Antoine Dubé

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his speech. I also congratulate him for defeating the former Minister of Human Resources Development who contributed to causing a great deal of damage in that region with the employment insurance program. Today, however, we are debating the issue of fisheries. In a way, there is a connection between the two, because the Liberal government made hundreds of fishers lose their jobs, many of them in the Acadian peninsula, where the hon. member comes from, and many more in New Brunswick and throughout the maritimes.

I have a question for the hon. member. Everyone knows the Liberals have all but disappeared in the maritimes. Does the hon. member think it is primarily because of the cuts to employment insurance, or because of the government's inaction on the fisheries?

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, I am pleased to be here for the first speech of the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec. I listened carefully and noticed right away that the minister is very self-congratulatory. We have a self-congratulatory secretary of State. It is quite remarkable.

He mentioned projects, indicating that some 70 projects, totalling $2.8 million, created 200 jobs. But the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok tells me that 4,000 jobs were needed. So, to congratulate oneself for creating 200 jobs is all fine and well, but 200 jobs are a far cry from the 4,000 that were needed.

In this context—I listened carefully and did not miss a word of what he said—he congratulated the president. That is but one person. If he claims to have consulted the Gaspe by congratulating one person, the president of the steering committee, he is off the mark. He must do more than that.

He mentioned local community futures development committees. That is fine but there are regional development structures in place in Quebec. He did not say a word about these structures, which have been recognized by the Quebec government, and not a word either about co-operation, consultation, collaboration—these are all good words—with the Quebec fishery minister, who is also the agriculture minister. He did not say a word about that.

I am giving him an opportunity to tell us how well he works with the regional officials within structures under the jurisdiction of Quebec and I would like the Minister of Agriculture, or else the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, to explain how he intends to proceed.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as the member for Lévis to rise in this debate, because everything marine is of great interest to me. My constituents are also particularly interested, because the chantier maritime de Lévis is in my riding. It was Canada's main shipyard before the Liberals arrived. It still has the potential to be the greatest one.

It also concerns me because, as the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans pointed out, all the Great Lakes traffic passes by us. Unfortunately, it often just passes by. We do not always reap the benefit, because there is not enough legislation favouring Quebec.

Bill C-9 is not new, as it replaces Bill C-44, which died on the Order Paper last spring, when the Prime Minister decided to call an early election. Bill C-44 had gone through all the stages in the House and had been referred to the Senate, which is not known for acting expeditiously. So, the old Bill C-44 was not passed by the Senate and is now being reintroduced as Bill C-9.

At this stage, we cannot be opposed to it, since second reading deals with the principle of the bill. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to the objectives of the bill, even though we feel they are too modest. We, of course, strongly support the purpose of the bill, which is to transfer responsibilities to local communities.

But there are major uncertainties. The bill is flawed in terms of what it does not cover. For example, the $125 million fund for port authorities seems woefully inadequate. It would not even cover Quebec's needs, let alone those of the whole country.

It is insufficient. If that amount remains unchanged, we will probably oppose the legislation at third reading. But let us give the government a chance.

Then there is the appointment of the members of port authorities, which are supposed to be privatized. The government is keeping way too many powers, given that these authorities should manage their own affairs. Changes will have to be made in that regard, otherwise we in the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the bill.

We have other concerns. The hon. member for Kamouraska.—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques will discuss these, including the issue of pilots on the St. Lawrence River, which is a concern, particularly to those of us who are from the Quebec City region. The bill provides that St. Lawrence pilots will continue to ensure marine transportation on the St. Lawrence River.

Since I represent the riding of Lévis, I will of course primarily discuss the flaws of this bill, pompously called the Canada Marine Act. There is absolutely nothing in this bill about shipbuilding. In Lévis, which, as I was reminding you earlier, was, and potentially still is, the largest shipyard in Canada, the federal government has done nothing in its first term of office.

But during the 1993 election campaign, these folks made a number of promises. The first was to hold a Canadian summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada. Not a whiff of a summit have we had, nor have we heard anything about the future of shipyards in Canada.

I am telling you this because the Conservatives did not manage to finalize anything before the 1993 election, but the Liberals had said they would do something about the project to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery , the ferry running between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.

The Liberal government dragged its heels and took forever to bring forth what looks like a mouse to me, because instead of allowing the Lévis shipyard to build a new boat for $60 million, it preferred to pay $30 million to refit an Irish ferry for service to the Magdalen Islands. This is no way to promote economic and maritime development in Canada.

In addition, we called for action; at the time, we formed the official opposition. We pointed out that the Liberal Party in its red book had promised money for the conversion of defence industries such as the Lévis shipyard to peacetime purposes. Yet, nothing, not a single penny, was provided in this area to help not only our shipyard in Lévis but also shipyards across Canada. Not one penny.

That was a fine promise, another broken promise. Each time the question of the shipyard in Lévis was raised, the then transport minister—and there have been quite a few—and the industry minister would reply: “The shipyard in Lévis should have a business plan. They should submit a business plan.” They did. The management of the shipyard submitted a plan but, in the end, they never saw a penny. This time, they were given a different set of reasons: new terms and conditions had to be negotiated into the collective agreement, and the workers had to make concessions. And they did. But even then, they never saw a penny.

There was, in the background, another condition the government did not dare state publicly. The shipyard was the property of the Société de développement industriel, a Quebec crown corporation. They said: “As long as the Quebec government is a shareholder, the federal government will not put money into this corporation.” Dominion Bridge, a private company, took over the shipyard a year and a half ago. Still, not a penny was provided for infrastructure, for military or civilian conversion. Nothing. And no contracts either.

Then, the shipyard in Lévis underwent a slight change in orientation. It secured the oil rig contract and has three contracts lined up and ready to go, including one from a Brazilian Crown corporation called Petrobras to build the Spirit of Columbus . But financial securities are required from both levels of government: the Quebec government, which has done its part, and the Canadian government, through the Export Development Corporation. Nothing has moved in a little over a year. All the while, there is a rig moored in my colleague's riding, at least in part, as the port of Quebec is right at the limit of the riding of Québec. It is the second largest rig in the world and we get to see it every day, but the federal government will not lift a finger.

I see that the hon. member for Beauce, who is supposed to represent the interests of the Quebec region, is listening. That is good, because I hope he will convey the message. Time is running out. This contract could create 400 jobs. So it is important.

Even workers from his riding are involved because his riding is next to mine. The same applies to the member for Bellechasse, the minister of state responsible for agriculture and agri-food and for fisheries and oceans. He was loudly defending the federal government in his riding instead of defending his riding on the federal scene. I woke him up at one point and told him: “Be careful. When there were 2,000 employees at MIL Davie, 500 of them came from the Bellechasse riding. You should look after their interests.” I urge the member for Beauce to do the same.

Furthermore, they let two bills die on the Order Paper when they called an early election. Now we know why: the Liberals were afraid of allegations and investigations. The Prime Minister said to himself: “Given the usual sluggishness of the federal government, the investigations will take so long that there is enough time for an election”. He called the election and he did the right thing. I congratulate him. I think he now has a majority of four members. It could have been different.

The Liberal government is not to be congratulated as far as maritime issues are concerned. I am not the only one to say so. All ridings with major shipyards are represented by opposition members, not by Liberal members; the Liberals were all defeated because of their inertia. And Canadian shipowners agree with us.

It is high time that the government did something in this area.

[National Co-Operative Week, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the week of October 12 to 18 will be National Co-operative Week, with the theme “co-operation more than ever”.

This is a particularly appropriate one under the circumstances, since it emphasizes how modern the co-operative formula still is. It also reminds us of how long co-operatives have been with us.

Soon the Mouvement Desjardins, founded in Lévis in 1900, will soon be marking its 100th anniversary. This year has also marked the 75th anniversary of the Coopérative fédérée de Québec.

The week will also honour the work of the thousands of unpaid board members in the co-operative movement, who have been instrumental in the growth of the movement in our communities.

Quebeckers are particularly proud of the co-operative movement, for Quebec has more co-op members per capita than any other place in the world.

May I wish everyone a happy Co-operative Week.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my new colleague, the member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, for his comments.

What he says is important. Parliament is a place where we may exercise our right to speak, but in order to do so properly, we must respect the right of others to speak. Sometimes, people are aggressive in their remarks, but they are always respectful and use parliamentary language, and when there are small lapses, the Speaker may intervene.

I like this, but when people get carried away, and trade insults back and forth, particularly the member for Abitibi and the new member for Bourassa today, he should take another look at what he said in Hansard tomorrow, at his heckling during other members' speeches.

It is rare that I make this sort of remark. I hope, along with the member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, that, in future, things will continue to improve.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

He has switched parties once already, at least. If we listen closely to what he is saying, without interrupting, we notice that the more he speaks, the more he makes our case.

He said “I changed my mind to some extent. I tried the other system, where individuals finance political parties”. It sounded as if it had not worked. So much so that he switched parties. But we must look at the reason for that. That is when this system becomes important. When he was defeated, he was running as a Conservative candidate. You will recall that, when the Conservatives were in office last, they really did a job on the unemployed, if I can put it that way. I understand the people from the Abitibi. He voted against the bill, but people were still upset at him because he was a Conservative.

He was a member of the opposition for a while. Then he did some thinking and came back on the government's side. Things were a little better this year, but he still not convinced. When you think of it, he agrees with us. He is becoming more and more reasonable. It is encouraging. It means we are not wasting our time talking in this House. We are succeeding.

This leaves the member for Bourassa, who has finally put his little toy and flag away. Things are also improving on that front. We must take action, with the help of the Chair, but things slowly change. It encourages us to keep going.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted. I do not know if it was just my speech or the combined effect of all the speeches made by members of the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the one by the hon. member for Gatineau, but I have been listening to the hon. member for Abitibi and I find he has come a very long way. At this rate, we stand a chance of having him vote with us on this motion.

This would not be his first about-face, mind you.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue and I congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau, even though he sits across the floor. I clearly remember speaking to his motion and, in my opinion, his point of view makes sense.

He said he had talked to a lot of people in his riding and elsewhere in Quebec. He said that 90% of these people had lost confidence in the financing of political parties in its present form.

We Bloc Quebecois members want to convince this House to do like Quebec and to pass an act limiting the financing of political parties to individuals, as opposed to businesses, given the risk of influence peddling or undue influence. It is a difficult thing to do, as the hon. member for Laval Centre explained.

At times, when large sums of money are involved, and I will discuss these later on, it is difficult to say no to someone who wants to make a contribution to a political party.

The hon. member goes further and says that perhaps the financing of political parties should be provided exclusively by the government. He did not have time to elaborate, but I understand his point of view. What is the purpose of his proposal? It is to achieve a balance between political parties.

The financing of the New Democratic Party is no better, in the sense that it is provided by unions.

I am not suggesting it is illegal. Under the present legislation, it is perfectly legal, but the NDP has very often taken positions that are influenced by union demands. In a way, their position is not any better, because it is biased the other way.

If we want to achieve a better balance, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, suggest political parties should be financed by small contributions from individuals. Hundreds or thousands of individuals would be financing the various political parties.

In the last report, the one for 1996, we are told that the Bloc Quebecois received contributions from more than 17,000 individuals in all ridings. So, we should not show any undue preference for one group or the other. Contributions of $100 or even as low as $5, $10, or $15 in many cases are not going to influence a member or a party in any way. It is the big contributions that have an impact.

Under the Quebec legislation on political party financing, contributions over $3,000 are not allowed. If the same thing applied at the federal level, we would see some improvement. That was the second goal of the legislation on political party financing, Bill 2. The first legislation that was passed by the Parti Quebecois in 1977 was Bill 2. The first bill was on linguistic matters. But Bill 2 was passed first because it needed less extensive consultations. It was passed in May 1977 by the Parti Quebecois. René Lévesque, whose memoirs I have been reading for a second time recently, was really insisting on that piece of legislation. It was really standing out.

Why did René Lévesque want to make this a priority? Those who know something about his political career will recall that he is the one who nationalized power companies in Quebec, and he has been put under intense pressure at that time. He did not want other democratically elected parties to be put under undue pressure by companies trying to protect their interests. He did not want governments that would be bound and gagged by legal entities like corporations, groups, businesses or unions. Individual citizens were to make the decisions in a very democratic system.

I pay tribute to the hon. member for Gatineau because his suggestion deserves some consideration. I invite him to reintroduce his bill so we can look at it, because it would a step in the right direction. The goal is to achieve a balance, to avoid abuse and, more importantly, to restore public confidence in federal and provincial political parties.

In Quebec, the process has already been completed. All parties agree with it. The idea of going back to the old system never occurred to the Quebec Liberal Party which, led by Mr. Bourassa, came back to power for nine years. The Quebec Liberals know—and so should the member for Bourassa, who worked with them, and, for that matter, all Quebec MPs—how proud Quebeckers are of that change. Perhaps there is room for improvement. Anything can be improved. Perfection may be an unreachable goal, but this is a major step towards a better democracy.

Before concluding, I want to talk about two particularly painful experiences as a Quebecker. I am referring to the two referendums held in 1980 and 1995. In both cases, some major companies influenced public opinion in Quebec and had a bearing on the political future of Quebeckers. If you look at the report on the last federal election, you see amounts such as $61,000 from Microsoft Canada, $53,000 from Nesbitt Burns Inc., $50,000 from Charman Securities Co., $70,469 from Scotia McLeod Inc., and $66,000 from the Toronto Dominion Bank.

Oddly enough, in all reports, even going back ten years, it is often the banks who are the biggest contributors to the federal political parties. Curiously, they are doing well these days, making record profits.

It is hard to make any changes to the monetary system, because there is the Bank Act. The Liberal Party says it is hard. But when it comes to cutting the deficit, for example, to changing the Unemployment Insurance Act, to bringing the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund up to close to $14 billion, then there is no hesitation.

But if the Liberals were limited to collecting contributions only from Canada's unemployed, I can tell you that they would not have raised much in the last election. They would not have got much from the unemployed in the Maritimes. But they did get a nasty message, they were nearly wiped out in the Maritimes. The New Democratic Party got a pretty good showing, the Conservatives as well.

Those were messages the Liberal Party did not get. I think the hon. member for Gatineau go the message, when he admitted that 90% of the population no longer has confidence in the present system of corporate funding for political parties, and he is right.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

—to break our concentration. Could you please get serious?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to whatever the topic is.

I must say that today I listened carefully all day long to the various speeches from the members opposite, particularly those from the member for Abitibi and the member for Bourassa. I am not sure that I am really pleased to be speaking after them.

Now look what they are waving instead of the Canadian flag—