Nick Discepola

[Quebec Sovereignty, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, like many Quebecers, I am getting more and more confused about the sovereignist option. With the Quebec Premier's pussyfooting and the Bloc Quebecois leader's countless about-turns, it is easy to lose one's bearings.

No one was fooled by the latest shift toward association. The common political and economic structures proposed by the Yes side already exist. What is the use of burning bridges only to rebuild them? Would it not be more effective, and especially cheaper, to upgrade and reinforce them instead?

Indeed, this about-face is just one more trick to win support for a separation plan opposed by a majority of Quebecers. Fortunately, while this infighting is going on among separatists, the federal government is tackling the real priorities: employment and economic growth.

[Young Offenders Act, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the west island of Montreal, indeed the whole region, was shocked to learn of the brutal murder of Reverend Frank Toope and his wife, Jocelyn. Three youths have been charged with the first degree murder of the retired couple. The victims were battered to death with a baseball bat.

Can the Minister of Justice assure this House that with the amendments to the Young Offenders Act currently before the Senate, young violent offenders will no longer be able to hide behind the law? Will justice be served for the victims, their families, the offenders and most of all for society?

[International Haemophilia Day, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, April 17 is International Haemophilia Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Canadian Haemophilia Society for its excellent work.

The Canadian Hemophilia Society was founded in 1953 by people with hemophilia as a self-help group. Today the range of people it helps and the ways in which the help is offered have broadened considerably.

In the 1980s about 40 per cent of hemophiliacs and 1,200 other Canadians became infected with HIV through contaminated blood. The primary goal of the Canadian Hemophilia Society is to ensure safe access to the Canadian blood supply.

Much progress has been made. Today, thanks to greater awareness and technical developments, the risks of contamination through blood transfusions are almost nonexistent.

We can all help too by donating blood, time, or money. After all, we are all related by blood.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

No, no. It is reducing 15 per cent. The transition period they are requesting to my knowledge does not exceed more than three or four years. They have plenty of time to adapt.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

It is reassuring, Madam Speaker, that members other than Bloc Quebecois members have realized the importance of the rural agricultural industry in Quebec, especially dairy farming. It seems there is only one party in this House that does not realize the benefits Quebec enjoys through the protection and actions of gestion de l'offre. Dairy producers in Quebec especially enjoy tremendous advantage.

I find it very puzzling at times when I discuss this with rural members in my riding. Maybe it is not uncommon that the main leaders in the federation that supposedly defend the interests of farmers have separatist tendencies. Maybe the Bloc do not choose to advocate the benefits farmers enjoy because of the adherence to the federation that we love to call Canada. However, in Quebec they would prefer to have their own country.

I am baffled. Whenever a letter is written to a newspaper, very quickly someone from the UPA for example will refute the arguments and we get into a battle.

There is no guarantee that the protection farmers enjoy today would be continued in a separate Quebec. No member of the Bloc Quebecois can stand and honestly say that in this House. The protection is by staying in Canada.

If we look at their so-called draft bill, Bloc Quebecois members are very quick to state that we are offering only the status quo, but they exclude article 1 of their draft bill which states categorically that Quebec will be an independent country. Then in articles 2 to 16 they say they would like the same monetary unit, the same immigration, the same passport, the same economic union. That is the status quo. They have all of that already within Canada and now they want to destroy it to get it back. There is no guarantee they will get protection under GATT, the G-7, or any other agreement.

To answer the question, the tariffs that were negotiated in the last round of the GATT see a decreasing protection through tariffication of roughly 15 per cent per year. That will give the industry enough time to adapt. By the same token, the government has doubled the loan provisions from $1.5 billion to $3 billion to help farmers obtain access to needed capital. The tariffication process will allow them the needed three or four years.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.

So far, it seems that Bloc members are choosing the issues in which they would like to intervene. They chose to remain silent in the Montreal and Vancouver port disputes but today's debate is another example of the partisan way in which the Bloc Quebecois chooses the causes it wants to defend.

I would like to explain a few things about the dairy subsidy announced in the last budget.

First, it should be pointed out that this government is formally committed to maintaining an orderly marketing system for dairy

products, eggs and poultry. These products are a very important part of the Canadian agri-food industry.

In the final round of GATT negotiations, we showed how serious we were by securing customs tariffs high enough to keep our supply management system almost unchanged. Some tariffs are as high as 200 per cent or 300 per cent for various dairy products.

These tariffs will drop by only 15 per cent over a six-year period. It is the smallest reduction required on such tariffs. In addition, international agreements call for limited access for imports while giving us comparable access elsewhere for our dairy products.

Consequently, all experts agree that this sector will enjoy a high level of protection for several years. As you will recall, when the GATT bill was before this House, we were accused of failing to protect article XI. That is how things were done.

It is good news, since the dairy sector is now experiencing a surge in activities. In 1993-94, Canadian industrial milk production rose by 3.2 per cent compared to the previous year, while a 4.5 per cent increase is forecast for this year. Quebec dairy farmers, who receive almost 50 per cent of national quotas, are taking advantage of the situation.

As for cutting the subsidies paid to industrial milk producers by 30 per cent over two years, it is necessary to do so to improve our public finances.

As elected representatives, we have certain inescapable responsibilities and reducing the deficit in real terms is one of them. We can no longer allow the deficit to keep adding to the national debt. We must strive towards fiscal balance. All Canadians agree on that.

Therefore, the government must cut its spending at every level and in many sectors, including the agri-food sector.

In the dairy industry, producers are currently paid $5.43 per hectolitre in direct subsidy for industrial milk. An hectolitre is equal to 100 litres. So, in simple terms, this is a subsidy of about five cents a litre. Moreover, it does not apply to fluid milk, the milk that we drink everyday, for which producers are paid a higher price.

This means that only a portion of the dairy producers' income is affected. In that case, I think this decision is perfectly justified when, as we know and I repeat, the government has to cut its spending. It has no other choice but to take stringent yet sensible budget measures.

After all, the subsidy is not completely gone, far from it. Seventy per cent of it, or $160 million, will continue to go to milk production. In the coming months, the Canadian Dairy Commission and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will hold consultations with the industry to set prices for the crop year beginning on August 1.

Later this year, the government will discuss with the industry how the subsidy can be best used. The most efficient use possible should be made of these funds, i.e. to support long term growth in the industry.

Producers and processors alike are committed to adjusting to the new global context. The Canadian dairy industry creates many jobs and generates billions of dollars in revenues. It is important that this industry be able to prosper and meet new challenges in the future.

The industry always sold a percentage of its production, particularly surplus milk powder and sought after cheeses, on the global market.

Just recently, on a trade mission to Latin America, the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the sector interested Brazilians in importing Canadian parmesan and mozzarella. This confirms that there are new markets for our excellent products.

At the last meeting of the national milk supply management committee, six of the nine provincial marketing boards decided to set up a special marketing quota in order to develop the export market. This new approach could see the light of day by the summer, and might eventually encompass all the provinces.

As we can see, the sector is changing to suit its needs. The government intends to help the move to a new generation of orderly milk marketing, as is already the case in the poultry and eggs sector.

Furthermore, the budget announced new ways of helping the agri-food sector as a whole, including the dairy sector. Moreover, the government is proposing a series of adjustment measures so that the industry can seize the new opportunities opening up on the world market and to compensate for the reduction in government funds.

The government is prepared to provide the financial tools, as evidenced in the doubling, a few weeks ago, of the funds available under co-operative credit legislation. It will also provide more market information to businesses wanting to expand their foreign sales.

As you can see, the government is helping the dairy sector, as its financial situation permits, in the same way it is helping other agri-food sectors.

The cuts announced are real but not dramatic to the point of harming the growth of the dairy sector. On the contrary, we want it to continue to develop within a context of orderly marketing.

[Federalism, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a new study by two economists from the University of Calgary, soon to be published in the Canadian Business Economic Journal , shows that the Province of Quebec is the biggest winner in Canadian federalism.

The researchers compared the total amount of money that each province paid to Ottawa in the form of taxes, etc, with the amount of money directly transferred to each province over the last 32 years.

Between 1961 and 1992, Quebec has gotten $168 billion more out of the federal government than it put in in taxes and other payments to Ottawa. The province has netted an average annual bonus of $803 per person.

Quebecers are not gullible. And the polls prove it. The opposition's lame arguments are not winning over flocks because federalism is working in Canada, despite its imperfections, and Quebec benefits from it.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, especially with respect to exempted crown corporations.

The bill as presented would remove exemptions from the application of divisions I to IV of part X of the Financial Administration Act for five crown corporations, the corporations being the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, Canadian Wheat Board, International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation.

I believe all members agree that part X was designed to achieve an appropriate system of accountability and control for all crown corporations. The need for such a system was highlighted by the auditor general in his 1979 and 1982 annual reports to the House. The Auditor General reports noted that three main parties effectively participated in the corporate accountability process: Parliament, government and the boards of directors and senior management of the entity involved.

Part X clearly establishes that corporate management was empowered to be responsible for acting in the best interest of the corporation and its day to day operations. At the same time part X ensures that shareholders' rights and objectives are duly considered.

Increasing globalization of trade and recessionary forces have pressured both private sector and crown corporations to be more competitive and efficient. Additionally crown corporations must also achieve the public policy objectives for the reason that their statutory mandates remain respective of taxpayers' dollars.

The government recognizes that crown corporations served the public interest in a business environment. They are expected to use the best available private sector business practices and in practicality are treated in the same manner as private sector firms.

Having rules to govern accountability is one way to cement the expectation. These rules also make roles very clear.

Until 1983-84, the Financial Administration Act did not clearly specify these roles. Because of the resulting lack of co-ordination, it was impossible to ensure effective control or properly account for certain activities such as the creation of new crown corporations and making financial commitments for which, in the end, the government would be responsible.

In 1984 the Financial Administration Act was amended to address these shortcomings and part X as we know it came into existence.

Under part X, a crown corporation annually submits a corporate plan specifying all its projects and operations, including its investments and those of affiliates of which it is the sole shareholder. The crown corporation must describe the mandate of the corporation, its objectives for the duration of the plan and the strategy for achieving those objectives. It is also required to do a comparative study of projected results and annual objectives.

Corporate plans of crown corporations subject to part X require annual approval by the governor in council. Corporations may not carry on any new business or activity that is not consistent with an approved plan.

As well, once a corporate plan receives approval its summary must also be tabled in Parliament by the appropriate minister.

This element of planning and planning approval was regarded as a progressive part of part X of the system.

This accountability framework was not ideal for all crown corporations. The 1984 legislation contained exceptions which may be found in subsection 85(1) of the Financial Administration Act. Under this subsection, seven crown corporations are not subject to part X.

Along with the five corporations mentioned in Bill C-263, subsection 85(1) includes the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In addition, the legislation that has been passed but not yet proclaimed would create another crown corporation exempt from part X, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

The grounds for exemption are significant and relate to the uniqueness of corporate mandates. The 1984 inclusion of the CBC was due to its uniqueness as a corporation. It required arm's length protective measures although not from the rules of good planning and accountability but from the possibility of political interference in the actual day to day business choices.

Subsequently, in 1991, amendments to the Broadcasting Act integrated many elements of part X in the legislation governing the CBC, while maintaining the arm's length position of the corporation. The auditor general felt this was a step in the right direction, since he had expressed his concern about the exemption.

Some of the remaining exemptions follow certain part X rules on a voluntary basis. Progress in accountability has been made outside part X. Bill C-263 is well intentioned. Although there may be merit in bringing other exemptions under a modified form of accountability framework similar to the part X regime, I suggest that additional work be done first.

For example, Bill C-263 contains the provision that employees of the National Arts Centre, Canada Council and International Development Research Centre become members of the public service.

Why does the bill aim to increase the size of the public service? Bill C-263 has clearly not addressed all the issues. The bill does not respect the fact that corporate independence in certain sensitive areas needs to be protected.

In the past, it was felt that it was necessary to maintain corporate independence and to avoid excessive controls as opposed to providing for an acceptable accountability framework.

For instance, the museums, which are crown corporations, are subject to the provisions on accountability in part X. However, under the museum's enabling legislation, no guidelines may be imposed that would affect their decisions on the acquisition and dispersal of works in their collections.

Similarly, one cannot impose guidelines on the CBC that would encroach on its journalistic freedom.

Specific wording in section 27 of the museums legislation states:

No directive shall be given under section 89 or subsection 114(3) of the Financial Administration Act with respect to cultural activities, including

(a) the acquisition, disposal, conservation or use of any museum material relevant to its activities;

(b) its activities and programs for the public, including exhibitions, displays and publications; and

(c) research with respect to the matters referred to-

I ask if there are better ways to ensure accountability for those crown corporations named in this bill.

Subject areas such as auditing, corporate governance, financial management and control, corporate planning, reporting to Parliament and borrowing plans have been thoroughly addressed in part X of the Financial Administration Act. It has resulted in a system which according to the Auditor General is working well.

This system does not rule out modifications which are prepared to meet the specific circumstances of the majority of exempt crown corporations. Whether this is best achieved through one bill or through a series of amendments to existing statutes for each crown corporation is something we may need to further explore.

In concluding, I am convinced that every effort will be made to achieve the ideal combination of accountability and the arm's length relationship enjoyed by crown corporations that are exempted, and that Canadians will continue to consider this to be in the public interest.

In closing, I cannot recommend support for this bill, despite its valiant effort.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

The sooner the referendum is held, the sooner the Bloc Quebecois will have to decide. Does it really want to play its role of official opposition and look after the interests of all Canadians, or rather pick and choose the issues, as it has already shown it is doing?

It is important to get this conflict settled as soon as possible, and not at the expense of the workers as the Bloc Quebecois would have us believe.

The government has always preferred to let conflicts be settled between the two parties involved. We have tried. The minister in her new role has tried in vain. We are at the point now where the economy is paralysed and companies are closing down. The government, contrary to what the Bloc Quebecois says, has decided to act.

Let us get the economy back on track. Let us get the trains running. Let us have the referendum as soon as possible. Then the Bloc will have to decide whether it wants to remain the opposition or resign and let the Reform take over.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

The hon. member said that is what we are paid for. Sure, but every hour spent in this House today costs the taxpayers an extra $25,000. All this because, during an opposition day, the Bloc members insisted on talking about the CBC and the Department of National Defence, rather than try to solve this conflict.

I will conclude by referring to a comment made earlier this week by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the referendum should be held as soon as possible.