Pierre De Savoye

[Credit Cards, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, an Industry Canada report that came out last September stated that interest rates charged credit card holders are still too high, given the fall in the Bank of Canada rate. The Minister of Industry himself said at that time, and I quote: "The president of the Bankers' Association does not perhaps understand that consumers are fed up".

How can the Minister of Industry take the completely unacceptable approach of doing nothing, while interest rates are dropping everywhere but on credit cards? Why does the minister not join the coalition of 150 MPs who are trying to improve the situation for the average member of the public?

[Credit Cards, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.

We have learned that a record number of people in Canada and in Quebec are experiencing financial difficulties and are being forced to dip into their registered retirement savings plans. At the same time, banks and major department stores are charging exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards and the government is refusing to assume its responsibilities with respect to this issue of public concern.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that the low interest rate cards being touted by the secretary of state the day before yesterday are available only to clients who are well off financially, and that it is those in the middle class who are paying for others through the elevated rates still in effect on regular cards?

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to Bill C-70, as my colleagues have, but I would like to start by drawing the attention of the House to a number of little problems.

For instance, we find it regrettable that the Minister of Finance tabled these documents less than 24 hours ago. We are talking of a 300-page document. You will understand that, given the importance of the subject, such a document cannot be flipped through any old way.

I would not raise this question, I can assure you, if this were an isolated case. A few weeks ago, however, during the firearms debate, I recall that the minister provided journalists, at noon on the dot, with documents I received only at a quarter to three, and the press conferences took place after question period.

You will understand that, in the public interest, the opposition must be given enough time to read documents in advance so they can react in an informed manner, in order to enrich the debate and to lead to better decision making.

I would also point out that, in connection with the tobacco legislation, the Minister of Health called a press conference last week in the press gallery, and it was only once I was there that I was able to examine the documents the minister was just about to discuss. We are not talking about 24 hours here, or even 2 hours, we are talking about 15 or 20 minutes notice.

One might say that the government has acquired the bad habit of sidestepping debate. Again today, through procedural manoeuvring, a worthwhile discussion was cut short. There are times, mind you, when I wonder what is the use of having a debate in this House. Anyway, I am told this is the best system around. Perhaps, but when this system fails as it did today, it acts as a muzzle and no longer serves public interest, as if that was not already difficult enough.

That is why I felt the need to start my remarks by submitting to you and to this House that acting this way is not in the public interest, and that the official opposition, with all the good will in the world, can only make as useful a contribution as the government will allow it to make by distributing documents in a timely manner. We have to rely on them for that.

That said, Bill C-70 is about the GST, the sacrosanct GST, which, while it was supposed to be abolished, not only still exists, but will now be harmonized. Will it be harmonized harmoniously? That is the question.

The most challenging problem facing us is the fact that the government agreed to pay approximately $1 billion in compensation to the maritimes if they harmonized their sales taxes. Naturally, this enables them to cut their taxes from 19 to 15 per cent. If I lived in the maritimes, I would probably think this is a great idea. The problem is that, for the time being, Canada includes not only the maritimes, but also Quebec.

And Quebec's contribution to this effort amounts to about $250 million. A few minutes ago, I heard the Liberal member say that this will give a competitive edge to businesses in the maritimes. It undoubtedly will. But when he said this, he was saying to Quebecers, not to mention Ontarians, that they are taking a loss so people in the maritimes can benefit.

If it were possible to use Quebec and Ontario resources to help other provinces, it would be fine. But Quebec is having financial problems.

Are you asking me to conclude now? Then I will have a few minutes to speak at three o'clock.

[Tobacco Act, December 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member from the Reform Party moved the previous question, I was on my feet, ready to speak on debate. However, I obviously did not manage to catch your attention, because I was not recognized. We then started the process of voting, which is the stage we are at.

I would respectfully suggest, Madam Speaker, that you reconsider your decision and allow this House to continue debating the main motion. I would like to quote, if I may, Beauchesne's citation 521, which states that the previous question is moved when the original question is under debate. Its purpose is to force a direct vote on the original motion, thereby preventing any amendments to the original question to be proposed. Clearly, what we are doing is not serving the intended purpose of the motion, as the normal procedure was not followed.

I would respectfully suggest that you bring us back to where we should normally be.

[Credit Cards, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since 1994, three members have tabled bills in this House to cap credit card interest rates: myself, the member for Simcoe North and the member for Davenport, a few weeks ago. Furthermore, there are more than 140 members of this House from all parties demanding that the banks and major stores lower their interest rates on credit cards.

If this effort does not pan out within a few weeks, is the minister prepared to support Bill C-351 tabled in this House by the member for Davenport on November 21?

[Credit Cards, December 3rd, 1996]

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

The average difference between the rate of interest on bank credit cards and the Bank of Canada rate is 13.25 per cent. The rate of interest on retailers' cards borders on the indecent at 28 per cent, where it has remained essentially since 1981. In 1991, the federal

Liberals, who were then in opposition, were tearing their hair out over a difference of 10 to 12 per cent.

Given that each 1 per cent reduction in the interest rate on credit cards enables Canadian and Quebec consumers to save at least $10 million a month, why is the minister not acting to put a stop to these indecent rates?

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, constitutional matters are always delicate ones. We know that things are written into the Constitution, into the constitution of any country, in order to ensure, in a way, that they remain unchanged. In fact, what is written into a constitution is aimed, in some cases, at protecting the rights of certain minorities, and in other cases, certain majorities.

In the case of interest to us here, especially after the Newfoundland referendum, we understand that what will be done will affect rights a certain minority believed were protected for ever.

I am not taking a stand in this debate, but I would like the hon. member who has just spoken to clarify his view of this duality between permanently maintaining rights which are perhaps a bit

outmoded, on the one hand, and this constitutional guarantee which calls for the ongoing protection of minority rights, on the other.

These two points of view are contradictory, and I would like the hon. member to explain how he resolves that contradiction.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the government's mellow mood to talk about radioactive waste. For five years, the auditor general has accused Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of failing to declare its environmental liabilities in its financial statements. And for five years, AECL has ignored repeated requests by the auditor general.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to promise, on behalf of the government, that she will urge AECL to act quickly on the repeated requests of the auditor general that AECL declare its environmental liabilities in its financial statements?

[The Environment, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

This morning, the auditor general discussed environmental issues. Regarding the 5,000 contaminated federal sites, the auditor general expressed his concern about the fact that the government was still unable to assess the health, safety and environmental risks and costs.

Considering that according to certain preliminary estimates, cost would total $2 billion, not including the cost related to radioactive waste, and also considering that the public's health is at stake, when will the Deputy Prime Minister see to it that her government proceeds with the assessment requested by the auditor general?

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the list in question will not be used for the next election, but for the following one, which is a number of years away, probably seven or so.

The feeling of urgency expressed by the member opposite makes me wonder somewhat. It is as though he wants to justify the fact that election lists made by the provinces, including the state of Quebec, are not being used. The member sounds like he wants to eliminate or avoid the use of these lists when he says that they will not be ready for the next election. However, this is not the issue. This is not the object of the legislation before us. We are talking seven years down the road.

In all fairness, the hon. member opposite should consider using provincial lists to ensure a better use of public moneys. We keep talking about avoiding duplication. Here is an excellent opportunity to do things right, because we have the time to do so. We have several years ahead of us to set up a fair system.

You will agree with me that this is not a list that Quebec will be able to use in the context of a federal election, given that, seven years from now, our province will likely have become a sovereign state. Still, the arguments raised by Reform Party members make sense. Indeed, whether we are talking about the Canada of today or the Canada of tomorrow, it makes sense to make better use of public moneys. Therefore, we should immediately start planning to use provincial lists.

This brings me to make a comment. You will recall that, in Quebec, we experienced certain problems. For example, on a number of occasions, residents from another province voted in Quebec by using their secondary residence, a cottage or what have you, or some other scheme.

If there was only one list and only one source of data within each province, this kind of double residency status that allows a person to vote in two different jurisdictions would no longer exist. I imagine that if these things happen in Quebec with out of the province residents, they must also occur in other provinces.

So, while the issue of a single list is first and foremost a matter of making good use of public moneys, it also ensures having reliable information. With two lists and two sets of data, consistency will be a challenge. But if we have only one list and specified, well identified data sources, a higher level of integrity will be possible, and it will be that much easier to monitor and maintain that integrity in our list.

It is a better solution from all points of view. Not only costs will reduced, but we will also have a better quality list. The process the government party is suggesting has two flaws.

Expenses will be duplicated. Surely, we cannot afford to spend money we do not have, especially if expenses are duplicated. Furthermore we will end up with lists whose integrity will never be assured. In fact we are quite certain their integrity will not be adequate. Comparisons will be made between both lists and inconsistencies will remain.

In this House today, we have an opportunity to implement a smarter process that will save taxpayer dollars. The Canadian list will be made up from provincial lists, and the level of integrity will be extremely high.

I repeat that Quebec will probably never have to use such a list, but I think that, at this time, this is what should be done out of respect for taxpayers who pay for government operations. This is a golden opportunity to use cautiously taxpayer dollars, reduce costs, and in the process, get more for our money. Opposition parties are fully playing their role of looking after the public interest.

I cannot understand why the government party seems to think or rather insists that provincial guarantees are inadequate. It is deliberately ignoring better solutions, and refusing co-operation and a better use of taxpayer dollars.

I cannot understand why. It is really strange. You will pardon my persistence, but I will ask once more the government party to reconsider. This list will be used seven years from now. It seems to me we have all the time we need to do things correctly, and I cannot understand why we should not do it. In conclusion, I hope the wisdom that prevails in opposition parties will also prevail in the government party.