Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was provinces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Vaudreuil—Soulanges (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Gun Control June 8th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, since the Bloc Quebecois announced its latest change of heart on gun control, there has been a storm of protest and criticism in Quebec. Some more recent instances include what was said by the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, and I quote: "We wish to express our profound disagreement with the position of the Bloc on decriminalization. We hope that the Bloc's position will be adjusted to give serious consideration to the views of chiefs of police, police officers, the Canadian and Quebec Bar associations, public health experts, municipalities, the CEQ and the FCE".

The Bloc Quebecois, which has changed its mind before, should give its unqualified support to the passage of Bill C-68, as requested by the CEQ and other organizations in Quebec.

Supply June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the member for Longueuil refers to the debt. In his speech, he said that in the sixties our slogan was "Maîtres chez nous", in the seventies it was "Égalité ou indépendance"

and in the eighties it became "Souveraineté-Association". I prefer to talk about the "Beau risque" of the seventies. But now, the change of direction of March 1995 has turned into no direction at all.

Why do I say that? Because the Bloc Quebecois with its separation option does not know what to offer Quebecers. The member for Longueuil speaks about the debt as if it belonged exclusively to the federal government. Quebecers also participated in that debt. If Quebec becomes independent, the quality of life of its citizens will drop from the 9th position, where it stands right now, to the 19th. The member also said that the political system is not working, that it does not meet the expectations or requirements of Quebec and that we created an artificial economy in Canada.

My question for the member is this: If he does not approve of Canada's political system, if our economy does not meet his expectations, why is it that in their plan, the Bloc members say they want sovereignty, but they also want to maintain the same economic union and the same political system? Is there not a contradiction there? I am asking the member because he said himself that after the referendum, if the answer is no, there will still be 54 members promoting independence for Quebec.

I want to ask the member if that means that all Bloc Quebecois members will resign if their option is rejected during the fall referendum, as he claims?

Supply June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As far as I know Quebec is still a province. It is not a nation.

Supply June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the industry committee has been examining this bill for three days now and here, in the House, the minister has now been trying to allay the hon. member's fears for two or three days. With each passing day, I realize that his understanding of this bill's role is getting lesser and lesser.

The clock is ticking away and, unless we pass this bill before the end of June, there will be no more money for the Federal Business Development Bank, to name one, and no more money for small and medium size businesses. One of the aims of this bill is to increase the capital available to these businesses as loans.

The hon. members say that no other province boasts so many regional offices. That is because the other provinces, like the four Atlantic provinces, have their own agency. I know at least 70 members from Ontario who would like to get their hands on the budget for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec to give it to Ontario, where the program does not even exist.

I am going to quote again the clause with which the hon. member seems to have so much difficulty. Clause 20 clearly says that "The Bank may enter into agreements with, and act as agent for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province-"

I am stopping here because I think he is stumbling on the word "province". When he talks about the RCMs, municipalities and school boards of Quebec-I must agree that municipalities were created by the provincial government-that did not prevent us from signing the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement with all three levels of government.

Therefore, I fail to see why he should worry, because, in my opinion, there is no cause for worry. We can sign agreements with agencies, and if they fall under provincial jurisdiction, the agencies, for example a municipality, will be obliged by law to obtain the provincial government's agreement.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are not trying to erode powers. What we are trying to do is resolve the problem many small and medium size businesses are having regarding access to capital. This bill aims to bring within their reach the $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000 they need, which banks cannot offer them, at the moment.

Supply June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the last speakers, particularly those made by the member for Longueuil who blamed the national debt on the Canadian federation. I also listened to the remarks made by the member for Mercier who, at the beginning of her speech, was going to blame the poverty level in the Montreal area on federalism, or I thought she would, but she stopped.

Moreover, she tried to say that the high unemployment rate was again a consequence of the federal system. Strangely enough, she forgot to mention that, even with the Canada social transfer, Quebec benefits considerably from federalism through equalization.

Many studies have clearly shown that Quebec has been able to grow within a federal system while benefiting enormously from such a system. She also forgot to mention that, through the unemployment insurance program, Quebec gets over $1 billion more.

In this last allotted day that the official opposition has during this session, it has chosen once again to talk about four bills in order to try to show that federalism does not work, that the government wants to centralize powers. In her speech, the

member for Mercier also said that the time has come for Quebecers to take complete control of their own destiny.

However, I find it hard to keep a straight face when I hear these arguments, because in their draft bill, they want their dollar to be the Canadian dollar, they want their passport to be a Canadian passport. And throughout the debate on these issues, they want to determine the scope and subject of the referendum question. They had a debate, and they told us the question would include one on political and economic association with Canada. It seems to me they want what Canada has to offer. In that case, I challenge them to do the following. Instead of wasting the 10 or 11 million dollars it cost to conduct these consultations-the hon. member for Mercier also mentioned the high poverty rate-I think this money would have been better spent on dealing with unemployment and poverty.

So we have four bills that were mentioned together in an attempt to demonstrate that federalism, as they see it, has become centralist.

I would like to discuss Bill C-76, which implements certain provisions of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. In referring to this bill, the opposition is very critical and says we want to centralize everything. In fact, the only condition set by the government for the Canada social transfer is the period of residence, which cannot disqualify a recipient from receiving social assistance.

The other criterion, which already exists, is maintaining the five principles of health care. At the request of the Province of Quebec and the other provinces, the government decided to group these transfers. Again, at the request of the provinces, the government gave them a set target budget, guaranteed for a period of two years. And the members of the Bloc Quebecois complain that we want to centralize powers!

I find it very hard to understand how the motion could possibly be about centralization, since in this bill and other bills, and also in our approach as a government, we have shown repeatedly that we want to decentralize powers, in two respects. The first one is to eliminate overlap and duplication. Not because it is the will of the Province of Quebec or of the Bloc. No. Because it is the will of all of Canada, all Canadians, because it will save us money. That is what we are doing.

My presentation is about Bill C-91, the bill in relation to which the National Assembly just passed a motion, as the hon. member for Mercier just said. As I will explain, I find it hard to believe how the Bloc Quebecois can construe this bill as an effort on the part of the federal government to once again centralize powers.

Canada and Quebec have entered a new phase of economic growth. The federal administration is sensitive to the globalization of markets and to the increased emphasis on competitiveness. We are redefining the federal government's approach to the economy.

The most important part of this new approach is recognizing the dynamic role that small and medium size businesses play in job creation and the creation of wealth.

This government has developed many approaches and reworked its strategy and its tools to take into consideration the key role that they play in our economic prosperity.

Bill C-91 gives the Federal Business Development Bank a new mandate. Under this new mandate the bank will be able to increase its activity in smaller loans and investments and focus more on knowledge based industries and exporters, two of the thriving forces in the global economy.

A key element of the bank's new mandate is partnership. Bill C-91 makes it easier for the bank to work in close partnership with other partners. These new closer partnerships will help small and medium size businesses and will avoid inefficient and costly overlap and duplication, contrary to what the members of the Bloc Quebecois have said.

The opposition's reaction to Bill C-91 disappoints me. The opposition claims that the objectives of this bill are to usurp provincial powers, to build a centralized state and to take considerable powers away from Quebec.

This opinion could only be based on a misinterpretation of clause 20 of this bill.

Clause 20 says: "The bank may enter into agreements with and act as agents for any department or agency of the Government of Canada or a province or any other body or person for the provision of services or programs to, on behalf of, or jointly with that body or person". I do not know how the opposition member can misread that. It is quite clear. This is not in any way an intrusion by the federal government into provincial jurisdiction. Clause 20 of Bill C-91 facilitates co-operative joint ventures with partners from the private sector as well as the public sector.

Clause 20 permits the bank to enter into agreements with other persons and organizations, including federal and provincial government departments and agencies. The authorization applies to the bank, not to the other parties involved. Let me repeat that again so members of the opposition understand. Clause 20 applies to the bank only. I think this is where they are having a hard time. It does not apply to the other parties at all. The other parties, whether they be government agencies or

provincial boards, still have to obtain proper authorization from their jurisdictional authorities before entering into any agreement with the bank.

In circumstances and situations in which a jurisdictional body must grant authorization for a partner to enter an agreement there will be no change.

Why is this change necessary? Because the wording of the previous legislation limited the bank's ability to conclude agreements with non commercial firms. In some cases, these organizations, some of which come under provincial jurisdiction, proposed to the bank itself that it help provide financial and management services.

The bank could not do anything at the time, because it lacked the legislative authority to enable it to co-operate. A lot of time and effort went into obtaining this authority. Clause 20 will eliminate all the bureaucratic red tape and will make it possible to provide more effective services, which small business can use.

Clause 20 of Bill C-91 is very technical I will admit, but it allows the bank to enter into joint co-operative agreements. Clause 20 will allow partnerships, joint ventures and even the delivery of financial assistance on behalf of other agencies subject to the banks usual guidelines.

As an example of co-operation and collaboration, the Federal Business Development Bank and FORD-Q, the body responsible for regional development in Quebec, are currently developing a strategic partnership as part of a pilot project. The object is to create a special fund which will have a leverage effect in order to support projects undertaken by small and medium size enterprises in unexploited niches.

In addition, the bank has developed strategic partnerships with agencies and departments of Quebec's provincial government. For example, the bank recently completed an agreement to develop a technology training and counselling program with le Ministère de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de la Technologie du Québec and the Professional Engineers Association of Quebec.

The bank, moreover, joined with the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre to start up a program to promote and encourage women's initiatives in conjunction with a Bank of Montreal program to train and develop business women.

Together with the Maison régionale de l'industrie in Sherbrooke, the Federal Regional Development Office designed a program to advise and train new exporters. The power to establish partnerships is no different from similar provisions in legislation governing other crown corporations, including the Farm Credit Corporation and the Export Development Corporation.

I must point out at this point that the ability to enter into partnerships certainly follows one of the recommendations of "Taking Care of Business", the report which the Standing Committee on Industry released in October 1994. I had the pleasure to sit on that committee. The committee recommended that the mandate of the bank be confirmed and refocused as a complementary lender to small and medium size businesses and that it be authorized to use new financial instruments to fulfil its mandate. The two members of the Bloc Quebecois who sit on that committee were in full agreement with that recommendation.

Bill C-91 is an important element in creating the supportive environment for small and medium size enterprises across Canada which will contribute to building a long and lasting prosperity. This bill is one part of the future we are building for small businesses and for Canada's economic prosperity.

There is no doubt about the importance of small and medium size businesses to our economy today and tomorrow. Small businesses employ more than half of the Canadians working in the private sector. Since the early 1980s small businesses have created over 87 per cent of all new jobs in Canada.

Small and medium size businesses will continue to be a source of jobs and wealth in Canada. Our goal is to create a climate in which businesses will be able to continue to create jobs for Canadians, and to contribute to the wealth of the country.

We are taking action on this basis, and moving toward our goal. In 1994, we asked several groups and organizations in the public and private sectors, including the committee, how the government could create a suitable climate to foster the growth of small businesses.

Everybody agreed that small and medium size businesses have great potential to create even more jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, that potential is too often left untapped. The groups and organizations we consulted said that, in order to tap this potential, the government had to start with reducing the deficit. The first step was taken by the finance minister in his last budget.

Moreover, they told us that we must develop more efficient, more effective, and more relevant programs for small businesses. Finally, we must recognize that the government cannot, on its own, foster, in the small business community, the vitality and the growth the country needs.

On the basis of these recommendations, we outlined in our report entitled Building a More Innovative Economy a wide range of initiatives aimed at fostering the growth of small business in Canada.

In the vital area of financing, we have pressed the banks to improve their relationship with small businesses. We have taken steps to ease access to capital for innovative projects. We are refocusing federal government financing programs to fill in the gaps left by the private sector.

At our urging, the Canadian Bankers Association developed a code of conduct to help ensure accountability, understandable contracts, more efficient credit processing, and an effective method in dealing with complaints. Member banks are incorporating these standards into their own codes of conduct.

The federal regional agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, western diversification, and the federal office of regional economic development for northern Ontario, have all refocused their programs almost entirely on small businesses. Federal agencies now focus on recoverable contributions and information to businesses.

At the end of the 1994 fiscal year, we amended the Small Businesses Loans Act by increasing the credit ceiling to $12 billion in order to meet the ever growing demand.

On April 1, we implemented other amendments allowing for cost recovery in accordance with our overall deficit reduction goal. These amendments will also help identify the main beneficiaries of the program.

In the next few weeks, we will table further amendments to the SBLA in order to get on with the process of recovering all program costs and make other minor changes affecting lenders and borrowers.

The review of the small business policy clearly showed that one of the most pressing problems facing small and medium size businesses is access to capital.

The review of the role and mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank was a key element of the government's efforts to improve this access.

The Federal Business Development Bank, since it started almost 50 years ago as the former Industrial Development Bank, has helped Canadian businesses respond to the changing demands of the economy through timely and innovative financing and management services. As the economy changes again, the time has now come to change the Federal Business Development Act as it stands.

The purpose of Bill C-91 is to modernize the bank's mandate. It is based on the experience and skills acquired to provide the financial and administrative leadership needed by small and medium size businesses in the knowledge-based economy, without neglecting traditional finance sectors.

The Business Development Bank of Canada will be an important source of support to small business, as it will be able to fill in what I would call the "gaps" faced by small and medium size businesses across the country.

Bill C-91 in no way intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. It does not take powers away from any province. It does, however, make this very important institution more flexible and more responsive to the needs of small and medium sized businesses for the benefit of all Canadians.

Regional Development June 1st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, in response to the needs of the small and medium sized businesses, the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec will shortly implement a new concept of strategic intervention with a focus on innovation, market development and entrepreneurship.

The FORD-Q will continue to promote the interests of all of the regions of Quebec with strong and efficient measures. The driving force behind small and medium sized businesses will become the pivotal point in the realization of the economic potential of each of Quebec's regions.

The FORD-Q will add a whole new dimension to its role by joining in community projects and providing strategic advice and assistance. In this context, its presence will be felt more than ever before in the very heart of the regions.

This is what we on this side of the House call an excellent example of the government's desire to promote economic growth. This is government at its finest.

Small Business May 31st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give another example of what this government is doing to promote business development and, thus, the economic development of this country.

The minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec told the Standing Committee on Industry that he will intensify efforts to make small business aware of how crucial innovation, design as well as research and development are.

He is mainly concerned with identifying new technologies and integrating them into the daily operations of this industry. FORD-Q will pay special attention to ensuring that knowledge is shared and that the products and techniques developed in high-tech projects are marketed.

In Canada, job creation has been spurred on by the vitality of our small business industry since 1992. That is why FORD-Q is committed to creating the conditions required for this industry to remain the driving force of economic growth. In a word, we can say-

Supply May 30th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I listened to what the hon. member had to say and, like the rest of us, was also invited by the member for Fraser Valley East to cross the Rockies and visit the rest of the country. I must tell him that I have already done so.

I would like to return the favour and invite the Reform member to visit my fair province, Quebec. I found the hon. member's statement a little irresponsible.

We are speaking of employment equity. The member refers to employment equity and brings biculturalism and bilingualism into the debate.

I would like to put him on the defensive. The proof is in Quebec, where being bilingual gives more job opportunities. With the emerging economy today and with North American free trade there are now schools in Quebec offering Spanish as a third or fourth language. So how can he bring that into the debate and say that he is against bilingualism when he is for employment equity and opportunities for all people, especially the youth of today? It is ironic.

Supply May 30th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I listened to what my hon. colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve just said and I was shocked by his criticism of the motion and of the Reform Party for having moved it.

I was shocked because he said that the Reform Party was almost taking the stand that you had to be white, male and without a disability to participate fully in the labour market without being discriminated against. Upon analysis, we realize that the separatist option supporter said basically the same thing; you must be either pro-sovereignty or white and you must absolutely be an old-stock Quebecer to participate in this option.

I would like to quote a few statements that were made. Taking part in a debate in this House on January 27, 1994, the hon. member for Longueuil clearly stated that multiculturalism "is something that has created ghettoes". In an interview for the daily newspaper Le Devoir , the Quebec Deputy Premier said that Quebec would not use public funds to subsidize difference, stating that his government was against multiculturalism.

Minister Louise Beaudoin said that she wanted to live in the society she wanted and was wondering why she could not live in the country to her liking rather than to the liking of English Canadians. "Canadians want a multicultural society, she said, but I do not. This would leave the door open to social ghettoes. I am for integration and against the wearing of the Islamic scarf at school".

So far, Bloc Quebecois supporters and the Quebec government have not shown that they were open to visible minorities and, I might add, to anyone who does not share their political views. We will recall how these minority groups were treated during the public consultation process on the future of Quebec.

I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to tell me how he envisages their proposed society, their nation-building project. How can he justify the position taken by his party and the Quebec government? The fact that aboriginal people must give in to the Premier currently responsible for this issue was raised as an example. What assurances can he give young Quebecers that their future will be brighter? How can he tell aboriginal people in Quebec that their future will be brighter? How can he tell visible minorities that, as he said himself, their future will be brighter? All those minorities.

So far, no matter how hard they criticize the Reform Party, they have done no better. They have clearly demonstrated as much intolerance as the motion before the House this morning.

Supply May 18th, 1995

Madam Speaker, today's debate covers a broad range of federal government activities, and this interjection shows how desperately the Bloc Quebecois is trying to bolster support for the scenario rejected by a

The Bloc is obviously hoping to discredit the federal government, but to no avail, for we are seeing a boomerang effect here again today. In fact, this debate provides an opportunity to appreciate the extent of the federal government's prerogatives and responsibilities.

One of these responsibilities is addressed through the fiscal stabilization program created under the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. The purpose of the stabilization program is to provide protection to provinces in the event of extreme downturns in economic activity.

More specifically, provinces faced with a year-over-year decline in revenues due to a downturn in the economy, such as the last recession, have access to financial assistance, subject to specific rules set out in the act.

The compensation authorized by the stabilization legislation is based on the province's year over year absolute decline in a province's eligible revenues subject to three constraints. First, changes made by the province in the rate or in the structure of its provincial taxes must be factored out when measuring revenue declines. The program compensates for revenue declines due to business cycles and not for declines due to provincial decisions to reduce taxes arbitrarily.

Second, declines in resource revenues are subject to stabilization only if and to the extent that the annual decline exceeds 50 per cent. Third, since 1987-1988 the maximum grant payable to a province is limited to $60 per provincial resident. Assistance above that limit is at the discretion of the Minister of Finance and would take the form of an interest free loan. The litmus test in assessing eligibility to the stabilization program is whether there is or was a drop in revenues due to general economic conditions.

The stabilization legislation and regulations provide very detailed rules about how to measure provincial revenues and how to adjust for changes in taxation. It is these very same rules that were applied consistently in dealing with all provincial applications as the act requires us so to do.

Stabilization is a program for exceptionally hard times, which explains why only three provinces have received federal stabilization payments up to 1990. British Columbia received $174 million for the fiscal year 1982-83; Alberta, $419 million for fiscal year 1986-87; and Ontario received $227 million for 1990-91.

In order to be considered for stabilization payments, a province must make a claim to the federal Minister of Finance not later than 18 months after the end of the year to which the claim should be applied.

Last December 7, the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, announced payments totalling $782.4 million in response to applications from the provinces under the stabilization program, including $418 million for fiscal year 1991-92.

These were final payments for 1991-92 in the case of seven applications, and interim payments for 1992-93 in the case of five applications.

Despite all the insidious and unfounded insinuations of the Bloc Quebecois, these applications were processed according to the letter and the intent of the fiscal stabilization program legislation. All provinces were put on the same footing.

The Bloc Quebecois has implied that the federal government used delaying tactics in settling Quebec's claims.

I urge the hon. member who moved the motion before the House today to ask his own leader about the meaning of the term "delaying", since he is an expert on the subject.

With regard to the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Minister of Finance made final payments to five provinces: Newfoundland, $3.1 million; Nova Scotia, $55 million; Prince Edward Island, $5 million; Ontario, $284.4 million; and Manitoba, $42.9 million.

The claims made by two additional provinces, Saskatchewan and Quebec, were found not valid under this rule set out in the act.

Quebec's application for 1991-92 was not approved because there had been no decline in revenue due to the business cycle, which meant that according to the regulations, there could be no compensation. That is all.

There was no question of unfair treatment, political intrigue or partisanship.

The Minister of Finance also has the authority under the legislation to make interim payments to a province where applications are supported by currently available data.

For instance, on December 7, 1994, the finance minister announced that interim payments be made to five provinces based on fiscal year 1992-93, which included $125 million for Quebec. In this case Quebec's application was valid, and the federal government paid.

I dare the Bloc Quebecois to make the same fuss about the payment made to the Government of Quebec for 1992-93 that it made to discredit the federal government concerning payments for the fiscal year 1991-92.

In concluding, decisions by the Minister of Finance on all provincial applications for stabilization are made in accordance with the legislation and regulations. Furthermore, they treat all provinces in a manner that is consistent and fair. These decisions are final.

The stabilization legislation does not provide for arbitration mechanisms. If Quebec wants to challenge the legality of the federal decision, it has one recourse: to appeal before the courts.

Those who call this courtroom federalism do not know what they are talking about. This year, the Government of Canada will pay about $11.7 billion in federal transfer payments to the Province of Quebec. That is what I call constructive and positive federalism.

I will vote against the motion of the Bloc Quebecois because it denies the facts and adds absolutely nothing constructive to this debate.