Antoine Dubé

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges, who was also a member of the delegation, was kind enough to supply me with his report. I simply want to point out that it is a good account of the activities in which we took part.

[Volunteers, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of national volunteer week, I want to pay tribute to all those who generously give some of their time for the well-being of our society.

While we acknowledge their contribution during this week, our volunteers do not make a contribution for a day or a week, but throughout the year. In an august 1998 study, Statistics Canada indicated that 16.7 million Canadians, or seven people out of ten, are engaged in volunteer work.

These volunteers are involved in every possible area, including health, education, co-ops, the poor, culture, sports, unions and even politics.

This year's theme in Quebec, “Building tomorrow together”, accurately reflects what volunteer work means, and it is also fitting, as we are about to enter a new millennium.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank all the Quebec and Canadian volunteers for their invaluable contribution.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, April 15th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-493, an act to promote shipbuilding, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in this House a bill to promote shipbuilding in Canada and to make Canada's shipyards more competitive internationally.

This bill contains three measures sought by the Canadian shipbuilding association, which represents the management of Canada's main shipyards, a coalition of the principal unions in shipbuilding and a number of stakeholders in the area.

I seek the support of all members in this House, because the measures sought would not only save 4,000 jobs, they would create new ones in this important industry.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Legalization Of Marijuana For Health And Medical Purposes, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my speech will surely enable the parliamentary secretary to continue to speak, because I too wish to address shipbuilding.

On March 5, I asked a question of the Minister of Finance, but it was the Minister of Industry who replied. The Minister of Finance, having had interests in shipping, does not wish to answer questions. Even if his interests are held in trust, he does not wish to answer questions.

My question was on taxation, and went as follows:

Can the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not want to do for the shipbuilding industry what he did for the film and television production industry, that is to harmonize federal taxation with measures introduced by the Government of Quebec?

These measures include a tax credit for the shipbuilding industry. This program has been in place for two years. The federal tax almost wipes out the benefits provided to shipbuilding companies through the provincial tax credit.

I am glad the parliamentary secretary is here—I met him last summer when I visited the Port Weller shipyard, in Ste. Catharines—because he knows the shipbuilding industry.

Why can he not convince his minister or the Minister of Finance to add tax measures? We are not asking for subsidies. We are asking for tax measures and additional tax deductions, as asked by the Canadian shipbuilding association, the employers, with the support of unions, and the various stakeholders in the industry.

When the shipbuilding industry is not doing well—it is currently operating at 40% of its capacity—it means that millions of dollars are not invested in the regions and this has a very significant impact, particularly in the maritimes because, as we know, that region is affected by seasonal unemployment.

The argument is just as valid for any region in Canada with a shipyard, like the one in my riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

There was a time when people would have pointed out that the question was coming from a Bloc Quebecois member. I wanted to change that perception by touring all Canada's shipyards, with the exception of Port Weller, which I visited at the same time as the parliamentary secretary. He was kind enough to be there.

However, we realize we are miles apart on design and productivity, as people realize that the pay and the productivity in Canada's shipyards are better than in other countries.

But, as the NDP member has just said, unlike certain European and Asian countries that subsidize their shipbuilding, we do not. Some countries, such as the United States, adopt protectionist measures for shipbuilding, but we do not.

Canada is in the worst of all possible situations: we do neither, and the world is passing us by.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member who just spoke. I worked with him on the Standing Committee on Health. He is a very caring person.

That having been said, I urge him to reread the Constitution. Under health, the wording is very clear: except for certain things, such as drugs, or the introduction of potentially diseased animals or plants into the country, health is recognized as a federal jurisdiction under the Constitution.

But for the rest, specifically health care administration, the Constitution is very clear that this comes under provincial jurisdiction. We are forever hearing that, because certain provinces were perhaps not operating exactly as the present federal government would have liked, it is important that all Canadians be treated the same.

This specious principle can be used to flout the Constitution. That is what is creating problems.

After slashing EI and making all the other cuts mentioned earlier, suddenly the federal government finds itself with a bit more money. With this money, which belongs to Canadian taxpayers, it wants to tell the provinces how to run their health care systems. This is unacceptable.

It is also unacceptable that the premiers of all provinces except Quebec agreed to the social union framework in order to get money. They renounced their powers and jurisdiction under the Constitution for money. I dare not use the word that comes to mind, because it would be unparliamentary, but I cannot help thinking it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have my turn to address Bill C-71, which relates to certain provisions in the budget tabled in the House on February 16.

A budget can be labelled either good or bad, and this is, I believe, a bad one, because it contains some bad provisions. It can also be looked at according to what it should contain but does not.

As the member representing Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I can be excused for speaking of a matter of great importance to my riding, the Lévis shipyard, and for pointing out that this budget contains no additional measures relating to shipbuilding.

After a number of questions from us, mobilization of the unions and demands from the shipbuilding association, the Minister of Industry still maintains that there is, in his opinion, no need for additional measures.

But what is it that the industry is calling for? Not subsidies but tax measures, a loan guarantee program, consideration of leasing as a tax compensation, as other major industries are treated, including railways and especially aerospace.

In this budget, there is also a very glaring lack of new measures to create employment and to help small and medium businesses, although these are the main creators of jobs in the country.

In addition to not creating employment, this budget adds nothing to compensate for the cuts experienced by the regions, particularly those affected by seasonal unemployment. Obviously, each riding has faced cuts in this regard. In my riding, the cuts to benefits amounted to $20 million or $21 million a year. That had an impact on the economy. In certain ridings, however, in the more remote regions, which have seasonal unemployment, it was even worse.

We would expect that the government would set aside additional funds for these regions. Instead of doing that, it cut more than $100 million in the budgets for regional development, in the west, the maritimes and Quebec. It cut $27 million in Quebec in regional development. Real sensitivity.

Yesterday, I spoke in the House on the motion by the member for North Vancouver on western alienation over the money that comes from Ottawa, or the way this money is managed for the west. I not only mentioned the amounts allocated to regional development in Quebec—because I am most familiar with this—but I also noted certain anomalies.

For example, the figures I had for the first six months of 1998 indicated to me that the riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie in Quebec received the most money for regional development, an amount that is usually given for regions far from the major centres. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I note that in this period, the ridings represented by the Liberal members had, oddly enough, budgets 50% higher than those of other ridings in Quebec, regardless of whether they were represented by Conservatives or members of the Bloc Quebecois. That was fairly distressing.

In addition, there were cuts to employment insurance that permitted the creation of an employment insurance fund. If it were an independent fund, it would soon be worth $20 billion. That is a lot of money.

What takes the cake is to see the Minister of Finance use this surplus to solve his deficit problems, pay back part of the debt and use new money to intrude in provincial programs and jurisdictions, especially since the social union agreement reached with nine provinces.

In exchange for money, nine premiers out of ten gave up their claims and told the federal government “these are not your jurisdictions, but give us money”. Quebec did not sign that agreement.

The cuts that this government decided to make to the transfers to the provinces between 1994 and 2003 are of the order of $33 billion. This is not peanuts. But now the federal government has decided to put money back in the health sector, to the tune of $1 billion in Ontario and $150 million in Quebec. Ottawa also gave a cheque of $1.4 billion under the equalization program, but let us not forget that this same Liberal government cut $6 billion in the transfer programs for health, education and social assistance. To give back $1.4 billion after making cuts of $6 billion is not fair.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville spoke about something I wanted to mention regarding equalization and tax points. Since I do not have much time, I will not repeat the examples he gave, but I will say that this is not necessarily linked to the transfer payments, as a number of economists have shown. These are pre-established formulas and the Liberals have nothing to do with them. They were established through agreements a long time ago.

It is exasperating for Quebec to see that it is not getting funds through productive expenditures in the area of research and development, and the procurement of goods and services. I could start a war of numbers regarding taxation and equalization payments, as the federal and Quebec governments did.

Quebec commentators and those who know history will recall that, at first after Confederation, the federal government did not tax individuals directly, the provinces did. The federal government went about it indirectly through excise taxes and customs duties. This is how it raised money.

As provided in the Constitution in cases of emergency and for the sake of public order, during both world wars, the federal government asked the provinces if it could tax Canadians directly through personal income taxes. This was to finance the war, but once it had a taste of it, it got used to it and never went back.

It had reached an agreement with every province, except Ontario and Quebec, in order to continue taxing Canadians directly. Eight existing provinces had agreed. Ontario, which was reluctant, finally came on board after it was offered a very advantageous auto pact. Quebec found itself isolated, and since that time we have been the only province where individual taxpayers must file two returns, contradictory returns with provisions that sometimes cancel each other out.

During a referendum on sovereignty, we will have to make it very clear to people how urgent it is to repatriate all our taxes to Quebec so that we can spend according to our own priorities. Quebec has a distinct culture, and we do business in a distinct manner. The Civil Code is distinct. In every field we see, feel and act differently.

I conclude with the hope of being asked a few questions.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member said a lot of things. It is very easy for anyone in this House to take a series of figures, financial support here, a contract there and maybe a loan somewhere else. It can make different impressions.

We are mixing apples and oranges. Today's discussion is not about all the federal programs, but about regional development. The figures I quoted earlier are in the budget.

For fifteen seconds, I am going to comment on the social union. It is an agreement in which the provinces other than Quebec, wanting more money, sacrificed principles and jurisdictions for it, something Quebec was not prepared to do. It values its jurisdictions, it values its principles and its objectives and it will not be bought.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I notice the member wants to recover go back some 15 years, to the time he spent as a Progressive Conservative member. It is a fine effort, and we see what he is up to. The words are the same, the party is different.

The member knows very well that the CLDs are a replacement structure, with an expanded mandate, which serve as a complement to the existing economic councils, even those existing 15 years ago.

The member speak of duplication by the federal government. It existed 15 years ago and still exists. The efforts of the Government of Quebec through various departments responsible for regional development mean the work done by the SADCs is recognized. They do an excellent job, no one is criticizing them. They act as volunteers on the boards.

They have expertise we want to promote, on the condition that the minister agrees these people can work on a co-operative basis. He is the one currently blocking things now. He is busting his britches looking only for visibility for the Liberal government, for his party and for federalism.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for North Vancouver, whom I met this summer, and who spoke to me of his region. Speaking as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, on first examination the first part of the motion by the hon. member for North Vancouver strikes me as worthwhile, in that the Bloc Quebecois can share his point of view about the feelings, the perception we have concerning the Liberal government's neglect of the regions.

Of course, with regard to the Liberal committee on alienation, I shall leave that part for his comments. Mine I shall reserve for regional development.

There are three Liberal secretaries of state responsible for regional development agencies, as they used to be called. Now they are Economic Development Canada. In the case of Quebec, the changed occurred last year, not for the sake of regional development but to give the Liberal Party better visibility, as it insisted on adding the word Canada all over the place. Now the trend is not to refer to regional development but to Economic Development Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

If the government were serious in its efforts on behalf of the regions, it would be putting more money in if for no other reason than to offset inflation and so on. When we look at the figures, we can see this is not the case for these three agencies. I will not provide details for each of the programs, but in the case of the agency for Quebec, the current budget is reduced by some $27,636,000.

In the case of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this year there is a $40 million cut, since last year it was $320 million and this year it is $290 million. For the west—and here I must express my agreement with the Reform member—the budget for western Canada economic diversification, which was $313,626,000 has been reduced this year to $195,055,000, a difference of $118,571,000. That means a significant reduction in this year's budget. That is the budget for the three agencies.

In the case of the west, a look at the changes in per capita income since 1961 according to Statistics Canada data, reveals that the Liberal government is not entirely mistaken, if we use the per capita income criterion. I am looking at the figures between 1961 and 1986. If we compare the west to Ontario, it went from 84% per capita to 98%. By the west we mean the three central provinces and British Columbia. In 1996, per capita income was within 2%, and now most observers say that all the western provinces have caught up with Ontario in economic terms.

What about the Atlantic provinces? In 1961, their per capita income was 49% of Ontario's and since then it has risen slightly to 69%. Per capita income in Quebec, which was 76% of Ontario's in 1961 had increased to 82% of it by 1996.

Now, if we look at the figures for the agencies I mentioned earlier, we see that, between 1994 and 2001—since we are already dealing with the 2000-2001 budget—per capita federal spending on regional development in the maritimes is $1,074.40. In western Canada, per capital spending is $285.30. Quebec, like Ontario—which was at 82% in 1996—still has a lot of catching up to do, since our province is only getting $325.20 per capita, or three times less than the maritime provinces.

I can understand the concerns and representations of western Canada. However, based on these two figures provided by Statistics Canada and on the official budget figures, we can see that Quebec and the maritimes are even worse off than western Canada. In our opinion, Quebec still has a shortfall of $749 per capita, compared to the maritimes. The federal government is treating us even worse than the maritimes.

Let us now look at the situation inside the province. Is the money properly distributed in Quebec by the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency? We have figures from last year, since this data is released three months after the money is spent. We can see that, in Liberal ridings, investments totalled $41,546,973, or an average of $1.5 million per riding. In the case of ridings represented by Bloc Quebecois members, the average amount is $1.38 million.

I could go on and on, but time is quickly running out. Earlier, I heard the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec say that he did not want to indulge in petty politics, something he charged the opposition parties with doing. He wanted to take the high road. I therefore asked him whether he could assure us that he was not using the regional development budget to make political hay.

When I look at the numbers for some ridings, it makes me wonder. The riding in Quebec that receives the most money is Westmount—Ville-Marie, the riding represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Westmount is in downtown Montreal. Questions are in order. The riding that gets the most federal regional development dollars is smack in the middle of Montreal, in Westmount, the richest area in Quebec.

There is more. In the two minutes I have left, I would like to mention that I asked the Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec why, if he was going to talk about partnership, he was not trying to reach agreement with the provincial governments, Quebec in particular, which has a federal-provincial agreement. It has been ages since that was renegotiated.

I asked him why he was not undertaking to respect the strategic plans of regional development councils in Quebec. Why does he not do so? More locally, why does the Secretary of State for Quebec regional development obstinately refuse access to the boards of the CFDCs, these corporations that loan money to small businesses, to members of local development centres, which are structures on which all Quebec stakeholders, including the municipalities, are represented, and all other sectors. He refuses to do so.

Instead he is looking for a parallel policy in order to ensure visibility, for example by making arrangements to provide local chambers of commerce with computers so they can provide the federal programs with information, instead of seeking to join forces with structures that really represent the population.

A government that wants to reach agreement so as to forge partnerships ought to respect provincial policies first of all, second regional council policies, and third the agreements of citizens at the local level, who have joined forces with the local development centres in order to carry out projects.

Instead, the federal government is after visibility and wants to develop technology projects with no concern for strategic plans.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for economic development for the regions of Quebec criticized at the start of his speech the so called petty politics of the opposition parties. I would ask him to talk about the grand policies he intends to follow in partnership with the regions, by responding to three questions.

Can he assure us that he does not manage his portfolio according to partisan criteria? Is the money provided in Quebec ridings, apart from for the ice storm and catastrophes provided fairly as was the case with the infrastructure program, because the Government of Quebec at the time had a say in it, as did the municipalities, naturally?

I would also ask him why, since he wants to work in partnership with the regions—he has said nothing of the Government of Quebec—he does not consider the strategic plans of the regional development councils in Quebec, in providing the money?

Why does he not allow to sit on the CFDCs the regional organizations funded by his department, someone from the regional development council, an existing structure, whose representatives he has up to now refused to consider?