House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 47% of the vote.
Business Development Bank Of Canada Act June 21st, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-91 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-91, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27, on page 2, with the following:
"3. (1) The Federal Business Development Bank is continued as a body corporate."
Business Development Bank Of Canada Act June 21st, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the fourth group of motions and I am pleased that we have agreed to
accommodate one of our Reform Party colleagues, who had to return to his riding unexpectedly early.
I should mention from the outset that the amendments before us are very technical and very specialized. We support them, because, on the whole, they strike us as not altering the spirit of the bill to any degree, a bill, I might add, that we condemn with all the strength we can muster. This is perhaps a bit of a disappointment for our Reform colleagues.
This very important bill changes the rules of the game and the way of doing things in addition to changing the name of the largest federal financial institution. The change is being made on the sly, without debate or show, make no mistake about it, even though the bill will completely change the operation and the mission of the bank in its relations with future clients.
It will have the role of agent of regional development. We will, however, come back to this point at length during the course of the day. The mission of the bank is being changed in that the nature of the role of economic developer through small business will be altered. We have questions about the way the bank will work in the future, because, in our opinion, it will have to become more commercial in nature and assume the accompanying concerns.
At this point in the debate, I would like to inform you that we will support the three motions by our colleague from the Reform Party, and particularly the amendment to prevent the issue of preferred shares. We consider it important in the context that the legislation clearly state preferred shares may not be issued.
I end my remarks here and will comment further on the bill itself in the coming hours.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act June 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that this was the Minister of Transport's way of standing out.
All those who have carefully examined Bill C-88, and in particular clause 9, can see that the legitimacy of the government's action is seriously in doubt. There was no consultation, and the government was given no mandate to act this way. The legitimacy of its action is questionable.
We must also ask what was the intent-and this question is for my colleague-of the federal government in striking such a blow against all the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has reacted strongly. All the provinces, however, are reacting similarly. What is going on in people's heads in Ottawa? What is going on in people's heads in the Langevin building? What is this Canada of tomorrow to be? I will let my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe elaborate on this.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act June 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Richmond-Wolfe right off for his excellent and edifying speech, which rattled the Minister of Transport so much he was forced to leave the House.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act June 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a bit as I did with my colleague earlier, how she can justify the government's action in this regard. She knows very well indeed that the federal government cannot legitimately take this action, since it has neither the mandate nor an invitation to take it and it consulted no one in its action. It is giving itself powers of arbitration so it can act as a disciplinarian, without anyone having asked it to intervene. It has led, and here the seriousness
of the situation and the all the scheming behind the bill become apparent, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, to denounce the bill as a trade war measure.
I would like further explanation. Oddly, and this is in keeping with the way the government works, nobody is referring to clause 9, the keystone, the source of friction, the heart of the bill. To us, this is indicative of the government's desire to meddle in a number of areas of jurisdiction in the operations of the future Canada where the Government of Canada will be the sole government. Canada will be a unitary country, a centralized country. Bit by bit, in this House, the government is giving itself what it needs to ensure that, increasingly, governments that claimed to be, were seen to be and considered themselves provincial will become regional, because bills like this one are being adopted.
I would ask my hon. colleague to talk more about clause 9 of this bill, which is exceedingly pernicious.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act June 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I find it odd that the hon. member made no mention of clause 9 of Bill C-88, which is the heart of the bill, the key, and which was totally unexpected.
The opposition informed the Government of Quebec of clause 9 and Bill C-88, and, in turn, the Government of Quebec contacted the Government of Ontario to see if it was aware of this provision. Apparently, nobody in Canada was aware of this bill, even though close to a month earlier, on April 10, 1995, the trade ministers met in Calgary and there was never any question of the federal government's intention to go ahead with the bill.
I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks of clause 9. How can he justify that the federal government has unilaterally declared itself the referee, when nobody was consulted, when nobody mandated the federal government to take on this role, and on top of this and perhaps most importantly, when the bill goes against the spirit of the agreement which provided for conflict resolution mechanisms based on the good will of each party, and not on judicial mechanisms?
Now, the federal government is bringing in a judicial mechanism, announcing to everybody that, in the future, its actions will be based on the spirit and the letter of clause 9 of Bill C-88. It will issue orders and ultimately will take all of the measures in paragraph 9 d ), do everything it deems appropriate to bring any province it feels is reluctant in line.
Can our colleague explain to us how the position that the federal government has taken on this issue in clause 9 of Bill C-88 is justified?
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act June 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague for Okanagan Centre, whom I have the pleasure of meeting regularly on the Standing Committee on Industry, how he can question not only the bill before us, C-88, and clause 9, which the Reform Party condemns with us, but also the agreement reached by the provinces, the territories and the federal government after seven or eight years of negotiations?
Is is not rather presumptuous of the Reform Party to question something that all these elected officials and all these governments agreed on, with such difficulty, I might add? Is this not the extent to which Canadian leaders had agreed to agree in a certain number of areas? Is it relevant to tear up the agreement, as my colleague puts it?
It stands to reason he would condemn the bill. However, it is another matter to tear up the agreement and reject the efforts of the premiers or ministers of trade who worked on this agreement. Is it not going too far to call the entire process into question?
Patented Drugs June 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' insistence at the beginning of this session on amending the legislation on patented drugs is hard to explain from an economic point of view. In fact, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board announced this week that patented drug prices fell by nearly 0.5 per cent in 1994.
Since 1987, when the legislation came into force, patented drug prices have risen an average of only 2.1 per cent, below the rate of inflation, while drug prices generally rose an average of 7.5 per cent. In other words, generic drugs were the ones to increase significantly in price.
In addition to containing their prices, manufacturers of patented drugs invested $561 million in research and development last year, which is more than they are committed to do. The Liberals should stop harassing a major industry that has a considerable impact on the economies of Quebec and Canada.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what struck me in my colleague's question is that, in the spirit of the Constitution, a jurisdiction like health falls strictly under the purview of the provinces. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to intervene in the way it does, exchanging assistance for adherence to standards. From an historical perspective, this is an abuse of its power to spend. And historically, it has also always granted itself the corresponding powers to tax, and this has been going on since the end of the second world war.
This allows it to intervene today, some might argue in a responsible way, but I must say that we in Quebec have no need for this. We are stuck with the federal government, stuck with paying it $30 billion each year and stuck with its standards in areas for which Quebecers already have institutions. We have no pretensions, but we also have nothing to learn from it regarding social democracy and sound social organization principles.
This order of things may well suit the rest of Canada. We see that the Canadian government holds a larger place in the hearts of Canadians than Quebecers: our first allegiance is to the government of Quebec. Therefore, the internal logic of Canada may make a central government in Ottawa work well. That will be your decision to make in the post-referendum context. But, now, the logic of Canada contrasts with the logic of Quebec, and we ask Canada to withdraw from this kind of thing and to let the government of Quebec keep its tax points in order to administer health, all social issues and education.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you right away that I will share my time with my colleague from Terrebonne.
I am very happy to speak again today to Bill C-76, which is a major bill allowing this government to implement various provisions of the hon. finance minister's budget.
As everyone will agree, one of the key elements of Bill C-76 is the planned cuts to the federal government's transfers to the provinces. With some $7 billion in cuts to be spread over the next three years, $2.5 billion will be cut in Quebec alone. For the Quebec government, this is in keeping with its relations with the federal government, which, in the last 12 years, has deprived Quebec of $14 billion. This represents over $1 billion a year, which easily explains why the Quebec government is in a difficult financial situation. This can be seen throughout the health care sector. In the Montreal region alone, there is talk of closing between seven and nine hospitals, if I remember correctly.
We must be aware that the cuts imposed on Quebec by the federal government are at the heart of the problem, particularly as far as hospitals are concerned. It is too easy to blame the messenger for the bad news. Real courage means taking responsibility and facing the situation, as the Quebec government is doing, unlike the people here who prefer to hide their decisions.
All the cuts made in recent years have led, as my Vancouver colleague pointed out, to the proliferation of food banks, which unfortunately have become increasingly important in the daily lives of too many Canadians and Quebecers. Cuts are therefore the first element of the Canada social transfer.
The second element is implementation. To add insult to injury, the federal government is not only cutting transfers to the provinces but also imposing its own standards. The provinces will not be free to use the amounts still available as they see fit. We know that in a few years cuts will not even be an issue, since there will be no more federal transfers. Yet, the federal government dares to impose standards.
As the provinces already have to comply with federal health and welfare standards, they will now be required to conform to federal standards in social services and post-secondary education. Federal involvement in these areas violates the constitution.
The rules for running the country are set out in the Canadian constitution. Section 93, in particular, provides for this kind of thing. For a great many years, we have been aware that the federal government contravenes the Canadian constitution, in particular section 93, by disregarding provincial jurisdictional claims in the areas of health, post-secondary education, social services and welfare. Despite its cuts, the federal government dares to impose and expand standards in areas that are none of its concern.
The third and last element, which is related to the Canada social transfer, is the fact that the UI fund is currently growing. Need I remind members that contributions to this fund are made by those workers lucky enough to have a job and by their employers?
Thanks to the insight of the hon. member for Mercier, who is the Bloc critic on social issues, we feel, and rightly so, that the federal government is preparing its strategy against the provinces by letting the UI fund grow, while at the same time going after the provinces by imposing cuts in the transfers made to them.
Soon, the government will be offering to the financially strapped provinces money-that is money which does not belong to it but, rather, to the workers and companies contributing to the UI fund-to help meet new needs, or to implement readjusted manpower training programs from coast to coast.
The government will tell the provinces: We have money. You do not have any, but we do. However, that money will not be the federal government's money. It will be money contributed to the UI fund by ordinary workers and by the companies which employ them. There is something immoral in all this, something which we will denounce as long as we are here.
Our position regarding the Canada social transfer is very simple: It should not exist. The federal government should mind its own business; it should comply with section 93 of the Constitution and withdraw from provincial fields of jurisdiction. The savings thus made could be used to reduce taxes, and the federal government could give the tax points to the provinces, including Quebec. The situation would then be much clearer and certainly more normal.
Bill C-76 was the subject of debate on the last opposition day, last Thursday. The official opposition denounced the operation that it saw taking shape, the scheming, and that is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg, with Bill C-76 that we are looking at today, Bill C-88 on internal trade, Bill C-46 on the new Department of Industry, and Bill C-91, an act to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada.
We see in this bill, and that is our right, a scheme first to stop Quebec in its tracks and surround it and then to quietly lay the groundwork for a post-referendum scenario in which Quebecers will have decided to stay in Canada. And, in that scenario, the other provinces will find themselves in the same boat as Quebec, whose decision not to leave will be disastrous.
We denounced this scheme last Thursday. At that time the member for Edmonton Southwest applied some, I would think, rather unparliamentary terms to us, and I quote: "The Bloc Quebecois is suffering from tribalism, with its constant harangue that certain federal policies are centralist and target Quebec".
I would simply like to remind our colleague for Edmonton Southwest that we are doing our job, that we are perhaps showing some vision of the Canada of tomorrow, and that it is also the responsibility of the members of the Reform Party to help preserve the integrity of this Canada, because we are witnessing an insidious move by the federal government to centralize Canada to the detriment of the provincial governments that they are supposed to be representing, which will soon become regional governments. That is what the future holds. They perhaps have the right to see it this way, but this view is certainly not unanimous throughout Canada. It is disastrous for Quebec. If this scheme succeeds, a nation that has the right and the desire to exist may disappear.
To be accused of tribalism is rather insulting. I wonder whether it was ignorance or bad faith that made the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and his colleagues use such language and show so little understanding and respect for the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the future of the people of Quebec.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to a recent initiative that hardly reflects the intent of Bill C-76. I am referring to a flyer distributed recently in Quebec under the auspices of Power Corporation-friends, and we know who they are-and to all Canadian homes. This flyer, and we do not know how much it cost, describes the attractions of Canada Day.
To spend that kind of money now is rather obscene. I may recall that the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for publishing the flyer, had a budget of $1,066,000 for community groups which lost one million to cutbacks. This leaves $66,000. Imagine how much this flyer costs, compared with the remaining $66,000?
This seems rather unethical. Furthermore, after the flyer was sent to all Canadian homes, a poll was taken, and my wife had the privilege of being called by the Comquest firm, always at the expense of the public purse. While vaunting the merits of the National Capital, some leading questions were asked with the emphasis on Canadian unity, while pretending there was no connection at all with the referendum, certainly not.
You get people like the ineffable President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, who make fun of the Government of Quebec and its public consultations on the future of Quebec, a government that wants to provide information and find out what people think and still has a 1-800 line to give this information to the people of Quebec.
Instead of sending these flyers, perhaps the federal government should write to the citizens of Canada and explain its vision of and its plans for the Canada of the future. That would be a lot more democratic than this miserable little flyer.