Nic Leblanc

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that, after being interrupted by oral question period, I take the floor again to say that I support Bill C-57 because Quebec is very open to international trade. We have always been very open to the world, particularly as regards trade.

I was in the process of explaining that rational solutions must be found, solutions such as encouraging economic growth within Quebec and Canada by providing our businesses with an effective trading environment. There are serious problems for businesses, because they have to deal with two governments which, in terms of taxation for example, use two different systems.

These two levels of government have environmental regulations and legislations that are completely different, which makes life extremely difficult for businesses dealing with them. For example, they have to conduct some environmental studies under Quebec legislation and others under federal legislation.

So it really hinders big projects that affect the environment. Everything is duplicated, like the manpower office, so that business does not have the environment it needs to develop. To act quickly on environmental issues, we must restrict the obligations that companies must meet in this regard.

One solution is international trade. It is not the only one, of course, but it is a very important way to promote our companies. Again, I must mention here that I tabled a motion in this House which was defeated last night. Its purpose was to provide the steel industry, among others, with sufficiently strict regulations here in Canada, or at least regulations that are as strict as those in the United States for import-export and especially for dumping.

This motion was defeated and, again, I did not understand why the government still did not accept this motion. On many occasions, representatives of the steel industry asked us to revise the regulations in Bill C-57. The government refused to support my motion and I am very sorry that this part of the law could not be amended.

I want to say to people in the steel industry, who are surely listening to me today, because they care about what is going on here, that we in the Bloc Quebecois did all that was necessary to meet their requests. Unfortunately, the government did not consider our demands or those from the steel industry.

To face this international competition, we must also encourage creativity. We also tabled a motion. The bill says, for example, that present products must be protected. We tabled a motion that would also have protected future products. We think it is very important, if you want to encourage creativity, our business people and small businesses, to protect future products in the same way as existing products are protected by law.

Once again the government refused to accept this motion, a motion we felt was entirely normal and fair in its attempt to help our creators, SMEs and researchers improve their prospects of succeeding in these increasingly globalized markets.

We must take an intelligent and structured approach. We must avoid wasting energy and resources on taking on all markets indiscriminately, without considering factors such as transportation, specialization and economies of scale. We need good strategic planning that considers our strengths and weaknesses, the benefits and drawbacks, while monitoring the development of attractive and promising markets.

In Quebec, we must consolidate our positions on the North American market, now and in the future. In Quebec especially, we supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, and we also supported the first free trade agreement with the United States, which, as I remember, was a very controversial issue. I was a member of the government at the time, and in 1988, when I ran for Parliament, I did so mainly to help adopt the free trade agreement with the United States.

I was supported in this endeavour by the vast majority of Quebecers. We were practically unanimous in our approval of free trade between Canada and the United States. For us in Quebec, it was crucial.

For many years and many decades, we have been involved in trade with the United States. About 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States. It should come as no surprise that we want to go on consolidating our efforts to continue our exports to this very important market.

To give you some idea of the size of the U.S. market, I will look at the number of people living within a certain radius. For instance, if we look at the number of people living within a radius of 1,000 kilometres from Montreal, including the United States and Toronto, there are 100 million people. Imagine, 100 million consumers, among the richest in the world! That is why it is so important for us in Quebec to continue to develop our exports and to do business with the northeastern United States.

This is not to say we should neglect other markets, such as Asia and the Pacific Rim. We know that in this region, markets are developing and the standard of living is going up, especially in Japan and China. Last year, China's economic growth was between 12 and 15 per cent. There are 1.2 billion people living in China. We should position ourselves so that we can take advantage of the future opportunities in those countries, especially in China.

We are somewhat apprehensive about letting the federal government be responsible for helping Quebec promote its economy. We have heard-it is not official, but there are indications-that the Canadian government intends to reduce the number of employees in charge of international trade in the United States, and increase the number deployed in Asia and the Pacific Rim.

This is cause for some concern as, for obvious reasons, and I mentioned this earlier, we want to continue doing business with the United States, and increase our trade connections with them. First of all, it is a great market, where trading is made easier by the fact that the Americans speak a familiar language, namely English, and that our cultures -economic cultures and social cultures- are similar. We live in a space that is almost the same, but it is quite another story when you talk about the Asia-Pacific area, with the linguistic difficulties being bigger, the distances longer and the efforts required to promote our products take longer and cost more to produce results.

In a context of staggering deficit and debt, I think that we must look at the easiest opportunities to increase the profitability of our businesses, so that our economy becomes healthier and that the governments can get afloat as soon as possible.

That is why I think and we, in Quebec in particular, think that continued efforts are necessary to try and maintain and increase our market opportunities in the United States.

Of course, this will require a high level of cohesion between our industries, the unions, the government, our universities, and so on. Without this co-operative effort, I think that we will find it increasingly difficult in the future to be efficient and productive.

This is why we, in Quebec, are looking forward taking our future in our own hands in order to act together and eliminate duplication of all kind that gets in the way of united action and efficiency. In that sense, we are looking forward to gaining control over our taxes, to spend this money according to our priorities and ensure that we succeed more rapidly in this global context.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as an official member of the joint committee on international trade, I had the opportunity to work at some length on the new direction to give Canada so that Quebec and Canada perform better on the international market. We examined new policies in various sectors, and the way Canada should behave with respect to international matters.

Today, we are focusing on Bill C-57 which confirms the World Trade Organization. As a member of this committee and as a member of this House for more that ten years now, I must say first off that I agree with the bill as a whole. This is why I am going to talk instead about the role lawmakers should play in Quebec and Canada with respect to this opening of markets we will have to face in the years to come.

It is the responsibility of lawmakers to co-operate in order to create and maintain a just and fair society. To create a just and fair society, we must ensure that individual Quebecers and Canadians have reasons to be hopeful, at least those who are willing to take the chance to be creative, to invest, and to be successful in this society. While being fair, we must make sure that people can hope to succeed without having to give before they receive.

Obviously, we must deal with the economy, which is in a sorry state right now. Almost 12 per cent of the population is unemployed, another 12 per cent is on welfare, which means that, depending on the region, 22, 23 or 24 per cent of the people who are fit to work cannot find a job. It is a great pity. We must deal with this appalling economic problem.

We must also see to it that the appropriate legislation is passed to improve the economic situation.

The economic problem, as I just said, is high unemployment, a skilled labour force unable to find jobs, a labour force which does not have the qualifications that the available jobs require, a low job-creation rate and deficiencies in manpower training. We can see that every day. There are major problems.

Productivity is stagnating. We know that it is not improving and we must find ways to increase productivity if we want to be competitive on international markets. Investments are also stagnating. We need a formula which will bring investors and for that, as I said earlier, we need a business environment favourable to investment.

For the last several years, investors have been reluctant to come here for several reasons, but in particular because of the debt and inadequate manpower. Then, there are the markets. This is a plus for investors, but we have to find new ways to stimulate investment.

At the present time, we depend on other countries for a large number of manufactured goods. For example, much manufacturing is done here but by American companies and we also import many products. We are dependent on imports and on manufactured goods that are produced here but not under our control.

We have to find intelligent solutions to promote job creation and to improve manpower training. We are still struggling with this question of co-operation, or absence of, between the governments of Canada and Quebec regarding manpower training. This is a terrible handicap for Quebec not to be able to control training and to prepare its labour force to serve adequately its businesses, and therefore improve productivity.

This stubbornness on the part of the federal government, which insists on national standards for manpower training, is not only regrettable, it is a disgrace. We know full well that several countries which are doing well, most notably Germany and Japan, have had regionalized manpower training for several years, something which is geared to local industry and also extends to scientific training.

Regions should be able to set their own standards to train people in areas where a given region has the most economic activity. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for Question Period. I shall continue afterwards. Thank you.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the steel committee for several years. Recently, you had the opportunity to meet the people from the steel industry, at the steel committee, and also on two occasions at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, where we had the opportunity to hear their claims.

I want to tell you that what we are proposing in our motion is exactly what the steel industry is asking for.

I cannot understand the government on this issue. It seems to be stubborn. I cannot understand it. Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about this, and I still do not understand why he does not agree with the amendment that we are proposing, all the more so since I do not agree either with the Reform member who just spoke on the same subject regarding dumping.

It is clear and obvious, and we heard that several times, including just last week or two weeks ago. The president of the Steel Producers Association came to the committee and clearly explained to us that, as for our protection mechanisms in dumping and steel trade between Canada and the United States, among others, the United States had regulations this thick, which she did put on the table before us, while we only had a few pages of regulations to protect us.

It is not I nor my colleague from Verchères who said that, it is the Canadian Steel Producers Association who said it several times. It is for these reasons that we have a lot of difficulty, this afternoon, understanding why the parliamentary secretary and the government did not amend this bill.

The steel industry is very important, particularly for Quebec. In my riding and the riding of the hon. member for Verchères, there are many major industries producing steel pellets. Steel trade is very important in Quebec, and that is why we are very concerned by the government's lack of attention towards the steel producers who came several times to explain to us, in great detail, their claims.

Once again I strongly hope the government will change its mind because, once this legislation is tabled and sanctioned, we will be facing major problems. That bill will have a negative impact on the steel industry which, it seems to me, is still quite dynamic and full of promises for the future of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

That is all I wanted to add. I do not want to get into the specifics, but I urge the government to listen. It said it had reviewed the issue. On what basis? The parliamentary secretary said earlier that they had reviewed the question, but on what basis and on whose advice?

We have heard the exact opposite and, once again, the government is not listening. I really wonder where we are headed. I think we will continue to sink further into a terrible deficit with that type of regulations that do not protect industries, that increase unemployment and add to the problems of Quebec businesses, particularly in the steel industry, one that I know very well.

I beg the government to accept this motion.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. It was so important for me that I could not help saying it.

As you know, technology is changing very fast. The compact disks which we see today, that have just come on the market, may be obsolete in a year or two or three. If we do not consider future products, we are likely to have big problems.

For example, some experts say that technology will develop more quickly in the next ten years than it did in the past fifty. Just imagine how many products and machines will be invented. All kinds of inventions will be made just in the next ten years. So I think it would be a serious mistake not to recognize the motion from the member for Louis-Hébert, which says that future products must also be considered.

That is why I wanted to reinforce the very good explanation given by the member for Louis-Hébert, but I still hope that the members here in this Chamber will inform those outside that this motion is really important.

I repeat, it is Motion No. 8, which says that future products and not just present products must be considered. I know that the hon. member near me has understood very well what I just said and that he will hasten to repeat it to his Liberal friends so that this motion passes, because I think it is very important for the future.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to support my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who made an excellent speech. He explained very well his reasons for presenting this motion, which requires considering not only products made in the past but also those to come in the future. I find it rather strange that the government did not consider what may be coming down the road.

We know that technology is changing very rapidly and I do not see how the government overlooked this item. Fortunately, the parliamentary secretary is not looking at me any more, but he should be here to listen to me because it is quite important for him to hear-

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Motion No. 2, which I would like to read again for the benefit of our listeners:

"3.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the Agreement, the Minister of International Trade shall each year lay before the House of Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external affairs concerning"

We are referring here to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

"(a) implementation of the Agreement in Canada;

(b) the trade obligations and commitments undertaken at the international level by the trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially the United States; and

(c) the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies".

The motion aims at simplifying and facilitating the process for those who would like to address complaints, comments or recommendations to the government. It will allow them to go to a specific body and place where they will get proper attention.

It has often been noted in the past that, when people make representations to their member of Parliament, to ministers or to senior civil servants, these officials do not follow up on the recommendations made to them.

I believe it is very important to have a place where people can make claims and complaints if, for example, their rights have been violated as regards imports, or if changes could result in problems for some industries or for employment.

We think that the responsible committee of the House of Commons could be a permanent forum which would listen to all those who have complaints, so that appropriate recommendations can be made to the minister, followed by the required adjustments.

It is very important that Canadians can have access to a standing committee of the House and that this committee be made known to the public. Indeed, those who wish to complain have to know that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is responsible for receiving their recommendations and complaints so that we can adjust as fast as possible to major changes in the world.

In 1985, I had the privilege to sit on the committee chaired by Mr. Hnatyshyn, the current Governor General, that was reviewing the reform of Parliament and Parliamentary institutions. At that time, we asked Mr. McGrath to undertake an in-depth study on the role of Parliament. In 1985, he stated in his report: "On the eve of international free trade in the economic arena, Canada must have the parliamentary structures needed to become increasingly competitive at the national and international level".

Parliamentarians have been examining this issue for some time now. In 1985, Gulf Canada carried out quite a detailed study on the relationship between Parliament and big corporations as well as the population as a whole. I have made copies of the Gulf Canada report, but among other things, business people stressed the need to know their MPs well. So, businesses and groups tell their representatives that it is rather important that they maintain a good relationship with the members of Parliament who represent them.

People approach their MPs, but often the poor guy does not even know how to reach the right person to ensure that things are progressing well. This is a very unstructured way of doing things, which prevents us, first, from understanding our constit-

uents' needs and working on them and, second, from solving problems quickly. This is an important concern.

This 1985 Gulf Canada report also says that, with time, more and more citizens are trying to make themselves heard by the government. This is nothing new. It has always been difficult for citizens, businesses and groups to know to whom they should address their complaints to get their problems solved. That is why this motion provides for the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to act as a forum, pursuant to Bill C-57 concerning the new World Trade Organization, to receive those complaints and to make the necessary recommendations to the minister so that he can respond quickly.

Opening international trade will bring about very important changes. Surely, in some industries, it will directly affect employment and businesses. Some adjustments should be made swiftly.

No structure was put in place to hear the claims of businesses, individuals and groups. We think, as this motion says, that the Committee on External Affairs of the House of Commons could and should be the place to deal with these claims so that we can adjust as quickly as possible to the important changes and economic disruption expected in the years to come.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11, on page 3, the following new Clause:

"3.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the Agreement, the Minister of International Trade shall each year lay before the House of Commons a report taking into account the priorities identified by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to external affairs concerning

(a) implementation of the Agreement in Canada;

(b) the trade obligations and commitments undertaken by Canada at the international level by the trading partners of major importance to Canada, especially the United States; and

(c) the impact of the Agreement on Canadian workers and companies."

[Petitions, November 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by hundreds of residents from my riding of Longueuil. The petitioners disagree with the new training standards used by Canada Employment Centres and ask the Parliament to revise them and make sure they remain the way they were.

We disagree strongly with the new standards which impose: an increase in compulsory attendance at training from 24 to 30 hours; a reduction of credits given per training course from 25 to 22 hours; a reduction in the number of days you can miss from one and a quarter days to one day per five weeks; and the loss of school or school-related activities which were useful to relieve boredom and facilitate the adjustment to student and family life.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there was so little in the way of questions in the hon. member's comments that I thought he had started on a speech.

Initially, he asked whether the government was serious about its reform proposals. I doubt it, because if you consider that there is nothing in this document about demands Quebec has been repeating for 30 years, I think we can hardly say that this is a serious document, when they keep wanting to centralize and create confrontational situations.

Another point I wanted to mention earlier, which may answer part of his question, is that just this week, Softimage, a software company that invested several million dollars in Quebec, was looking for 70 computer experts but failed to find any. This means that manpower training is not adapted to the needs of companies. Once again, this manpower training mess is aggravating the unemployment problem but the minister does not seem to mention that in his report. There is a serious problem with manpower training and as a result, a number of companies cannot find the qualified employees they need, although we have a high unemployment rate.

We also have scientists who are doing very advanced research, but we do not have the companies that can manufacture these new products. This means there is a lack of consistency, so that a lot of time and money is wasted and we are not as efficient as we could be. We have trouble producing a low-cost, quality product, and at the same time we are trying to break into international markets. These incredible inconsistencies cost a lot of money and make us inefficient.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my time is up. I could have gone on for much longer because there is so much to say about this. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In his social security reform package, the minister proposes to deal with social problems and unemployment, at the expense of the unemployed and the poorest people in this country. The government is asking the unemployed to pay more for a solution to their problems and asks the poor to be even poorer, if they would enjoy the benefits of this reform which, as I said before, will take more money from the unemployed and the poor.

Instead of looking at the underlying cause of unemployment, instead of looking at the causes of social problems, the minister and his experts are telling the unemployed they will have to pay the bill. As if the unemployed and the poor were responsible for unemployment rates and the large percentage of people living on welfare, especially in Quebec.

That is why this afternoon, I would prefer to discuss what causes unemployment and the reasons for welfare. The federal Liberals have not been very helpful in this respect. After working for about ten years here in the House of Commons and seeing how the government runs its affairs, I could give you a few examples to prove that the federal government causes unemployment, not the unemployed.

My first example concerns interest rates. In 1990, the Governor of the Bank of Canada decided to raise interest rates, saying that there were inflationary tendencies in Canada and that we absolutely had to raise interest rates to reduce economic growth, although he knew perfectly well that these inflationary tendencies were restricted to a few specific locations in Canada and that their causes were well-known.

Inflation tended to be concentrated in the Toronto area. Why? Because the federal government had invested too much money in federal-provincial shared-cost programs. In 1981, 1982 and 1983, the Liberal government had set up special programs to fight the recession. At the time, inflation was really high and you may remember that the government had raised interest rates up to 21 per cent. It also had to set up programs, precisely to ensure that people on unemployment or welfare rolls would not suffer unduly from the situation.

However, the Conservative Party, which was in office then and of which I was a member, did not have the courage to reduce the budgets of those programs and continued to spend more or less the same amounts in joint cost-shared federal-provincial programs. There was a 50-50 split.

The result of this was that Quebec, which had less money than some other provinces and which was spending less on its joint programs, received less money. This is why the inflation rate in Quebec was somewhat more reasonable or acceptable. The situation was just the opposite in Toronto, which was going full speed ahead with the federal programs. Indeed, through these 50-50 programs, the federal government was spending a lot of money, with the result that the economy of that region overheated, thus generating more inflation.

It was obvious that the inflation was the direct result of this overheating generated by the federal government. The government of the time never wanted to use the means at its disposal to lower inflation. Instead, it left the Governor of the Bank of Canada on his own. And the governor had no choice but to increase interest rates. Vancouver is the other place where inflation was high. A lot of money was being invested by people from Hong Kong and Far East Pacific Rim countries. The inflation there was also very much a local phenomenon.

And what did the federal government do? Nothing. It let interest rates go up, with the result that Quebec's small and medium-sized businesses, which had worked tremendously hard to survive, went bankrupt one after the other. Unemployment went up, since workers were being laid off. All this because the federal government did not take its responsibility. I personally told the Governor of the Bank of Canada then that he was creating a recession we would have great difficulty pulling out of.

We have been in a recession for four years, yet did not manage to bring it under control. That is terrible. So, when I hear that the unemployed should be the ones to pay for the problems, I find it absolutely ridiculous. That is all the Minister of Human Resources Development talks about in his plan.

The other event that took place was the signing, in 1989, of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Quebec investors in particular, and I am still one of them, were told: "Invest in your business because this is a golden opportunity to gain access to a unique market, the US market". We were told: "Invest in your businesses and life will be great. In the years to come, you will make good money, do good business and create jobs. It is going to be just great".

A short time afterwards, interest rates went up, curbing growth and killing the very businesses that had just been put in a vulnerable position by investing in infrastructure and equipment. They were crushed with higher interests rates, reduced growth and reduced production capacity, at a time when they are very vulnerable. Many had to shut down. That is outrageous! And that is what is going on right now.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, if we want to address the UI and social welfare issue, instead of making a big fuss, publishing nice green books and talking about UI and social reform, we should start by creating favourable conditions for our businesses. Jobs do not appear suddenly, out of thin air; they are created by businesses and our businesses need favourable conditions to do so. They must not be required to do what they are currently doing on behalf of governments, namely handling enormous amounts of money collected left and right. Let me name a few of the tasks imposed upon our businesses.

First, they have to pay CSST premiums, UI premiums, federal and provincial sales taxes as well as federal and provincial income tax. They must deal with two sets of taxes: Quebec's and Ottawa's. I could give other examples.

Each time that a business is unable, or fails, to satisfy all these requests, which come in daily, there are additional penalties to pay.

Our small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec have to live in this negative environment. We think that it is terrible, unacceptable and discouraging for those who want to go into business, to succeed, to create, to invent and to export to have to look after all this administration for the two levels of government.

When I say that support to businesses must be more flexible, I am not talking about money, but rather, at the very least, an environment that would facilitate their growth.

The government's insistence on centralizing, on trying to control everything from here, on creating terrible confrontations between the two levels of government, leaves our businesses vulnerable in this sort of environment.

This is just another example. I think that the Minister of Human Resources Development hit on it himself when he said that there are many difficulties and problems associated with unemployment insurance and other social programs. There are many problems to resolve. But having read the document, I can tell you that there are not many solutions, because he did not really understand the cause of the problem.

We have here proof, once again, that federalism does not work. When a government can no longer meet the basic needs of its citizens, it is clear that federalism is not working. The debt is now $550 billion.

Our deficit will again be close to $40 billion. What more proof do we need that federalism does not work?

So what is the answer? As the Premier of Quebec told the Chamber of Commerce last Tuesday, although the federal government siphons off our money and, as a result, our resources are diminished, Quebecers manage to do a better job than the federal government as far as economic development and job creation are concerned. My view is that as far as we are concerned, this reform is redundant. The federal government should simply transfer full responsibility to Quebec, since it has given us ample proof it cannot make a go of it. I can assure you that Quebecers with their dynamic outlook will do a much better job. I am positive about that.

That is why I look forward to the challenge of a sovereign Quebec, where Quebecers will be able to develop their potential and get a really good start by investing all their resources and skills and productivity. They will be able to create jobs, reduce unemployment and reduce the number of welfare recipients so that this nation can live with honour and enthusiasm.