scientists have indicated that more and more species are becoming extinct and that more and more of them are becoming endangered or highly vulnerable.

In 1992, during the Rio summit, a large part of the international community, including Canada, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. Canada agreed to draft or maintain the legislative and regulatory provisions required to protect endangered species and populations. Needless to say, on this side of the House, we know what the current government's signature is worth. It always claims to be acting in good faith, but in fact, that is not always what happens once it has signed a document.

In 1995, the Liberal environment minister of the day introduced a first bill, which was heavily criticized, especially by environmental groups. We all know what happened to that bill.

In 1996, the federal government, through its environment minister of the day, Sergio Marchi, who has since retired, as mentioned by my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis, introduced Bill C-65, which was essentially the precursor of Bill C-33. Once again, the bill was heavily criticized. The Liberals called an election and, fortunately for them, Bill C-65 died on the order paper.

They still do not seem to have learned their lesson. They have brought this issue forward again by introducing a bill, which they say contains improvements. It is worth noting that the federal government can play a role in protecting wildlife species under certain statutes such as those dealing with fisheries or with our national parks. However, no federal legislation exists for this specific purpose.

If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal instrument dealing specifically with the protection of wildlife species at risk.

Since pollution and migratory species ignore boundaries, a concerted effort is obviously required at the international level. Logically, the same goes on a smaller scale within Canada. Canadian federalism calls for co-operation between the provinces on this issue, since this is an area of shared jurisdiction in our country.

Improved protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada is necessary. The number of known species living in Canada is estimated at 70,000, and apparently many of those exist only in Canada. To date, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada has designated 340 wildlife species as being at risk. Of these, 12 are now extinct, 15 are extirpated species or no longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which means that there are concerns about these species. Of the 97 species whose status was reassessed in the last few years, 26 are now closer to becoming extinct.

Needless to say that without proper federal or provincial legislation, without enforcement measures and adequate resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant, and their impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species facing extinction, the situation is critical. An efficient response is therefore needed.

But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that is enforceable? Will this bill really ensure better protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them? We do not think so.

I wish to convey to the members of the House the position of environmental groups and industry. Most environmental groups are opposed to the bill put forward by the Minister for the Environment. Those who should be his allies in any attempt to improve the protection of wild species find the bill useless and dangerous.

As a matter of fact, the minister has been facing a lot of protest and criticism since he introduced his bill. Most stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide greater protection for species or specify the course of action they should adopt concerning the protection of the species living where they run their operations.

It is not only the Bloc Quebecois and the bad separatists who are saying this; environmental groups and industry representatives are saying the same thing. If anyone knows what they are doing, working year after year to protect those species, if there are any scientists who are experts in their field, it is the people in these environmentalist groups. And they have voiced strong opposition to and severe criticism of the bill.

We believe, among other things, that this bill intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, in particular the jurisdiction of Quebec, which already has its own legislation. Quebec is one of the few Canadian provinces that has legislated to protect wildlife and species at risk. Why not co-operate then?

This government is stubborn, set in its own ways, and this is especially true of the Prime Minister, who should have a maple leaf stuck to his forehead to satisfy his desire for visibility.

As I am running out of time, I simply wish to read a few lines from a news release issued by the Quebec minister of environment on April 11, 2000. It says:

Quebec has always acted in a responsible and adequate way to protect its most fragile wild animals and plants, and it intends to continue to exercise its jurisdiction in this area.

We will never accept an umbrella legislation for all action in this area. It is out of the question for Quebec to accept federal intrusion on its jurisdiction. This bill must exclude all species, sites or habitats under Quebec's jurisdiction and must only be implemented at the request of the provinces or territories.

Quebec has always taken good care of its species at risk and it will not need to use this legislation.

Why does the government insist on intruding on provincial jurisdictions? It does this in all areas, as for parental leave, right now. Why insist on overlapping and intruding on existing legislation that works?

[Fight Against Poverty, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a true fight against poverty absolutely must include stable and consistent funding, restoration of social transfers to their 1994-95 levels, construction of new social housing units and an indepth reform of the employment insurance program.

On behalf of Quebec children and their families, the Bloc Quebecois is urging the Prime Minister to make the fight against poverty a priority, so that Quebec children can have the necessary resources to achieve their potential; so that Quebec children living in families where unemployment is common can still have the necessary resources to ensure their physical and psychological well-being; so that Quebec children and their families can live in good health; so that Quebec children and their families can live in housing units that their low income will allow them to pay.

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has the most complete file of personal data in Canada.

She says that we can trust her because of the professionalism of her employees and her department's internal policies.

How can we trust a minister who is unable to produce the Placeteco invoices? How can she be trusted to properly manage a data bank such as the one at her disposal, when she is not even able to manage her grant files?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 8th, 2000]

With regard to the former program for older worker adjustment, could the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate: ( a ) which measures or actions were taken between 1996 and 1998 inclusively to establish a strategy for older workers; ( b ) what are the parameters of this type of pilot project and the eligibility criteria; ( c ) what projects are currently part of these pilot projects and what are their parameters; ( d ) what are the passive measures, such as income support measures, currently under study and are these measures eligible through the pilot projects announced in 1999; ( e ) what type of pilot project could be eligible in the case of Celanese employees, including income support measures; ( f ) what are the procedures to propose the said project?

[Hélène Marchessault, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, a young woman from my riding, Hélène Marchessault, of Saint-Guillaume, was awarded a bursary of $500 by the Quebec Department of Education in its “Chapeau les filles” competition.

The purpose of this program is to recognize the efforts of dynamic young women who dare to follow non-traditional career paths.

Hélène certainly qualifies as such, as she studied swine production and worked for one of Quebec's biggest swine producers, and is now returning to school to study animal husbandry, another non-traditional field.

Hats off to you, Hélène, from all the people of Drummond riding, myself included.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent presentation. I would like to ask him a few questions concerning genetically modified foods.

Why do we genetically modify plants and foods? Who benefits from that and what are the benefits to consumers?