Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Bloc MP for Longueuil (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 7% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I will talk briefly if I may about our institutions and democracy as well, which have just become much less credible.

All these government members did when in opposition was condemn the GST. They coined words, lashed out against it, but not only did they not scrap it, they are now harmonizing it and creating inequities between the provinces in the process.

I had prepared a long speech. Unfortunately, I have only two minutes left. Let me just tell you that I find the attitude taken by the government in this debate most regrettable. It will do considerable harm to ours institutions' and our democracy's credibility.

Mr. Speaker, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word "That" the following:

"as promised before and after the October 1993 federal election".

Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the member thinks of the present the federal government just gave the three maritime provinces.

We know it will give close to one billion dollars to these three provinces. It was mentioned that harmonizing the GST will cost more to the maritime provinces involved. Right now, as far as I know, the provincial taxes in the maritimes are between 11 and 12 per cent. They are the highest in Canada. In Quebec, the sales tax used to be 9 per cent, now its is 6.5 per cent.

Could it be, by any chance, that this gift of one billion dollars to three maritime provinces is to compensate for what they are losing due to UI cuts? Is this a way the government found to compensate them for their UI losses? This seems to me a rather obvious coincidence.

The two ministers from New Brunswick were having a great deal of difficulty making people swallow the UI reform. It seems that they are being rewarded or compensated so that the two senior ministers from New Brunswick can be better perceived by the public.

In any case, for us in Quebec, there is something we find unacceptable. It is estimated that Quebec will have to pay $250 million in compensation. We are going to give close to one billion dollars to the maritime provinces.

Of course, this $250 million is not directly part of the one billion dollars. However, we know that when the government's revenues are down, and when the time comes to transfer money to meet its responsibility with regard to health care and post-secondary education, among others, we know that the funds it will transfer will be less the money it will give the maritimes.

We are well aware that in Quebec we will experience losses amounting to at leat $250 million because of this. I would like to know what the member thinks of all this, of this nice present to the maritime provinces.

Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard-Anjou, has referred to credibility. At the present time we have a flagrant example, which casts doubt on the credibility of our institutions. When political parties are going after votes, making promises, and referring to a program, but then do a complete about face as soon as they are elected, it seems to me that this is unacceptable.

This is also why MPs lack credibility in the eyes of the public at this time. The latest polls indicate that MPs have about 15 per cent of public credibility. In my opinion, this is the main reason for the lack of trust in MPs: they do exactly what the Liberals did during the last campaign. They do exactly what the Liberals did during the implementation of the GST, which was proposed and implemented by their Conservative predecessors.

Then they did everything in their power, they set up strategies, they went at it hammer and tongs, scaring the public. For example, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said on December 15, 1990 that the GST represented fear and suffering. People will say anything to attract votes. Today, we are in the process of accepting what is more or less the original Conservative plan.

What I mean by that is that the public has had it with MPs who say one thing one day and a do completely different thing the next. So this is my question for my colleague. Does he believe that what the Liberals are doing at this time, and what they did during the last campaign, will add to or take away from MPs' credibility?

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act April 22nd, 1996

Yes, absolutely.

So, Mr. Turner was surely a very intelligent man. He had understood. He had insight. Unfortunately, his party was against it and decided to wage a war to the finish. We had to work for hours.

I remember making a speech at about 11.40 p.m. in December, just before Christmas, because we had to adopt the free trade agreement before the end of the year, so that both countries could ratify it. So, we made long speeches until the very end because the Liberals, if they did not hinder us, tried to gain time. They used every trick of parliamentary procedure to try to gain time until the very end, until we succeeded in having the agreement adopted.

So it all happened thanks to Quebecers, to the Government of Quebec, to its members and to the members of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party. There was about sixty of us at that time, and we managed to convince the rest of Canada that free trade was a good thing.

Today the Liberals are in favour of free trade. They won the election, so they do not need to oppose free trade any more. They used the free trade issue to win the election. Now they support free trade.

I am also pleased to see today that the Liberals have decided to encourage free trade between the provinces. I totally agree with that, and this is why I support this bill.

As I said earlier, this bill will simplify internal trade. I also mentioned earlier that this is in line with the sovereignist project that we still have and that we will not forget about because we still believe in it, unless the Canadian government decides to make changes to the Constitution.

What we are proposing is a close, controlled economic partnership. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good start. It will allow us to have free trade, which is necessary.

Now that we will have free trade with the provinces, we, in Quebec, are very aware that we will have to train our workers better. Therefore, I urge the federal government again to accept to transfer to Quebec the responsibility for manpower training. This is very important for us. It is not up to the federal government to make decisions about manpower training; it is a provincial responsibility. This is my twelfth year as a member of Parliament, and for twelve years we have been begging the federal government to give manpower training back to the provinces. This is a very important issue for us.

We can see that there is a lot of waste. There is a waste of time and energy, and still people are not being properly trained. The effectiveness of the federal government's manpower training is rated at about 25 per cent. Imagine, billions of dollars spent and it is only 25 per cent effective.

This is also true for Ontario and for British Columbia. Manpower training should be given by provincial institutions. It is the provinces who run educational institutions. Why does the federal government have to buy courses from Quebec institutions? Often, they have rules that do not correspond to those of our school boards or of the provinces' educational institutions.

It would be much easier to co-ordinate manpower training if it were controlled by the provinces, if the money went directly to the provinces so that they could provide satisfactory training. We have colleges that adapt to the needs of businesses and that design very specialized programs corresponding to sectors of economic activity. They take the businesses in a particular sector and create specialized classes in order to provide people with very specific training to meet very specific needs.

Courses are given specifically to meet the needs of these businesses, but in many cases the federal government horns in. I will give the House an example: someone who is unemployed wants to take a 10 month course, starting in May and ending 10 months later. Since he is unemployed, he is not entitled to any holiday time during his unemployment, so he cannot take the course, because the school boards close down for two months in Quebec. This is crazy, as well as unacceptable. I find such things both scandalous and disgusting.

A lot of people come to see us in our offices to tell us things like this: "It makes no sense, I am eligible to take a course but I cannot because it starts in the spring and ends in late fall". Since the teaching criteria are not the same for the school boards and for unemployment insurance, people end up unable to take a course. That is why I find it scandalous that money is wasted and people with ability are also wasted. They often give up and go back home and on to welfare, living off the government.

I am begging the government to act promptly. In looking at my government colleagues close to me, I am convinced that they understand my message very well. I am not being aggressive, merely pointing out what is nothing more than common sense.

I trust that the Liberal members making up the present government will heed this message and make it possible for there to be greater efficiency and for the people working in our businesses to be better trained and therefore more productive, turning out better products. With better products, we will be able to compete internationally. Such is the purpose of manpower training.

That is why we are working very hard in Quebec, to have more efficient businesses. It would be a serious mistake not to do so. There will be no point in moaning about it when we are flooded with products from other countries, creating unemployment and welfare dependency. Do we want to become a banana republic, an impoverished state, or do we want to move on into this new economic era? In this new economic era, high technology will take the place of natural resources.

This is why training and intellectual skills are essential for this new economy we will be experiencing in the years to come.

Once again, I am begging the government, and the government members in particular, since they form that government. Often MPs do not dare speak out, but it is not always necessary to vote against one's government in order to have one's ideas noticed. I believe we should work very hard inside our respective caususes. I know there are excellent Liberal members who understand what I have just said, and I am convinced that with time they will come to understand, as they finally did and accepted the free trade agreement with the United States. It is normal. People evolve slowly.

There are still people in Quebec who are not sovereignists. I say to them that some people take more time than others to understand. It is the same thing. There were some people who had not understood that free trade was a good thing. Today, people know

that free trade is a good thing, at least in Quebec because we export much more to the United States than we import.

We realize that free trade is a good thing. Yet, at first, some Liberals believed that it was not. You cannot blame people. They take time to change. As I have just said, some take longer than others to understand. It depends where you come from, on your education and on where you live. This is all perfectly acceptable, and I do not want to point the finger at anyone.

There is one thing, however. We live in an age of high technology and major communications, and we are going to have to meet international competition. It is an extraordinary challenge. One that will be very exciting. I am sure the years to come will be exciting, but we must make sure that our people receive the intellectual training to meet the challenge.

I and the other members of the Bloc support this bill, except, and I repeat, the part on the resolution of disputes. On the whole, we agree with the formula, except at the end, where it provides that the federal government may unilaterally decide who is right and who is wrong by order.

Once again, this could harm certain provinces with very pronounced sectors of economic activity. I will give Alberta as an example.

Alberta has a number of fairly major economic sectors, including oil, beef and wheat. These are the major ones; I might even say the only ones. If a dispute were to arise with Quebec or Ontario in one of these areas, and the federal government unilaterally resolved the dispute by order, Alberta's economy could suffer significantly. It is a possibility.

Quebec has one really major sector: hydroelectric power. Should there be a dispute over power with no solution found and should the government unilaterally decide by order in the end to promote uranium or atomic energy over Quebec's energy, Quebec could suffer hugely. It is for these reasons that to give sole power to the federal government to resolve a dispute by order-in-council could adversely affect an important economic sector in Quebec as it could adversely affect an important economic sector in Alberta, in New Brunswick or elsewhere. In this sense, we think it is dangerous and we are opposed to it.

We would have preferred a two-day debate, a public debate in the House of Commons, so that members concerned, who feel their rights or those of their province, their region or a sector of their province are being abused, can publicly inform the people of these risks by their comments.

We all know that the ability to speak out publicly often confers an extraordinary power. Otherwise, things are done on the sly, often in secret. That is why we live in a democratic system, to be able to speak out publicly. It is a shame we cannot speak out freely and publicly instead of ruling by order-in-council. It should be possible to debate the matter, people should be able to express their views. Maybe then, the way we see things could change radically.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act April 22nd, 1996

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.

To those of us in Quebec, this bill is both very significant and very encouraging. For a number of years, I would say more than ten even, we have been discussing the possibility of freeing trade among Canada's provinces. Today, we are proud to see that the government has acted on it.

It is vital to harmonizing trade relations, and I will explain in detail a little later on why we agree with harmonizing trade relations among the provinces. We freed trade with the United States first, before we freed trade among the provinces. You can imagine how important it was to do so.

It is also important to have a dispute resolution mechanism. We find this mechanism quite acceptable, except as we mentioned at the bill's earlier stages, and as we discussed with Quebec officials, it is a bit odd in our free trade agreement with the United States that the parties-Canada and the U.S.-have to decide as the very last thing how a dispute between firms or sectors of the economy is to be resolved.

In the end, the federal government will decide by order in council where disputes will be settled. In other words, it will unilaterally decide what is right and what is not.

This is why we, together with my colleague who was then the industry critic, had suggested a two day debate in the House of Commons on the importance of dispute settlement. We believe, as I said earlier, that some sectors might be more affected in some provinces than in others and that if a dispute was settled by order in council, it could be unfair at times to economic sectors which might be in a more favourable position in one province than in others.

This is why we believe that settling a dispute by order in council might be harmful to certain economic sectors and to certain provinces, especially the small ones.

Interprovincial free trade is of the utmost importance. Already, trade in goods and services in Canada and in Quebec represents 16 per cent of the gross domestic product of Quebec, for instance. It is quite important for Quebec to have free competition with the rest of Canada.

For instance, we can say products that Quebec sells in the rest of Canada represent $23.3 billion. The goods we purchase from other provinces represent $19 billion. That means we sell a little more in the other provinces than we buy from them.

However, we sell $11 billion in services to the other provinces, and we buy $14 billion from them. We buy about $3 billion more in services than we sell. So, if we look at the total average, what we sell and what we buy is about equal.

If the government had not acted by liberalizing trade between the provinces, we could see that Quebec would have further developed its trade with the United States. We will continue to do so with the United States because, particularly in Quebec, we have an extraordinary market with the cities of New York, Boston and Buffalo, in the United States, and with Toronto, in Canada. We have a tremendous market. In a radius of about 1,000 kilometres, there are almost 100 million consumers.

For Quebec, it is very beneficial to work at the shortest distance possible. We have an extraordinary market. New York and Boston, the northeastern United States, is the richest region in the world; it is where consumers buy the most. That is also where the business culture is the most like ours, so that it is much easier for us to do business in this radius. It requires much less effort, much less research on the human behaviour level, on the cultural level, etc. It is much simpler. Quebec will pursue its efforts to develop these markets, which have become much easier to break into. The figures I just gave you are based on the year 1994.

For all these reasons, our ultimate goal is to achieve Quebec sovereignty and negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. The government is to be thanked for this initiative. It is a step in the right direction. As we proposed during the referendum, we want to negotiate an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. What we have done, what we are doing today is a step forward that will help us achieve our goals when Quebec becomes sovereign. In this regard, I think we have just taken an extraordinary step.

There are other reasons, for example the advantage of liberalizing trade with the other provinces and the U.S. The economy is changing and will change even more dramatically in the future. We face an extraordinary, an exciting challenge in the coming years. The new ways of communicating, high technology, robotics, computers, the electronic highway are all transforming the dynamics of the economy.

That is why borders should disappear, so that everyone can benefit from their own intellectual and technical resources. I would like to say a few words on this, if I have the time.

I will deal mainly with our economy of the past 50 years-there is no need to go back to ancient history-for those sceptics who think that free competition and free trade at the international level are bad for us.

For those sceptics, I would like to go over the economy of the past and that of the future. In my days as a Conservative member, I took a strong stand for free trade with the United States. I worked very hard to make it happen. That is why, thinking back on all the speeches we made, the studies we commissioned and the evidence we heard, I am convinced that free trade is a good thing.

For the benefit of those who remain sceptical, I will raise the issue of competition. Let us not forget that, in the old days, our main markets were wood, fur and iron. We also had a very domestic farm industry. We raised our livestock to meet our immediate needs. We also had coal, petroleum, in very limited supplies, and all naturally renewable commodities, which ensured our survival locally.

When we had plentiful supplies of natural products such as coal, iron, wood and so on, we sold some and used some. Revenues were relatively stable. In the old days, the economy was relatively stable because it was driven for the most part by natural resources.

Wood was used to build houses and to heat them, livestock was killed for its meat and cows gave milk. All this makes for a very local economy. To keep warm, people burned wood; that is quite simple. They did not have much need for trading with Ontario or the U.S. to feed themselves, heat their homes and what not. Theirs was a strictly local economy. We had an enormous wealth, particularly in Quebec, but also in the other provinces, of materials of all sorts.

In a way, it was quite important to take protective measures. In those days, Canadians were very afraid of having their market invaded by the Americans or the Europeans, of anything that might destabilize their economy. It was therefore important that barriers be erected to protect our small local economy.

We tended to be protectionists. Barriers were erected. Customs tariffs and tariffs of all sorts were imposed to prevent our economy from being disturbed in any way. For decades, I would even go as far as to say centuries, our economy remained virtually unchanged. We were undoubtedly protectionists, and probably rightly so.

As far as national and international markets is concerned, as I said earlier, we did not really need to rely on other countries to provide for our needs.

Our multinationals set up mainly in countries where natural resources were vast and where labour was cheap. Products were made, finished and then sold. This is how the economy and the multinationals used to work. These businesses would go in countries where they could produce at a low cost, thanks to the natural resources and cheap labour available.

In the sixties, seventies and eighties, governments would get involved when they realized that a business was experiencing financial troubles or productivity problems, among others, and they would subsidize these companies. It was easy for companies to get subsidies. A lot of money was spent to subsidize businesses. I clearly remember, and so do other members who take an interest in the economy, that enormous amounts of money were used to subsidize companies, until governments realized that they were just wasting our money.

Generally speaking, when companies were in financial difficulty, it was because they had not properly analyzed future markets, changes affecting labour and technology, automation, and all sorts of new ways of doing things. This was the main reason these companies had problems and were helped out by governments, which were essentially wasting money. Indeed, even though they were subsidized, these companies still ended up shutting down.

They were subsidized because they were located in remote areas. However, they were not suitable for the region, sometimes because the natural resources were no longer as abundant as when they had first settled there. In any case, this resulted in a lot of money being wasted.

Let us now look at the current economy. To those who are sceptical and who believe that free trade is something bad which will hurt us, let me say that I think just the opposite, and I have for several years now. The economy in which we live, and in which we will live in the years to come, is based on ideas rather than on natural resources.

Mental competence will be very important. In Quebec in particular, we have tremendous intellectual competence, and young people graduating from our schools, colleges and universities are outstanding. With regard to software development, in particular, we see that we are among the best in the world. The economy of the future will be based a lot more on mental competence than on natural resources, as used to be the case. The information highway is a case in point. There is much talk about it now.

People with the capacity to develop software and to use it for promotion, sale or information, whether through the Internet or other means of communications, will be in the forefront and will do well. This economy will be based on ideas, on mental competence.

Thanks to this new way of doing business with ideas and mental competence, the economy will change a lot more rapidly. We will witness an economic revolution that could be considered astounding by some, but which I would see instead as a particularly exciting new development. As you know, ideas evolve a lot faster than coal or iron plants. Ideas change, evolve at a rapid pace.

Previously, the economy was based on natural resources like coal and iron. We could rely on our resources, we had plenty of them for 50 or 100 years. We lived off them, we had only to extract and sell them, it was not complicated.

Tomorrow's economy will be much more flexible and will move much faster. It will change more rapidly, and I think it will be very exciting for young people.

Help from governments will be different too. Governments will help companies to better communicate and sell their products, get international information and international market intelligence, and assess world markets. Government help will also target certain sectors of the economy.

Small businesses may need information, for example. It will be important for the government to have experts throughout the world that can use Internet to let that small business acquire some knowledge of what the culture is like in India, of what the lifestyle of the Indians, the Japanese or the Chinese is like, and on how they go about purchasing goods or services. So the government will

have an important role to play in conveying to small businesses the information they require in order to develop.

This is the economy of the future, and it is important to realize it. I think we do, but governments will have to be flexible. That is why Quebec is looking for more autonomy. We want to be flexible in order to move quickly. We think that federalism, with its eleven governments, is doomed to stagnation. It stifles development. The government is always slow to move and takes a lot of time to react. That is why we advocate sovereignty with an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada. In order to expand, we need to be able to react more quickly and to be more efficient as a government in our support for this new approach.

I mentioned earlier that more accessible markets will mean a lot more transfers, not only of products but also of skills. Transfers of skills do not cost much in transportation fees. It can be done through computers. It will be done in the future through the Internet and more user friendly communication services.

We are told that we will soon be able to contact anyone in the world without having to make long distance calls. We will not have to call long distance to talk to someone in Japan or in China in the near future, in just a few years from now. It means we will be able to exchange ideas and work on research or other projets with experts from anywhere in the world.

This is why free trade with the United States, with the provinces and with other large markets is so interesting. It will allow us to be more efficient. Our productivity will increase and who will benefit in the end? The consumer.

We will have good high-quality products. We will definitely be able to increase the standard of living of our citizens. It can take us far, but I just wanted to show that an opening onto the world, with freer trade and increased competitiveness, should help to improve our productivity. In turn, it should improve our products and result in a higher standard of living for consumers and the general public.

We will have better and nicer clothes. We will have nicer automobiles and television sets with interactive programming. We will be able to afford a lot of things. We need high technology, but, in some cases, it can cost a lot of money.

When we were negotiating free trade with the United States, some major international investors told us: "We need large markets to justify our investments". People stopped investing in Canada for two main reasons. First, they told us: "The market is not big enough to justify our investments. Besides, Canada's debt is too high and we will have to pay for it. It will be too expensive and, in the end, it will not be profitable to invest in Canada".

High technology has its advantages, but it can sometimes be expensive. It costs a lot of money to invent a high technology product, which means that large investments are required, and you need markets to make these investments profitable. Not only did Canada have a very small market of about 25 million people, but companies were not sure they would be able to sell their products in other provinces. So you can imagine how restricted our market was. Very few people were interested in investing in Canada because the market was too small to justify the investment. Consequently, international investors in high technology went to Europe, to the United States, to Japan and other countries.

For these reasons, it was really necessary to secure free trade with the United States. It was hard because Quebec was almost the only province in favour of free trade with the United States. We, Quebecers, worked very hard because we believed in free trade with the United States. There was unanimity in Quebec between the Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and a majority of Conservative members at the time. We worked real hard, and it is with the help of Quebecers that we succeeded in signing a free-trade agreement with the United States.

Except for Mr. Turner, the Liberal Party at the time was against free trade with the United States. Only Mr. Turner, the former Prime Minister, was in favour of free trade. He came to the House to make a speech in support of free trade. He contradicted the present Prime Minister, who was against it.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act April 18th, 1996

Madam Speaker, indeed I come from the riding of Longueuil, the nicest one in Quebec. Located along the St. Lawrence River, it reflects the history of French Canadians, the history of Quebec. There are some very old houses. I myself own a house built in 1854. It was bought by the Oblate Fathers when they first came to Canada. They settled on Saint-Charles street, in Longueuil. As you know, the Oblate Fathers were missionaries and discoverers. They promoted Quebec's development and we are very proud of that.

As regards Bill C-11, the Liberal government is once again helping itself. It creates a new department, it changes the name of the department so as to give itself more power, much more power as was explained by the Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me. It seeks to provide the minister with the authority to get involved with the private sector, with the provinces, or some of them, for the purpose of creating a system that will be detrimental to the Quebec employment department.

In Quebec, a manpower development agency was set up a few years ago. This structure reflects the unanimous will of all Quebecers, whether they are from business or labour, and whether they belong to either one the two main parties, namely the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec Liberal Party. There is a definite consensus. All Quebecers agree that the province must have its own way of dealing with the unemployed or with welfare recipients, who had the misfortune of losing their job. There are some who had the misfortune of losing their employment because of the federal government's way of managing.

We know that the federal government, through its policies of concentrating all the powers here in Ottawa, wants to show Quebecers that it is the big leader of this country. It wants to show that, without the federal government, it would be impossible to survive in Quebec. All the measures it has taken have had the effect of bringing about inflation in some cases; after having caused inflation, it increased interest rates, which generated recessions between 1970 and 1980.

Between 1984 and 1986, we experienced the same problem when inflation and recession were brought about. So, the real cause of the social problems we have in Quebec is particularly related to the inappropriate actions taken by the federal government. Today, the minister wants to give himself powers to manage the unemployment insurance program better. But the government is the cause of unemployment.

I want to point out that we cannot have much confidence in this Liberal government. Only three weeks ago, I asked questions of the secretary of state for finance, who was saying that he wanted to set up an unemployment insurance fund, adding that he wanted to use the moneys collected from both employees and employers, some $5 billion a year, to collect even more and then give it back under the new way of managing the unemployment insurance program.

He was saying that this fund could be used to reduce Canada's debt, and that he also wanted to set up a fund to accumulate money for lean years to come. Let me remind him that these are lean years.

If the government wants to build up a reserve during the lean years, how much more money will it collect when prosperity returns? Apparently, it will collect $5 billion during a lean year like this one. How much will it collect when times are good? Will it be $10 billion, or $15 billion? Where will all that money go? In the consolidated revenue fund, to reduce the Canadian debt.

The poor are being squeezed, and the small businesses too. We know that the maximum insured income has been reduced. The higher the salary, the lower the relative contribution will be. Quebec has many have small businesses, and our salaries are lower. That means that small businesses will pay more. In a way, workers and employers will have to pay a new tax to reduce the federal deficit.

It is a strange way to put government finance back in order. They squeeze money out of workers and small businesses in Quebec to reduce the federal deficit. As you can see, we do not trust this way of doing things. This bill gives more powers to the minister, so you will understand why we are apprehensive, and why we worry so much about the future.

My colleagues have already mentioned that Quebec wants to have complete jurisdiction over manpower training. That has been said so many times in the past. There reasons why Quebec wants this. Quebec is a distinct society, whether you like it or not. It is a fact of life.

It is a reality. English Canada has to understand once and for all that Quebec is a distinct society.

We are a distinct society, not necessarily because of our French language. The fact that we speak French is patently obvious, of course. Quebecers speak French and quite a high percentage of French speaking Quebecers do not speak English. For instance, the minister could ask a Quebec worker who just lost his job to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver. That is what is called manpower mobility.

Any worker who loses his or her job could be asked to move to Vancouver for example or Toronto to get a job. However, a French speaking Quebecer who does not speak English could refuse to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver, but then he would stand to lose his UI benefits, because a French speaking Quebecer can be forced to

move to an area where he, in principle, cannot work, and where he is not at all interested to go. It is too big a change to ask of him.

Because Quebec is a distinct society, we cannot make the same rules for Quebecers as for the rest of Canadians. This is one of the reasons we believe Quebec should be responsible for unemployment insurance and for manpower training. Everybody agrees with that in Quebec.

Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its language. Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its folklore. Our folk dances are not the only difference. We dance the typical square dances of the Scotch and the Irish. If ours is a distinct society, it is not only because of folklore. We have a distinct culture.

In particular, we are distinct because of our financial institutions. Quebec's financial institutions are distinct, as is again obvious when we deal with amendments concerning financial institutions. This is of the utmost importance.

The Mouvement Desjardins alone, for example, has assets of more than $80 billion. This is quite significant. Why did Quebecers have to put in place their own financial institutions? Because English Canada would not give loans to good French speaking Quebecers who needed money. No loans were given. In Quebec, loans were only for English speaking individuals and for their businesses.

So we had to set up our own financial institutions with Quebec charters and rules. But there is not only the Mouvement Desjardins.

Quebec chartered mutual insurance companies were created specifically to answer Quebec's needs. There is also the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund which manages more than $50 billion. The money is used to develop our economy, give loans to Quebec businesses and to create partnerships with certain companies. This is what distinct society is all about. It means that we created our own financial institutions, our own corporations and all that.

Now, you will understand that we do not intend to lose what we duly earned by the sweat of our brow. How could we accept that the federal government should decide how we are to be trained, and what rules are to be established even without our consent?

Just look at what the government did our fusion project in Varennes. It decided unilaterally that the federal government's priority was not nuclear fusion.

It acted unilaterally. It did not talk to Quebec, to other investors, and Hydro-Quebec is one of them. It decided unilaterally to pull out of this research.

The great federal master decided on his own to suddenly withdraw or change the rules without taking into account the efforts that we made in Quebec to develop ourselves. We have created many things. In spite of all our efforts, if we succeed in having an unemployment rate no higher than 10 or 12 per cent, we are considered to be top players, extraordinary people. The federal government has never helped us much in terms of economic development, we have had to do it all by ourselves with a lot of hard work.

Do you think we can have confidence in the federal government for our development? When we think that in R&D in 1989, and I have had the opportunity to do a study of this, federal contracts to Quebec using our tax money for R&D-which is somewhat linked to training, because businesses need to develop, as people need to be trained, it is all connected-research and development contracts or assistance from the government, to businesses or educational institutions were $1.2 billion less than to Ontario.

I do not recall all the figures exactly, since it is quite some time since I did the research, but I do remember clearly that the shortfall for Quebec in R&D contracts from the federal government was $1.2 billion. So, if you wonder why there is more unemployment in Quebec than in Ontario, there is the reason.

In the industry committee this morning I asked the people from Statistics Canada who were there testifying what the distribution of Statistics Canada staff was. They said the distribution was good, and relatively representative of the population, but when I asked for details, they told me that there were 4,600 employees at Statistics Canada, and some 3,500 of those were in Ottawa. Now, as far as I know, Ottawa is in Ontario, so when you look at the $346 million spent by Statistics Canada, and think of the relationship between the total of 4,600 employees and the 3,600 Ontario employees, you will see that the repercussions for Ontario are markedly greater, and that is where the difference lies.

The purpose of all that is to say that we cannot count on the federal government to help us develop. We really have no confidence in them. As the saying goes, once burned twice shy, and let me tell you that we have absolutely no confidence in the federal government to look after manpower training, to look after our jobless.

They say unemployment is running at only 10 per cent, 11 per cent in Quebec. Unemployment is still much too high in Quebec compared with the United States, where it is at about 5 per cent. The worst of it is that there are somewhat fewer unemployed than there should be because those who have run out of unemployment insurance are now on welfare.

Welfare in Quebec is very high. Why? Because people are getting less unemployment insurance, because they are working less. Why is there more unemployment in Quebec? For the reasons I mentioned earlier. Because the federal government has never taken Quebec seriously, and we have always had to work a lot harder to achieve economic growth.

That is what the distinct society is all about. Quebec will never agree to let the federal government manage its affairs, unless major changes are made.

On that point I conclude and I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The Budget April 16th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about a reassuring budget. I would rather call it distressing.

For example, the Budget in Brief provides that the shortfall between the government revenues in 1996-1997 and its program and service spending will be $26 billion, which means that Canadians will pay $26 billion more than they will receive. In my opinion, this is very distressing.

We are going bankrupt, there are no two ways about it. In 1997-98, the governement will provide $35 billion less for programs and services than its tax revenues. These figures are distressing.

It is also distressing to think about the national SchoolNet program mentioned by the hon. member, given that education

comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, particularly Quebec. Indeed, it is distressing to hear that as well.

It is distressing to hear that the federal government will look after families, since social welfare also comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is distressing to hear that from the government in office.

It is distressing to see that next year the debt service will amount to 50 per cent of all the money that taxpayers will give to the government.

It is distressing to hear that the unemployment rate is only 10 per cent, given that the government has reduced the number of weeks during which UI benefits can be collected, even though that rate is not really going down. By contrast, the number of welfare recipients is increasing, particularly in Quebec.

This is a simple case of transfer. People go from unemployment insurance to welfare. Moreover, the federal government is forcing the Quebec government, among others, to pick up the slack since it reduced the number of weeks during which UI benefits can be collected.

All this is truly distressing. And we are told that this is a reassuring budget. I realize that the hon. member represents the government, but still. Maybe he can explain all this to me. I doubt he can, but I will listen.

The little chart here refers to the financial needs of central organizations, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product. It puts Canada in first place. However, that does not take into account the deficit of the provinces. We are told that the public debt represents 74.8 per cent of the GDP. However, if you include the deficits of the provinces, the ratio is 105 per cent. We are the nation in the worst financial shape among all industrialized countries. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could make all this more clear to me.

The Budget April 16th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, and there is something I do not understand in her remarks. She seems not to be telling the whole truth.

For example, she said this was an extraordinary budget for the agricultural sector. She may be right if she is talking about the agricultural sector in western Canada, but she forgot to say that the agricultural sector in Quebec is really penalized by the rules put in place by the present federal government. Here is an example. The transportation of wheat used to be subsidized, which allowed all Canadians and people all over the world to buy wheat at a lower price. It also allowed Quebec producers to buy wheat for the production of poultry, pork, eggs and so on.

So what did the government do? It decided to subsidize western wheat producers directly and, at the same time, to eliminate the dairy subsidy that was paid to Quebec dairy producers. Is it not gross injustice? Maybe the member should say that clearly to this House and to the people of Quebec who are watching.

I remember working very hard to prevent subsidies from being paid directly to wheat producers. It was a lot more equitable to all Canadian producers when the government subsidized the transportation of wheat instead of subsidizing wheat producers, and I say it again, to the detriment of Quebec and Ontario agricultural producers.

I would like the member to give me a clear explanation and to tell us the whole truth on that subject.

The Budget April 16th, 1996

First of all, Madam Speaker, I must congratulate the new member on his election to this House.

Now, to answer his question, I should say that, as far as we are concerned, the political context does not really hinder economic development all that much. We sincerely believe that it is the poor management of the federal system and the enormous debt that the federalists have accumulated that hurt the economy.

As for interest rates, they are quite low these days, but they are still too high when considered in relation to inflation. The difference between the rate of inflation and interest rates is still well over three percentage points.

At present, interest rates should be around 5 per cent. The difference should never exceed 3 per cent. It is a yardstick that must be applied. If we compare interest rates to the rate of inflation, it is clear that interest rates are still higher than they should be in relation to inflation.