Antoine Dubé

[Human Resources Development, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister herself is confusing Placeteco and Techni-Paint and preventing the details of this matter from coming to light.

Why is she so afraid to table the invoices she must have in hand to justify the grant, unless no jobs were created?

[Human Resources Development, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has again totally contradicted the owner of Placeteco, who received a grant of $1.2 million and who said on the CBC that he had 78 people in his firm and not the 170 the minister keeps reporting.

If the minister continues to totally contradict her department and its figures and the figures of the head of Placeteco on the number of jobs, is it not because she is incapable of justifying the use of $1.2 million by the creation of jobs at Placeteco as the grant went elsewhere?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I cannot of course provide figures, because I do not have them for my riding. But the member is definitely right. If there is a reduction on the one hand, but on the other hand an increase is imposed by the Minister of Finance on employers and workers, then the first measure is offset by the second one.

Since he brought this up, I can tell the hon. member that in my riding, until this year, the unemployment rate did not allow us to benefit from the transitional jobs fund, which was strongly criticized.

My constituents often ask me “Yes, but are there cases like this everywhere?” We saw that these cases are predominantly in the Prime Minister's riding. There are also some in Montreal, but not in my riding. The reason for that is simple: my riding was not eligible for the funds, supposedly because the unemployment rate was too low.

But later on—and the hon. member must have noticed the same thing in his own riding—we saw that the current minister had another way of implementing the act. She applied it where there were pockets of poverty. We all have pockets of poverty in our ridings, but the minister made sure not to mention that rule. Therefore, people did not know about it, and no projects were implemented under that rule.

Under the new fund and the new standards, my riding is now entitled, like the others, to money, but at a lower level. Over the past year, about two businesses in my riding were able to benefit from the new fund. Therefore, it still does not have a significant impact on my riding.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier has provided me with the opportunity to say a little more on this.

The budget was a disappointment to me because there is not one cent for shipbuilding. Positive things should be mentioned when they come up, and there has been an interesting event in the industry committee on which I sit. In its report, which was tabled in the House on Tuesday, the committee made two recommendations to the government. For once, it admits that there are particular problems in that area.

One recommendation asks the government, via the various departments concerned, to adopt new measures to help the shipbuilding industry. Another is aimed at negotiations with the American government in order to gain an exemption from its Jones Act for Canada.

Shipping and shipbuilding are not exempt. If there were an exemption from the cost—people have studied the potential impact of this measure—there would be a return of full employment or of the level of employment existing prior to 1993. An increase in demand is expected for the next five years.

Yes, the budget was a disappointment, but things do look better than they did a few months ago in shipbuilding, since Bill C-213 was passed at second reading.

All that remains is committee work, which is scheduled for May 30. We would have preferred it sooner, but there is a chance it may be passed before the end of the session. It has to be or it will be an incredible stratagem. The Liberals would pretend to support it—in case there is an election in the fall—with the bill before the election, but if it is not passed at third reading, it would make no sense.

I thank the member for Mercier for giving me the opportunity to explain this matter and to explain to my colleagues the importance of acting on agreements in principle reached on a bill. We must go further and pass it at third reading.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to this bill on the budget. Not that I support it. We in the Bloc Quebecois voted against the budget. In this case, we are studying Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000.

This bill has seven parts to it. As I have only ten minutes, you will understand my limiting myself to only some of the aspects of the bill.

The first part talks of amending the Employment Insurance Act to increase the number of weeks of parental benefits to 35. The number of hours of insurable employment to qualify for employment insurance benefits is also reduced from 700 to 600. None of this takes effect until December 30, 2000, at the end of the year, in other words.

At first glance, the desire to help parents assume their responsibilities may seem a good thing. It is hard to oppose the principle of parental benefits. However, this is another example of federal meddling in a field usually reserved for the provinces. In the case of employment insurance, there was agreement at one point by all provinces—in 1948, I believe—to pass the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government is putting certain social measures in place, such as this one.

What I think is needed is a real family policy. That is what Quebec is aiming for and it has laid down some important groundwork. For there to be real assistance, there needs to be consistency. That would best be achieved by one level of government looking after things.

That is what Quebec wants to do. It would like to see the federal government put more into the Canada social transfer or other programs so that the provinces can, if they wish—as Quebec is doing and wants to keep on doing—implement a real family policy. That would be the ideal.

Oddly though, the number of hours to qualify for this benefit has been reduced from 700 to 600 in certain regions, but 420 in others. I am referring here to high unemployment regions.

How inconsistent that regional disparity is not taken into account with respect to parental benefits. As a result, if a woman loses her job for whatever reason and is not expecting, 420 hours would be enough. But in this case, when she leaves work to take up her responsibilities as a mother, she needs 600 hours. This is not consistent.

And there is another thing. Since 1991, we have been after the government constantly because it is no longer contributing to the EI fund. This fund consists of the premiums from employers and employees. The government uses this money to enhance its visibility but the money is not its to use. Once again, it is money that belongs to employers and employees.

All the while, to reduce the deficit, when the government was in deficit, the Minister of Finance was dipping into the EI fund. Now that there is no longer a deficit, the government continues to help itself in order to give itself as much scope for action as possible. To what end? In general, to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is completely ridiculous.

I will now move on to the second part of the bill, which also has to do with the $2.5 billion Canada social transfer for health and social programs, to which the government has made drastic cuts since 1995.

The hon. member for Mercier will remember the days when we both sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The committee went on a tour and there were protests everywhere. Except for the witnesses called by the Liberal Party, at least 75% to 80% of the witnesses came to say “No, no, do not make cuts, especially not in social programs”. But the government went ahead anyway.

In 1993, a leaders' debate was held. The current Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, asked a question to Ms. Campbell, the then Prime Minister, about a reply she had given to a journalist. The then Leader of the Opposition asked her “Is it true that you intend to make cuts in social programs?” Mrs. Campbell replied “I do not want to make that commitment. It is one of the options being considered by the Conservative Party”.

The Liberal leader took advantage of the situation and scored political points by condemning what Mrs. Campbell might do. But it is strange to see that when the Liberal Party took office, it made more cuts in social programs than the Conservatives had made.

I recall the letter written by the present Prime Minister to minister Valcourt protesting the way he had begun to make cuts to employment insurance and to tighten up the eligibility requirements. At the time he found this terrible, but now that he is in power he is continuing with the same policy and has gone even further than what was envisaged in 1993, and we are not supposed to react.

The same thing goes for the GST. He talked of abolishing it, but what has he done? Nothing is changed. At one point, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was forced to run in a by-election as a sort of validation of the change of direction, but the Prime Minister carries on as before.

The Bloc Quebecois is going to be voting against this bill because its purpose is to implement a bad budget, one which continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction and does not properly serve the interests of Quebec.

When questions are asked of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health, or others in this House, the responses often suggest that Quebec is, or was, receiving its fair share. We do not have the latest statistics, but it is true in some ways that, until 1997, Quebec did receive more employment insurance. This is normal, however. Historically, the average extra payments to Quebec have long stood at 2%. The gap is now less than before, because the Government of Quebec has adopted good job creation measures, a fund to remedy poverty, and so on. It is normal for more employment insurance to be paid out when there is less work or more unemployment.

We have also been told that Quebec got more than its fair share of the Canada social transfer two years ago. That too was normal, because there were more poor people in certain regions. It is paid out based on need.

This bill again repeats what the minister did last year, which is to have the Canada social transfer no longer based on need but rather on population figures.

At a meeting the other day, people in my riding asked “We know you are a sovereignist, Mr. Dubé, but how does the Canada social transfer work?” I told them that it was now based on population.

Someone then said “So why are we in the federal system? What is the advantage? If it is on the basis of population, it should be transferred to Quebec, to the provinces, and income tax adjusted”. Sometimes the explanation is that there are tax points.

Tax points are the same thing. However, this is not real income from the federal government. Negotiations were held in the 1960s to have the tax points given to the provinces. Quebec has its own department of revenue and collects its own taxes. The other provinces do not. The federal government talks about tax points, but this is a transfer of money to these provinces.

In response to demands by Quebec, the Minister of Finance is trying through calculations to include the famous tax points. He says “Quebec gets this amount of money, which is generous”. But in the case of federal spending, the issue is not so much quantity, but quality too.

Money coming in as transfer payments for social programs, such as employment insurance, for example—although I know this is workers' and employers' money—is not constructive money. It is not constructive spending.

When we look at Quebec's share in various areas, we can see that we get only 21% of spending on goods and services, 15% of current transfers to business and 18% of federal investments between 1992 and 1997. Specifically, that means 19.5% of the jobs in the public service and 19.1% of the jobs in the armed forces, although we represent 24% of the population. The annual shortfall in the federal procurement of goods and services, that is, the difference between Quebec's demographic weight and its share of federal receipts amounts to $1.2 billion annually.

In the case of current transfers to business, the shortfall is $339 million in investments. There is another $219 million that Quebec does not receive. In these areas alone, the figure is $1.7 billion annually between 1992 and 1997.

In the research and development sector, Quebec only gets one quarter of the jobs in the national capital region, while Ontario gets three quarters. Overall, Quebec receives less than 22% of the jobs in the federal public service, compared to 42% for Ontario.

When I look at these statistics, I come to the conclusion that we cannot blame Ontarians. The federal system serves them well. Ontario is the province best served by the federal government, in every respect.

The Liberals currently hold just about every seat in Ontario. I can understand Ontarians, because they have always had the largest piece of the pie, not to mention the auto pact, which promotes southern Ontario's economic development.

Some researchers told the Standing Committee on Industry that, if it were not for the federal presence, through public service jobs, and for the auto pact, Ontario would be at the same level as Quebec. These are the two major factors that put Ontario ahead. This has to be said. This is great for Ontarians, but MPs from Quebec are entitled to point out these facts, and so are MPs from the other provinces, because the statistics for their provinces are similar.

I am greatly concerned about shipbuilding. Unfortunately, I did not see any additional moneys for shipbuilding. There is no new program, no new measure for the shipbuilding industry. Nor did I see much for small and medium size businesses. It is the small businesses that create jobs, but I did not see any new incentive for them.

Exports are often mentioned. Large corporations are the best placed for this sort of activity, but exports are not always within the reach of SMBs. The government talks about globalization and the Internet. Yes, small businesses, like all other businesses, need to get connected, but we see that this is not happening in the more traditional areas. The perishable goods sector, for example, requires a different approach. The regional factor, the fact of being distant from large centres and large markets plays a large role.

We know that the federal Liberal government cut transportation subsidies. Now, for a business in a so-called remote area, it is more difficult because transportation has to be taken into account. We see the debate that took place over current gas prices. In regions such as Lac-Saint-Jean everything costs more because the cost of transportation has to be factored in.

This government is not listening to what the regions are saying. It is not listening to low-income families. The minister announced so-called tax cuts but, on closer inspection, these cuts are truly minimal compared to what he could have done with the surplus, which may top $100 billion in three years. The Minister of Finance is cautious, if nothing else. It is all very fine and well for the federal government to want to save money, but not to pay more attention to what citizens, companies and regions are asking for is not right.

I know that my colleagues will address other aspects of this budget bill. I think that people are entitled to all the necessary information. They should talk to their member of parliament. I tell my constituents that, if they wish to have a copy of the budget, detailed explanations, they should not hesitate to get in touch with their MP. They are entitled to objective information. They must see it for themselves.

Those listening will conclude for themselves that this budget walks all over the provinces. It ignores provincial jurisdiction. That is the main thing wrong with it.

Like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Finance is trying to crush Quebec, but he is using money to do it.

[Lévis Shipyard, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with the recent acquisition of Davie Industries by the Syntek-Transnational consortium and the current negotiations on the possibility of management and employees buying into the company, the Lévis shipyard is off to a new start.

As justification of this acquisition, the new owners stressed Davie's excellent international reputation, based primarily on the quality of its workers.

Anyone familiar with shipbuilding knows that Davie is ranked in the top five in the world, as far as engineering is concerned. It is the best builder of oil rigs in Canada.

What is still missing, however, is a true federal shipbuilding policy to enable our companies to hold their own against foreign competition.

Now that the legal matters surrounding Davie has been settled, I wish its new directors good luck, for the sake of the workers and the economies of Quebec City and the Chaudière—Appalaches region.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, on March 27, I asked a question of the Minister of Industry relating to shipbuilding and to my concerns about the lack of government intervention to change the current situation in that industry.

According to figures I had myself checked the previous week, the workforce in that industry had gone down from the 1993 total of 12,000 to 3,000, or one-quarter, 25%, of that number.

The minister's response was that the overcapacity in this industry throughout the world stands at 40%.

I find this a curious response, because the assistant deputy minister, John Banigan, told the industry committee on November 16, 1999 that, based on certain predictions, he feared an overcapacity by 2005 which could, according to his own forecast, go as high as 40%.

Reports confirm that there will be a growing demand on the shipbuilding industry because, among the world's ocean-going fleet of vessels with gross tonnage of 100 tonnes or greater, there are 85,494 ships with an average age of 19 years, and 45% that are over 20 years old.

I remind hon. members of the significance of the 20 year figure. Most industrialized countries require that vessels undergo major refitting after 20 years to be allowed to continue sailing. This is not the case in all countries. That is the problem. This is why the international fleet is extremely old and, I submit, potentially dangerous.

Everybody will remember last summer's incident in the St. Lawrence River. There were other incidents along the coast of Brittany and in several countries of Asia. When dangerous and toxic products are on board, such incidents are a great cause for concern. They constitute a tremendous threat.

The minister is not here tonight, but his representative will undoubtedly try to explain on what he relied to conclude there was overcapacity when the deputy minister of industry says that we will certainly not reach that point before 2005.

On what secret study did the minister rely to say what he said? Maybe he made a mistake? If that is the case, I forgive him in advance.

I thank the hon. members opposite who support Bill C-213, whose objective is to help shipbuilding.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. Members of the Standing Committee on Industry have discussed this bill, and today, the arguments put forward in committee have been summarized for us.

I would like to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. member, even though I do not share his view, because this is the fourth time he has tried do convince the House of the merits of this private member's bill.

The objections of the Bloc Quebecois are in the same line as the motion presented by the hon. member for Témiscamingue to exempt Quebec from this bill.

I find it passing strange that a sovereignist member like me should explain the Canadian constitution to federalist members of various parties in the House. Our objections are based on the constitution.

Some may wonder how that can be. Section 92.13 grants to the provinces the powers over questions of property and civil law. This is especially true for Quebec, because our civil code is different from the legal system in the other provinces. The civil code comes from the Code Napoléon, and it was accepted when Quebec joined confederation. Its inspiration and implementation differ from common law, which applies elsewhere in Canada.

We constantly have to remind federalist members, who should be more mindful of the Canadian constitution, of this. And it is the Bloc Quebecois members, sovereignist members, who have to do this.

Earlier, the member for Témiscamingue referred to two specific cases where section 92.13 of the constitution was used, as well as paragraph 230( a ). These cases went all the way to the supreme court, they are the attorney general of Quebec v Kellogg's and the attorney general of Quebec v Irwin Toys.

In both cases, the arguments put forward by the attorney general of Quebec were accepted. Cable companies themselves recognized that they were subject to Quebec's legislation, because legislation exists, which established the Consumer Protection Bureau and which, in section 230, prohibits negative option marketing.

After meeting with officials of the Consumer Protection Bureau, Vidéotron, Cogeco, Star Choice and ExpressVu all promised to abide by the bureau's directive that they may not use negative option marketing to sell their new package, as of January 1 of this year. Therefore, the new package is offered on a positive option marketing basis.

A lot of people do not want to hear about the constitution any more but the constitution is about the rules that govern a country, in this case the Canadian federation. If those rules are not respected, what is the use of having them?

My colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me used the same arguments than those used by the Liberal Party with regard to the Bloc Quebecois' objection, saying that there is nothing wrong with the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

There is something that many surveys and studies have shown and that those involved in teaching political science often talk about. For Canadians outside Quebec, the main government is the federal government. When it offers money or proposes measures they find interesting, the objections raised by their provincial government are regarded as secondary.

In Quebec, whether one is a federalist or a sovereignist, the exact opposite is true. This has always been the case, because the first government they think of is the Government of Quebec. This is also clear from voter turnout. Turnout in provincial elections in Quebec is always higher. In general, although there are exceptions, the opposite is true in the other provinces.

During my first term of office, I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This committee travelled across Canada and Quebec, and I was particularly struck by one thing. When it was a question of postsecondary education, the other provinces wanted the federal government to step in and had no problem with national education standards. Yet this is clearly a provincial jurisdiction.

The same is true for health. A debate is now going on in the House of Commons and, during oral question period, the NDP kept coming back to the charge, practically goading the federal government to step in with certain governments, such as Alberta, which wants to limit certain health criteria set by the federal government.

This important difference in perception has been noticed by many, and the motion brought forward by the member for Témiscamingue is very respectful of this reality. There are two mentalities and two cultures in this country that even honest federalists should respect until such time as Quebec becomes sovereign. We are different because we have a different past, culture, language and civil code. These are arguments that do not seem to interest the members opposite or those of other parties.

It upsets me even more coming from the New Democratic Party. I was an observer at their last convention. They were the first federal political party to recognize the existence of a Quebec people.

At the same time, it pointed out that Quebec had the right to self determination. We saw what happened with Bill C-20. At the first opportunity, the NDP changed its approach. They were in fact taken to task by their members in Quebec and those of their national executive who resigned.

People say it is always the members of the Bloc Quebecois who raise this argument. The only consumer group appearing before the committee came from Quebec, the Action Réseau Consommateur. I would like to recall the remarks of the representatives of this group. They said that the bill was a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

The group asked:

That, if this bill is pursued, it not include in it the concept of prior consent, which contravenes the spirit of the law and takes away its meaning, to all intents and purposes.

It also asked:

—for an amendment of clause 1(3), in order to prevent banks and broadcasting and television undertakings from replacing a service with another if no additional cost is charged, without the consent of the consumer.

What will happen if the bank replaces a paper service with an electronic service, when the client does not want the electronic service?

It also asked:

That for all transactions, consumers be given a hard copy contract.

None of these recommendations was heeded.

To conclude, I would like to say that, in addition to invading areas of provincial jurisdiction, this bill serves no purpose, in our opinion, since the legislative provisions already exist, especially in Quebec, and protect the consumer in this regard.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question, because I know that there is not much time left.

In the first part of her speech explaining the reasons for the motion, the member said that more transparency was necessary. She had harsh words for the way the federal government now operates.

I agree with her, in that the Prime Minister of Canada is not elected by the voters of Canada. Yet the Prime Minister appoints judges and senators. Through his executive power, the Prime Minister has almost complete authority.

Could the member tell whether she and her party agree that reform is in order on this point?

[Shipbuilding, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the time of the 1993 election, the Liberals promised to deal with shipbuilding, referring among other things to a summit that would be held the following year.

Nothing has been done since. The Liberal government has even been so bold as to purchase used ships and submarines from other countries. A coalition of unions was therefore struck in 1998 and decided to support four of the demands the shipbuilders' association has been making since 1996.

Moreover, 150,000 mail-in cards have been sent to the Prime Minister in support of these demands. All provincial premiers support the adoption of new measures to assist shipbuilding.

At their 1998 convention, the Liberal faithful passed a unanimous motion along the same lines. Now it is up to the Liberal MPs to do the same this evening, by voting in favour of Bill C-213, along with all the members of the Canadian Alliance who have signed on to support my bill.