Maurice Bernier

[Tainted Blood, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we can understand that the President of the Treasury Board is more eager to put on a show with the infrastructure program than to address the real problems.

My question to the President of the Treasury Board is this: Is he going to wait until the work of the commission is over to give an answer to the Canadian Hemophilia Society? What is the rationale behind such delay, given that granting additional funds requested by Justice Krever would allow the commission to carry on fully its mandate and to get right to the bottom of that scandal?

[Tainted Blood, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The Minister of Health stated in this House on February 3, on March 23 and again this week on April 26 that the request for extra funds for the Krever Commission and the Canadian Hemophilia Society was still being examined by Treasury Board.

Can the minister promise this House that he will give immediately a clear, definite and positive answer regarding the request for additional funds for the Krever Commission and the Canadian Hemophilia Society?

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the debate should normally end around 5.40 p.m.

Consequently, since I will in all likelihood be the last speaker on this motion, I would like to first congratulate again the hon. member for Québec-Est, who is the Official Opposition critic on agriculture, for tabling a motion which, as pointed out a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Témiscouata, is the first one on agriculture since the opening of the 35th Parliament.

We, members of the Official Opposition, are justifiably proud to be the first ones to table such a motion and to show to all Quebecers, and farmers in particular, that we are here to protect their interests in every field and especially in the agricultural sector.

Today, members from the Bloc have spoken brilliantly and eloquently on the issue, and they have clearly demonstrated the nonchalance of the Liberal government regarding the agricultural sector since it took office. This lack of vision, policy and decision is hurting agriculture in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

I want to take those few minutes to emphasize the importance of agriculture. I will use my own constituency of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead as an example, since it is essentially a rural riding where agriculture is the number one industry. I have here some figures which I am pleased to communicate to members and to Canadians, so that we can see the impact, on this industry, of the measures taken by governments, particularly the federal government.

There are close to 2,000 farms in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. According to Statistics Canada, in 1991, expenditures and revenues related to the agricultural industry in my riding were somewhere around $123 million and $156 million, respectively. These two figures alone show how important that industry is for our riding and for all of Quebec also.

Moving on, 2,500 jobs in my riding are directly dependent on agriculture. Imagine, 2,500 jobs. One would have to travel to several municipalities and to several ridings to find industries which employ such a large number of workers. And for every direct job, we can count on six indirect ones, which means that farming in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead accounts for an additional 15,000 jobs in the eastern townships.

The agricultural sector in Quebec has evolved rapidly over the years. I listened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who tried to get my colleague from the Bloc who serves as agriculture critic to admit that agriculture has flourished in Quebec because of federal government policies. May I remind this House and point out for the benefit of my colleague that agriculture underwent a remarkable period of growth between 1976 and 1985, thanks to the vision and energy of a government, but more especially, thanks to one man, the MNA for Lévis, Mr. Jean Garon, who in many ways sparked the development of the agricultural sector in Quebec. Many people considered the MNA for Lévis to be a dreamer. Some even thought he was a

little crazy when he said his goal was to increase agricultural self-sufficiency in Quebec from 50 per cent, the level it stood at when the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, to over 70 per cent. Within four years or one term of office, Quebec had already achieved a level of self-sufficiency greater than 70 per cent, all because of the government's policies. Since then, the Liberal government which came to power in 1985 has managed to bring the level back down to about 60 per cent.

On the subject of agriculture, we should also mention certain initiatives that were taken and the benefits that accrued to show, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the impact of agriculture on a region. I would like to point out three initiatives that I am particularly proud of in my riding. First, the Centre d'initiative agricole de Coaticook, which is basically a group of farmers who not only put a lot of effort in their own farming enterprises, but also provide training to other farmers. They have just set a precedent by approving an agreement concluded with the local school board to invest in farm training for our young people. This deserved to be pointed out. They have been praised by all socio-economic stakeholders in l'Estrie for this initiative.

There is also the agri-food table, la Table agro-alimentaire, in the Haut-Saint-François RCM, which brings together-somewhat like the group in Coaticook-a number of farmers who have set out to develop the agricultural industry by encouraging new farms to locate or get established in their region and, to that end, by meeting students in our agricultural colleges, in Saint-Hyacinthe and in the Quebec area, as well as by inviting them to invest in the most beautiful riding in the province, the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

In conjunction with all economic stakeholders, they are also setting up agricultural products processing industries to ensure that our farm products can be processed locally, thus creating employment.

One last example, before closing: farm tourism. It was barely mentioned today, but its is nonetheless an important industry. Let me give you one figure. In 1993, in my riding and the Coaticook region, thanks to the concerted efforts of the municipalities, the agricultural community and the tourist industry, 4,000 European tourists, mostly from France, came to visit us and were able to appreciate the state of development of our agricultural industry as well as enjoying, of course, the warm welcome Quebecers are renowned for.

In conclusion, in the weeks and months to come, the federal government must concentrate on an issue of major importance not only to my riding but also to Quebec as a whole and even a major part of Ontario. I am referring of course to the negotiations scheduled to take place as a result of the GATT agreement, particularly to set tariffs for milk.

Someone on the government side said earlier-and I will close on this-that deals had already been made. We want, we insist that the efforts made by our farmers over all those the years not be compromised by negotiations, the outcome of which are not known. We in the opposition will be extremely vigilant in that regard.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate my colleague for her speech. What I retain from her remarks is the kind of relationship, the kind of scheming brought to light on this issue, between various successive governments.

Basically, my colleague for Rimouski has very eloquently demonstrated the relationships that the Liberal-Conservative contributors and the Conservative-Liberal contributors have had sometimes with the Conservative government and sometimes with the Liberal government. As we can see, it all boils down to the same thing. That is something to really think about. Our colleague for Crowfoot suggested that clause 10 in this bill hints that there is a deal somewhere, but that it obviously cannot be outlined in the legislation. What is stated in the bill is that the Minister may approve any agreement submitted to him within 35 days after the passing of this legislation.

I would like to hear my colleague further on that kind of deal and also on that kind of Liberal-Conservative or Conservative-Liberal buddy-buddy system, because of which we always find ourselves in that kind of situation. The people invited to a $1,000 or $3,000-a-plate dinner are not the kind of people the Prime Minister referred to as beer drinkers last week, but rather people arriving with their six-pack of champagne and generous contributions for the Liberal Party.

The only way we can resolve that problem is to pass a legislation on the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns. I like to remind people that since such a piece of legislation was passed in Quebec, no matter what government is in power in Quebec, there has been no instance of wrongdoing brought to light. How come? Because of the transparency of the funds contributed to the parties. I would like to hear my colleague speak on that.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe on his brilliant speech, in

which he set out troubling facts arguing for a royal commission of inquiry.

I would also like to make a comment about my colleague and friend, the hon. member for London, who spoke against a royal inquiry. He also accused our leader of using unparliamentary language and linked him to decisions made by the previous government which went along the lines of the decisions concerning Pearson Airport. I think he should reconsider and agree with us on the need for a royal commission of inquiry. Then, he would see who the real players were, on both the Conservative and Liberal sides. He would understand better why it is so important that all the information be made available to the public.

So, I would invite my colleague, as well as his colleague, to support this request for an inquiry. I think that, following tomorrow's caucus meeting, the government members will sing another tune. I am convinced that, by tomorrow afternoon, they will readily support the Bloc Quebecois amendment proposal.

[Regional Development, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is a serious man; now, the study we are talking about, which was commissioned by his office, his officials, concludes that this project has no chance of being viable and that the figures submitted are inflated in several respects.

Instead of wasting $4.8 million in public funds to honour an election promise made by the Prime Minister, does the Minister of Finance admit that what the people of Shawinigan and the St. Maurice region need is industrial projects that create real jobs instead of a white elephant without any kind of guarantee it will be self-supporting?

[Regional Development, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now that government advertising is over, we will go back to regular programming.

According to a federal study, Ottawa is about to spend $4.8 million on an industry interpretation centre project in Shawinigan. The study in question, which was commissioned by the Federal Office of Regional Development in Trois-Rivières, concludes that it is a mistake and a bad joke.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does she admit that this project cannot be self-financing and that her government is about to repeat the same mistake it made with the Humour Museum in Montreal, which closed its doors less than 12 months after opening?

[Department Of National Revenue Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, do you mean you are tired of listening to me? This will be my last speech for the day, Mr. Speaker.

Today, April 20, 1994, we are witnessing an event of almost historical proportions in the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken, within a matter of hours the government and the opposition parties will have agreed to adopt three bills which, we hope, will have a positive impact on the lives of our fellow citizens.

Bill C-2, whose purpose is the consolidation of the taxation and customs and excise sectors in the portfolio of National Revenue, seems very appropriate because it brings about a reduction of current spending and overlap within one and the same department.

In his speech, the hon. member for Vancouver South described the savings that will result from this initiative. The proof of the pudding is of course, in the eating, but we are prepared to approach what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South with a very open mind. At the same time, we as members of the Official Opposition will make a point of ensuring that

these commitments are met and that potential savings become a reality in the months to come.

However, aside from this particular aspect, as you know, Mr. Speaker, members of the Official Opposition have for months asked for a reduction in all forms of administrative duplication and even, I would say, of constitutional duplication.

The Bloc Quebecois will support such initiatives in this House, provided, of course, that the proposed changes do not adversely affect Quebec interests. In other words, we remain prudent but nevertheless very open to this type of proposal.

Bill C-2 is in itself a good bill, but I hope that when the time comes to implement this legislation, the government will consider all aspects of the question. In this respect, perhaps I may remind hon. members of apprehensions expressed by the president of the Customs and Excise Union, for instance.

In fact, the president of the union appeared last February before the Standing Committee on Finance, when the committee was considering Bill C-2, and he stressed the main concerns his union had about this bill. One of the union's concerns arises from the fact that as a result of consolidation, many employees trained to collect income tax will turn up as managers in Customs and Excise. However, the Free Trade Agreement, or should I say the Free Trade agreements between Canada and the United States and, more recently, between the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as the trend towards the globalization of world markets, will mean that in the years to come, there will be fewer and fewer tariff items to enforce at our borders. Customs and Excise does not need more tax collectors. As I see it, Customs and Excise should be more concerned about the lack of protection at our borders.

A prime example is the smuggling problem we see today. While the lowering of taxes on tobacco products had a definite impact on smuggling, it would be naive to think that the whole smuggling problem has therefore been resolved. Canadian borders are said to leak like sieves in many places. Only last week, a U.S. government report put Canada on the list of the countries where it is the easiest to smuggle drugs in because of the length of our borders, but that stands to reason considering how few resources are allocated in that area by the government, although some remedial action was taken recently.

The fact that Canadian borders are poorly guarded has certainly given a boost to the black market phenomenon which is now spreading, as we know, to alcohol. It has been spreading for a long time, but loads of spirits keep flowing through our borders. It has even spread to such things as clothing, drugs, as I said earlier, but more dramatically to illicit arms dealing and pornography, which goes to show how urgently action is required in that area.

One of the purposes of Bill C-2 is to reduce the operating costs of the Department of National Revenue.

But if the government does not also step up our border security-I repeat, action has been taken, but it must really do more along those lines-it is likely to have much more serious problems than those it now faces. It will have a rude awakening, judging by what the president of the Custom and Excise Union said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Here verbatim is one of the warnings he served on the government concerning the actual savings that might be realized from this merger:

Decreased border protection will ultimately translate into more weapons in our schools, more fraud and smuggling, and more expense in enforcing the laws of Canada when the criminal element ends up a step closer to our daily lives. This will cause the need for increased policing within Canadian communities. For example, one missed cocaine seizure at the Canadian border could require several hundred policing actions within the communities.

The government must deal with this problem before implementing this bill.

It is also important to question the motives behind the government's decision to merge the two departments in question, namely National Revenue and Customs and Excise. Why does the government now find it necessary to consolidate these two administrative entities? The answer to this question was given to us in this House on February 4 by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Revenue, who said unusual things for a member of the government now in office.

"This bill would enable the Minister of National Revenue to consolidate two distinct departments that have been under his responsibility since 1926 into one"-which was confirmed by the hon. member for Vancouver South a few moments ago-"and thus eliminate unnecessary duplication and overlap within government. It will also bring distinct benefits to taxpayers and it will enhance the Department of National Revenue's ability to provide more efficient and effective services and programs".

I recognized in this short quote several terms and expressions often used by members of the Official Opposition in this House. When the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue talks about eliminating unnecessary duplication and overlap to provide more efficient and effective services and programs, I get the impression that her speech was inspired by remarks made by members on this side of the House, and especially by members of the Official Opposition. In fact the comments made by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor seem

to come straight from the mouth of a member of the Official Opposition.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot logically oppose Bill C-2, as it is perfectly consistent with the philosophy we are advocating with respect not only to administrative management, but also to constitutional issues. The fact of the matter is that the bill incorporates principles which we hold dear: implementation of efficient and effective government programs, and the elimination of duplication and overlap; in other words, good administrative and political common sense. The problem, for the Liberal government, is that it is starting to sound a lot like what Quebec is demanding in terms of job training.

Why does the government not apply the same principle of sound management when comes the time to negotiate with its provincial partners, and Quebec in particular, to reach an agreement on manpower training? All the stakeholders-they are mentioned day after day in this House and several times each day-all those involved, whether federalists or sovereigntists, all agree to say that by repatriating all these powers in Quebec, hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved in the area of manpower, perhaps as much as $300 million a year. Yet, year after year, the federal government keeps systematically preventing any development. It does not even get along with the ultra-federalist, if there ever was one, Liberal government of Daniel Johnson.

Just last week, the Prime Minister used the word "whim" to describe Quebec's demands in that area. Why is the Liberal government forgetting the virtues and advantages of effectiveness and efficiency, in so far as Quebec's demands are concerned? How is it that overlap within the Department of National Revenue is a more pressing problem to be resolved than duplication in the administration of manpower training? This is but one example.

By tabling Bill C-2 in this House, the present government is unwittingly showing the inequities in the federal system and laying bare for all to see the problem it is having setting serious, credible priorities when it comes to managing its affairs. We applaud the federal government-and I want to stress this point-for taking the initiative to merge these two departments which in any event had been the responsibility of a single minister since 1926.

What worries me is that if the federal government needed 68 years to realize the damage created by overlapping authority at the Department of National Revenue, how long will Quebecers have to wait to see the same results, that is an end to duplication, in the area of manpower training?

Therefore, the Official Opposition applauds the federal government for recognizing the absurdity of administrative overlap. If the merger of these two departments indeed results in real savings and benefits, and I have no doubt that it will, then we urge the government to be innovative and to explore other similar initiatives, such as negotiating with the Government of Quebec on the issue of manpower training.

However, the federal government, in keeping with its reputation, apparently feels that the duplication hampering Quebec's development is a necessary thing and should be stepped up.

As we all know, Canada's political history is full of examples of federal intrusion in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The current Liberal government seems not only intent on staying this historical course, but also bent on increasing the number of areas in which it feels free to encroach, such as health, post-secondary education and, as I mentioned, manpower training.

Quebec taxpayers will not be satisfied with the simple internal merger of the Department of National Revenue. Of course they will reap the benefits of this merger and, like the Official Opposition, they will applaud the government's action. However, the majority of Quebecers are awaiting the day when they will be answerable to only one national revenue department, namely that of a sovereign Quebec which is master of its own economic decisions. Perhaps when that day comes, the expressions "administrative overlap", "duplication" and "government inefficiency" will become obsolete.

In conclusion, despite some reservations, the Official Opposition wishes to express its support for Bill C-2 which calls for a merger of the two departments in question.

[Income Tax Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech on Bill C-13, Bill C-15, as was just noted again in this House, is intended to clarify several provisions of the Income Tax Act and does not make any new law. Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

My speech will be short. I want to come back to the point that I raised earlier, and I think that this bill shows it even more clearly than the previous one.

We have before us a bill that is over 650 pages long, with some 150 clauses that, I repeat, are intended to amend some previous legislative provisions in accordance with the legislator's desires or with amendments made to other laws so that all these amendments are in the Income Tax Act.

The point I want to make is as follows: although it is good occasionally to have bills that clarify previous provisions or do some housekeeping, this shows that legislators must act wisely in passing these laws the first time. Of course, I am not saying that once passed, a law must never be revised, but it should be changed for substantive reasons, to adapt it to new circumstances and to situations that prevail when the need for change arises.

This bill is meant to correct errors, if you like, that were made or adopted in some other legislative provisions. Especially at this time of year when everyone lucky enough to have a job must file an income tax return, it is easy to understand how hard it is for the ordinary citizen to make sense of all this mountain of legislation. We add to that complexity when we have to pass this kind of legislation.

Although it will be more understandable for specialists, ordinary citizens will still have difficulty making their way through it. That is what we want to emphasize to the government. When you present a bill, you should ensure that it is as easy to understand as possible for the citizens who will have to comply with it.

That said, I repeat that the Official Opposition will support the amendments contained in Bill C-15.

[Excise Tax Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House will consider three bills, including one which concerns the Department of National Revenue and, more specifically, the merger of customs and excise. The other two bills deal, respectively, with legislative provisions concerning the GST, Bill C-13 and Bill C-15 which deal with certain Income Tax amendments.

The Official Opposition will support the government on the adoption of Bill C-13. As the hon. member for Vancouver South just pointed out, this bill, whose purpose is to revise or adjust certain provisions of the GST legislation, will affect small and seasonal businesses, charities, health care services, agriculture, financial institutions and other exempt suppliers, and also sets requirements for payments and remittances of $50,000 or more.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss why the government has to revise these bills from time to time. In the case of Bill C-13, the bill before the House today, I must admit this is an admirable attempt by the government to make our taxation system more straightforward and more equitable.

The Official Opposition certainly welcomes this initiative, especially since it also aims to correct some technical deficiencies in legislation adopted previously. However, I think this would be a good time to explain how important it is for us, as legislators, to produce legislation that is clear, concise and consistent. The trouble with most of the legislation being passed today, especially when the government is trying to move a large number of bills through Parliament, is that the implementation of all this legislation often creates problems that are even worse than those it was supposed to resolve, which are often quite simple. The result is that today, we have hundreds of laws that merely complicate the lives of most citizens.

I think we should realize, as legislators, that there is the federal government, the House of Commons, which passes bill after bill, and the provincial legislatures which also produce a considerable number of bills and regulations every year. There are also municipal governments across Canada and Quebec which adopt by-laws to be observed by all members of the community. There are also school boards, each with their own by-laws.

My point is that the well-known principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse is often difficult to maintain in the maze of legislation we find at all levels of government. Often the only people who can be sure of enjoying the benefits of these laws are the experts in the field, including lawyers, notaries and accountants, for whom I have tremendous respect; but the fact remains that more often than not, they are the real beneficiaries of this maze of legislation at all levels of government.

How do you expect ordinary people whom we are supposed to represent in this House to find their way through the incredible labyrinth of legislation in this country? A law is never perfect, but we should at least ensure it is worded as simply as possible. Legislation that is not clear will inevitably be misinterpreted or misused, sooner or later. As I said before, there are hundreds of laws in Canada that would gain by being simplified or at least clarified.

Bill C-13 fills that need to some extent, and that is why the members of the Bloc Quebecois support it. We, on this side, are able to recognize it when the government does it right and we will never hesitate to support any measure or bill such as Bill C-13 that makes it possible to simplify the Canadian legislative system. Unfortunately, such is not the case with all Canadian legislation. In some cases, it is almost ridiculous and Canadians get the impression, in fact the conviction, that the legislator does not know where he is going, that he has no vision and that all we are asking of our fellow citizens is that they trust their government and obey the many laws passed just about everywhere.

Survey after survey shows that current Canadian public opinion on the confidence of the people in their governments and elected representatives in general -and Quebecers agree with their fellow citizens in English Canada on that- is lower than the interest rates set by the Bank of Canada, although these are relatively low.

All this to say that neither increasing the number of laws nor enforcing them will improve the public's perception.

I will come back to that later, but we will also be debating Bill C-15, which is a good example of the kind of legislation that should be put before this House to make some sense of the legislative and administrative jumble created by previous legislation.

Bill C-13 clarifies the legislation that governs us. While a step in the right direction, such efforts remain very modest in the face of the masses of legislation which continues to make the lives of people and corporations miserable in this country because of their lack of clarity and transparency.

Let us not forget that each time a flawed piece of legislation is passed in this chamber, that a statutory regulation providing for the execution of a law is misinterpreted or applied incorrectly, and that this has an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow citizens. As legislators, we often acquire the annoying habit of forgetting that the various bills we pass impact on the daily lives of our fellow citizens.

Those were the main comments I wanted to make as the Official Opposition critic concerning Bill C-13. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the opposition will support this bill because, as I pointed out, it improves several legislative provisions on the GST. We hope that, under the GST review initiative referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South-we know that public hearings and consultations are being held on a new

act, perhaps, or an in-depth review of the GST-the government will take the time needed to table before Parliament a bill that will make sense to Canadians, that will be equitable and that will, in the end, benefit our society.