Hélène Alarie

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address this House on Bill C-43, establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill stems from the Speech from the Throne delivered in February 1996, when the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue collection agency.

The CCRA for short will be spawned by the conversion of the existing Department of Revenue into an agency operating almost at arm's length from the government, whose mandate will be to negotiate with the interested provinces and municipalities an arrangement for the collection of all taxes in Canada. This is what this agency is all about.

But where did the idea to establish this agency come from? Obviously, this has to do with the centralizing vision of this Liberal government, which keeps trying to strip the provinces of their powers in the pursuit of a single vision dictated directly from Ottawa.

The consultations carried out across Canada show that this centralizing vision does not appeal to any of the provinces. None of them readily supports this bill. I do not understand why we are still debating it, when those concerned have not shown any interest in it, quite the contrary.

We support the principle of single window tax collection, whether the taxes are provincial or municipal, but in Quebec, the provincial department of revenue should continue to collect taxes as it has done quite competently for many years. We are able, within the present structure, to collect all taxes, even federal taxes and the GST, until we no longer have to.

Unlike the proposed federal agency, Revenue Quebec is fully accountable, as is Revenue Canada, at least until the federal government turns this department into a bureaucratic monster.

I like to talk about accountability, because some words have apparently dropped from favour. “Responsibility” is one such word. But “accountability” has sunk even further in the popularity polls. Whenever a minister is responsible, accountable, we at least have someone we can address, blame, make demands of.

We are living at a time when the responsibility of people and the accountability of those to whom they report is not valued. In a society such as ours, a modern society where youth are watching what their elders do, and I am one of those elders, I think it is too bad that we eliminate this very important aspect of the role of those in charge of large organizations.

There is a major political abdication here. An independent agency would mean that the Minister of Revenue could evade his responsibility to protect taxpayers against abuses of power. When we are talking about the Canada customs and revenue agency created by this bill, this is serious. This government is forever taking cover behind independent agencies and shifting the blame.

In the case of scrapie, to which we devoted much time and emotion, we never managed to find out who was responsible. We were told it was the agency, it was someone in the agency, or it was an agency regulation. There was so little accountability that I would estimate they succeeded in destroying 10% of Quebec's livestock before the Bloc Quebecois woke people up demanding that they do something, and stop destroying flocks, because something was wrong and they had not looked into the matter. But it was not serious, no one was accountable, it was the agency's fault.

This situation went on for months. We raised the issue in the House several times. So if they have to keep increasing the number of agencies, it puts a society like ours at a very great risk.

Why create an agency? The bill does contain some very important provisions, such as clauses 30 and 50, to do with the agency's authority. The agency has authority over “personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the agency”. Clause 50 deals with public service staff relations. The agency would have control over classification, training, development, terms and conditions of employment, hours of work, awards, merit recognition, and so on.

As a result of the authority granted to the agency, we will have two classes of employees, those employed by the government, and those employed by an agency partly accountable to the government.

I was a public servant once, luckily only for a short time, thank God. I always wondered when I was in the public service why things that were simple were made so complicated.

If the area of taxation and revenue has a culture, as a government organization, which is such that the strict and austere rules of the public service as a whole do not apply, I believe there are all kind of ways to improve efficiency while keeping the same rules with some exceptions—this is what we look for within an accountability framework.

I want to talk some more about accountability because I believe it is a major issue. Why chose a complicated roundabout way, create different structures from those already in place and working fairly well—even though there is always room for improvement— to end up with two classes of employees, public servants and quasi-public servants who will be better taken care of because the agency will be able to do so? I object to that completely.

There are also very interesting things to be said about this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the accountability to the public and to Parliament. It always boils down to accountability.

In its present structure, Revenue Canada is accountable to Parliament and to taxpayers through the Department of National Revenue. The government cannot avoid difficult questions even though he would like to sometimes. When we discussed the family trust scandal, we could talk to someone, ask questions and get answers. If everything is diluted in an agency, things will happen and sometimes we will not even be aware of what is going on.

The agency will be subject to a less stringent parliamentary scrutiny than the one currently imposed on the revenue department. An agency would be less inclined to answer questions that members would ask on behalf of the public, compared to a department that has to be accountable. We know how the government is behaving these days, constantly hiding behind inquiries and independent agencies to avoid answering questions regarding air safety, food inspection, abuse of power by the RCMP and all kinds of things.

In this context, it is very difficult to see what we would get out of it. However the worst part of it, apart from the lack of accountability and responsibility, is the possible threat to our privacy. It is a major concern. Tests conducted with our social insurance number have shown how many firms, agencies and people have access to our personal information through a computer. It is a bit overwhelming when you go to a bank and ask to see the information they have on you. Three quarters of that information was not provided by you, but obtained through your SIN.

In a world where computers are everywhere and employees are supposed to be bound by professional secrecy—but we know how things are these days—and no one is accountable at the top, we have good reasons to ask ourselves serious questions. What kind of information do they have on us? Who are they allowed to sell it to? We know it has been done before. What will happen of all that?

The new agency would be less accountable than Revenue Canada, which is itself subject to leaks. I do not know if people remember the old TV series on the future called Future Shock. It tried to define how to protect people's interests and it came to the conclusion that even our brain can be protected.

I would not like to end up in such a situation. For all those reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the bill and will oppose it at all stages. The easiest way to put an end to our debate would be to simply withdraw it.

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry is experiencing a serious crisis at this time and strong measures must be taken to help it though this crisis.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Quebec government has recently taken concrete measures to help its own hog farmers, can the minister assure us that the federal government will treat Quebec farmers the same way it will farmers from the rest of Canada and that he will not reduce his assistance to Quebec farmers because of the money they received from Quebec?

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a great deal of responsibility and emotion in rising to speak in this emergency debate on the income crisis in agriculture.

This crisis resembles the one in the early 1980s, when the government was providing three times as much income security as it does currently. At that time, the figure was $3.5 billion, while now it is only $727 million. Something needs to be done urgently, therefore.

There is urgency because farm incomes have dropped 20% to 40%, and for certain types of operation, up to 70%. There is urgency because, to give one example, the sales price of pork is half what it costs to produce it. So what is there left for the producers?

In November 1997, hogs were selling at $168 per hundredweight, while last Friday it was $67 per hundredweight. Grain prices are going the same way.

We are therefore calling for an emergency plan to assist farmers, who have seen their average price go down by 70% this year.

Over and above the market price, there are the rules of international trade to consider, as well as the support the European Union has given to export subsidies, not to mention direct support given to farmers. The U.S.A. has made a direct injection of $6 billion to producers. This breaks down into $2.6 billion in disaster relief and the rest is connected to low market prices. And that is not the end of it.

At a meeting in Montreal as part of the upcoming WTO negotiations, both the Americans and the Europeans expressed a desire to continue supporting their farmers. We must act now with all urgency and fairness for the 1998 production and in the future, depending on the state of the crisis.

What are the effects of this crisis? There are direct effects and there are secondary effects. The direct effects are the abandonment of farms, the agricultural crisis, which very often leads to a family crisis, the move of people from the country to the city and human tragedy on the scale of the suffering experienced on the farm.

Farm producers see a long way ahead. They have a sense of continuity. Theirs is a vocation, a way of life. Agricultural products are not like preserves, set aside until the prices rise.

Then there are the adverse effects. The two most important ones are the direct attack on rural life and the loss of expertise. The attack on rural life is straightforward. When the countryside is emptied, the community loses its structure. As to the loss of expertise, there are actual cases where people realize that destructuring the agricultural community leads to a loss of knowledge that it took years to acquire and that is hard to replace.

We heard an example of adverse effect last week, when the representatives of the Canadian canola association appeared before the agriculture committee and stated that a number of farmers wanted to produce canola because prices were good.

What are the disadvantages? First, there is a drop in productivity, because some producers will not be familiar with this method—this is to be expected from those just starting out—because this does not work everywhere, and rotation may be less successful if not done properly.

A second disadvantage is that, if supply increases, prices go down. So what was a good crop becomes an average crop because the market is flooded. There is also an increase in disease because of greater crop concentration. Nobody is a winner.

The solution is several hundreds of millions of dollars in direct assistance based on farmers' needs. This is what we are calling “operation bail-out”. There are other things that can be done, however.

Speaking of other things, I think of the Canadian Pork Council's food bank idea. This does not get a lot of attention, but it should, because there are food shortages, for instance in Central America after Hurricane Mitch, in Russia, with an economic crisis threatening to spill over into adjoining countries, and in North Korea, which is in the throes of a famine. But all these countries, whatever their religion and customs, eat pork.

What led up to the crisis we are now experiencing? It came about not because of overproduction, but because of a lack of money among some of our clients, notably Asia and Russia. We must therefore not panic and cut back on production, or we will no longer be competitive.

Why stockpile when part of the world does not have enough to eat? Canada should get going and create a food bank. The United States took this step this year, contributing 50,000 tonnes of pork, and we could follow suit, with 10,000 tonnes of pork.

This is therefore not a chronic supply and demand problem because, if our clients had the money, demand would still be going up.

Finally, I would like to speak about Quebec's problem, which is different from that of the other provinces. The Quebec pork industry generates close to $4 billion in economic spinoffs annually and creates some 30,000 direct and indirect jobs, particularly in the regions. All hogs sold are slaughtered, and therefore undergo primary processing, in Quebec, rather than flooding abattoirs in the United States.

Producers participate in the farm income stabilization insurance program, which makes up the difference between the cost of production and market prices. For instance, if the present cost of production is $140 per 100 kilos and the market price is $67, the difference between $67 and $140 will be paid by the farm income stabilization insurance program.

In good years, when the price of pork is $225, obviously nobody receives any compensation payments from this program. It is a bank for when times are bad. Obviously, we did not expect times to be as bad as they are right now.

In this program, one third of the costs are paid by the producers themselves and the money the federal government puts into the net income stabilization account in other provinces goes directly, in our case, into the farm income stabilization insurance program. This is a major difference with the practice in other provinces.

The Government of Quebec has just put $30 million into the farm income stabilization insurance program to shore up the income of pork producers. It therefore expects to receive its fair share in the present crisis and to have that share cover the 1998 losses and any other losses as long as the crisis continues.

Quebec's farming sector is now undergoing a crisis of confidence. We were unfortunate, not to say unlucky, in the outcome of the scrapie crisis, and feel we did not receive our fair share of the compensation due us. I also resent some recent intrusions by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in our jurisdiction.

I am thinking of the meeting held here in Ottawa, when a meeting was being held in Montreal with the same leaders as part of the WTO negotiations. The same thing is going to happen again this week during the meeting of the Union des producteurs agricoles, and tomorrow, for the visit in Washington, the fourth and fifth parties have been invited, but not the third. This leaves us bitter, worried and anxious, and this is the place to say so.

The meeting of the Union des producteurs agricoles, which consists of all representatives of farmers in Quebec, and is therefore the only organization representing them, has as its theme next week “Growing the future together”. How can we think about the future, when our farmers are unable to make a living in the present?

In conclusion, whatever the federal government's new plan is, it should take into account the Government of Quebec's initiative, and the particular nature of Quebec's farm safety net income program. The Bloc Quebecois will be opposed to the soon-to-be-announced emergency plan if it penalizes Quebec's producers, particularly our hog producers, in any way.

Our political party will also be opposed if the federal government favours one region over another in the kind of assistance it plans to provide. By this I mean that, by providing greater assistance for live hog producers than for producers of processed pork, the federal government would be favouring Ontario, which exports live hogs, over Quebec, which exports processed pork.

Whatever the outcome in Quebec today, the Bloc Quebecois will be very vigilant. A speedy response to this crisis is necessary.

In order to take into account the special character of Quebec and the fact that the government has already taken specific action to assist affected hog producers, various solutions could be considered, one of which might simply be to compensate the Government of Quebec for the assistance it decides to give hog producers.

[Agriculture, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hog industry is going through the worst price crisis it has ever experienced.

In order to help farmers, the Canadian Pork Council is suggesting that Canada consider the food aid program and send 10,000 tonnes of pork to Russia for humanitarian purposes.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Is he prepared to take that course of action?

[Agriculture, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the situation at the moment in agriculture is very difficult.

Grain and meat prices, especially hog prices, are dropping. The minister of agriculture is getting ready to announce an aid program for farmers.

Could we have the minister's assurance that he will adapt his program to programs already existing in Quebec so that farmers and producers there may also receive aid and enjoy their fair share?

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health. She referred to important dates in history. She talked about health care in Canada in 1994 and about the Canada Health Act passed in 1993.

I ask her why she would not continue the tradition. Why does she not follow the same rules and continue to do more for health care, since she keeps repeating that merely throwing money at the problem is no solution?

With budget surpluses totalling between $12 and $15 billion, as is the case this year, and after denying the provinces the money they need for health care, it should be embarrassing to say in this House that providing money is not enough. Yes, it is enough and it must be done for each province. They are all asking for it. Our health care system is in a very sad state.

The government transferred money and tax points. But this is not what we are asking today. We are asking that Quebec be given back the money necessary to continue to administer and manage its health care system properly.

According to some surveys, between 90% and 95% of all in-patients are pleased with the services provided. Managing our health care system is not a problem when we have the money to do so. To compare us to the Americans is ludicrous.

As a society, we made a choice a long time ago and that choice has little to do with unfettered capitalism. This means that we should be prepared to assume that choice and provide the money necessary to do a good job.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 1997, the federal program implemented by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has resulted in the elimination of some 11,500 lambs and sheep in 236 herds.

This massive slaughter of nearly 10% of the animals has seriously affected the sheep industry in Quebec. Most animals have been slaughtered as a preventive measure, and some producers have lost their whole herd.

Last June, the Bloc Quebecois requested a moratorium on the slaughtering of sheep, and this moratorium has been respected, because it was imperative to take stock and put an end to the carnage.

Today, we are asking the government and the minister of agriculture to act responsibly and fairly toward sheep producers and to prevent there being two categories of victims—those predating the October 27, 1998 order increasing maximum compensation and those of January 1, 1997.

Fair treatment. Since the industry and the department have agreed on maximum compensation after October 27 of some $600 a head, it would be fair if all producers received the same settlement. If the agency cannot legally act retroactively, the minister can set up ad hoc programs or income security measures similar to disaster relief.

The Government of Quebec is doing its very large part to support sheep producers. Today, in fact, it accorded a maximum loan of $100,000 per business interest free for three years to all Quebec producers whose animals were slaughtered between January 1, 1997 and October 27, 1998.

So now what are those primarily responsible for the slaughter of these many sheep—the agency and the department of agriculture—waiting for to do likewise? We simply want them to be fair and equitable.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-53 and to support Motion No. 1 moved by my colleague from Mercier:

That Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 2 the following new clause:

“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to increase the availability of financing of small businesses, which would not otherwise have access to financing.”

It is the small businesses we are concerned about, and it is unfortunate to note that, while the bill is necessary and we support it, it does not meet all our expectations. It contains no provision for further improving the situation of the SMBs as it stands.

First, Bill C-53 does not give SMBs greater access to credit. It does not make financing available to businesses that could not have it otherwise. We must understand that, in the context of this bill, SMBs unable to obtain financing from the banks at the moment should not look for anything more from this program.

No mention is made of financing SMB working capital and, as we well know, this is a major problem in most SMBs.

So the issues in this bill are quite apparent in the reading of it. It might be a good idea to remind ourselves of the importance of SMBs in our economy. In 1995, the most recent census year, SMBs with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 99% of the 935,000 businesses operating in Canada. That is huge. This represents our business employee payroll. They therefore employed 42% of private sector workers paying 38% of all salaries. There is nothing small about that.

The SMBs are also fragile. These same statistics indicate that 15% of them go out of business in the first year of operation. More than half the businesses that existed in 1989 were no longer on the market five years later, when the census was done.

Overall, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-53, but we are very disappointed that the revision of this bill does not pay more attention to small business loans.

We must also add, as far as issues and context are concerned, that the wages paid by small and medium-sized businesses are far less than the impact they have on employment. Average wages are therefore markedly lower than those of big business, and close to two-thirds of salaries in Quebec come from big businesses or major institutions.

The question may arise: “Do you have any proposals, do you have a position on this?” Yes, the Bloc wants to see legislation that serves small and medium-sized businesses. The amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, are intended precisely to enhance, to improve what our small businesses need.

We need provisions to improve access to credit for small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec and in Canada. In two different surveys, including one by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 29% of small and medium-sized business owners report that the availability of credit is one of their main preoccupations, if not the foremost. In other words, one-third of small business owners are continually struggling to find or renew credit.

In the second survey, carried out by Bloc Quebecois MPs among small and medium-sized businesses in their ridings, 89% of respondents report that it is very difficult, or difficult, to get credit at a reasonable rate. Only 10% of small and medium-sized businesses responded that they were able to find funding in their community with any ease.

Some small and medium-sized businesses—and we had proof of this when we met with the bankers and caisse populaire people—are very well known in their own little circle. The relationship of trust between the lending agent and the new or potential business is therefore a given. This is not the same when the small or medium-sized business is in a larger riding, or in an urban area.

But that is not the only thing. There has certainly been a change as far as the lenders are concerned. A few years ago, a woman wishing to get a loan to start up a small business had to face a most ridiculous situation. The first question she would be asked was: “Do you have a husband?” The second one was: “Is he gainfully employed?” The third question was: “Can he secure your loan?” I am not going back to ancient history. This is very recent.

However, some institutions were more open and lent more and more often to women. It was realized that, because women were more concerned and had a greater need for security, there were fewer bankruptcies among women than among men. We have gone beyond that first stage and women are now able to get the loans they need.

But today there are others who are experiencing the same stressful situation, namely young people. Our young technical school and university graduates are full of ideas. They are our wealth and they are prepared to start on a small scale. They no longer have this mentality of trying to get a job with large businesses or government organizations, since jobs are now very scarce in these sectors.

What do these young people full of ideas and initiative do when they graduate from university? They go to a banking institution. That institution will not ask them if they have a husband or a wife, but if they have a father or a mother. These young people go through the same process that we women went through, perhaps 10 years ago.

It is unfortunate that the process is so difficult. This is why we would like the bill to include a program giving access to credit to small and medium size businesses that would not otherwise have easy access to financing.

I referred to young people. I also want to talk about innovative businesses and ventures, several of which make it. If EDP businesses had been prevented from getting financing, we would not be near where we are now. At the beginning, it was considered risk capital, but then it was realized that, on the contrary, this was a solution for many. It is also risk capital in the case of innovative people such as weavers. Who will finance a weaver?

We want to give businesses the means to fund their working capital, so as to ensure their growth and development. Some businesses sell tires. It is a seasonal industry. They have a tough time maintaining their working capital. The same goes for the horticultural industry.

All these small and medium size businesses have fixed costs. They must modernize their operations, they have to deal with red tape, and they need accountants, legal advisors and other experts. These are all costs of doing business.

Finally, the little country girl in me would like to tell you that Quebec's Solidarité rurale has said that one job in a small rural riding is equivalent to 1,000 jobs in a city.

[Agriculture, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of agriculture is holding a meeting in Montreal with the farming industry to discuss farm incomes and to prepare the upcoming negotiations with the WTO.

Why did the federal Minister of Agriculture, who was informed of this meeting, decide to compete by inviting Canadian and Quebec agriculture leaders the same day to discuss the same topics here in Ottawa?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was probably misunderstood. The $600 figure was discussed and accepted by industry. We are very much in agreement on this amount.

Our major problem is that the 10% production loss in Quebec will never be properly compensated for because the measure is not retroactive. If the agency cannot allow retroactivity, the minister can create retroactive compensation through an ad hoc program.

I wish to state before this House that Quebec is currently the hardest hit province. Our sheep came from all over Canada and were sold all over Canada. What is happening to us today I would not wish on any other province. No one is exempt from this, however, because there is a very strong genetic link where this disease is concerned.