Pauline Picard

[National Horse Of Canada Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bill to provide for the recognition of the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada affects many Quebecers and particularly breeders. It is therefore a pleasure for us to represent them by taking part in this debate.

In perusing Bill C-329, we learn that the horse was sent by the King of France, was invaluable to settlers in their efforts to survive and prosper. We learn that the horse has a number of fine qualities, including strength, endurance, intelligence and good temper.

We also learn that it was nearly lost at one point through interbreeding and casualties in war. Allow me to add a few points, because I believe it is important to understand the history of this exceptional animal and see how it developed.

The very first horse to touch the soil in New France arrived in Quebec City on June 25, 1647. At that time it was called the Canadian horse, and there were no horses in this part of North America. The region's dense and broad forests effectively prevented crossbreeding with other types of horses. There was no possibility of interbreeding with the breeds of horse brought in by the English and by the Spaniards in the south.

It was only after 1759 that export to the United States and crossbreeding with other types of horse became a possibility, and the numbers of the purebred Canadian horse began to decrease.

Sometime around 1880, faced with the real threat of the breed's disappearance, people decided to act. Quebecers like François Pilote, Édouard Barnard and, particularly, Dr. J.A. Couture, a veterinarian, decided to ensure the species' survival by selecting and breeding the best of the remaining horses. Dr. Couture, among others, gathered in a breed book all of the subjects combining the breed's distinctive characteristics to ensure their protection.

Thus, through this brief history, we can see that the Canadian horse arrived and was bred in Quebec. Those who raised and trained them were the inhabitants of what would become Quebec. These same people took steps to ensure that this symbol of strength and pride would not disappear from our continent.

In the light of these facts, it would be a good idea perhaps for any future recognition of this horse as the national horse to contain greater reference to Quebecers' contribution to its survival and conservation.

Furthermore, since the government of Quebec is currently considering a similar request, it seems more in keeping with history that any recognition of this breed as a national emblem should come from the Quebec National Assembly rather than from the House of Commons.

[Canada Social Transfer, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Minister of Finance believes that tomorrow's Canada is simply a matter of Ottawa deciding and the provinces paying, as confirmed by the establishment of the new Canada social transfer?

[Canada Social Transfer, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, in reference to Canada's future, the minister said that the No side was the one promoting change, as evidenced by the new Canada social transfer.

With this surprising statement, is the Minister of Finance telling Quebecers that, following a No vote on October 30, Canada's proposed change would be the implementation of the social transfer through which Ottawa will, over a two year period, deprive the provinces of 7 billion dollars, including 2.5 billion in the case of Quebec?

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that the last federal proposal on eliminating duplication and overlap was an agreement on manpower which was turned down by Daniel Johnson, the Premier at the time, and by the present Minister of Labour, who both called this agreement unsatisfactory?

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Last spring, the Prime Minister mentioned that one of the ways to eliminate duplication by Quebec and Ottawa would be to let Ottawa collect all taxes from Quebecers. Last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs again suggested this as a way to eliminate duplication.

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether the Prime Minister or the minister himself or his colleagues discussed with Daniel Johnson the approach suggested by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for reducing duplication, in other words, to have all taxes payable by Quebecers collected by the federal government and to close the Travail Québec centres?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister expect to be taken seriously, considering that the establishment of the human resources investment fund, through which Ottawa will interfere even more in the manpower training sector, amounts to a blatant rejection of the position held by the No committee?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The No committee says that Quebec must have full control over those sectors which fall under its jurisdiction. The federal government goes against that position by continuing to interfere, with its spending power, in the manpower, education and health sectors.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that Ottawa is using its spending authority not only to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction, but also to impose national standards that do not reflect Quebec's priorities?

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how does the Prime Minister intend to convince Quebecers of the virtues of administrative arrangements when even his federalist ally, Daniel Johnson, and his labour minister have rejected the administrative agreement on labour, calling it a cheap arrangement?

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In the brochure distributed to every Quebec household by the director general of elections, the No committee says that the Quebec government must have full power in the fields which fall under its jurisdiction.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, far from putting an end to the federal spending power in fields of provincial jurisdiction, Bill C-96, which deals with manpower training and education, is an even greater interference in these sectors?

[Quebec Economy, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his speech to Quebec industrial commissioners the Minister of Finance for Canada predicted apocalyptically that sovereignty would jeopardize a million Quebec jobs. Finding the estimates of the leader of the no committee not catastrophic enough for his taste, the finance minister padded them by multiplying Daniel Johnson's estimates by ten.

It is worrisome and unacceptable to see such irresponsible statements made by the person who manages the enormous federal debt. We hope that the minister does not use equally farfetched estimates for his economic and budget forecasts, something one might well wonder about since the Minister of Finance has deferred his economic and budget statement until after the referendum.

What is he afraid of? Is he afraid to report to Quebecers now on his administration?