Nic Leblanc

[Broadcasting, March 25th, 1996]

Since the telecommunications and broadcasting industries are fighting for the same turf, can the Prime Minister assure us that they will be treated in the same way when it comes to regulations on foreign ownership levels?

[Broadcasting, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In Halifax, in May 1995, the Minister of Heritage announced his decision to raise from 20 per cent to 33.33 per cent the figure for foreign participation in broadcasting parent companies. In November 1995, he repeated that commitment formally. To date, however, the order in council to authorize that harmonization with the telecommunications sector has not yet been issued.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us why his government is still dragging its feet on this order in council despite its repeated commitments to do so, while it knows very well that this delay puts broadcasting companies at a disadvantage compared to telecommunications companies?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you know, it is funny, when we hear this talk of duplication. The federal government tells us that it is the provinces, like Quebec, that should withdraw and let it manage certain areas, when we know that after the war the federal government began to get involved in just about everything, in sectors that until then had been under the exclusive jurisdiction

of the provinces. At one time, Quebec and the provinces even had responsibility for unemployment insurance. It was only after the war that the federal government decided, almost unilaterally, through a sort of amendment to the Constitution, to take over unemployment insurance.

After the seventies, the federal government moved into the areas of education and health, and interfered in all sorts of sectors that do not concern it and that, under the Constitution, it should stay out of.

Who is interfering? The federal government is. Then it says the provinces should withdraw because of duplication. It is truly comical. In other words, the federal government wants to take over education and health and, at the same time, to tell the provinces to withdraw, to avoid duplication. Yes, but it was the federal government that charged in where it had no business. And it says: "Withdraw, this is not your concern. We are looking after education and health". And these exclusive rights are recognized in the Constitution.

But when we speak about education and manpower training, we mean education. As far as I know, education is provincial. And, in Quebec, we are capable of looking after our own education and training. It is hard to understand. I listened to the Prime Minister at noon, and yesterday and the day before, and that is also very difficult to understand. To us, manpower training means education. It comes under education. Training and education go together. To us, this is clear.

So we say to the federal government: "Withdraw from this field, it is none of your business. You are just confusing things". The federal government adds courses in our institutions, with rules different from ours. Who suffers? The students themselves, men and women who have lost their jobs and want to train for other jobs.

This hinders manpower training and economic growth. Because of this, our labour force is less skilled, since the federal government is involved in areas where it has no business. As for the return on investment in manpower training, the fact that both levels of government are involved probably reduces the return by 50 per cent. This is a waste of at least 50 per cent.

If the Secretary of State for Finance properly understood that, he would say: "It would be good for me to save money and be more efficient". But no. The federal government only wants to prove that it is indispensable. This is mere politics. The federal government wants to get involved in everything to prove that it really is indispensable. It thinks that without the almighty federal government people would not survive.

This is why it continues to interfere in manpower training. The federal government knows it has no business in that area. It intereferes in manpower training to prove, to Quebecers in particular, that without Ottawa they would be very unfortunate, when in fact it knows full well that it has no business in that sector.

How much money would the federal government save if it withdrew from sectors which do not come under its jurisdiction, such as education? This is the first question. There is also the health sector. The federal government interferes in that sector; it sets national standards. But some provinces, particularly smaller ones, would probably manage their health system differently if left to their own devices. Once again, the federal government has become the grand master controlling the health sector. Many provinces would like to manage their health care system differently and thus save money. However, Ottawa prevents them from properly managing that sector.

Again, how much does that cost the federal government? These are all questions that should be answered but have not been answered.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, he admits that there is a surplus. Everyone knows that, as far as UI is concerned, the government collects more than it spends.

He also told us at the beginning of his speech that this surplus would be used for current expenditures, for deficit reduction. That is what I cannot understand. He admits to a UI surplus and, in the same breath, tells us that this surplus will be used to reduce the deficit. It is not clear.

I would like him to try once again to answer me if he can. I myself cannot understand, and I think no one can, when they talk about putting the money in the consolidated revenue fund and then use it for current expenditures, for running a surplus. We know the government is trying to reduce the deficit. If it is trying to reduce the deficit, then it cannot run a surplus since it uses this money for current expenditures. I do not understand, and it is hard to understand.

I would also like to know what the Minister of Finance has done to eliminate duplication. We know that Quebec is in the midst of a debate on manpower training, among other things, but we are fully aware that duplication between Quebec and Ottawa costs a total of some $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year. We also know full well that, by eliminating duplication with the other provinces, we would probably save $10 billion a year.

I wonder if the government has done enough to eliminate duplication to deserve our support for a loan or the disposition of the money. We may not agree to approve a working capital if the government has not made every effort to ensure that this money is managed as efficiently as possible.

Studies have been done on the most efficient way of managing money, and duplication is said to be extremely costly. There is now a wide consensus in Quebec that manpower training should be concentrated in that province. We know that we could save a lot of money. The government could save money and we would be much more efficient.

We would be much more efficient mainly because our workers would be better qualified. Our economy could be more efficient and our employees would be more efficient.

Not only would we save money by eliminating duplication, but we could be more efficient at the same time. We would have a more efficient economy, which would mean greater earning power in terms of government revenue. The taxpayers would pay higher taxes, businesses would make higher profits, and so on.

Has the government done all that could be done to make the entire government machinery more efficient? If that were the case, it would not be coming to us all the time to ask for extravagant amounts, like $18.7 billion, to cover current expenditures and have us believe, as the minister did in his speech, that taxes are not being raised when they are dipping into the UI fund to replenish the current account. In addition, the government is asking for higher and higher services charges.

They say there will be no tax increases, but at the same time they are charging more and more for services that the federal government is supposed to give or provide using the taxes it has collected. The government is increasing service charges. Those are taxes in disguise. I would like to hear the minister on this point.

How much did he increase service charges last year, for example, for the people of Canada? It would be important to know how much more Canadians are paying, perhaps not in raised taxes but in increased service charges. It would be very important to know that.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is not very clear. Well, he partially answered the question, but he did not give me an answer about using unemployment insurance money for current expenditures.

Could he tell me how he can create an unemployment insurance fund, while he uses this money for current accounts?

I would like him to explain that, because it is not very clear in my mind. At first, he mentioned that the unemployment insurance funds would go to the deficit. Well, if these funds are being used for the deficit, it means the money is being used for current accounts.

How is he going to build up an unemployment insurance fund, when he is using this money for current expenditures. I would like him to explain that to me.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the Reformers were speaking, we in the Bloc kept quiet, and I would ask them to do likewise.

I have listened with great attention to what the Secretary of State for Finance has had to say. He began by saying, quite clearly: "We are using UI receipts to reduce our deficit" or rather "Revenues from the UI fund will enable us to reduce our deficit". It seems to me that is fairly clear. At the same time, he is trying to convince people with his answers that this is not the case at all. Revenues from the UI fund are to be used as a cushion to protect against future economic crises.

I would really like an explanation, because this is really almost beyond understanding. He is saying that the UI fund will be used to reduce the deficit, and at the same time that these revenues will be used to create a cushion against economic downturns in future. But we know very well they are being used to reduce the deficit. We know very well, for it is written in the budget speech. The UI fund is being used to reduce the debt, moreover it is included in the debt consolidation calculations.

Honesty is needed; the public must be told clearly what the Minister of Finance is up to. In my opinion, the government's

approach to the UI fund smacks of dishonesty. We know very well that, at this time, the fund contains a surplus, which is being used to decrease the debt, and we know very well, too, that UI reform will make it possible to get even more money out in future to eliminate that debt.

What does that mean? It means that the government is using the unemployed, the small and large businesses, each of whom pays into the UI fund, and using those funds to reduce its debt. In other words, this is a new tax, a hidden form of taxation the government is using to reduce its deficit. At the same time it would have us believe that it has not raised taxes for several years, not since it came to power. It says it has not raised taxes or changed the tax system, whereas we know that it is using roundabout, sneaky methods to tax employers and employees, that these funds come from taxes siphoned off from the UI fund, and that they are being used to reduce the deficit.

I would like to know how much more he plans to get, next year, out of the UI fund than will be going back to the unemployed? What amount does he plan to get his hands on to help with his deficit?

[Competition Act, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak this evening on Bill C-221, proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex. This is a bill which regulates, or perhaps deregulates. It stops a manufacturer of motor vehicles, farm tractors or farm implements from preventing any dealer from selling other lines of products.

Examining this deceptively short bill, I became aware that there were very serious consequences to accepting something like this. I wonder, in fact, whether the hon. member even took the time to examine the consequences to any extent.

We are aware that this country has a debt load of approximately $600 billion at this time, and we also have our own individual debts. We each of us have fairly considerable debts ourselves, we are even probably more in debt than ever before. In other words consumer buying power is very low.

The automobile and farm equipment industries are barely viable at this time. Many dealers are having trouble keeping their heads above water; many are losing money even. Changing the way dealerships and sales of farm and automotive products are organized too rapidly would be very problematical.

We in Quebec-and I believe the same goes more or less for the rest of Canada-have a network of dealerships in place. In the past 20 or 25 years, many new car dealerships have sprung up, and we have invested considerably in them. We have invested some $500,00 to $2 million in buildings and showrooms.

Highly specialized equipment was bought, as required to perform automotive and tractor maintenance. As we all know, this kind of equipment is becoming more and more sophisticated, with state-of-the-art mechanisms, thus requiring sophisticated maintenance, which means that dealerships must invest substantial amounts to provide good customer service. Sales people must also be trained to sell specific makes of cars, tractors or farm machinery.

All this means a great deal of expense for car and farm machinery dealerships and manufacturers. Very large sums amounts of money are spent on marketing this expensive and sophisticated equipment. Obviously it would be out of the question to change the whole marketing system overnight.

Personally, I think it would be very dangerous and expensive to decide overnight to allow a car dealership to sell other makes of cars for example. That would probably be too easy.

Let me give you an example. Say a dealership signs an agreement with a manufacturer to sell a line of cars with several models but later realizes that the models do not sell well or that it is unable to market the product properly. Because these models do not seem to sell, the owner decides, overnight, to start selling-assuming this was a GM or Pontiac-Buick dealership-Nissan or Toyota cars.

I do not think the Nissan or Toyota dealer would be very pleased to see a GM dealer selling his products. He would probably choose the top-selling models to the detriment of those that are less popular and thus hurt his competitors.

I am neither for nor against this bill, but after examining it, it seems to me that there are serious risks to passing this type of bill. It would certainly be very important to allow a period of adjustment. Certainly, five or ten years, and maybe longer should be allowed to change this marketing structure, which has been in place in Canada and the United States-but we are concerned here with Canada-for years, and particularly for the last 25 years, during which automobile and farm equipment dealers have invested large amounts of money.

I am sure that if we began to upset this marketing approach, chances are there would be a considerable number of bankruptcies, and many jobs lost. That is why I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that we are not in a period where we should make changes too quickly. A lot of jobs could be lost. What we need now is to create jobs, but I think that we would risk losing a lot of jobs if we turn the existing marketing structure for automobiles and farm equipment upside down.

I would suggest that the hon. member continue to examine and work on her bill. She could try to form a small committee to analyse, to question witnesses from the makers, for example, to ask them their opinion.

What do consumers think of it? What do dealers think of it. They should be asked because I am not even sure that a consumer would feel very secure if he saw a large car dealer, in Montreal or Toronto, selling a dozen lines of automobile and a hundred or so models. I cannot see the consumer being reassured, knowing the complexity of the service and the guarantee.

Would he feel secure about after sales service? The consumer might also perhaps have doubts. Can certain monopolies arise among automobile dealers? Large dealers could sell several makes and decide on the prices, as if they had a monopoly. Prices would then increase.

The hon. member said that prices might go down, but it could also be the reverse. In the long term, prices might go up, because there would monopolies in the distribution and sale of motor vehicles or farm equipment. This could indeed be a danger in the long term and should be thoroughly examined.

It may be that remote areas need dealers selling several makes of cars or tractors. It might be a good thing in this case. However, would dealers selling several makes of cars or tractors be in a position to adequately service the vehicles bought by consumers for a rather large sum of money?

A farm tractor costing $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 is a major investment. I think that consumers would be concerned if a dealer sold too many makes of tractors.

I can understand a dealer in a remote area saying that he will not survive if he can only sell one make of tractors. That may be the case. But then again, perhaps that dealer should have a smaller franchise that better reflects the size of the local market.

Again, I am not opposed to this idea, but I feel that this bill could cause major upheaval. The marketing structure that has been in place for many years works rather well and seems to meet the demands of consumers. Changing that structure could be quite risky.

It would also set a precedent. For example, suppose that a Saint-Hubert BBQ restaurant in Quebec does not do very well. Could the manager of that restaurant start selling burgers from McDonald's to improve sales?

If we agree to do that for motor vehicles, people in the food industry might want the same. When you think of it, a person becomes a dealer of his own free will. He signs an agreement with the maker of a car or farm tractor of his own accord, whereby he agrees to sell only certain models and makes.

In that sense, the current act gives a person the opportunity to choose the products he wants to sell. If, some day, that person realizes that the products he sells no longer meet his expectations, he can always sell his business to someone else.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members did not accuse the club set up by the government of being dishonest. Nor are we saying that the people appointed by the government to conduct that review are incompetent. We simply say that the committee is in cahoots with the government, that it is a club which is a creature of the government, which was appointed by the government, and which will tell the government what it wants to hear.

The government is very aware of the whole taxation issue. Numerous studies were done over the years. The government is fully aware of the tax issues, and it also knows that it is its fault if Canada has a problem. The government creates the problem; the government is the problem. It is now asking a club made up of friends to tell it what to do, but it knows full well the cause of the problem. This is why we do not really believe in this exercise. We know that the government is guilty, that it is responsible for the problem, even though it says: "Tell us what the cause of the problem is". This is why the official opposition is very sceptical and why we say that this private club appointed by the government is merely there to hide what the government wants to hide.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what we really want is tax reform. Bloc members have been asking for this since they were elected to the House of Commons. We know that an in-depth tax reform is urgently needed.

What we disagree on is how the Minister of Finance proposes to reform the tax system, by appointing friends of the Liberal government whose final report will probably suit the government in place just fine.

This is not tax reform, which should be a much more open process. This committee must include members of the opposition, of the two and even three parties in opposition, to ensure that tax reform is fair to everyone.

To give you a few examples, how come people making around $6,500 still have to pay taxes? These people can barely make ends meet on $6,500 and they must still pay taxes. It is high time that we revised the income tax calculation tables instead of taxing those poor people and then mailing them tax refund cheques to show that people need us. We should have a quick look at this to make things more equitable.

Should we raise the GST? Perhaps. Should we increase GST refund cheques to the poor? Maybe we should do that, too. I do not know but that is the kind of thing requiring an in-depth review.

There are, of course, tax shelters that need to be reviewed seriously without affecting the competitiveness of our businesses. We must, however, ensure that our businesses pay their fair share with respect to tax shelters. We have been demanding for years an in-depth tax reform.

Now that they are in power, the Liberals have started setting up a kind of private club, a private club including friends of the government, whose report will no doubt suit the government just fine. That is not what we want. I think the hon. member should tell people the truth and explain his real intentions. Does he really intend to carry out an in-depth tax reform or to set up a private club of friends of the government, whose report will suit the government in office?

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Joliette for his excellent speech.

I would also like to mention the excellent speech we enjoyed yesterday by the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, who has really decided to slash spending and resolve Quebec's deficit problems. Mr. Bouchard said as well that the deficit and the accumulated debt in Quebec represented roughly 18 per cent of Quebecers' costs. Federally, the figure will be 50 per cent next year.

We should perhaps explain more clearly what this means. I would ask the member for Joliette to do so in his response. Federally, it means that only 50 per cent of the money we give to the federal government will come back to us in services.