Paul Crête

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation and I would like him to elaborate on this: would rural development, in which agriculture is surely a very important factor, not require a much broader approach, which, as he mentioned when he talked about co-operation between consumers and producers, would also require a comprehensive approach?

As it is, much of what the federal government does hurts rural communities now, for example with Canada Post and with railways. In many cases, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and I would like the hon. member to say whether the federal government should take a different approach. What should be done to ensure that what the government does through these national corporations carries out the desire for action expressed by the Minister of Agriculture, instead of having a negative effect which destroys this good will with an excessively centralizing approach that often wipes out the efforts of local communities?

[1992 Referendum, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister of Canada takes a malicious pleasure in making Quebec pay for belonging to Canada.

This prime minister has done everything to make Quebecers like him. He was involved in the proclamation of the war measures in 1970. He was responsible for the night of the long knives. He is the one who thanked the Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, for killing the Meech Lake Accord.

Now he is acting like a bad debtor by refusing to pay Quebec back for its contribution to the 1992 referendum, which was held under Quebec law with the agreement of the federal government then in power.

Mr. Prime Minister, you are being consistent only with yourself when you show such contempt for the Quebec people, who are able to judge you when they see who is defending Quebec's interests in this House. You accuse us of being elected under false representations; we reply to you that you are robbing the Quebec people of pride and honour.

[Canadian Economy, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the recent figures in the Work Competitiveness Report show that Canada is in a very bad position. In 1989 Canada had the fourth most competitive economy among OECD countries. Five years later, it stood fourteenth!

This drop is the predictable result of the federal government's inability to control its deficit. The government's stubborn insistence on using its spending power to intervene in provincial areas of jurisdiction is a waste of public funds and is slowing down job creation. Labour training, a tangle of federal-provincial overlap, as the Quebec manufacturers association pointed out yesterday, is a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of federal intervention. And who is paying for all this? Taxpayers and the unemployed.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 20th, 1994]

With regard to the $70 million cut in the budget of the Federal Office of Regional Development (Québec), what is the distribution by sector of the $14 million for 1994-95 and how is the remaining $56 million being distributed for subsequent years?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago some statistics were published on the painful impact of the 1993 unemployment insurance reform on Quebec workers.

The newspaper Le Soleil reported that more than 22,000 Quebecers had been excluded from the unemployment insurance system since the reform came into effect. In addition to the restrictive measures of the Conservatives, we now have those introduced by the Liberals, which will affect, and are already affecting, tens of thousands of Quebecers and Canadians.

I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is now preparing a thorough overhaul of the social safety net, to look behind the figures at all the people who are severely affected by the measures being taken here in Ottawa. Perhaps he will find the compassion which has been clearly lacking since he took over the department and launched the reform of the social safety net.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to table this petition, which is a heartfelt appeal from more than 500 citizens, mostly from the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who call for the necessary action to be taken so that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reopens the television stations in eastern Quebec that were closed in 1990. All in all, we have tabled more than 4,000 signatures in the House this afternoon to overturn this iniquitous decision of the former government.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, the amendment before us can be considered a symbol. If our amendment is passed, it will be a sign that this government acknowledges that provinces which choose to opt out of the program can do so with dignity, and in full awareness of the situation, and fully take advantage of the opportunity to set their own requirements for their program.

If that clause remains unchanged, however, this bill on financial assistance to students will no longer recognize that provinces have the right to opt out with full compensation; it will reduce them to the status of beggars. Each time provinces want to specify a number of points in a section, they will have to abide strictly by the federal financial assistance program, so that it will be impossible to take into consideration special circumstances prevailing in a given province.

I will give you three examples in the bill before us in clauses 7, 10, and 11.

Clause 7 provides for an exemption from interest costs for a borrower who ceases to be a full-time student. If a province wants to exercise its right to opt out of the program, be it the Maritime provinces or Quebec, which has already opted out, and thinks a more substantial exemption is in order, it will not get it because big brother does not agree. There will be no room for adjustment to special conditions in a province where it is harder to find a job. It could be that in Toronto it would be normal to start paying back student loans the day after graduating, but not in New Brunswick where high unemployment makes it harder to get a job and where the provincial government might want to give students a better chance.

With this bill, the federal government forces all provinces to implement a system which is identical to the one defined in the present law.

The second example I wanted to give you concerns clause 10. These are all examples which pertain to people in everyday ordinary activities. It says that the lenders' obligations end if a student dies before completing his studies. How much latitude is there? Could some provinces not say that if death occurs the year after, the same exemption should apply? Some governments can be more humane than others or they may be able to afford more. Other provinces could impose more restrictions on that kind of situation.

With this bill, we will reintroduce the absurd situation which we now have in the health sector, where the federal government imposes standards on the services offered, but reduces its financing every year.

With the clause as worded in this bill, the federal government prevents practically any province that wants to exercise its right to opt out from doing so, because the conditions for opting out are such that there would be no benefit for the provinces, which are left with no room at all to manoeuvre in the areas where they would like to operate.

Clause 11, which deals with permanent disability of the borrower, is another example. The federal legislation says that when a student becomes permanently disabled, the minister can reimburse the amounts owed by the student. Now, a province might feel that in the case of partial disability, the government could repay part of the loan.

The three specific examples I wanted to give you show that an apparently minor clause that, on the face of it, seems quite benign, in fact hides a deep-seated desire for centralization. Instead of tabling a bill in which the opting-out principle is clearly explained, with full compensation for the province, if the government had told the provinces that there would be no more opting out, of course there would have been a tremendous hue and cry. However, this is an attempt to sneak through what the government has been unable to do in a more direct manner.

We suggested a slightly different amendment in committee, and when it was finally defeated, there was a moment of silence as members realized this was a clear example of the very different view we have of government intervention. On the federal side, there is the perception-perhaps it comes from the bureaucracy which answers directly to the ministers-that they know what to do and that is how things are supposed to work, and last but not least, it has to be the same everywhere.

A loan and grant program may include many areas where a province wants to do things differently. As for the previous remarks by the member from the Reform Party, I would ask him to moderate his enthusiasm about the fact that the current provincial Liberal government made no representations at the hearings, because that government exists in name only. It is nearing the end of its term. It is threadbare. It will soon be replaced by another government that will be genuinely committed to defending the interests of Quebec. It will do so, knowing what is involved, and it will ensure that every time, for as long as it is still part of the Canadian federation, the interests of Quebec and those of the provinces will be protected.

It is not only a matter of defending our powers province by province because it is written in the Constitution Act. It is simply obvious when it comes to loans and scholarships. We have had the proof with the representatives of francophone students in the rest of Canada who came and told us: "The law must provide clearly that we will be able to deal with our banks, caisses populaires and other financial institutions headed by francophones". Therefore, often the institution where a student chooses to negotiate his loan will be the institution he will deal with for the rest of his life.

That is why we need systems that allow provinces to opt out and to establish their own rules in order to meet such demands. I think the situation can be assessed very differently, for instance, in New Brunswick compared to Alberta. They could have different goals. There can also be a link between the way the provincial government is funding universities and the student loan and scholarship system.

For example, if a provincial government advocates free education as much as possible, the operating costs of the university will not diminish. Therefore, the government will support those costs in its administrative operations but its student loan and scholarship program will be reduced. Another province might go for a program in which education expenses, the real operating costs of the university will be paid for almost totally by students, while the government will not significantly contribute to the funding of education.

I think that we should have flexibility and pick one of the two following options: We either opt for a centralized system where the conditions are the same for everyone or we allow the provinces to use the important development tool that is education in order to acquire the leverage which will enable future generations to face the future.

I invite the government to reconsider its position on that amendment. It will only have to retain the right to opt out with full compensation and in no circumstances should a province have to convince the minister that its position is right. It should only have to inform him of its position.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 26, on page 3.

Mr. Speaker, after having worked on this bill in committee for several days, we have finally reached the report stage at which time we can propose improvements in the hope of convincing the House that such improvements would give us a clearer piece of legislation which could survive many years without being called into question.

Similar in spirit to the previous amendment, this amendment would ensure that the minister, who in clause 3 may designate for a province an appropriate authority, will not have the power to muzzle the appropriate authority. Perhaps as a result of the previous vote this will no longer be the case, but the basis for this amendment being moved is that this provision of the bill will not be amended. The portion of the clause that would be deleted reads as follows: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".

Since the legislation must provide for all possible situations that could arise, it is possible that in a given situation, the directive given by the minister would be unacceptable for some legal reason to the appropriate authority. The fact that the proposed legislation gives the minister the right to compel the appropriate authority to comply with his directive is tantamount to saying that the appropriate authority is not needed because he would have to implement any decision taken by the minister.

The clause in question states that the minister designates and gives directives to the appropriate authority and that these are binding on him. In our view, deleting lines 18 to 26, as proposed in the amendment motion, would remove the sword of Damocles that is being waved over the heads of the designated appropriate authorities and would give them a minimum degree of flexibility to be effective. Clearly, this piece of legislation, as was the case with the previous student loans legislation, applies more to the other provinces than to Quebec which is the only province to have opted out, or the Northwest Territories. Our duty as legislators is to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be.

While Quebec will certainly continue to exercise the right to opt out-because in Quebec, we have developed an entirely different system, we have a completely different approach to student loans-and continue to do its own thing, legislation is needed and, in the provinces which will be governed by it, this legislation must be administered correctly, honestly and effectively.

In committee, serious work was done and a number of amendments were proposed, some of which were adopted, thus improving the legislation.

I think it is important to note also that in that respect, we end up in a rather symbolic situation at the same time. The hon. member inquired earlier as to where the money came from. Ultimately, grants and bursaries in Quebec are financed by the program, through exchanges between governments. But in fact, it has never been denied that Quebecers' tax money ought to come back to them in the form of grants and bursaries, under a program managed by the province, as this has become the practice, and Quebec has demonstrated that it has the expertise required to grant loans to its students.

In this case, as far as the designation of the appropriate authorities is concerned, we believe that in the spirit of the Constitution and its provisions on jurisdiction, the bill could have provided that the provinces have the authority to appoint them and to delegate this authority to the federal government if they so please, which could have been the case in nine provinces out of ten. A wording along these lines would have avoided infringing upon provincial jurisdiction, which we end up doing with this bill with I must say some contempt for the authority of the provinces. That is what motivated the amendment I have moved.

Seeing that infringement is to be expected, as legislators, we want to make sure that these authorities will retain a minimum of leeway as we move from the old provisions under which the government of each province designated the appropriate authorities to new ones whereby the federal minister will designate the appropriate authorities for each of the provinces. If we cannot persuade the government to change that, let us at least make sure that, as far as the performance of their duties is concerned, these authorities retain some leeway, because the minister might decide for example to sign agreements with banking institutions which could affect the student loan and bursary system, and the authority representing a province may feel this decision was not the most appropriate.

I can give you a specific example: francophone and Acadian students in all provinces of Canada except Quebec asked that caisses populaires be formally identified as banking institutions that could be accredited for loans and bursaries by the government. In a situation like that, one province, for example, could realize that the minister would sign an agreement with only one bank for all of Canada; then the authority in the province might say: "That is not how we want it to apply here and we have some suggestions for you, Minister".

Theoretically, as it is now written, the minister can impose it and the appropriate authority cannot even challenge the decision. This means that even if a provincial government held hearings on loans and bursaries because it considered opting out, for example, those designated as appropriate authorities could receive a notice from the minister that they are not allowed to testify at the hearings.

In the bill as it now reads the minister has indeed too much authority in his spheres of activity, and even more so when past experience is considered, especially in Quebec, which has opted out.

We also considered-because we must always look at the laws regardless of the individuals who apply them and a long-term view-we want to ensure that we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in many other fields, a sort of competition between governments. For example, if the program of a province that wants to opt out is not what the federal minister wants, he might try to override the province, and his power over the appropriate authority would be one way he could control the situation, perhaps to the detriment of the provinces concerned.

That is why we consider it important to support this amendment.

[Association Québécoise Des Préretraités Et Des Retraités, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Association québécoise des pré-retraités et des retraités is marking its 15th anniversary. Membership in this association is growing every year as more people join the attack on the federal government's unacceptable scheme to impose a graduated tax on individuals earning more than $25,000 a year.

Senior citizens can rest assured that the Bloc Quebecois will defend their dearly won rights and will oppose any measure designed to cut the deficit at their expense, given that so much administrative duplication between the federal and provincial governments could be eliminated.

The Bloc Quebecois also intends to keep a close watch on the government to ensure that it stops giving preferential treatment to this country's millionaires who can shelter their money from taxes using the loophole known as family trusts.

[Regional Development, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree also that jurisdiction squabbles between the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Human Resources Development in connection with regional development make his government's action in that area inefficient and result in millions of dollars being wasted for lack of coordination?