Antoine Dubé

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Below cost.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I would not go quite as far as the hon. member for Chicoutimi did in his comments on the Reformers.

Regarding manpower, I think the problem will be resolved to some extent come April 1, when the Government of Quebec will have access to part of the EI fund and have a single window to manage the whole area of active employment measures. I think that will make a substantial difference.

Cuts were made of course, but at least, from a sound management point of view, they were called for. We know that there was a consensus in Quebec; all political parties agreed that the Quebec government should look after manpower training itself. In that sense, I am rather optimistic.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member's reaction to the bill as introduced is somewhat surprising. He is asking about the post-sovereignty period. Today we will not be the ones accused of bringing up the subject, for we are being asked for a response.

First of all, there was the 1995 referendum. It was lost by about 50,000 votes, or in other words, it was nearly 50-50. The federalists predicted the consequences of not voting against the project presented by the Government of Quebec. What was involved was to say yes to sovereignty, but with an offer of partnership to continue economic relations, and so on. The situation has remained unchanged on the constitutional level, since Quebec is still within Confederation. I therefore find the hon. member's comments, particularly those on the situation in downtown Montreal, somewhat confused.

He has just told us that federalism is serving Quebec badly, Montreal in particular, at this time. One of the reasons why Quebecers wanted to vote yes was, precisely, in order to acquire more autonomy, more means of controlling their economy, in order to be able to live better.

But the situation is still there. The federal government is still interfering in the same areas as the Quebec provincial government, and more often than not in areas of jurisdiction which belong exclusively to the provinces under the Constitution. Quebec is not the one involved in messing with areas of federal jurisdiction. Quebec is trying to extricate itself as best it can, for example in health or education, because it has shared the same fate as the other provinces, federal government slashes to funding. Quebec is doing all it can to get by.

It is doing so within the framework of a provincial state, without all of the means it should have available to it: legislation, programs, money, among other things.

I am not saying that such was the intention of the Reform member who just spoke, since he generally weighs his words and is extremely respectful of others' opinions, so I shall be equally respectful of his, but I do find that somewhat condescending. As for the cost, it is as though we Quebeckers were lucky to be in confederation and looked after by all the other provinces, who are supposedly paying our way.

I heard reactions about EI. It is true. One third of EI benefits go to Quebeckers. But why is this, dear colleague? It is because there is more unemployment, because the economy is in worse shape as things now stand in the Canadian confederation.

What you are telling us is we will be worse off if we leave. That is the message you are giving us, instead of telling us you will do everything you can to help Quebec catch up with British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Yes, unlike those provinces, we get equalization payments. But, instead of telling us that, you are condescending.

We are asking for more flexibility, more freedom. We are saying “Give us the means and you will see. We will continue to be economic partners, to have economic relations”. Then you tell us about the north-south direction of trade. It is no different in Quebec.

I do not have all the figures with me. We could discuss this another time, but it is clear that the trend you are seeing in your province is one we are also seeing in Quebec, and that the economy is increasingly along north-south lines. This is an advantage to Quebec, and does not necessarily put British Columbian at a disadvantage with respect to California or Oregon, but we are in the same situation.

Sometimes I want to ask you “If we are costing you so much, why not let us leave? That is all we are asking”.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-21, which addresses loan guarantees or loans to small businesses.

I am a bit of a newcomer to this role, dating only from my second mandate. We are looking at a bill that is, when it comes right down to it, rather easy to examine, as it contains but two clauses. It is a pretty thin bill.

The first clause extends the application of the old act by one year to March 31, 1999. The second one increases the ceiling for guaranteed loans by $1 billion, that is from $14 billion to $15 billion.

Despite the thinness of the bill, we in the Bloc Quebecois are in favour. Opposition to it would mean the premature end of a program that is good for Canadian businesses, and for Quebec businesses as well. Until something better comes along, until there is a more complete bill, a revised one which could better help Quebec and Canadian businesses, we have to be in favour. We are of course at the second reading stage, so when it goes to the Standing Committee on Industry we will make our suggestions known to the government, to the representatives of the party in power.

It will not be very hard to make some good suggestions. I was looking just now at the report on the work of the industry committee. I notice the member who represented our party during the Liberals' first mandate and recall that he had tabled a dissenting report because, while supporting the legislation, he could already see that the eligible amount or the portion of the loans that was guaranteed by the government was down to 85% from 90%.

At the time, based on comments and representations made by businesses in his region, and across Quebec and even Canada, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, suggested the status quo in this regard. But the government nonetheless reduced the eligible portion from 90% to 85%.

Is this indicative of a trend? I would not want to be unduly pessimistic but this is certainly something we in the Bloc will keep an eye on in committee to ensure this downward trend does not continue.

As we saw earlier, the auditor general too was critical. It is important to look at his recommendations. He found that, in some respects, control was lacking. While only 5% of businesses default on their loans, care must be taken not to squander public funds. The auditor general made a number of suggestions, which will naturally be taken into consideration in committee.

Basically, if I summarize his comments, the auditor general said that the government did not think enough of small business, did not regard their activity as important and was paying attention mostly to big business.

I agree with him on this because, while attention should be paid to big business and give it assistance as required, at least through legislation, it is clear that the largest number of jobs is being created in small and medium size businesses.

I would now like to address the situation of small business in Quebec in particular. Members of the Liberal Party and other parties from other regions of Canada outside Quebec have been given the mandate by their constituents to represent their particular region. We cannot blame them, and I should not be blamed for talking about Quebec.

In 1996, there were 173,704 small and medium size businesses. Based on Quebec's criteria, these are businesses that have less than 100 employees. In Quebec, 98% of companies are small and medium size businesses. It is all these small and medium size businesses—we could even say very small businesses—that provide work for people. Indeed, 45% of all jobs in Quebec are in small businesses. This is very important.

These figures are interesting. There seems to be a pattern whereby, since 1989, the fastest growing industries in Quebec have been those—and this came as a surprise to me—in the education sector, with 20.7%. This sector was followed by the transportation and storage industry, with 20.3%. The hon. member for Drummond will be interested to know that private businesses providing health care and social services experienced a 19.8% growth. So, Quebec society is undergoing some changes. An increasing number of people work in these sectors, for private sector companies, small and medium size businesses are active. These are employment sectors to be considered, like the others.

As we all know, small and medium size businesses play a major role in the agri-food industry, which includes agriculture and fisheries. We often think of production, but there is also the whole processing and tertiary sector, that is the agri-food marketing industry. Small and medium size businesses account for 91.4 % of jobs in that sector. In the construction sector, it is 89.4%; in the real estate services, 74.1%; in food and accomodation, 73.2%; in the wholesale sector, small and medium size businesses account for 70.4%. This is a very significant contribution.

There is something important to watch for. Bloc Quebecois members and people in Quebec believe that while it is all right to try to help businesses by providing loans or loan guarantees, the number one criteria should be the number of jobs. Does the loan help create or maintain jobs?

A business may be able to provide a guarantee, but employ very few people. We have to look at priorities.

In retail trade, 221,300 people are employed; in manufacturing, 189,000 people; in food and accommodation, 121,900 people; and in wholesale trade, 105,600 people.

I was interested in analyzing past trends in net job creation. An analysis in terms of net job creation since 1981 reveals that SMBs have created the most jobs. There is only one year since 1981 where big business created more jobs than SMBs, and that was in 1991.

I can talk about the situation in Quebec. I cannot talk about the other provinces, because I did not look so closely at them. Despite the difficulties between 1989 and 1994— The situation was particularly difficult for business.

Quebec SMBs experienced an annual increase in jobs of nine tenths of one per cent even during the period when the job rate declined everywhere and when SMBs in Ontario, by way of example, under the same conditions and economic factors, experienced a reduction of 13.2%. A considerable amount. We can see that SMBs in Quebec are dynamic and play a major role.

Between 1989 and 1994, times changed. The SMBs in Quebec started less than five years previously accounted for 422,000 jobs in Quebec against the 51,000 jobs lost, and obviously there are losses. It is small, not large, businesses that are creating new jobs in Quebec.

I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as an attack on large businesses. We need them. I had one large business in my riding called MIL Davie. When times were good, that company employed 2,500, and sometimes as many as 3,000, people. Now it is limping along at 500, and great effort is required by the various levels of government, particularly the Government of Quebec, because in this case the federal government has not yet done anything. But keeping the number of jobs at 500 is a major undertaking. My region of Chaudière-Appalaches has the lowest unemployment rate in Quebec because new job creation is coming from SMBs.

I may be a sovereigntist, but as long as we are in a federal system, I have nothing against federal legislation or programs to help Quebec businesses, unless of course they cancel or duplicate existing services. On this note, it would be good, and I often mention this to the regional development critic for Quebec, if there were some co-ordination so that we could avoid certain situations such as those we saw during the ice storm.

In his quest for visibility in Quebec, the President of the Treasury Board, along with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is doing everything he can to one up the provincial government and look like he is the saviour of business, when he is in fact refusing to do his share, as he did in the case of Newfoundland and Manitoba, to compensate Hydro-Québec for its losses. That is serious for the Government of Quebec, because Hydro-Québec as a crown corporation, hands over its profits to the provincial government and therefore helps to lighten the burden of Quebec taxpayers.

Another reason I support the continued existence of this system for guaranteeing loans to small business is that figures for Quebec indicate that 6,000 loans totalling $321 million were granted under this legislation by the caisses populaires to SMBs. The banks gave out 5,600 loans worth $385 million, for a grand total of $732 million. In this context, it is impossible to oppose a service that provides loans for so many businesses, different businesses.

Nearly 11,600 businesses benefited in one year. My sample was for one year. That is a lot, that is significant. This is why these loans must continue to be granted in this context, with the average loan being for $60,000. Unfortunately, I repeat that the government guarantees only 85% now and not 90% as in the past.

Another reason is that 66% of new loans were granted to new businesses or those operating for less than three years. That is when businesses are in need. As the Bloc members at the time pointed out—and the member for Trois-Rivières spoke to me of it, I recall, he reminded me of it just before I rose to speak—the program is too limited, however.

There is nothing in this for the working capital. There is nothing in this to add true liquidity. So, some improvements will have to be made.

To be sure, we are in favour of maintaining this program. However, we in the Bloc Quebecois—and I am talking to business people who may be listening to us—will seek improvements to this program, while making sure it complements Quebec's policies, in the interest of businesses.

We will pay particular attention to jobs, perhaps because I sat on the human resources committee and spent a lot of time reviewing the Employment Insurance Act, which would be more appropriately called the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the government wants to help businesses, it should pay special attention to creating and maintaining jobs. I think that, in this day and age, employment should be the prime concern of governments. I am sure you will agree with me that, in helping businesses and guaranteeing loans to them, the government should be obsessed with creating jobs.

[Petitions, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I would like to table six petitions, which go with the three petitions I tabled before the holidays.

These six petitions represent 8,461 signatures. In all, 10,847 people request the following: “We would like VIA Rail to continue to use the Lévis intermodal train station and also the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald for the operation of the Chaleur and Océan trains”.

The people are from all over my riding: 3,386 from Lévis, 2,246 from the south shore, 3,954 from Quebec City and its environs and 1,219 from elsewhere, for a total of 10,847.

[Spirit Of Columbus Platform, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. For more than a year now, Davie Industries Inc. of Lévis has been awaiting a response from the Export Development Corporation guaranteeing funding for the Spirit of Columbus platform.

Given that retrofitting work on the Spirit of Columbus platform has been under way for four months now, when will the federal government respond to the application of Davie Industries? When?

[Petitions, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 564 persons from the Quebec City region, who want VIA Rail to continue to use the intermodal terminal in Lévis and the Montmagny subdivision section between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald to allow the Chaleur and the Ocean trains to run.

This is the third petition presented in the House. Up to now, 1,827 individuals have signed similar petitions.

[Petitions, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition, which concerns the train stations in Lévis and Charny and which has been signed by 551 people.

This petition reads as follows “We would like VIA Rail to continue to use the Lévis intermodal train station and also the Montmagny subdivision trunk line between Harlaka and Saint-Romuald for the operation of the Chaleur and Ocean trains”.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, November 28th, 1997]

And Ontarians. The member for Carleton—Gloucester, who is involved in this movement, also recognizes the importance of co-operatives for the survival of the French language. It played a large role in the survival, and I do mean survival, of the French language throughout Canada.

Lévis is the site of the Conseil de coopération du Québec. It is also the site of the headquarters of the Federation des coopératives en alimentation du Québec. There are several other federations, service co-operatives, including the federation interested in social economy, with headquarters in Lévis.

All this to say that, with the presence of the Mouvement Desjardins and the 2,000 employees working at the headquarters of the various Mouvement Desjardins institutions, Lévis can lay claim to being the co-operative capital of Quebec.

As the member for this riding, I therefore have no choice but to speak to this bill. One aspect that struck me in committee, because we are at report stage, was that, as the member for Carleton—Gloucester mentioned, there is what I would describe as a remarkable climate of co-operation among committee members, thanks to those influenced by representatives of the co-operative movement.

There are two large groups of co-operatives in Canada. There is the Conseil canadien de la coopération, which covers the francophone community and which has representatives in all the provinces of Canada except Newfoundland. There is also an equivalent organization for the anglophone community across Canada.

What we noted, and I also want the House to know this, is that the representatives of these two councils appeared together, side by side, before the committee. They came to testify and to submit their briefs while pursuing the same objectives. They showed solidarity, and I concluded that it would be possible, with people who have an open mind, to work co-operatively.

My colleague for Carleton—Gloucester might not like what I am saying, but this is proof of the value of the idea that the Bloc Quebecois and the sovereignists of Quebec are proposing to all of Canada, that is an open hand. It would be possible to have a partnership that would be useful for everyone if each of the parties made the effort and if they were confident in the efficacy of such a process.

I would like to point out that when people co-operate, francophones and anglophones, they discuss on an equal footing. We have always insisted on that.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to point out this example of co-operation that these people are providing us. I consider it unfortunate, at this stage, that there were two amendments introduced this morning, especially Motion No. 1, which limits the role of board members in relation to what can be decided at a meeting, as the member for Mercier clearly explained.

Except for that, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates that it supports the bill. We supported all the amendments that were proposed and the points of view provided by the witnesses who appeared before us. So we will continue to show co-operation by voting in favour of the bill at third reading.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, because I sit on the industry committee, which considered this bill, and particularly because I am the member for Lévis, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

“Why Lévis?” you may ask. As all Quebeckers know, Lévis is the cradle of the Mouvement Desjardins. The first Caisse populaire Desjardins was founded on December 6, in 1900 I think. The centenary is coming up. Over four million Quebeckers belong to the Mouvement Desjardins.