Pierre De Savoye

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

I am truly sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had to check the interest of my Liberal colleagues in this matter.

From a legal point of view, I am a Canadian; from a constitutional point of view, I am a Canadian. But in my heart, I am a Quebecer. This is the crux of the matter. How much money, how many flags will Heritage Canada have to distribute to change the deep feelings I have?

I travelled in a number of countries; I travelled in the rest of Canada. When I am outside Quebec I see the cultural differences, I see the difference in values, I see the difference in standards and benchmarks. When I am outside Quebec I know that I am not home, in the very deep sense of the term.

Yes, when I travel in Canada I am legally in that country given to me by the Constitution, but it is a country where people speak and think in English. The values are excellent, but different in their form and substance from the ones we have in Quebec.

There is an Anglo-Canadian culture, different from the American culture. I know, I have been on both sides of the border, but this culture is not the culture found in Quebec. To tell you the truth, I would be hard-pressed to name movie stars, singers, actors, etc. from English Canada. I would not have the same problem with Quebec artists. Why? Because I listen to radio programs from Quebec, and they introduce us to artists from Quebec and the rest of the French-speaking world; because I read in French and I soak up what happens in the environment where I was raised and educated, which is Quebec.

When I am on this side of the Quebec border, I certainly find a friendly environment, with people with whom I can develop some friendships, but who are not from my culture. These are people with their own culture, and I am pleased to share in, to know and to appreciate their culture, but it is not mine. How much money will the minister of heritage have to spend to entice me to adopt a new culture?

You understand that Canada does not have enough money to change this culture that is deeply rooted in me. And if this is true for me, it is also true for millions of Quebecers. No amount of money will ever change this people and assimilate them into another people. This is why the minister of heritage's work is doomed to failure and this is in fact a waste of public money.

What I am saying is my case and the case of millions of Quebecers, but not the case of all Quebecers. Earlier, the member for Saint-Denis expressed an opposite opinion: she feels comfortable in this English Canadian culture.

This is what she feels and I cannot blame her for it. But the opposite is also true. I cannot be blamed for my own feeling, millions of Quebecers cannot be blamed for sharing this feeling.

On this side of the border, the culture is different and, consequently, attitudes are different. A week ago today, I had the opportunity to attend, in the Lester B. Pearson building, at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a presentation by a panel of American experts on the second mandate policies of the American president, Mr. Clinton.

The masters of ceremony, of course an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, opened the meeting exclusively in English. But at the registration table, we were welcomed in both official languages. The documents handed out were bilingual, and interpretation services were available in seven or eight languages. French was naturally among these languages.

This meeting ran all morning and into the afternoon. There was a question period scheduled for members of the audience. I was the only one who got up and went to the mike to put a question in French to our American guests, who were provided with interpretation services of course. In fact, of the 75 or 100 Canadians in the room, I was the only one who questioned these eminent panellists on the policy thrusts for Mr. Clinton's second mandate regarding cultural issues in Canada.

You will understand that there are serious matters at issue here. Take the matter of Sports Illustrated for instance. There is also the dispute between the Minister of Industry and Telesat Canada, on the one hand, and the American FCC, on the other hand, over who will acquire two American satellites to be used for television broadcast.

Nobody but me raised this cultural question. It is important to all of Canada, but I was the only one to raise it, and I did so in French. I was not in my own country.

You will understand that the differences I perceive as I travel across Canada are important enough to make me feel like anyone who travels to a foreign country. Of course, I use the same currency, Canadian money. Of course, I do not need a passport. But I do not find myself among people who share my values, feelings and nationality.

A little more than a century ago, Calixa Lavallée and Adolphe Routhier composed the music and the lyrics of "O Canada", in French. These lyrics referred to their francophone ancestors. The translation in English came only later, and it does not render the notions and the feelings of the original, but is rather a transposition reflecting the values and the feelings of those of British ancestry.

In so doing, already 150 years ago, they created two Canadas, one of which is now called Quebec. How much more will the Minister of Canadian Heritage have to spend to change this reality which persists after 400 years, of which the first 150 were totally French? The Minister of Canadian Heritage has invested a lot a money to influence my heart.

For the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag, 300 of the 600 billboards were put up in Quebec, while the other 300 were scattered throughout Canada. In that sense, we were already distinct.

An amount of $1.1 million was allocated to heritage moments, or heritage minutes, designed by the Charles Bronfman Foundation, but $2.2 million was paid. For the Canadian identity, we are talking about $3 million; for the operation unity, during the referendum campaign, the Privy Council was allocated $11 million; the Council for Canadian Unity received $8.4 million, while the Canada Information Office, which was funded by Heritage Canada, got $19.5 million. The one million flag operation cost $23 million; operation unity cost $5 million; the Attractions Canada spots currently shown on the TVA and CTV networks cost $1.5 million. All these figures add up to $100 million. And let me tell you this: even after spending $100 million, the heritage minister has not managed to change one bit the feelings that make me a Quebecer.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is using all these resources to deny Quebec's specificity and to make it a Canadian region like any other. You will understand that, after spending $100 million, the minister still has not succeeded in her attempt.

As for the language issue, the government is trying to hide its failed Canadian policy. All the key federalist players deny the fact that francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated-thank goodness there are some left, thank goodness they are taking their destiny into their own hands, and thank goodness Quebec will always support them. However, the fact is there were many more 10, 20 or 100 years ago.

The goal of the Canadian language policy is no longer to preserve and promote the linguistic duality but, it seems, to make Canada a bilingual country for francophones, which will eventually lead to their assimilation.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for culture and communications. She is in charge of official languages, national parks, historic monuments and sports. Parliament created that department to put together all the areas relating to the promotion of the Canadian identity, to which I do not relate and never will.

Here are four examples of Ottawa's attitude toward Quebec culture, a culture which, as far as the federal government is concerned, does not seem to exist. First of all, the passage of the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which provides that the Department of Canadian Heritage shall initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies, projects and programs with respect to Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage.

On both sides, existing values are excellent and impressive, but they are different and consequently should be treated differently and distinctly with all due respect, through appropriate mechanisms developed by the people who espouse these values.

After the referendum, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage held hearings to help promote Canadian unity and Canadian identity. The committee invited major Canadian cultural institutions to testify about their activities to promote Canadian unity and asked citizens to suggest activities that would reinforce Canadian identity and unity.

Merging these two cultures is sheer fantasy. Quebec culture is fundamentally distinct from the culture of the rest of Canada. And perhaps there are a number of cultures in the rest of Canada that are just as distinct, if we consider the aboriginal people.

A third example: the director of the National Gallery in Ottawa, Shirley Thomson, made a submission to the committee without a single reference to the visual arts of Quebec. Believe it or not, John Harvard, who chaired the committee and only speaks English, commended her for remaining silent on the subject.

My fourth and last point is this. The director general of the Canada Council, Roch Carrier, was scolded by committee members

because the council awarded a grant to Marie Laberge, a sovereignist artist who co-wrote the preamble to the sovereignty bill.

My point is that as far as culture and values are concerned, it is impossible-and history has shown this to be the case with even the smallest groups on this planet- to change the values by which we live, to assimilate a population and especially a population like Quebec, which has been around for 400 years and is developing by leaps and bounds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your attention, and I hope that what I just said will help my colleagues in this House understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is wasting public funds.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before anything else, I would like you to ask if we have unanimous consent to put this motion to a vote.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

What about culture?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to our distinguished colleague from the Montreal region, who told us about how her father came from Greece 37 years ago, and how much her family appreciates life in Canada. I respect the feelings she has shared with this House.

I would, however, like to ask her the following: she lives in Quebec, she was brought up in Quebec, she speaks French and English. Could she explain to us how she sees the Quebec culture, how she sees the Canadian culture, and what distinction she makes between the two?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, from now on, for me, July 1 will not only be Canada Day but my hon. colleague's birthday.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue here is not the flag itself but the propaganda it serves. I have the utmost respect for national flags, for the Canadian flag, as have, I am sure, all members of this House and all my colleagues in the Bloc. But I do not like the way the flag has been used. It has been used for what we call propaganda. The issue is not the flag but the ends to which it has been used, the intent behind it.

I would ask my Reform colleague whether she is appalled by the fact that no ceremony celebrated the Canadian Flag Day this year and that there was only a small ceremony last year. Is this not in some way reducing the role played by the flag in representing Canada?

I love the Quebec flag and I understand why Canadians love their own flag, as it is legitimate and respectable to do. But when the government on the other side is unable to celebrate Flag Day as fervently as it denounces our speeches, I am puzzled. What we take issue with is the use this government has made of the Canadian flag. Do you not agree, dear colleague?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this week, for the umpteenth time, the government has rewritten the red book. After stating that the government had fulfilled its promise on the GST, after stating that it had fulfilled its referendum promises on the distinct society by passing a trumped up motion, now the government is at it again.

This week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced, for the third time, with a straight face, that the CBC would have stable funding for five years, once the government has cut $379 million from it.

This announcement was greeted with universal scepticism. How can a promise made by a minister on the eve of an election campaign be believed? But the most dead-on comment came from Perrin Beatty, the CBC President himself: "We will not believe it until we have our hands on the cheque".

[Petitions, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition that concerns the federal excise tax on gas. This is of course a petition in which the undersigned call upon Parliament not to raise this tax, since, in the past 10 years, it has already been increased by 566 per cent, so that taxes make up 52 per cent of the price per litre.

I take pleasure in tabling this petition on behalf of these people.

[Bell Canada Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which seeks to amend the Bell Canada Act, repeals section 7 of that act. The purpose of this change is to allow Bell Canada to hold a broadcasting licence and to compete directly with cable distributors. Let us not forget that section 7 dates back to 1968.

The government announced its intention to amend the Bell Canada Act last August with the release of the Minister of Industry's policy on convergence. This policy allows cable distributors and telephone companies to compete with each other in their basic operations.

Bell and its partners at Stentor will be able to provide broadcasting services, as soon as the government has regulated competition with respect to local telephone services, including rates, so that cable distributors and other companies will be able to set up competitive local telephone services. This convergence of technologies prompted the Minister of Industry to state, and I quote: "The real winners are consumers, who will ultimately have a choice in who provides their services".

This government policy on convergence is an integral part of the federal plans respecting the development of Canada's information highway, as described in the report tabled by the Minister of Industry last May, entitled "Building the Information Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century".

Has the federal government kept or will it keep its promise to protect Quebec's and Canada's interests in developing the information highway? These are important issues, on which I will try to shed some light and find some answers. It should be remembered that the first reading of this bill goes back to October 29, 1996.

To start with, I will talk about convergence. As I said earlier, this bill is the result of the report entitled "Building the Information Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century", which was made public on May 23 of last year. The Minister of Industry informed us in this regard that a convergence policy would soon be developed. On August 6, 1996, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage unveiled their so-called convergence policy.

This policy set the stage for competition between telephone companies and cable distributors in their respective areas. This policy prompted the Minister of Industry to announce in a September 19 press release that, and I quote: "The real winners are consumers, who will ultimately have a choice in who provides their services". If I take the liberty of quoting this press release, it is precisely because we are still waiting to see the benefits for consumers.

On the other hand, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said on August 6, in a news release, that they had "decided, concerning Quebec Telephone and BC Tel, to change the foreign ownership rule so that these two big companies serving British Columbia and Eastern Quebec can take part in the competitive market of communications systems just like any other telephone company". Hence, the Minister of Canadian Heritage agreed with the Bloc Quebecois, that wanted the government to safeguard the vested rights of these two companies.

In fact, strictly speaking, Quebec Telephone and BC Tel are foreign owned companies. GTE, a U.S. company, has a 51 per cent stake in Quebec Telephone. We know, however, that Quebec Telephone is deemed to be a Quebec company because its headquarters are in Quebec, it is managed by Quebecers and French is the only working language of employees. It was becoming imperative, considering convergence, to adapt the rule to give more freedom to Quebec Telephone.

It has been six months since the heritage minister made this statement on the changes to the orders regulating Quebec Telephone and BC Tel. During the first reading debate on this bill, my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata said, and I quote: "We are concerned that this bill was tabled without any order being made regarding Quebec Telephone and BC Tel".

My colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata went on to say: "Madam Speaker, I ask you to remind the government that it would be greatly appreciated if the order was made before the final vote on this bill, so as to give equal treatment to all telephone companies."

Today, as the House is dealing with this bill to amend the Bell Canada Act, have the orders been made? No, they have not. So I took upon myself to check with a few people in the know at Industry and at Canadian Heritage and I was assured that the drafting of these orders would be completed in the very near future.

We can only thank my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, for her hard work in favour of the rights of Quebec Telephone and indeed of the people in Quebec who are serviced by this excellent company.

I will now go back to the claims made by the industry minister, this unabashed advocate of unfettered competition. As I mentioned before, he said, and I will repeat it to show how wrong he is, that the real winners of convergence, or competition, will be the consumers.

Let us look at the real consequences we have been seeing for some time now. The deregulation of telecommunications started about ten years ago, but the CRTC authorized competition in long distance services only in 1992. This measure put an end to a long standing tradition of monopoly in telecommunications. That decision was supposed to generate significant savings for the consumers. But what happened in fact?

As shown in the report on long distance savings by the coalition for affordable telephone services, filed in February 1996, most residential subscribers of companies that are members of Stentor have enjoyed no substantial reduction in their long distance bills since the CRTC opened up the area to competition in 1992.

Let us look at page 2 of the coalition's report; it reads as follows: "Last December, the members of the Stentor group convinced the

federal government that they should be allowed to keep the increases and not have to reduce basic rates. If residential subscribers remain customers of Stentor for long distance services, they will pay no less than $700 million in 1996 and 1997, and over a ten-year period up to $4.5 billion", an amount that would go to the telephone companies without giving the subscribers our honourable industry minister referred to the benefit of discounts on long distance calls they should have received according to all the promises we have heard. The Coalition concludes that this is unfair.

The coalition goes on to say that long distance rates have gone down, but significantly so only in the case of wholesale users, mainly large corporations.

Now about local telephone rates. In ruling 94-19, the CRTC announced that it would, among other things, authorize a rebalancing of rates between long distance and local services and would therefore allow three increases of $2 each in the monthly basic service rate over the next three years. In exchange, the telecommunications companies would commit to reducing the long distance bills of residential subscribers and small and medium size businesses by the same amount.

However, Bell Canada and the seven other telecommunications companies that are members of the Stentor group objected to this restriction and filed a petition with the government asking that the restriction be withdrawn.

Obviously, and unfortunately, the Minister of Industry responded favourably to the expectations of the Stentor Group by maintaining a portion of the increase in local service charges, i.e. $2 in 1996, $2 in 1997, with a $2 reassessment in 1998, while allowing long distance charges to continue to be dictated by so-called competition in the marketplace.

Yet, public notice 95-49, tabled by the CRTC on November 22, 1995, that is before the government's rejection of rulings 94-19 and 95-21, states, among other things, that "the CRTC feels local rate increases, over and above the ones that would result from the rate rebalancing referred to in ruling 95-21, raise concerns about the maintaining and affordability of local services". The Minister of Industry does not seem to share these concerns, since his only policy is a belief in uncontrolled competition.

Paradoxically, while consumers could look forward to an increase in local rates and no decrease in long distance rates, the president of Bell Canada told Le Devoir on December 21, 1995 that this government decision would not result in a reduction in costs or maintaining the same rates for consumers but in a 1 per cent increase in the yield on shareholders' assets for 1996.

The Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec, also known as FNACQ, said in the same article that Canadian households would have to pay more than one billion dollars over the next three years in increases in local rates so the telephone companies could make the desired profits.

An analyst with FNACQ, Marie Vallée, added that the CRTC's original decision would have led to the first substantial decrease in low and medium volume long distance rates for residential users and small businesses. We now know that the exact opposite is happening.

On September 6 last year, Bell made a new submission to the CRTC regarding residential services. This submission was in two parts. The first part concerned updating the telephone network for about 490,000 customers in Quebec and Ontario. The second part proposed compressing the rate scale from 19 levels to 11, which would result in an average increase of $1.11 for 850,000 Quebec households.

This request by Bell Canada has just been approved by the CRTC. As regards the $2 increases already announced for 1996 and 1997, it seems to me the government could be more attuned to customers' need for affordability, but it did nothing.

Not only are Mr. and Mrs. ordinary consumer affected, business rates are affected as well. In the spring of 1996, Bell Canada submitted a proposal to the CRTC to harmonize the rates paid by business customers, in other words, another rate increase. According to Bell, business customers in small communities, that is customers in rural communities, will have to pay between $44 and $54 for their lines, whereas businesses in major centres will pay between $39 and $44 only. The increase would take effect in July 1997.

If we are trying to tell small business to move out of the rural community to the city, we could not put it better. What a poor message to be sending to an economy that wants nothing more than to get back on track.

In its press release of September 11, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that the Bell Canada telephone company had justified its application by alleging that small businesses outside Montreal and Toronto were subsidized and, therefore, not paying their fair share of the real costs of such lines.

However, Catherine Swift, president of that organization, responded that only a minority of businesses were getting such subsidies and that last August's rate increases had in fact eliminated these subsidies.

As for the vice-president of the federation from Quebec, Pierre Cléroux, he said that small businesses are the biggest job creators,

that several of them had a precarious status, and that such an increase in telephone rates would affect not only their performance, but could even threaten them in some cases.

I would now like to tell the House and the public which costs will affect some ridings. I hope that the constituents who are watching us today will draw the obvious conclusion regarding the government's concern about protecting the rights of consumers as opposed to its eagerness to meet the endless, insatiable needs of large businesses.

Let us talk about the riding of Sherbrooke. Bell Canada's application in the riding of the leader of the Conservative Party represents a 50.8 per cent increase for the city of Sherbrooke alone.

In Laval West, the monthly fee for a business line will rise from $42.20 to $54.75, or a 21.1 per cent increase.

In Brome-Missisquoi, rates will go up by 32.8 per cent in Clarenceville and 50 per cent in Magog. The people of Bedford, Bromont, Cowansville, Dunham, Farnham, Frelighsburg, Henryville and Sutton are looking at increases of between 60 and 62.5 per cent.

In Gatineau-La Lièvre, the increases will amount to 41.8 per cent in Thurso, 52.2 per cent in St-Pierre-de-Wakefield, and 50.3 per cent in Buckingham; and in Gatineau, each line will cost $63.20 per month instead of $38.75, a 63 per cent increase.

In Hull-Aylmer, a riding represented by the minister responsible for the Outaouais, rates will increase by 41.3 per cent in Hull and 63.1 per cent in Aylmer.

In Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, the municipality of Luskville will see the cost of business lines rise by 41.9 per cent, while Maniwaki and other municipalities in the area will be facing a 60.1 per cent increase. Chelsea will be one of the hardest hit in Quebec, with business line rates rising from $38.75 to $68.80, or a 77.5 per cent increase.

In Saint-Maurice, the venerable riding of Saint-Maurice, the people of Grand-Mère and Shawinigan are facing a 50 per cent increase.

As you can see, small businesses outside the greater Montreal and Toronto areas will suffer losses amounting to $115 million per year if the CRTC approves Bell Canada's proposed rate increases for 1997.

I regret to say that this government fails to realize that unhampered, unrestricted competition is not in the interest of consumers.

We are anxiously waiting to see what the government will do once the CRTC renders its decision regarding Bell Canada's application to raise tariffs for business lines.

As I pointed out earlier, the government claims that consumers and businesses will benefit from this competition. Unfortunately, the facts prove just the opposite.

Instead of using their own money to invest in modernization, telecommunications companies pass most of the cost on to the consumers, this with the blessing of the industry minister, who seems to wash his hands of it. Worse yet, the poorest consumers and those living outside large urban centres are the hardest hit. The Minister of Industry can no longer afford not to be involved.

While the re-balancing of tariffs is necessary in a competitive environment, the government should show leadership in order to alleviate the negative impact of thses actions by proposing stopgap measures for low income people and for small and medium size businesses in rural or semi-rural areas.

There are elements of solutions. The Bloc Quebecois has already mentioned them to the government and it will do it again now. The Bloc Quebecois is very interested in solutions proposed by the federation of consumers' associations and by the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

These groups propose to first set a monthly rate ceiling of $15 for the basic service provided to households that have confirmed, through a self-certification process, as is done in California for example, that their income is below the poverty line. The whole process would be based on a universal telecommunications access fund. These moneys would come from a supplement charged to the ultimate user of telecommunications services. The providers of telecommunications services would be responsible for collecting these moneys and transferring them to the fund. In return, the fund would compensate companies providing the service to the poor.

In the case of small and medium size businesses located in the regions, the purpose of the fund would be to ensure a sharing of access and maintenance costs, which are higher in the regions than in urban areas. The fund would be financed through a contribution paid by companies providing telecommunications services.

Again, the government has yet to act upon the proposals made by these organizations. Convergence is here to stay, it is a technological fact we can no longer avoid. It is part of the government strategy concerning the information highway.

As we indicated before, in the telecommunications area, the government's commitment to defend the interest of the consumers is too often swiftly dismissed in favour of the interest of telecommunication companies, and the government's record as regards the information highway is no exception to that rule.

You have to understand that the federal strategy concerning the information highway seems to promote measures supporting telecommunications, such as personal communications services, local

multipoint communications systems, multimedia services via satellites, direct broadcast satellites and broadcaster digitizing.

On the other hand, the protection of personal information, copyright and privacy, and measures relating to offensive content, child pornography, production of francophone content, affordability, accessibility and universality of these services seem to be low on the priority list.

The federal strategy with respect to the information highway is incomplete. It is being doled out bit by bit by the Minister of Industry, despite extensive, in-depth studies by various levels of government.

Despite the CRTC report on competition and culture on Canada's information highway tabled a good year and a half ago, despite the final report by the information highway advisory council tabled over a year ago, despite the many departmental committees on which public servants toil away and without the benefit of a pre-study by a standing committee of the House of Commons-other than the Committee on Canadian Heritage that received evidence on more general issues-and despite the Minister of Industry's constant reminders of the need for urgent action, the minister has shown himself quite unable to define concrete and viable orientations for the more sensitive areas of the information highway.

To get a hint of the minister's lack of insight, you only have to review the document he has just released. Everyone was expecting the federal government's action plan on the information highway. Instead, we got a report recapping the progress made on the information highway. The Minister of Industry told us this was a progress report on Canada's transition toward the information society and the government's response to the recommendations made by the Information Highway Advisory Council in September 1995.

The Bloc Quebecois reacted strongly to the tabling of this so-called strategy. Here are the main points that we condemned the report for at the time.

While the report is a good analysis of the problem, it has nothing to do with the political intention of a thoughtful government that is saying it is urgent to move forward. The report denies the existence of the Quebec culture by making it an element of the multicultural diversity of Canada. The report covers all the technological aspects of the information highway, but leaves out the social aspects entirely.

The report sanctions the hopes of the advisory committee on the information highway, which reflect a federal intrusion in provincial jurisdictions and which ultimately sanction new duplications of provincial programs. Finally, the report describes the majority of problems related to the information highway, but totally postpones dealing with the solutions to these problems.

You will have understood that Bill C-57 in itself is a modernization of an act that had now to be modernized. But the government could not examine where this bill will lead the Quebec people and the Canadian people without checking at the same time the guidelines that are established to ensure that everything is in the best interests of the people. And the people are also the consumers. They work, for the most part, for small and medium size businesses.

This is why I stressed the inconveniences currently experienced by individuals and by small corporations in the context of this convergence, this implementation of the information highway.

We too support progress. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois must support this bill. However, as I said, and I will say it again, the Bloc Quebecois does not support progress at any cost, progress at the expense of the most vulnerable ones, progress at the risk of killing our small and medium size businesses, particularly in rural areas.

I would like to conclude by making three recommendations. We ask the Liberal government to exercise diligence to make sure that Québec-Téléphone and BC Tel get a satisfactory agreement so that they, like other telecommunications companies, have an opportunity to offer their services in the context of the convergence of telecommunications.

Second, we ask the Liberal government to fulfil the commitment made in its red book, in the chapter on small and medium size businesses, to the effect that the federal government must contribute to the creation of a climate that promotes economic development. Once the CRTC renders its decision on rate increases for business lines, this government will show us whether it intends to fulfil its promise or to forget it like so many other ones.

Third, we ask this government to stop the mad dash for the information highway, something that is less and less affordable to consumers, small and medium size businesses, and those who live in rural areas.

[Credit Cards, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, at a press conference I attended, the Association coopérative d'économie familiale de l'Outaouais announced that more than 40 consumer associations in Quebec had just formed a coalition to ask that legislation be passed to cap credit card interest rates.

It is interesting to note how many associations have come forward in support of the Outaouais ACEF campaign and how quickly they did so. These are associations from every region of Quebec, including a large number of co-operative home economics associations, the Service budgétaire et communautaire de Jonquière, the Carrefour d'entraide Drummond, the diocese of Gatineau-Hull, Logemen'occupe and many more.

These associations support the coalition of federal members of Parliament demanding that banks and stores lower the interest rates on their credit cards.

As a member of the executive of this coalition of federal MPs and on behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to congratulate these associations and their volunteers and to thank them for their support on this issue.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us seeks to establish an agency that will have a number of powers and responsibilities regarding the food industry.

As you know, in Quebec, we already have a body, namely the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that assumes all the powers and responsibilities necessary in any state to ensure the public has access to food that meets modern safety and quality standards, and does so in a cost effective way.

This morning, I speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois primarily to make sure the agency to be established will satisfy the probity criteria that Canadians and Quebecers should expect.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed a series of amendments and, this morning, we are debating the sixth group of these amendments. I will now discuss them.

The first one deals with clause 12, lines 28 and 29, on page 4 of the bill. The amendment that we propose provides that the agency is exempt from the application of section 7 and subsection 69(3) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It also states that, for the purposes of paragraph 92(1)( b ) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the agency is deemed to be designated pursuant to subsection 92(4) of that act.

Why do we propose this amendment? Because, in its current form, the agency would be a "separate employer" under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which means that some employees would lose vested rights.

The purpose of this act is not to take anything away from public servants, but to ensure a better integration of functions currently being fulfilled by three different bodies.

This amendment is also in response to a request from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Given the parliamentary procedure, should the amendment we discussed in previous days be adopted, it would obviate the need for this particular amendment.

I should point out that PIPS agrees with the view expressed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, except that it is asking that the bill be amended to allow it to negotiate a number of issues that are important to its members.

Again, the purpose of the bill is not to wrong public servants, but to better serve the public from coast to coast.

If the government does not vote in favour of the amendments being proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the result will be that bargaining agents for the agency's future unionized employees will not be able to continue to bargain in a certain number of areas. These areas are as follows: organization of the public service, assignment of duties to positions within the agency, and classification, appointment, evaluation, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off, and release of employees for other than disciplinary reasons.

You can see, the whole House can see, that important rights, substantial protection that is there for the majority of employees under the Public Service Employment Act will no longer apply to agency employees when the initial two-year transition period comes to an end.

This is a situation that must be drawn to the attention of this House. It was incumbent on the Bloc Quebecois to condemn this situation because, I repeat, the law must not be used, directly or indirectly, to tamper with the rights of public servants.

We also have another amendment. The agency is deemed to be included in the definition of "federal undertaking" in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code, and that that act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the agency and its employees.

We are proposing this additional amendment because, in its present form, the agency will be a separate employer as defined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

I would also remind members that we are introducing this amendment at the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. With respect to the alliance, the government unfortunately did not take into account the legislative positions put forward by the unions during consultations held by the government to determine the agency's status. Workers whose positions must be transferred to the new agency would lose benefits negotiated or integrated with the National Joint Council. They would thus lose any benefits they had under the work force adjustment directive. They would also lose their protection with respect to staffing and classification.

You will understand that, in order to resolve this situation, and at the same time allow it to improve conditions for its members, the alliance is therefore asking that the government designate the agency as covered by the Canada Labour Code. The Bloc Quebecois, through its amendment, is backing the alliance's request because it is a reasonable one. It meets these criteria: that bills passed should be for, not against, improving the well-being of public servants.

I hope the House will also be receptive to this amendment, which is so obviously justified, as you can see.

In the few minutes I have left, I will move on to another amendment in the same block, this one affecting clause 13, lines 30 to 34. This amendment follows on, of course, from the previous one by the Professional Institute of the Public Service, which also recommended this one to us.

More specifically, the employees of the agency are to be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act, and not, under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, as the bill reads at present.

We are bringing in this new amendment because, as it stands at present-again we must remember that the agency will be a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and employees must not lose vested rights.

What the Professional Institute of the Public Service is calling for is along the same lines as the Alliance, except that the latter also wants to amend the bill in a way that would allow it to negotiate a number of important matters for its members.

Again, if our amendment were not supported by this House, there are a number of important matters which could no longer be negotiated by the agency on behalf of its future unionized staff.

In short, once again the situation is worthy of the attention of this House, and we are pointing it out because we believe proper protection is in the best interests of future employees.

I know my time is very nearly up, so I will conclude by bringing to the attention of members that, generally speaking, this bill rather freely opens the door to possible political appointments to the board and staff of this agency. It would be regrettable, you will agree, if we were to end up with a bill which might tempt a political party in power to take advantage of a number of openings to exercise what is generally called patronage.

When human beings are involved there is always the risk of human weaknesses, which is why I feel it is the duty of this House to ensure that such patronage could not be possible, by quite simply making the appropriate changes to the bill to prevent any possibility of political appointments by the party in power.