Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to acknowledge that, when it comes to blackmailing people, he has no right to preach at anyone when he was quoted a few years ago as saying “The more it hurts, the less support there will be for sovereignty”?
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs February 15th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to acknowledge that, when it comes to blackmailing people, he has no right to preach at anyone when he was quoted a few years ago as saying “The more it hurts, the less support there will be for sovereignty”?
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs February 15th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the University of Toronto, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made the statement that “those Quebec sovereignists were blackmailing Canada”.
How is it that the minister can say such a thing when it is a well-known fact that the sovereignists have never used blackmail, and that the federalists invented, and used for the first time on Quebec, the concept of holding a knife to our throats?
Supply February 15th, 2001
I will be brief, Madam Speaker. First, I would like to know the sources used by the Council of Canadians, because I have not seen the texts. This is one of the reasons we brought forward this motion today. We have asked the government on several occasions if we could have access not only to Canada's initial negotiating position, but also to the working texts of the nine sectoral groups on which the free trade area of the Americas will be built.
I agree with the member on the importance of having this information right now. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will tell that to your caucus and to your colleague, the Minister for International Trade. We need your support.
Supply February 15th, 2001
Madam Speaker, first I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg, for his question.
I am one of those who believe that states, governments, elected houses of representatives still have an important role to play in terms of globalization, provided they are willing to do so.
I believe that the best system of checks and balances against uncontrolled globalization is more democracy, more power, not only for civil society in general but also for assemblies elected by the population.
With regard to the more specific issue of heating oil, I believe that the error was made by this government, which decided to improvise, because an election was coming. In order to avoid any discussion of the issue during the election campaign, it decided to sign cheques for almost everyone, haphazardly, in order to keep things calm and to be able to say, after the election, that it had done what had to be done.
The problem does not stem from NAFTA or from the Free Trade Agreement, but from this government's lack of determination to deal with the problems of concentration and lack of competition in the oil industry.
Instead of acting, the government decided to let the Conference Board of Canada review the situation, knowing very well that large oil companies are major contributors to the conference board. This was the same as asking the industry to self-regulate. In any industry that self-regulates, there is a risk of monopolistic or anti-competitive practices.
Supply February 15th, 2001
Madam Speaker, the debate launched today by my hon. colleague from Joliette is crucial to the future of the people of Quebec and the people of Canada as well as all the inhabitants of the western hemisphere, the three Americas.
When everything we look at, read, listen to, eat and perhaps what will matter for us tomorrow is determined around international tables, it is fairly easy to understand why Quebec must become a sovereign state. Without sovereignty, Quebec will never, under the present system, have a place at these international tables, and that is regrettable.
Until we have sovereignty—which will come, I am positive—the Bloc Quebecois has taken a fairly clear and innovative position, which I will reveal now.
We think the provinces have to be directly involved in the negotiations at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, because the issues to be discussed there—including cultural diversity—are too important, too fundamental, to the very existence of the people of Quebec to be simply left in the hands of the federal government alone.
Unfortunately, and this is somewhat predictable given the closed minds of our colleagues opposite, the government is obstinately refusing to give what, to a growing number of Canadians and Quebecers, is perfectly natural.
We have to find an original way to involve the provinces in the negotiations, which, in many cases, will be on issues that are fundamentally and exclusively provincial matters according to the Constitution of Canada.
For many years now, the premiers have been unanimous in their demand to be included in the negotiation of international treaties concerning their spheres of jurisdiction.
We suggest the following. The team of Canadian negotiators, who will be in attendance at the summit of the Americas, should naturally report to the Minister for International Trade, but also to the provincial ministers for international trade, in the case of the provinces that have such a minister, so that they can keep an eye on the negotiators.
So, a joint federal-provincial committee could be set up to ensure that the negotiators respected the priorities set not only by the federal government, but by the provincial governments as well. To me, it seems inconceivable that federal negotiators, who answer to the federal Minister for International Trade only, could make commitments on behalf of Canada as a whole, including its territorial divisions, in areas over which this House has no jurisdiction.
Our first suggestion is that we establish a federal-provincial committee responsible for supervising the work of federal negotiators. The second is that we should allow those provinces that are interested to appoint a member of the negotiating team so they can be directly involved in these negotiations which, I repeat, are crucial.
Once an agreement is reached, it will be important to get the approval of this House, to obtain our approval as elected representatives of the people. Not only will this parliament, this House, have to be involved in the ratification process, but so will the various provincial legislative assemblies.
It would be absolutely essential to ensure that agreements are tabled and debated in parliament and approved by resolution before ratification of the treaty by Canada.
If I may, I would like to go back to the issue of approval by the provinces and perhaps look at what is being done elsewhere. In the few minutes we have left, I suggest we look at the model so often mentioned by the Minister for International Trade, namely the European model.
His colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is also trying to talk about Europe. So we will. If that is what they want to talk about, fine.
In Europe, the economic commission for Europe, which negotiates for the 15 member countries of the European union, must obtain a clearly defined mandate from those countries before undertaking any negotiations.
Before actual negotiations begin, there is a debate. There must be agreement on the mandate that will be given to the economic commission for Europe in negotiating trade agreements. Once negotiators have arrived at an agreement, the commission must go back to the principals, the member countries of the European economic union. The member countries must decide whether or not to approve that agreement.
I therefore make the following suggestion: could we not consider the team of Canadian negotiators to be agents not just of the federal government but of the governments of the 10 other provinces, and have a system in which the provinces, which are the principals, as well as the provincial legislatures and the federal parliament ratify the results obtained by their agents, in this case the team of Canadian trade negotiators?
This direct involvement of the provinces is vital because it will facilitate the implementation of agreements which, I remind the House, will impact on a number of areas of exclusively provincial jurisdiction. The provinces, which will have been full participants in the process from the outset, will more easily be able to join forces and ensure that the ratification process goes ahead even more quickly.
One of the most frequently heard criticisms of globalization concerns the lack, too often expressed, of control by members of the public over a phenomenon which is increasingly having an impact on us. When a youngster clicks on a mouse and surfs on the Internet, when a retired man checks the return on his retirement funds, when a farmer milks his cows and plans the sale of his products on the international markets, we can say that they are all affected by globalization. This is not just pure imagination. There are very down to earth applications.
With the procedures I have mentioned, we would not only avoid the discussion of trade agreements behind closed doors by heads of state and heads of government or their ministers, but we would also involve the main representatives of the civil society, and I am referring to the members of the House of Commons and of the various provincial legislatures in Canada.
I will conclude. Through the creation of a committee to supervise the Canadian negotiators, the involvement of interested provinces in the appointment of Canadian negotiators, the approval of these agreements by the Canadian parliament and legislatures, and a close involvement of the states through parliament and the various legislatures, we will succeed not only in restoring public confidence in the politicians, but also in making sure the Canadian constitution and provincial jurisdictions are respected.
This is the best procedure possible, short of Quebec becoming a sovereign state. When that day comes, Quebec's interests will be really well protected by our representatives in these negotiations where decisions are made that affect us in our daily life.
Youth Criminal Justice Act February 14th, 2001
No, this is not true.
Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act February 12th, 2001
Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on being appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole. I wish you all the best when you are called upon to referee our debates, which tend to be raucous at times. I know you are passionate about and attentive to the proceedings of this House, so I have no doubt you will do a very good job.
I feel like I am watching an old movie. Bill C-8, formerly Bill C-38, is one of these old movies being shown in the House these days.
We heard the same arguments a few months ago, the same issues were raised, and the same positions seem to be more entrenched now.
During the debate on Bill C-38, now Bill C-8, Bloc members had expressed several reservations regarding the bill, which were shared by the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance of Quebec.
Mr. Landry had stressed four main points. Before Bill C-38 was introduced we had been told not to worry. They were going to deal with it, everything would be all right, our concerns would be addressed.
We were somewhat surprised—I would even say disappointed—to find the elements we wanted to see not in the bill itself, or in any piece of legislation passed by the House, but in the regulations that will be appended to the bill.
As members know, unlike a bill that must be amended by this House in order to be changed, regulations may be amended at will by the executive or the Minister of Finance.
Finally, we are being asked to trust this government and in particular the Minister of Finance and to hand over a blank cheque. You will understand that we have some difficulty with that, to say the least.
Bill C-8 gives full power to the Minister of Finance to decide on his own the fate of Quebec banks without providing any guarantee in connection with Quebec's distinctiveness. Heaven knows Quebec is different. The bill provides no specific measure.
Although I do not always share the very 1960s rhetoric of my NDP colleague, who said “wicked Americans, wicked capitalists, let us turn the world upside down”, I agreed with him nonetheless on certain points, including the importance of giving the disadvantaged, who are often left out, greater access to financial services.
Finally, Bill C-8 has no answer to the very well directed questions of my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on community reinvestment.
My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, we will remember, is the excellent representative of a region on the island of Montreal hard hit by poverty. He has introduced many good ideas on community investment—I will return to them—which, unfortunately were not included in Bill C-8. That is regrettable.
We can only be concerned by the fact that a single shareholder could, with the agreement of the Minister of Finance, hold 65% of the shares of the National Bank, the largest Quebec bank. It is the bank of the Quebec small and medium businesses. There is an economic model in Quebec, and the National Bank is one of the cornerstones of this model, based on entrepreneurship and the SMBs. Should Quebec lose control of as important a financial institution as the National Bank, I think it would be very bad for its economy.
We also need legislative guarantees against any negative impact these new ownership rules might have on the employment of professionals, consumer and small business services, decision centres and the role of Montreal as an international financial centre. The stakes are just too high for Quebec and its economy to be left to the sole discretion of one man, the Minister of Finance.
We want to make sure—and I would say our whole position on Bill C-8 is based on this argument—that the future of Quebec's banking system is not in the hands of one man. I think most people would agree with that. Giving anybody too much discretionary power is bad; giving a federal minister too much power over Quebec's economy is even worse.
Bill C-8 does not show a firm willingness to protect consumers, particularly low income consumers, on the part of the government. The bill provides for the establishment of the financial consumer agency of Canada. I have my doubts about the kind of authority such an agency could have in an economic climate which, unfortunately, does not look too rosy, as we know, as the United States are about to be hit by a recession. We must ensure that not only middle income people but also low income people have access to financial services. Unfortunately, Bill C-8 remains vague and has more wish than real policy with regard to accessibility and consumer protection.
Finally, I would like to return briefly to the importance of reinvesting in the community. As I said earlier, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve introduced a bill in the last parliament which would have required financial institutions to reinvest in the communities in which they are located. It was based on the community reinvestment act, American legislation—so we cannot be accused of being leftist.
As my colleague said, this legislation would require a regulated financial institution to show that its branches serve the deposit and credit requirements of the community for which they are chartered. This is where this issue becomes very important for, as my colleague said, and I stress this point, branches have an obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities for which they are chartered.
In a global context, with people looking at the broader picture, there is also a tendency to move closer to one's own neighbourhood and community. While we believe that the Canadian financial system must be strong and able to withstand the buffeting of the global economy, this globalization must not leave out individuals and entire neighbourhoods who are unfortunately ignored in the rush to prosperity.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the government to include the four points we raised during consideration of Bill C-38 not in the regulations, where they would be subject to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, but in the actual legislation which will be passed in the House. I also urge it to include the main features of the bill on community reinvestment introduced and strongly defended by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
With these inclusions, the government could expect a much more co-operative attitude from the Bloc Quebecois.
Indian Affairs February 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, struck at a cost of $50 million, tabled a well received report. Since then, the government has been dragging its feet and refusing to act on it.
The native peoples have had enough empty promises and want specific action to meet their desperate needs.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us today which recommendations by the Erasmus-Dussault commission he intends to implement in this session?
Speech From The Throne February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this month marks the second anniversary of the agreement on social union.
Under that agreement, all the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, agreed to let the federal government intrude into provincial jurisdictions. Moreover, the throne speech recently confirmed the government's intentions to continue to infringe on provincial jurisdictions and, worse still, to build Canada by denying the Quebec reality.
The intergovernmental co-operation that the government raves about seems to apply only to provincial issues.
Indeed, the federal government has never agreed to co-operate with the provinces in its own areas of jurisdiction, such as monetary policy.
The choice that Quebecers will have to make is not between the status quo and sovereignty. They will have to choose between a Canadian state that is increasingly centralized and unitary, and the country of Quebec.
Supply February 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, in politics, there are certain debates we have been dreaming about, and this is one of them.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who has just put a question to me, went through three election campaigns promising the same bridge and not once did he ever deliver on this promise. We will soon see a picture of the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry beside the definition of broken promise in the dictionary.