Pierre De Savoye

[Oil Industry, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

A study of competitiveness in the oil industry, commissioned by Industry Canada among others, was released in Toronto last Wednesday. Based exclusively on the large oil companies, this study completely ignores independent distributors, who represent 20% of the market in Quebec alone.

Given that this study is incomplete and biased, will the minister agree to have an independent group of experts conduct an impartial study of operating costs related to retail gas sales?

[Asbestos, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Representatives of the three unions for the asbestos workers of Thetford Mines and Asbestos have just learned of the federal government's intention to pursue diplomatic exchanges with France instead of immediately filing a complaint with the WTO.

Does the minister not realize that his decision not to file a complaint with the WTO only makes it harder and harder to stop the movement to ban asbestos, which is gaining momentum in Europe?

[The Late Mr. Bruce Beer, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to offer condolences to the family and friends of Bruce Beer, who recently passed away at the age of 87.

After graduating from the Ontario College of Agriculture in 1939, Bruce Beer began a career as an ag. rep. Elected for the first time in 1962, he represented the people of the riding of Peel until his retirement from active politics in 1972.

During his time in Parliament, Bruce Beer was to serve as parliamentary secretary to Minister of Agriculture John Greene and Minister of Finance Mitchell Sharp, in the Pearson government.

In 1972, he decided not to seek re-election. He was appointed judge of the Citizenship Court, and held that position until his retirement in 1975.

As parliamentarians, we are all aware of just how demanding a life in politics is, and Bruce Beer's family must be proud of all his accomplishments.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. member opposite. He used several terms which, I must admit, shocked me and probably shocked our constituents and listeners.

Among other things, the hon. member said that tax points are a gift from the federal government to the provinces. Unless I am mistaken, tax points are given to a province when it withdraws from a program that is otherwise administered by the federal government. The province then has a duty to administer the program itself.

Therefore, as the federal government does not have to spend the money, it only makes sense that it would hand over the tax points relating to the program. But why does a province—Quebec among others—find itself in this situation; why does Quebec prefer to administer a number of programs itself and be compensated with tax points? Simply because it can do so better and more cheaply than the federal government.

People at home will certainly agree that, all too often, the money taken from their pockets is wasted here by the federal system, in which we happen to be members of Parliament. We deplore this situation in every possible way, and I join those who said so before me, because it is important to say so.

Let us not forget that when transfer payments are made to a province, it is because that province needs additional revenues to meet its commitments. So, the question is: why does a province lack revenues? Why are there provinces that are richer and others that are poorer?

As I recall, when he was asked why certain contracts did not go to certain provinces, the Prime Minister answered something like this: “Well, see, we have called for bids and the lowest bidder won.” You will agree with me that, when bids are called for furniture here, in Ottawa, it is not likely that a company from the maritimes will be able to bid the same way a company located nearby could.

In a nutshell, what is happening in this federation is that some regions are made to grow poorer because our tax money is concentrated in other regions. Then, out of kindness, certain amounts are transferred to the provinces adversely affected. This money does not create jobs. It is hidden social assistance for these governments. No province deserves to be treated this way, starting with Quebec. Why not let Quebec keep the tax money it collects and assume full responsibility for the provision of services? Why not have 100% of tax points at the level at which services can be provided at a much better price?

I will conclude by asking the hon. member opposite this question: Why not simply admit that the federal system is a huge waste of resources, that it has done its time and that it should just disappear?

[Credit Card Interest Limitation Act, December 10th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates in relation to credit cards issued by financial institutions, companies engaged in retail trade and petroleum companies.

—Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that about a year ago, during the 35th Parliament, many members in this House had called upon the banks and large department stores to be reasonable with the interest rates they charge to people holding their credit cards.

We all know that this initiative by private members yielded results and that credit cards with reduced rates were made available. However, over 90% of credit card holders are still burden with excessive interest rates.

As members, we must continue our initiatives, and I invite all members in this House—the Bloc Quebecois members are already behind me on this—to take action in order to bring the banks to be reasonable with consumers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to this opportunity, since the chairman of the Canada—United States committee has spoken and since I am the deputy chairman of that committee—

[Language Policy, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since 1971 the Canadian rate of assimilation has increased from 27% to 37%.

In the minister's region of Hamilton, the rate of anglicization was 68% in 1996.

Does the minister realize the message she is sending by doing nothing is that things are done in English in Canada?

[Language Policy, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The aim of federal language policy is to allow francophone groups in Canada to live in French. Today the minister is gloating over data on bilingualism, but she remains blind to the increasing problems faced by francophones.

Why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not consult her counterparts in essentially English provinces to find out how Canada could really allow those francophones to live in French?

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, we have a big problem. When I say we, I am not talking about the Ottawa area, Quebec City or Vancouver, but about the planet itself. We have a big problem because, since the onset of industrialization, we have been burning more of all sorts of things. We have been burning oil, wood, coal, and alcohol. We have been burning all sorts of things and this gives off carbon dioxide, a very simple gas but one with the incredible property of holding heat around the planet.

How can we trace 1,000 years of history with respect to carbon dioxide? We have only to look at ice samples trapped in glaciers for this period of time to see that historically the planet has had approximately—and here I am referring to a chart—280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. This keeps us very comfortable on our planet.

With industrialization, we have doubled the number of parts per million. This means that the planet is turning into a Thermos bottle and that the rays of sun that enter the atmosphere are not leaving at the same rate they used to. We are going to get fried if we are not careful.

Do we have much time left to take action? I would say we should have done something about twenty years ago to avoid the worst. Already we should be getting ready for important climate changes in 20, 30 or 40 years. We are perhaps already experiencing these climate changes, which create hurricanes, flooding, or very disturbing seasonal variations.

It is obvious that Quebec and Canada on their own cannot change the equation significantly. Our contribution is important, but it is not the only one. Canada as a whole emits 2% of these greenhouse gases, which means that the rest of the planet—and we can think particularly of the industrialized countries such as the United States—emits the other 98%. That is why Kyoto is so important. That is why there must be an international agreement between all countries, in order to reduce these emissions, which are creating a sort of Thermos bottle effect.

It will not be easy. I would even venture to say that it is very late in this planet's time line, but it is very important. I would urge all those who are listening at home and understand what I have to say, not to hesitate to contact their MPs and to ask them to ensure that Canada does everything within its power to reduce greenhouse gases.

There are considerable variations within Canada. Quebec produces around 9 tonnes of gas per inhabitant. That is a lot. This means that, by using electricity produced by a thermal plant, gasoline in my car, and a variety of other products, including clothing containing plastics, I am causing nine tonnes of CO2 or related gases to be produced.

In Alberta, however, with the industries being what they are, the figure is 56 tonnes per person. That is six times more than the figure for Quebec. From sea to sea, people must become aware and we must lower our production of greenhouse gas. We must set the example so that other countries will follow and we can avoid the worst.

The worst occurs when there is no more snow on ski hills in Quebec. The worst occurs when the prairies can no longer produce wheat. The worst occurs when we are invaded by all sorts of insects and diseases carried along by the increased temperatures.

I know you do not need convincing, Madam Speaker, but I hope our viewers tonight will understand the importance of this debate.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what our colleague from the Conservative Party has just said.

First, we know that with this bill, workers and companies will have to contribute more to a fund so that when people go on retirement, they will receive an amount that may not be very high but that will nevertheless be essential.

We know also that if we do not act now, it will not be long before the Canada pension plan can no longer meet its obligations. That is why, I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

But also, when money is taken from employers and employees, it is also taken from the economy in which they are living, and these are considerable amounts that workers or employers will not be able to recycle in the economic system through the purchase of goods and services. It is therefore essential that the money that will be taken and given to an agency responsible for reinvesting it be invested in a way that allows these communities to continue to rely on the economic activity they require to survive.

However, if I heard correctly, the motion that has just been presented would allow and would require the investment board to reinvest without taking into consideration the social aspects or the economic impacts in the community. I believe that in fact this agency should have a social conscience.

I would like to mention in this respect the case of Quebec and its Caisse de dépôt et placement which has in fact allowed the Government of Quebec to ensure greater economic returns for Quebec in keeping with the requirements of Quebec society. It seems to me that the federal government would be well advised to consider what is being done in Quebec in this area and to do the same.

That is in fact my interpretation of what it wants to do with the bill we are considering. It seems to me that any amendment that would not limit the board's ability to make investments through which Canadians can obtain a better return not only when they retire but also now when they are contributing is a step in the right direction. Any amendment that would go against that objective would be a step in the wrong direction.

I think it is also important to note that for an employer or an employee who will see next year an increase in his or her contributions to the Canada pension plan, this will have an impact in terms of competitiveness. I was pleased when the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a reduction in employment insurance contributions. I consider that this also is a step in the right direction, because it will allow in fact to maintain payroll taxes and other deductions at an acceptable level.

However, the Minister of Human Resources Development did not bother unfortunately to consider the retroactive effect of an increase in contributions for the current year, and this will definitely have an impact on the personal disposable income of each worker and on the production and operating costs of every business.

In economic terms, this has a significant adverse effect. And in the future, as the contribution rate slowly increases, it will be important to reassure our business community, our businesses and their employees that adjustments to employment insurance premiums or other measures will indeed counterbalance the drain on corporate or personal finances caused by contributions to the Canada pension plan.

This is a matter of economic balance. We cannot dip into a lake indefinitely and hope it will keep filling up by itself. It will need water sooner or later. He who draws water out of a lake has to ensure that a soothing rain falls on the area, other wise it will dry up. This is a simple principle, and the example was an obvious one, but that is reality. Businesses and employees cannot keep on paying indefinitely.

At one point, the economic balance will be destroyed and this will have repercussions on our society, as it will slow the economy down, with fewer businesses employing fewer people, who will produce fewer goods that fewer consumers will be able to buy. That is not what Bill C-2 seeks to do. However, it would be important that the government side give the business community and our workers some indication that it is aware of this and will take appropriate measures to protect the sound balance I just mentioned.

In closing, allow me to say that, in Quebec, we are 35 years ahead on this pension plan issue. We have a pension plan in Quebec. Quebec's experience was a good experience, and I only hope that our Canadian friends make the most of it.