Maurice Bernier

[Information Highway, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister offered Canadians direct access to him through Internet.

Unfortunately, in order to reach him, Canadians must subscribe to and use the services of an American company, CompuService, located in Ohio.

Why did the Prime Minister not use a Canadian network, which, in the opinion of experts, does exist and is currently available at no charge?

How can we believe a government that tells us it gives priority to Canadian content on the information highway when information on members and the House of Commons is being broadcast on the Internet from Switzerland?

The Prime Minister's electronic photo op yesterday sent a disquieting message to Canadians: in order to talk with their Prime Minister, they have to pay user fees to the Americans.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the remarks made by my colleague, who quite aptly demonstrated that the federal government's action in areas of provincial jurisdiction is inappropriate. Earlier, the hon. member for Outremont rose in this House, offended at the thought that Bloc members could question his nationalistic sentiment. From his place, he stated loudly that he was not the least nationalistic of Liberal members, thereby suggesting that he was certainly the most nationalistic one of them.

If that is so, if the hon. member for Outremont is the most nationalistic of Liberal members, I understand why the people of Quebec voted for the Bloc Quebecois. If, by any chance, we did not attain sovereignty in Quebec, I am convinced that we would keep being reelected over and over forever, with our members whose nationalistic sentiments are as strong as his.

I would like to come back on one aspect of the speeches we have heard, which my colleague has raised. All day long, Liberal members have been telling us that the national standards that their government is about to impose on us with its Canada social transfer would deal with principles. "We will give the provinces every latitude", they said. "They will be free to do administer as they please programs which fall under their jurisdiction anyway".

If that is the case, I would like to know why we can read the following-and there was no mention of this in the discussion on principles today-at clause 37 of Bill C-76:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution-

This must be the money.

-referred to in section 5, the government of the province-

Among other conditions, the one listed in ( b ) reads:

shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured health services and extended health care services in the province.

To conclude, because I want to give my colleague the time to comment, what does this mean? Does it mean that the federal government-as I said this morning, this is the "flag on the hood" syndrome-absolutely wants every document and every thing distributed to taxpayers by the provinces to bear the Canadian flag? Does it mean that every hospital bedpan will have to be marked to show federal contribution? Is this the kind of publicity they seek?

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to hear the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, except for her conclusion that the denunciation by the official opposition of the federal government's interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is politically motivated and does not meet any of the population's concerns. Her speech also suggests that the Bloc Quebecois should willingly agree to let the federal government interfere, as I said earlier, in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I will give her an example and I would like her to give me her opinion on this. In Quebec, there is a consensus among all the stakeholders, that is, the political parties, the unions and the employers-where sovereignists are few and far between-with regard to manpower training, which is in fact an extension of the educational jurisdiction. There is a general consensus to call for the recognition of Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

The federal government, your government, continues to reject this demand, which, I repeat, has nothing to do with the constitutional options of political parties but which represents a consensus. This is an outright rejection by the federal government. The same goes for all other areas of jurisdiction. That is why we oppose federal government interference. Again, we are saying that the federal government should withdraw, transfer to the provinces the tax points corresponding to these expenditures and let them administer these programs in the best interest of their people. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my Reform Party colleague for his presentation. He spoke about the Quebec debt being very high, as high as $8,400 per capita, and said that Bloc Quebecois members should look at what is happening in their own province before they point a finger at the federal government.

I think there is not one Bloc Quebecois member who rose in this House to say that Quebec's debt is unimportant and that we should not be concerned, quite the contrary. Members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois government know that during the ten years of Liberal government, the debt has more than doubled and that something has to be done about that situation.

The member also accuses our Bloc colleagues of not proposing solutions in this debate. Let me remind him that solutions were proposed, again by all stakeholders from the Quebec government. I would like to hear what he has to say on that point. When we speak about manpower training, there is a consensus in Quebec. All stakeholders, whatever their political affiliation, want the federal government to withdraw completely from that area and let Quebec take over. We ask the same thing for health and education. We want the federal government to transfer tax points and let us manage those areas. We will do so very efficiently.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his remarks in which he stressed the principles advocated by the federal government, enabling it to impose national standards on provincial governments, particularly the Government of Quebec, in areas of jurisdiction that are strictly and exclusively provincial.

The hon. member, my colleague, can therefore convey to us the importance of these principles for the federal government, how dear they are to the Liberal Party. However, if we look at the facts, including Bill C-76, we discover the real principles behind the government's wanting to get involved in provincial jurisdiction, even though it no longer has the means to do so. After getting us in debt, as I said a few minutes ago in my remarks, the federal government, which will have roughly a 28 per cent share in the cost of the social programs of the Government of Quebec, after 1998, still wants to impose, it insists on imposing, national standards. But what are these principles so dear to the heart of the federal government?

Clause 37 of Bill C-76 speaks eloquently in this regard. I will take the liberty of quoting it:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5-

that is, the transfers in health care,

-the government of the province- b ) shall give recognition to the Canada Health and Social Transfer in any public documents, or in any advertising or promotional material, relating to insured health services and extended health care services in the province.

In concrete terms, it is the old "flag on the hood" principle, so dear to our Prime Minister. We remember the Prime Minister when he was the minister responsible for the adoption of the constitution in 1982, he was the one who made us swallow the current constitution, which excluded Quebec. He said: "All that interests the separatists is a flag on the hood. They like driving around in France, in Paris, with the Quebec flag, thus mocking their own people, the representatives of the Government of Quebec". Now here we are in 1995 with the "flag on the hood" principle in the Canada Social Transfer.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this principle, which we see in black and white in Bill C-76, where it says that the Canadian flag must appear on documents, cheques and so forth, when the federal government is involved, even though it is less and less involved.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I could hardly wait to rise in the House on this allotted day to take part in the debate on an issue which is crucial not only in Quebec but especially in Quebec.

Let me read you the motion, because I think it is important to put this debate in its proper perspective, especially since our Liberal colleagues seem to get lost in all kinds of considerations. The motion put forward reads as follows:

That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance, all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

That is under our current Constitution, of course. This is the motion now before the House.

First of all, I would like to say how stunned I was to see that the Minister of Finance was the main spokesperson for the government, the individual chosen by the members of the government to speak on their behalf at the beginning of this debate, even though the motion concerns the Minister of Human Resources Development more directly.

Where is the Minister of Human Resources Development? Why is he not taking part in this crucial debate where we would be very pleased to hear what he has to say about the federal policies and their impact on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction? In my humble opinion, I think the Minister of Human Resources Development should be called the Minister of Human Resources Discouragement and Impoverishment, because that is exactly what he is.

We are now faced with a government whose main objective is to pick on the destitute. They were elected under false pretences, because during the election campaign, they said they would defend our social programs, the permanence of our social programs and the rights of the poorest members of our society. Right after the election, in his first budget, the Minister of Finance, or rather the minister of provincial impoverishment, made cuts in transfers to the provinces and in unemployment insurance, and as if this was not enough, he struck again in his second budget with even greater force.

Last weekend, I was shocked, as were, I am sure, the majority of Quebecers, to hear the Prime Minister criticize the Quebec P.Q. government and all the sovereignists for focusing the debate on the Constitution instead of tackling the real problems facing all Canadians and particularly Quebecers, problems such as the high levels of unemployment that we are experiencing these days.

I was shocked because the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues are constantly saying in this House and elsewhere that if the Constitution is being discussed in Quebec right now, it is because of the sovereignists. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is sheer hypocrisy. The Liberals who are saying this are nothing but hypocrites. They say things that they know are

not true. They know full well that, over the last thirty years, it is the federalists who have fuelled the constitutional debate.

I will simply cite some figures to demonstrate how much the federalists, and not the sovereignists, have negotiated, gossiped and wasted time over the past few years on the issue of the constitution. Please allow me to cite some very telling figures.

Between 1960 and 1992, they held 56 conferences, sessions and meetings. It was getting so ridiculous that they had to keep presenting them under a different light to try to ensure that the population did not realize what was really going on. And I am only talking about meetings at the political and not the departmental level. I am talking about all of the energy spent by the ministers of the federal government in each of the provinces to prepare for these meetings and to follow up on them.

There have been a total of 19 commissions, committees, working and advisory groups, for example, the Laurendau-Dunton Commission at the end of the 1960s, the Pépin-Robarts Commission in the 1970s, and the plethora of consultation panels leading up to the demise of the Meech Lake Accord and the breakdown of the Charlottetown negotiations. Nineteen commissions since 1965, all of them at the political level.

Now, on to the cases which have come before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitution. A total of 212 cases, notices and rulings by the court affecting the federal government and a provincial government. That is the result of the constitutional debate led by and for federalists. And this leads me to conclude that the federalists, particularly the Liberal Party, of which the Prime Minister has been a member for at least 30 years, and this Liberal government have been and still are responsible for keeping the constitution industry alive and well. They have sunk billions of dollars into it, which has contributed to the enormous debt we now face.

That is our real constitutional problem. We sovereignists do not want to talk about the Canadian Constitution. We are proposing a solution to our current problems. What we want is our own Quebec constitution, which is what we were told in February by 50,000 men and women across Quebec. They came to tell us about the values on which Quebec society should base its constitution.

There is a very broad consensus on the subject among the people of Quebec. We as sovereignists have a way to solve the constitutional problem. We do not want to talk about the Constitution, about constitutional renewal or fence mending. We want to propose a definitive solution.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to give an example of the impact of the Canada Social Transfer, of what happens when the government interferes in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Consider post-secondary education, an area over which the provinces have sole jurisdiction. According to the federal government's policy, the policy of the Minister of Human Resources Development, transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education will be cut while, of course, certain standards will be set, which was unheard of in the past.

This would include reducing the amounts of bursaries, obliging universities to raise their tuition fees and letting students borrow more. It seems to me that what the federal government, after putting us into debt over our ears, to the tune of more than $500 billion, what the Liberals and the Minister of Human Resources depletion are suggesting now is to let students get into debt individually as well.

Now that we are in the hole as a country, they are telling students to do likewise. That is the federal government's policy and that is what this motion wants to condemn today.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

I expected the Liberal members to rise in recognition of the hon. member's incredible talent, and particularly because of the appropriateness of his comments. Our colleague provided a very eloquent answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm as to why the Liberal Party, which makes up this government, is now proposing a bill which is not only meaningless, but which also contradicts the views expressed by the Liberals when they were in opposition.

The best possible example is that of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, when in opposition, constantly denounced the Conservative government and fought tooth and nail to promote integrity. Now, he reminds us of St. Paul, who was struck and fell off his horse. Indeed, the member is now supporting a meaningless and toothless legislation, but one which will allow business to go on as usual. What took place in this House during the past week is very telling.

Every day this week, during oral question period, the official opposition and the Reform Party gave examples of shameless patronage which are in contradiction with the good intentions of the legislation before us.

I would like the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to comment on the two timing displayed by the Liberals, given what they were saying when they sat in opposition and what they are now doing.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on his out-of-the-ordinary performance.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Québec-Est who clearly described the obvious advantages for Quebecers to opt for sovereignty as soon as possible. It has also been demonstrated that the federal system does not work. I know that my Liberal and Reform colleagues do not like it when we talk about inequity, even though it reflects the real situation, so let us say that the federal system does not work, if this is the expression the federalists would rather use.

On that issue, the hon. member for Lotbinière was very eloquent. He used figures and several arguments to show that it is impossible to ignore how the Canadian Department of Agriculture has harmed the interests of Quebec.

Let me conclude my remarks which can be interpreted as a question to the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Without asking for more than what Quebec is currently giving to the federal government in the area of agriculture, and given the fact that Quebecers already pay 25 per cent of all federal taxes, if we were to get our hands on a similar proportion of the agricultural budget and to manage the whole thing, then we would be able to provide our farmers with an additional $500 million-since the federal Department of Agriculture has a $2 billion budget-in addition to the $300 or $350 million budget of the Quebec Department of Agriculture.

I know how capable, passionate and proud our Quebec farmers are and I am sure this will give them a competitive edge. So, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Québec-Est.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Reform Party for his question which seems quite relevant. I will answer his question as clearly as possible. In fact, he is asking me how farmers can adjust to the new international trade context, that is, the reduction in tariffs now set under GATT?

Of course, this is a major concern of farmers in my riding and throughout Quebec and of all dairy and other producers affected by international trade and tariffs.

Allow me to share with him some farmers' reaction with respect to dairy production in particular. Many farmers in my riding said in response to my questions that they would be willing to compete with U.S. farmers-since they are our main competition in the area of dairy production-provided they played by the same rules. In other words, they would if they were in the position to offer products as good as those on the American market.

It must be pointed out that in both Quebec and Canada-since the milk marketing system is the same across the country-not only production but also quality is subject to regulations. This is something we can be proud of. If we want to preserve this quality, we must pay the costs involved. The whole matter must be considered. I will surely have the opportunity to get back to this later.