Nic Leblanc

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on the subject of the cost of sovereignty, I have just mentioned that it cost the federal government hugely to retain its authority and to increase its powers in order to further centralize the government here in Ottawa. I explained this in my speech. I think the member for Edmonton Southwest failed to grasp the message I was trying to get across, despite its simplicity, in my view.

In other words, huge sums were spent all over the place without any thought to medium and long term benefits. Accordingly, the federal government spent huge sums to show people, and particularly Quebecers, its authority and to demonstrate how they could not live without it.

On the subject of the future, we are well aware that, as was explained during the referendum, it currently costs between $2.5 billion and $3 billion to manage duplication. These costs were calculated by experts and not by the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois.

The experts are not calculating the value of the shortfall or inefficiency. However, it could be said that the inefficiency of this duplication, which is creating a lot of inconsistency in our programs and funding, might mean we are talking about a shortfall of $10 billion.

So if everyone looked after their own business, the provinces would have their full responsibilities in many areas, and the federal government would be a sort of overseer, as was intended in confederation. Initially, the federal government served simply as a sort of co-ordinator, and the provinces were autonomous. If we follow this management style, we might well survive. At the moment, however, the government does not appear to want to decentralize. It is just the opposite. Each time new rules are set or legislation is passed or amended in this House, the aim is always to give more power to the federal government and less to the provinces.

Clearly, it is not going to happen in a hurry, unless Quebecers decide once and for all to take over their responsibilities so that they can get out of the current economic slump.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to share some information for the benefit of the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I would like to take a brief look back to find where the problems we are currently experiencing stem from. Where do our financial, social and economic development problems come from?

First of all, let me say that these problems can be traced back to the early 1970s and the Liberal federal government we had then. Let me explain.

In 1970, the Liberal government, here, in Ottawa, was running budget surpluses of approximately $247 million. Between 1970 and 1984, the average annual deficit was $17 billion. Starting in 1970, 1972, 1973, the federal government decided to centralize more powers here, in Ottawa, and to develop national standards for health and education in particular, business subsidy programs and

loosely regulated procurement policies. The federal government was determined to become the grand centralizing master of Canada. That is where the problem stems from.

I am for free health care, for free education as much as possible, and for research and development subsidization. But at the same time, we must be honest and warn the public that all this will cost, that it has a price tag, that they will have to pay for all this.

That, however, is not the course the federal government took at the time, choosing to make the whole range of services available without increasing taxes. What duplicity. That is when they started running progressively higher deficits-$2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion-up until 1984, when the deficit quoted in the last budget tabled by the then finance minister, Marc Lalonde, had reached $40 billion, while revenues were approximately $60 billion at the time. You can imagine just how huge a deficit that was.

All this because the federal government wanted to show the people of Canada, and Quebec in particular, that it was the almighty boss on whom depended the achievement of the quality of life we had to have and deserved as a have country.

All these commitments have cost us a fortune. In fact, between 1970 and 1980, so much money was injected by the government in the economy that it caused it to overheat, creating artificial economic conditions, which made the inflation rate climb by up to 12 per cent per year. The best solution the government could find to curb this inflation was to let interest rates rise as high as 21 per cent. This caused a terrible and savage recession. That is what the federal government, and the Liberal government in particular, did between 1970 and 1984.

Between 1984 and 1993, the Conservatives were in power. I was a member of that government from 1984 to 1990. Between the years 1970 and 1984, the Liberal government made many long term commitments, including long term bonds and mortgages. Consequently, when the Conservatives took office in 1984, it was very difficult for them to reduce the deficit, in spite of their extraordinary efforts.

There was also a lack of political courage. The Conservatives continued to spend too much. During those years, there was an average shortfall of $4 billion per year in government programs and services. In other words, each year people paid $4 billion more than they received in services and programs. That was already an enormous amount.

Yet, the debt increased by an average of $30 billion per year. This means that between 1984 and 1994, the deficit reached $30 billion per year. The federal government was still spending too much. It kept this overheating of the economy.

Once again, the solution found by the government-the only one that it could find-was to ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates in 1990. Of course, that was an easy solution which required little courage on the part of the government.

Increasing interest rates results in lower growth, which in turn means lower inflation. However, it also triggers a recession. We had a terrible recession in 1981 and people had not forgotten about it in 1990. That recession not only reduced inflation but actually triggered a deflation. That has been going on since then, which means almost six years now. This is nonsense, really a lack of courage for a government to act in this way.

The Minister of Finance has not been very inventive in his 1996-97 budget, nor very courageous. All that he has done is to decide to add $5 billion a year to his revenues from the unemployment insurance contributions made by employees and employers. Five billion of the employees' and employers' money. This is scandalous.

At the same time he has decided to transfer $3.5 billion less to the provinces. Calculating the receipts from the unemployment insurance fund, $5 billion, and the $3,5 billion less to the provinces, that gives $8.5 billion more to the government. This is the equivalent of what the Minister of Finance proposes in his budget, which is to reduce borrowing requirement from $26 billion to $16.8 billion.

The amount is almost the same. Make the unemployed pay more, transfer less to the provinces, that makes up the difference. Not a very imaginative solution. Scandalous in fact.

If the Minister of Finance had decided to transfer $3.5 billion less to the provinces, and at the same time had decreased the taxes collected from those same provinces, there would perhaps have been some grounds for saying that at least there was some spirit of decentralization, that the minister wanted to give more responsibility to the provinces, But no, that is not what he is doing. He will keep on taxing the people in the provinces in the same way, while at the same time cutting back on expenditures by $3.5 billion.

In conclusion, the cause of our current difficulties is the present federal regime.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would love to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his supposedly excellent budget, as claimed by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. However, I find it difficult to do so, because I did not see anything very original in this budget.

Given that the tax burden continues to increase, that the deficit remains enormous, and that the debt continues to grow, does the hon. member agree that the government should go after the workers and the unemployed, particularly in New Brunswick, to collect more money? The budget provides that an extra $5 billion will be generated through higher contributions and fewer weeks of unemployment insurance benefit entitlement for the unemployed.

At the same time, the government is reducing transfer payments to the provinces to the tune of $3.5 billion per year. The extra money collected from the unemployed and the reduced amounts paid to the provinces total about $8.5 billion per year. This is more or less the amount by which the deficit will decrease in the coming year. This budget is not about innovating.

It makes the same old mistakes. Moreover, it increases the burden of the poor and of the most vulnerable members of our society, including the unemployed, while making them pay so much in unemployment insurance contributions, and making small and medium size businesses, particularly in Quebec and in New Brunswick, pay so much more.

I really wonder how the hon. member can congratulate the Minister of Finance.

[Broadcasting And Telecommunications, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that her longstanding inaction has created injustices within the telecommunications industry, placing it at an advantage over the broadcasters?

[Broadcasting And Telecommunications, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Heritage.

Yesterday, acting in good faith, the Minister of Industry stated that the order on foreign ownership in telecommunications and broadcasting companies had been passed. This is not the case.

Four months ago now, the government announced in an official communiqué that it would be harmonizing the rules on foreign ownership. How can the minister justify the fact that the cabinet has not yet adopted that order in council?

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is again my pleasure this morning to talk to Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, and especially to Motion No. 3 that I moved to the House.

During the referendum in Quebec, we talked a lot about economic partnership with the rest of Canada, which was part of our main project. We think this agreement on internal trade is a step in the right direction that will allow to speed up somewhat the concluding of this partnership agreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I will deal with the role of the minister of industry. He plays a very important role with regard to economic growth, productivity, competitiveness and employment. There are regulations, and this bill on the agreement on internal trade seems very positive to us as far as productivity, competitiveness and employment in Quebec and in Canada are concerned.

A lot of regulations these days seem to make trade between the provinces sometimes more difficult than trade with the United States, which is totally unacceptable. That is why we find this bill interesting.

Deregulation sometimes causes adjustment problems, and that it why, in our Motion No. 3, we are asking the government not to go too fast in deregulating in certain cases.

It could have a destabilizing effect on some very specific internal trade areas. Bankruptcies and job losses could result. Long term planning and a slightly longer time frame might help prevent this kind of problem, all these bankruptcies, job losses and so on.

Motion No. 3 deals specifically with transportation. The transportation industry is very important in Canada. Various goods are shipped. There is a high volume of activity and the level of business is very important. The industry ensures that our interrelated industries receive their supplies on time. It plays a major role in our economic development and in fostering enhanced productivity in our small and medium size businesses.

Motion No. 3 relates more specifically to bulk shipping by Quebec small businesses. I explained earlier to a government member how important this part of the regulations was. I met with officials of the bulk hauling association, which represents small family companies. By family company, I mean that the father owns a truck, which is used for very local transportation purposes within the rural community, to haul gravel, grain or what not, but only in Quebec and within a very short radius.

In Quebec, we already have regulations governing this kind of transportation. We are of course in favour of liberalizing the transportation industry in general, but this is a very specific activity, in Quebec in particular. In many cases, this activity supports an entire family and these people contracted loans of up to $100,000 or $125,000 to buy a truck. Those who just bought a truck are really worried at the thought that, in the future, a carrier could obtain a federal permit but not have to comply with Quebec's bulk transportation regulations.

This would mean that transport tariffs would not apply to them. There are several regulations, which I shall not list here, governing this sector of activity. And there are four main principles. As far as this very particular mode of transportation is concerned, Quebec does not issue a permit for the company, but for the truck. There is one permit per truck. This means that we are really talking about a one person one truck business. And the trucking activities must be carried out whithin a very short radius.

In bidding for contracts with municipalities or to build roads in the region, there is a floor price set for hauling this kind of stuff, but under the new arrangements, someone could hold a federal permit and not have to play by the same rules.

Essentially, what we are asking for is an exemption period. We are asking the minister to extend the time frame to two, three or even four years. Perhaps then more precise calculations could be made to help these very local small businesses adjust, so that they are at least not confronted with unfair competition because of other types permits being issued locally.

This, we think, is very important because these small family businesses run the risk of going bankrupt. This would cause some major economic disruptions in remote regions, villages and small towns. This plays a rather significant role with regard, for example, to the maintenance of these trucks, and people living off this small business are very concerned. The economic consequences could be disastrous.

All we are asking the minister through Motion No. 3 is basically this:

-to eliminate inconsistencies between the provisions of the Internal Trade Agreement and Quebec's laws and regulations respecting bulk trucking.

We want the law to recognize this type of business, which is very specific to Quebec. I think this would not hurt the liberalization of interprovincial transport in any way. This is directly linked to those

people who provide transport services on a very local basis. We feel that, in this respect, the motion is very important for this kind of business.

If the government does not understand how important it is, we are asking the minister to at least consider allowing for a transition period of two, three or four years before really enforcing the act, so that these small businesses can survive for a while.

[Agreement 20 On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 27th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19, in Clause 20, be amended a ) by replacing line 1, on page 6, with the following:

"20. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act or any provision thereof, or"; and b ) by adding after line 4, on page 6, the following:

"(2) Any order made this section respecting the coming into force of section 19 is subject to an obligation on the part of the federal government to commence negotiations and to enter into an agreement with the government of Quebec to eliminate inconsistencies between the provisions of the Internal Trade Agreement and Quebec's laws and regulations respecting bulk trucking."

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so we can finish at 5.30 p.m. First of all, the reason we introduced this motion-

[Agreement 20 On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like us to move on to Motion No. 3.

[Agreement 20 On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion which I just moved, Motion No. 1. Even though you read it, I would like to read it again to make sure that people understand its meaning. The motion reads:

"(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote."

As Quebecers, we supported the free trade agreement with the United States. We support, in principle, free competition. We worked very hard to give Quebec access to the vast U.S. market. We know that, at times, the Canadian market was harder for Quebecers to penetrate than the U.S. one. Deregulating internal trade seems like a good idea.

We must deregulate so as to not impede free competition or the movement of goods, services and people. During the last referendum campaign, we Quebec sovereignists spoke at length of an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. This measure is a step forward that will allow for the free competition and the partnership that we sought to have with the other Canadian provinces.

As I said a moment ago, we have always been very favourable to free trade and, I repeat, we would like to see a very open economic partnership among the provinces so that we can work much more freely with the other provinces in Canada and, naturally, at least have the possibility of conducting trade as easily between provinces as with the United States.

That is what we are proposing in this motion, and particularly with respect to disputes, the committee which will settle disputes between provinces. We have a committee that settles disputes between Canada and the United States, but the bill that deals with an internal trade agreement sets up a committee to settle disputes that will arise over time.

This is where we have a problem. The process is rather complex. We are told there will be a complaints secretariat; if a complaint cannot be settled internally by officers of the permanent secretariat, there will be three other possibilities. First of all, there is the possibility of consultation, at the request of the secretariat. We will also have an internal trade committee. This committee will be a permanent one, with representatives from all the provinces, appointed by the provinces through a rather special procedure, with which we are also in agreement.

It will also be possible to form a special group, a sort of arbitrator for very serious conflicts between certain businesses that are not adhering to the rules of the agreement. If the working group decides on a course of action that is not sufficiently stringent or accepted, then the next step will be trade action taken by the government.

This is where we have a problem. Trade action can be implemented by order of the governor in council, in other words, by cabinet. That is why I am tabling this motion. We do not agree that the government should be allowed to decide by order to act, because I feel that the governor in council could decide, almost in secrecy, to act.

This is where the problem lies. There could be conflicts between economic sectors of activity or conflicts between certain businesses or ways of doing business. There will be some economic sectors in conflict with others, with the bulk of a given economic sector under the control of one or a few provinces, to the detriment of another.

This goes beyond trade and might affect the economy of a province, any province. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois propose in this motion that there be a debate of at least two days in the House of Commons before the order takes effect. We feel that this is very important because it could affect a province.

This is not only a matter of trade. In some cases it may lead to confrontation between certain provinces.

This is the reason we believe there must be more transparency and a public debate, before the government acts. I have referred to the entire process, an excellent one, for settling differences. It is very well organized, very safe and complex and will, I think, be able to play an effective role. But, if the process cannot work, I envisage serious repercussions which must be revealed publicly and debated publicly.

For this reason, I find this is a bit risky. Some provinces, in any case, might be affected on the economic level. This is why we feel there must be debate for two days before we go ahead with a ministerial order.

These are the main reasons. We in Quebec are also somewhat concerned to see the federal government taking this decision via an order. We see this as just one more power the federal government is giving itself. It is another example of the federal's centralization. Since this is an agreement between the provinces why, in the long run, is it the federal government which will settle the matter by an order. This strikes us as somewhat dangerous. The federal govern-

ment might favour one province over another because of the power it has given itself to settle certain problems relating to internal trade.

Overall, we are in favour of liberalizing trade between the provinces, but we strongly insist-and I address these words particularly to the government members who will be having to vote on this-that they support this motion, so that MPs from the party in power will have the opportunity to have their say. Perhaps the government members representing certain regions will express themselves freely, so that their region, or their province, will be protected in sectors which might affect another province.

For this reason, we deem it very important to debate the matter in a way that is both open and transparent. I hope the government members will take this motion under consideration.

[Agreement 20 On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 27th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 9, be amended a ) by replacing line 5, on page 3, with the following:

"nor in Council may, by order, subject to subsection (1), do any one or"; and b ) by adding after line 13, on page 3, the following:

"(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote."