Antoine Dubé

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, you were right to point out that it is the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. There could be some minor confusion since my colleague is the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré et l'Île-d'Orléans, Montmorency referring to the falls.

But let us get back to the real issue. At first glance, Bill C-20 may seem important and interesting, but it includes some provisions that the Bloc Quebecois does not like. This is why we are proposing some amendments today.

Before explaining these, I remind members that Bill C-20 is, for the most part, patterned on Bill C-67, which had been introduced in the House before the election. That bill died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister decided to call a general election earlier than expected. Indeed, instead of waiting four years, he called the election after three and a half years. Thus, Bill C-67 died on the order paper.

The bill was reintroduced last fall, and we had to start the whole legislative process over again, including committee work. We again heard witnesses, such as representatives of the competition bureau and those of business people and consumers. A lot of people have noted that the legislative process can be lengthy, for all governments, but especially for the Liberal government, which preferred to call an election rather than continue its legislative work.

That said, I think it is high time we legislate deceptive telemarketing. We must be very careful. We do not want to prohibit telemarketing here. In this technological and communications era, it is a modern, practical and efficient tool. But over time, some people have come to use it to make fraudulent sales over the phone or by some other means.

For example, in its bill, the government neglected to include the word “Internet”, but we will talk about this later. In our opinion, it really must be included in this bill.

The United States recognized the problem much earlier than did Canada. Some organizations are talking of losses of $40 billion for individuals. So this a significant phenomenon.

In Canada, the same groups are citing a figure of $60 million, probably because they have not managed to grasp all the ramifications of the problem. Deceptive telemarketing occurs not only nationally, but internationally. It is therefore not limited by borders. One reason this is the case is the reduction in long distance costs. Telephones are now available reasonably everywhere.

At first glance, going after deceptive telemarketing appears to be a good thing to do. Everyone agrees, including the members of the Bloc Quebecois. However, the government's approach seems paradoxical, to say the least. It wants to criminalize deceptive telemarketing, that is make it a new crime, and yet the bill talks of decriminalizing the penalties. That strikes us as paradoxical.

There are other paradoxes as well. Apparently to speed up the process, there is a series of fines. So then the matter becomes civil. Quebec's civil code differs from that of the rest of Canada. Quebec has many provisions regarding the whole consumer protection question. It even has an agency that deals with the issue on a specific, ongoing basis. But, in its wish to improve controls that should already have been improved, the federal government is using this bill as an excuse to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. As we have agreed, however, we will not focus on this exclusively.

What we are less happy about, though, is the manner in which the government is attempting to regulate this area. On the one hand, it wants to give the Competition Bureau's director, whom we shall henceforth call the commissioner, quite a few more powers than he previously had. He will now have sole authority for making decisions that used to be made by a bureau, following hearings, in consultation with commissioners who examined the issue with him.

Now the director, or the future commissioner administering the Competition Act, can act alone, but must give those who will be charged 48 hours' notice. Another paradox is that the bill allows companies who are breaking the law to negotiate an out-of-court solution before any hearing takes place or any ruling is made.

In our view, section 52 of the old Competition Act was preferable. The measures being introduced in Bill C-20 are measures that weaken the legislation. It is odd that there is a desire, on the one hand, to introduce tighter regulations over deceptive telemarketing, which was not regulated at all before, while, on the other, the controls are being weakened.

I took part in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Industry and people from the Competition Bureau said that they were already looking at certain situations.

It is not surprising that we are way behind the United States as far as the financial consequences for individuals are concerned. Witnesses said: “We could not list all the problems, but we have seen enough and it is sufficiently harmful to the disadvantaged, particularly the elderly with their savings, who are the most frequent victims.” It is the elderly who are most often the victims of deceptive telemarketing.

People might think that the bill would offer better protection. On the contrary, we think that the bill is weakened by this provision. The means available to the competition bureau are weakened and no one in the Department of Industry has indicated that the means or resources allocated to the competition bureau will be stepped up, yet we know this phenomenon is likely to increase.

That is the reason behind our motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Motion No. 1 covers everything we want. If Motion No. 1 were defeated, we would certainly move on to motions 2 and 3.

We are calling upon everyone in this House to pay close attention, because this bill has huge consequences for the entire population, but particularly for the elderly, the disadvantaged, the house-bound, who are seen as a preferred target by companies or individuals involved in fraudulent telemarketing.

Not wishing to end on a sour note, I would emphasize that there are many companies involved in very honest telemarketing. Those are not the ones targeted by either the government or ourselves. There is good telemarketing, but the target here is fraudulent telemarketing.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

(for Ms. Francine Lalonde) moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-20, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 29 on page 8 with the following:

“12. (1) Section 52 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 8 with the following:

“interest, by any means whatever, make a representation to the public”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-20, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 8 the following:

“(2) Subsection 52 (2) of the Act is replaced by the following:”

[Spirit Of Columbus Platform, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Since September 1996, Davie industries has been negotiating financial guarantees for a contract to rebuild the Brazilian oil platform Spirit of Columbus .

Given that the platform has been anchored in Quebec City since September 1997, that SDI has provided its share of the financial guarantees, and that nearly 30% of the job is already completed, why is the federal government dragging its feet in giving the financial guarantees so that MIL Davie can complete this major contract?

[Regional Development Agencies, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development on Motion M-224, presented by my colleague on the industry committee, the hon. member for Kelowna. I can attest to how hard he works on that committee, and he often asks pertinent questions. entirely

I believe it would be useful to reread his motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA, Ford-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction of the size of the federal government.

All of the components of this motion make sense, but there is a problem, I believe, when they are put together. Then some clarification becomes necessary.

The Bloc Quebecois would be in favour of dissolution of the regional development agencies, but is not opposed to investment in regional development. Our Reform colleague is suggesting less intervention in the economy. On this point, my thoughts are along the same lines as the Liberal minister who has just spoken. It is certain that the rural and isolated areas need help. They must be given special assistance or they and their local businesses will not have an equal opportunity for development.

In our opinion, however, the federal government is not the one best placed to develop the regions. The government in Ottawa creates agencies right and left, but there are services in place at the provincial government level for this. Such is the case in Quebec, with its regionalized structure made up of 16 regional development councils. There are local development councils, one in each of the MRCs, and these structures are characterized by representativity. The public can run for membership on the board of these bodies.

The minister may well say “Oh yes, we do the same, we have CFDCs in our region”. But this duplication of energies and of staff constitutes a problem. I am speaking for Quebec, because it is what I know best. In our opinion, the federal government is not the one in the best position to look after this matter.

The federal government will be present because of its need of visibility. Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it has to have its visibility. It must at all cost show it is doing something even if regional development services exist in the provinces.

According to the logic of our statement, money for regional development should go to the provinces, which are in a better position, in our opinion, to look after such matters, or federal-provincial agreements should be established.

That was long the case. It could have been the case, for example, in the infrastructures program in which municipal, provincial and federal governments acted on a one time basis. Such agreements are possible, therefore.

One such one was renewed in the east. Since 1994, with the Liberals in government, renewal of the regional development agreement with Quebec has been impossible. There has been no agreement since 1994, and on top of that, the federal government continues to spend money on regional development without a thought to regional development council strategies or to the priorities and approaches of local development councils. It is therefore acting unilaterally, driven by its concern for visibility.

This is so much so that they changed names. They are no longer calling it the federal office for regional development—Quebec. Since early March, it has been called the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency. They have to show their maple leaf. This is for visibility. When ministers cannot make announcements, they send government members to do it, to cut ribbons, so as to always ensure the visibility of our good federal government, and particularly that of the Liberal government. Money is spent. But we need to allocate that money to development initiatives that reflect the priorities.

An example of duplication is the $33 million spent in Quebec for administration purposes. There are 264 federal public servants who duplicate the work of provincial public servants, or of development officers paid by municipalities, regions or communities. And they seldom sit down to put their heads together. We must put an end to this situation.

However, I will admit one thing. We must recognize the work of the CFDC's in Quebec that are funded by the federal government. Over time, they developed an expertise in regional development. In recent days, I talked to Quebec government people involved in regional development, and they were saying that their government is willing to recognize the expertise of the CFDC people who have been involved, and that it would be pleased to continue to work with them. These people include permanent employees, but also many volunteers who became involved over the years.

In conclusion, the federal government's participation in Quebec's regional development activities has considerably evolved toward unilateralism. Indeed, while the federal government used to provide financial support to activities determined by the Quebec government, it is now implementing its own programs and activities, and it funds them in a unilateral fashion.

What is more, no reference is made to either strategic planning or framework agreements between the Quebec government and the regions for the choice of priorities, but rather to the study results on which the former federal office of regional development based its own view of the regions of Quebec. This situation does not augur well in any way, because in future the two governments will be taking action on parallel paths in regional development, so there will be still more duplication and overlap, thus creating an atmosphere of confusion for the clientele in the regions.

If, with the abolition of these agencies, the federal government were to convert the amounts it was already spending into transfer payments to the provinces, we would be in favour.

Quebec does not get its fair share in regional development funding. Looking at the per capita amounts, and comparing with the Atlantic provinces for instance, I would like my colleague from the Atlantic region to know that there is a five-to-one ratio, with his region getting five times as much.

Comparing the number of unemployed, the ratio is four-to-one. I have not done an analysis for other regions, but I believe that if the government wants to continue paying out money and if it were to accept a federal-provincial agreement for doing so, it should at least respect the principle of fairness. There is already the principle of equalization, which applies to transfers to the provinces. The Minister of Finance has jurisdiction over this, according to certain calculation formulas too complicated to go into here. This is a system already in place.

When it comes to regional development, where the focus should be on giving isolated regions of a province, or sub-regions, the same opportunities as the rest of that province, it should be up to the province to decide on priorities and on the mechanisms to be used.

Conditional on such a balance, there should be transfers to the provinces for regional development, because we feel that the provinces are best placed to be responsible for this.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at Group No. 2, which contains four motions.

We are in favour of Motion No. 6 because we want to prevent the arbitrary appointment of replacements for representatives who have been duly appointed by their group.

Excuse me, I realize I made a mistake. I was in fact referring to Motion No. 8.

I want to focus particular attention on the two motions proposed by the hon. member of the Reform Party. In our opinion, Motion No. 7 allows strikebreakers to be used, in that they could vote for a bargaining unit, which we find excessive and unacceptable. We in the Bloc Quebecois are strenuously opposed to any use of strikebreakers, for reasons rooted in Quebec history. There is a consensus on this in Quebec. The use of scabs results in an escalation of violence and stirs up emotions. All manner of problems arise in a labour conflict when scab labour is brought in.

Still worse, what the Reform Party is proposing is for these scabs to have a right to vote. As well as replacing employees, they could take part in union decisions. This we find unacceptable. It is not clearly set out but the possibility is there and we are opposed to this.

Motion No. 30 refers to unfair labour practices by the employer. It weakens the importance of recognition of duly unionized workers and allows them to be replaced by people who are not accredited.

I am raising this point again to shed a more general light on this bill. In this House, two parties are opposed to the bill: the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. The other parties support it because, in their opinion, it is a series of compromises acceptable to labour and management.

However, the arguments on which the Bloc Quebecois' opposition is based relate mainly to the possible use of scabs, which is unacceptable in Quebec. Reform members on the other hand, probably because of the type of concerns in the region of Canada they represent, call for the existing rules to be relaxed. They are asking for greater freedom than that currently provided by the legislation and are opposed to the bill because they feel it goes too far. In our opinion, it does not go far enough.

If I may use an analogy, it is somewhat reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord. Quebeckers were faced with a proposal from all of Canada's first ministers, including the Quebec premier, who, rather surprisingly and paradoxically, had agreed to compromise. This compromise went so far that Quebec did not go for it.

At the other end of the country, people felt too much power was being given to Quebec.

This is not unusual in this House. There are two very important cultures and attitudes in this country. Compromise must be sought with respect to working conditions. Discussions around work issues are about people's livelihood and are much more down to earth than discussions about the Constitution as far as people are concerned, since they deal with their everyday labour relations.

However, we are dealing with two different cultures and views of the work world that are hard to reconcile. I shall attempt to demonstrate this today by outlining the rationale behind the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to the Reform Party's proposals. We believe that allowing scabs to vote on important issues in the place of unionized workers is unacceptable and that is why we are opposed to this practice.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on the reform of the Canada Labour Code.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has submitted some amendments, Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in particular, the essential objective of which is greater democratization, as you can see. In this Parliament, what does “greater democratization” mean? It means that the House of Commons or its committees which, being made up of parliamentarians, are an extension of the House, must be informed of the in-depth examination of matters.

Labour relations are a very important matter. When there is a labour conflict, there is a concern for equity, for balance between the parties. There is generally a union side and an employer side, although this is not always the case, and there is an assumption of debate, of balance.

In principle, there can be no better instrument that a parliament for ensuring a balance. Here we represent different parties. At present, we have a majority government and several opposition parties. This democratic mechanism represented by the House of Commons and the committees makes it possible for everyone's point of view to be heard and listened to. This ensures that the public is better informed about the debates, all the ins and outs relating to the labour conflict, or the improvements to be made in terms of labour relations.

That is why I want to support the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I would like to point out that he has done a wonderful job. He has done an excellent follow-up on all these mechanisms. He is far more of an expert than I am on these matters.

When he speaks on this matter, whether in caucus or in discussions between colleagues, he always stresses the concept of balance. One must not be prejudiced toward one side or the other, but rather try to strike a balance between management and labour. I think that this serves the common interest, the interests of the public.

I therefore support the motions of my hon. colleague for Trois-Rivières.

[Holidays Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on April 2 in this House, I put a question to the Prime Minister about the implementation of a real shipbuilding policy. It was the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry who answered my question and I guess he will be the one answering again today.

I then reminded the House that the Liberal candidates in the Quebec City area, including the Prime Minister's current chief of staff, had promised to hold a summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada in the year following the election and coming into office of a Liberal government. Here we are in 1998, five years later, and no summit has been held.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I have suggested several times this year that the committee address the issue of a shipbuilding policy. I have written to the Prime Minister and asked questions in this House.

The last time he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, the minister finally told me he might have done something in terms of subsidies but, since he has no intention of doing anything, he steered me off in a different direction.

The parliamentary secretary seemed to indicate in his response that all was well in the shipbuilding industry. Yet, the Canadian shipbuilding association, which represents Canada's leading shipyards, has been asking the government for a year to implement a number of measures.

First, an improved export financing and loan guarantee program similar to the Title XI program in the United States.

Second, the exemption of new ships built in Canadian shipyards from Revenue Canada's current leasing regulations.

Third, a refundable tax credit for Canadian shipbuilders and ship owners who enter into contracts to build ships or conversion contracts involving a change in roles, mid-life refit or major refit.

Fourth, the elimination of the unilateral aspects of NAFTA which allow the Americans to sell new or used ships to Canada while denying Canadians any access to the American market.

These are but four measures. Others could also be taken. For example, in its 1997 budget, the Quebec government introduced tax credits for any type of shipbuilding and, 12 months later, extended these credits to drilling rigs. For the Lévis shipyard in particular, this is a very important niche in the market.

I conclude with the hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide me with more information. What are the Liberal government's plans? Does it plan to follow up on its 1993 promise to hold a summit? Or, failing that, could the Standing Committee on Industry or the Standing Committee on Finance study the matter, as Liberal delegates requested at the last Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa less than two months ago? They too asked the government to do this, following similar requests by the premiers at their meeting in St. Andrew's last fall.

I ask the parliamentary secretary: When the government will honour its promises?

[Assistance To Ice Storm Victims, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with much fanfare, the Secretary of State for Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec announced a $100 million program to assist businesses affected by last January's ice storm.

Since the program terminates on June 30, could the minister make a commitment to provide a weekly report from now on, indicating which companies have benefited from the program and what amounts they received?

[Income Tax Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the relocation of the Lévis station. I pointed out that I was surprised that the station would be relocated to a point west of the Chaudière River, at least eight kilometers further away than initially planned.

In his reply, the minister seemed astonished by my question. On April 20, I decided to write him a letter to provide further information, and I would like to share some of what I said with the House.

In my letter to the Minister of Transport, I wrote:

First of all, I would like to say that, despite the answer you gave me in the House, I never told you I was happy that the Lévis station was being closed, since I have not spoken with you since February 20.

In a communiqué I issued that same day, however, I said I was pleased that you had excluded the possibility of having trains reverse over the Quebec City bridge to the Sainte-Foy station.

As for the rest, I was resigned to your decision, even though I knew it was not the best solution for the south shore, because you required that services be maintained at the Lévis station until a new station is opened on the south shore. At the time, I thought this station would be built on one of three sites previously recommended by the mayors of the RCM of Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

A few weeks later, on March 21, 1998, we learned from the media in my region that Via Rail intended to build this station at least eight kilometres further away than the three alternative sites initially proposed and, worse yet, right in the middle of an industrial park where the environment was far from attractive.

Since the idea of closing the Lévis station first came out, stakeholders have always thought that a new station would reduce passenger traffic, because of the distance from the downtown cores of Quebec City and Lévis. In fact, a study done for Via Rail by SETRA in 1996 forecast a 28.7% decrease in passenger traffic.

Since you asked the Standing Committee on Transport to make recommendations to you on ways of making Via Rail's operations more cost-effective, I have trouble understanding how you could approve an option that would decrease its revenues and force it to spend additional money to set up a shuttle between this new station and the downtown cores of Quebec City and Lévis.

The Standing Committee on Transport was equally astonished on March 24 when members of the Coalition pour le maintien et l'utilisation accrue du rail gathered 11,241 signatures of people in favour of maintaining the Lévis station. The chairman of the committee, whom I may not name, because he is sitting opposite, had proposed to other members of the committee that this relocation be re-examined as part of a tour the committee was planning to make.

I am not the only one astonished by the Minister of Transport's decision. Members of the standing committee, members of the coalition, south shore mayors, and even the mayor of the municipality in which the new station will be located, Richard Blondin, also expressed their surprise.

I impatiently await the reaction of the parliamentary secretary who, I hope, will provide me with more valid justifications than those I received the other day from the Minister of Transport.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party are interesting and raise a number of questions. For instance, he sees a contradiction between our being Quebec sovereignists and our position with respect to globalization and our adherence to the free trade agreement with the United States, and then with Mexico.

I cannot speak for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who is perfectly able to speak for himself, but there is not necessarily a contradiction. Globalization is an inescapable reality in our society. Whether we like it or not, we are headed in that direction.

As social democrats, we must however ask ourselves the following question: In the face of globalization, can we, as social democrats within our various parties, be it the Bloc or the NDP, contribute to the debate to make sure that this movement toward market globalization is more civilized and that a national perspective is taken to domestic interests? It is our duty as parliamentarians and members of Parliament.

I think we can also make a contribution with respect to working conditions, especially in countries like Mexico, and compliance with environmental rules that apply to every country in the world. Much remains to be done in this respect.

I think that is what the call from the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is all about, by demanding that those who decide economic issues and political issues too—because he called on parliamentarians as well—finally comply with the terms and conditions that the people want to see enforced.

I clearly recall that, when they took position in favour of free trade, the members of the Bloc Quebecois knew at the time there would be a price to pay for this change and that transition measures would be required to help industries adjust.