André Bachand

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal work's peak period has arrived. The current Employment Insurance Act and its regulations are making hundreds of families poorer and damaging the economy of a number of regions of the country.

There are still too many seasonal workers who do not qualify. Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us whether she will amend the act soon and thoroughly, in order to enable seasonal workers to receive benefits?

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to assure my hon. colleague that we do have great relations with our former leader. I hope things will remain the same after he is elected premier, maybe as soon as next year, who knows.

I do not think Mrs. Marois was finance minister in 1995, but it is true that the Bloc has consistently ensured for several years now, just like the government of Quebec, regardless of the political party in office—to keep, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot pointed out—some kind of protection for Quebec and for Canada against the ups and downs of the sad decisions made by Ottawa.

I will point out that the Mazankowski budget, for instance, was the first step of the very tough budget approach. It was under our government that the whole issue of transferring tax points began.

Yes, it is important for all partners, government members and opposition members alike, to join forces to fight the government.

Having said that, let me remind my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that when Mr. Clark and I had the honour and privilege to meet with the premier of Quebec, Mr. Landry told us candidly that he did not think it was likely to happen. But we do have to hang on to some kind of hope if we want our requests to appear credible. The transfer of tax points is obviously very important. As I said earlier, equalization is also a major concern for Quebec. It is all interrelated. I am sure my colleague would agree with me.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants, who will join us in a few minutes, I am sure.

That said, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion by our Bloc Quebecois colleagues, which we will of course support. We may have a few problems with the way it is drafted, but I think that, by talking on the subject, we will have the opportunity to readjust, review and improve federal-provincial relations. It can do no harm to hold a first ministers' conference. I think this motion must be agreed to right off.

Every time there is an opposition day, and we look at the subject proposed, questions come to mind. I do not want to detract from the motion's credibility or its objectives, but we always wonder what lies behind an opposition motion.

Is it current affairs, the problems of a given party, government policy on a specific matter? Is it a more specific policy that concerns Quebec? I do not want to detract from the good intentions of our colleagues in the Bloc, whom we like very much.

It perhaps has to do with the fact that our colleague, Jean Charest, visited the rest of Canada—as they say often—with ministers from the country's well off provinces to present a sort of common front, to stand up to the federal government on the issue of tax point transfers.

Madam Speaker, I will share a secret with you: it may be because the Bloc Quebecois wants to help the Parti Quebecois by saying “You know, we put forward a motion in the House of Commons and Liberal members voted against the transfer of tax points”. At the same time it wants to thwart Jean Charest's efforts.

As we know, a provincial election is looming in Quebec. There may be a more partisan motivation vis-à-vis Quebec on the part of the Bloc Quebecois. That being said, it takes nothing away from the merit of the motion. What will happen to it later on is everybody's guess, but I believe this to be its true purpose.

This is bad news if it is truly the reason behind this. We will however support the motion and I hope a number of members and parties will do likewise.

This being said, the transfer of tax points is an important issue, but one must be very careful when talking about tax points. It is connected to another issue, that of equalization.

One tax point transferred from the federal government to the provinces, assuming it is worth $1 today and the province in question enjoys significant economic growth, may be worth $1.05 or $1.25 one, two or three years down the line. A province's economic vitality pushes the value of tax points upwards.

This is why the bigger and wealthier provinces of this country want to have tax points transferred to them quickly because, in spite of the inflation, economic growth would add value to them. We must be careful. We live in a vast country where for the time being—I repeat, for the time being—some provinces are less well off than others. We must therefore talk about equalization.

If tax points are transferred, for example to Newfoundland, these points will have less value in 18 months than the tax points transferred to Quebec, Ontario or Alberta.

Therefore, we must have an equalization system that corrects this situation. This is important. This principle must be the basis for any federal-provincial discussion.

Even though the motion of the Bloc Quebecois cannot be amended the way we would like to, we must keep in mind that we should talk about equalization, to ensure that the have not provinces do not feel left out in this reapportioning of tax points, this reapportioning of existing and future wealth.

On the issue of equalization, I should point out that the premiers from Atlantic Canada asked that the ceiling be removed with respect to the calculation of royalties, as was done for Alberta over 50 or 60 years ago. The idea is to give the provinces a chance to keep the new wealth that they may have, without being immediately penalized.

Of course, the current government said no. This is not surprising, as we know, but it is unfortunate.

We say yes to a discussion on tax points and on transfers. This is important. Why? Because it provides and stabilizes a tax value for health, education, social services and so on, and it also gives it a permanent character.

This must not be a strictly political decision on the part of the central government. We agree with that. But this should really be part of a discussion with all Canadians, and the poorest provinces should not be excluded in calculating how many tax points to transfer. We are saying that equalization payments must also be considered.

That having been said, we are telling the government not to be afraid of talking with Quebecers, with the government of Quebec and with the people of Ontario and Nova Scotia. It should not be afraid of getting together with people from time to time. There is no harm in doing so. The goal is not necessarily to come up with a formal agreement overnight. But why not have a much more permanent discussion mechanism? Why not? Why not recognize the importance of our partners in this country? Why is it always necessary to rattle the central government's cage to get anything?

When the central government knows it is on the eve of an election, it decides to transfer a little more money. But the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has put it very well, and has done so for years now, when he says that there are hidden billions.

When we look at the government's huge surpluses, the impression one is left with, in the case of the health agreements reached last September, is the same as if I were the federal government and my little boy of five, whose name is Gabriel, had come to ask me for money. What I would do is reach into my pocket, pull out a handful of change, give it to him and tell him how generous his father was. That is what it is like. I got off easy, because he was happy with the handful of change. But he did not know that my pockets were full of money, because he got more than one pack of Pokémon cards.

It seems like the provinces have to beg for pocket change compared to the enormous surpluses hidden in various programs and in the federal government's way of doing things.

Let us come to an agreement, talk about tax points and provide the provinces with stable funding. Let us give them a chance to plan ahead: equalization. Let us give poorer provinces a chance not to be penalized through the transfer of tax points and encourage them to put the money and energy needed for their development, particularly with regard to natural resources off the Atlantic coast.

We could be the world's largest oil and gas producer if we had a vision and if we helped our partners, the provinces, often the poorer ones and sometimes the richer ones.

We strongly support this motion, even though we know the federal government will say that it has done an excellent job since 1993 and government members will vote against it. Nevertheless, the Bloc's motion is important inasmuch as the provinces are asking for a tax partnership.

In closing, I will simply say that I invite members to look at the spirit of the motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois today and to vote in favour of it. There is no obligation of result, but the first result that could come out of this motion would be for the federal government to accept, at a federal-provincial conference, to discuss such an important issue as the transfer of tax points.

[Points Of Order, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

First, I am not as knowledgeable as you are, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask you a question. At what point can the Chair decide that a bill is in order?

When the bill was introduced earlier during routine proceedings, nobody rose. We saw the very professional and credible look of the Speaker. He looked to see if the government House leader would rise then to debate the admissibility of the bill before its introduction.

The government House leader did not rise at that time. He was busy, and I understand that. He rose a few moments ago, as it is his prerogative to rise at any time on a point of order.

Here is my question for the Chair: since the bill has already been introduced, at what point can the Chair decide to refuse or accept a bill?

I am not as knowledgeable as you are with regard to procedural matters, but I would say that it should be before the introduction of the bill. It seems that the bill has gone through an important step and, with all due respect, I would like the Chair to rule on that issue.

Second, my colleague, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is very much interested in everything that goes on in the House with regard to procedure, just like you are. We agree with the House leader of the official opposition and would ask the following of the Chair. We would like to have a little more time to prepare our response to the point of order raised by the government House leader.

This is an important bill. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned that there is practically unanimous support for Bill S-15. Yet, we are caught up in procedural wrangling between the two Houses. We would like to have time to react, knowing full well that the majority of members in this House have received dozens and hundreds of letters from people from their ridings asking them to support Bill S-15.

A decision has to be made which, we believe, has a historical value with regard to parliamentary rules, that is, whether or not the bill is in order.

With all due respect, I am asking the Chair to give us a little more time, at least 24 hours, to come up with the arguments that could help it make an informed decision for both Houses.

[The Environment, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have a drinking water problem, and the government is dragging its feet on this.

Some weeks ago, the House passed a motion calling for national standards. Yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities called upon the government to take action.

When is the Minister of Health going to act? What progress has been made in the consultations with the provinces? What is the government waiting for before it acts?

[The Environment, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and deals with the situation in Shannon, Quebec, where the drinking water supply has been contaminated by federal government actions.

The Minister of National Defence has announced a program that will not solve the problem. Federal responsibility is clear, and the contamination continues.

When is the Minister of Health going to require his government to assume its responsibility and announce a proper long term solution to the serious problem from which the people of Shannon are suffering?

[Private Disability Insurers, May 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to private member's Motion M-244. Since we will be finishing early and since everybody here, including me, feels very energetic, I will try to make my presentation in Canada's other official language, English.

The intent of this bill is to create an ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers in Canada. While the intent is to protect those who use this type of insurance, I do not think this is necessarily the correct way to go about it.

It should be noted that some provinces have set up their own ombudsmen to deal with these issues. Ontario, for example, has an insurance ombudsman. That ombudsman's role is to offer consumers an informal, last stop forum for resolving complaints about the business practices of insurance companies in Ontario.

I bring this up while debating the member's motion because I think it is important that before we create yet another government agency we are satisfied it will not play a duplicate role in regard to what is already occurring in the industry and also, I might add, in the provinces.

Instead of imposing government on everyone and everything, we should allow the private sector to take the lead on these issues and have parliamentarians here to ensure that the sector acts in a way that is ethical, lawful and in the best interests of consumers.

I again want to focus specifically on the member's motion. As I said before, the intent comes from a desire to ensure that consumers are protected, and it is a great intent. The problem is that the current industry is full of provincial and federal overlap and private and public overlap and the last thing we need to do is add to that congestion and overlap.

The bill deals with a very specific type of insurance and calls for an ombudsman with a very limited role in this large industry. If we were to create this agency which is very narrow in scope, the logical next step would be to create a similar ombudsman for each specific type of insurance. Would we create one specifically for car insurance, one for homeowners' insurance and so on? I think my point is made.

It should be noted that as we speak provincial and federal officials are engaged in discussions over the creation of a national organization to deal with consumer complaints. This ombudsman's office would be different from a federal office in that it would be created by the provinces and so would deal with the jurisdictional issues that often arise when a federal agency is imposed on the provinces. This ombudsman would be one of national scope, but would not be limited by the constitutional restrictions that arise when the agency is a federal initiative. This may surprise members, but it is another example of how we in Ottawa do not always need to impose on the private sector or, in this case, the provinces.

The financial services sector is evolving and changing rapidly. In response to that, the private sector has adapted and will continue to do so. The private sector has the skills, knowledge and desire to keep its consumers happy and recognizes the benefit of doing so.

The provinces are also taking a step in conjunction with the federal government to address consumer protection in this industry. As a federal government we should allow this to occur, not muddy the waters any more and only interject when and as needed.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is it exactly. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. Indeed, in Canada, when there has been a marked, rapid and brutal increase in the taxes on tobacco products, the black market has moved in.

That said, the data are available and studies, which are, more or less conclusive, have been done. In the U.S., for example, increased taxes on cigarettes had limited effect on the number of smokers per age group. When one state is located in the central part of the States, and its partners from the other states have similar measures, data are available.

In Bill C-26, the most interesting measures, as I was saying earlier, concern a tax on tobacco products at the factory gate. This is about what we have. The old federal taxes we had prior to the arrival of the infamous, questionable and questioned GST, like the old federal manufacturing tax, resolved part of the problem.

It will be interesting to see the effectiveness and the impact of a tax on health. There is a study that has nothing to do with health. At one point a curve was developed, which was used frequently by Mr. Reagan in the States: the higher the taxes, the higher the revenues. At a certain point, however, revenues drop.

It will be interesting to see what tax on cigarettes will be the optimum in discouraging smoking among the young. I hope that the Department of Health will monitor this closely.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of technical points to make before I start. I advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Kings—Hants who has not had a cigarette since the holiday season. He is setting a example for the House.

I would also like to thank the translation service and the interpreters. I find it very hard to stick to my prepared speech. I want to thank them for their understanding and for trying to follow me. I will try to speak more slowly. They do an absolutely remarkable job and I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank them for their understanding.

This being said, Bill C-26 is a tax bill, which hopefully will change things in the area of health. While I was looking at the bill I was thinking “Can a tax bill really save lives?” We certainly hope so, and this is the reason why we have been asking the government for a long time to put money back into health. The government should put more money into health.

If we are willing to levy an additional tax to put warnings on cigarette packages alerting young people to the dangers of tobacco, if it works, and we hope it will, we should take this opportunity to invest massively in transfer payments to the provinces so that they can deal with others issues.

Bill C-26 sets this amount at $4 per carton of cigarettes. I am a smoker, the only one in the Progressive Conservative caucus, and I am wondering why $4, why not $3, why not $10? Honestly, I do not know why. The government is proceeding cautiously, step by step. It claims smuggling is not an issue, yet it is still moving very timidly, according to anti-tobacco groups both in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

The parliamentary secretary said that $4 will give us this much money. It would have been interesting to know what the impact of a tax increase is on cigarettes sales. If people buy less, revenues will be lower. What are the mathematics? What is the government's objective in introducing Bill C-26 as it relates to the reduction of tobacco use, particularly among young people? We do not know.

Of course, it is not ethically correct to say that $4 are added to the price of a carton of cigarettes. However, we do not know what the government's plan in the fight against tobacco is. We know that a bill is coming from the other place.

People are applauding Bill S-15, except that there is a problem with parliamentary tradition. The problem is the fact that a tax is asked for by the other place. The House will examine that bill. I am not worried about that. If Bill S-15 is not acceptable to this House, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, the government, if it is serious, will introduce a bill the very next day, using the same arguments and the same information and will identify it with a C instead of an S. If the government is serious about its fight against tobacco, it must arrange to apply the principle behind the details in the bill.

This being said, $4 is one thing, but interestingly, the government is controlling something controllable in the fight against tobacco. We remember that, when there was a major increase in taxes, companies would sell their cigarettes to the United States and the cigarettes came back through somewhat illegal channels. We would buy Canadian tobacco, but it had made a short trip to the United States before coming back here. This bill corrects this situation.

We knew that one of the reasons why there was a black market was the fact that there was no tax on cigarettes coming out of the production plant. It took years to deal with that issue. We were aware of the problem and of the legislation, but it took six or seven years to make it into an efficient tool.

Now we are told that there is no problem anymore. We know that the black market is active again, albeit to a lesser degree than before, because it is harder now. However as we all know, if there is money to be made, criminals are usually quick to get involved.

As for the Canada—United States agreements, we do not know what measure was taken so that both sides would talk to each other. The case of duty free shops is interesting. People used to go to Old Orchard or elsewhere in the United States for a day or two, perhaps a week, and come back with cigarettes that cost a lot less. That situation is being corrected. This only makes sense.

Indeed, if tobacco products are taxed in Canada because they are deemed to be dangerous products, there is no reason to sell them for less to Canadians who buy them in duty free shops. We must be consistent. The Minister of Finance and his American counterpart deserve praise for having taken the necessary steps to deal with this issue.

We support Bill C-26, but the fact is that according to statistics, over 40,000 people die every year because of tobacco. If two people die from another cause, the government takes immediate action to ban that cause. However tobacco kills 40,000 people per year, and all it does is increase taxes and tell Canadians that it is a dangerous product. I find this a bit cynical.

I come from a town called Asbestos. What is being said around the world? “Asbestos kills. We are banning it”. If we apply the anti-tobacco logic, why not ban tobacco? Why not say that it is a dangerous product and that we are simply banning it. Why not? Because there is a certain degree of social acceptance.

We hope that the anti-tobacco program will be aimed not just at young people, but at all Canadians. Smoking must become unacceptable. I am a smoker and I must say that the bylaw recently passed by the new city of Ottawa, which will take effect August 1, promises to make life difficult.

They are talking about increasing the buffer zones, even outside. There will be buffer zones, as there are in hospitals, for instance. When one goes to the hospital, one may not smoke. There are even restricted areas at entrances. We do not have this situation in the parliamentary buildings; we have our famous smoking urns outside.

I recall being outside smoking a few years ago when the temperature was minus 35 Celsius. Neither cold, nor snow, nor sleet, nor rain will stop a smoker. We are like letter carriers, so we go outside to smoke, and the current Deputy Prime Minister went by and said: “My God”. It smelled terrible. Eventually the buffer zones will be enlarged.

That having been said, it is true that there are people who die because of tobacco. An additional $4 per carton will not solve everything. Bill S-15 will not solve everything. What is missing in this battle is a united front. The battle does not involve the federal, provincial and municipal levels. They do not talk to one another. This is nothing new on the part of the federal government, which acts on its own most of the time, but it ought to talk to its partners.

What other municipality would act like Ottawa? Does it have the support of the provincial and federal governments? We do not know. Within the information program, will the federal government spend money to encourage the provinces and municipalities to pass bylaws, as it has with the City of Ottawa? If there is a constitutional problem relating to a total ban on smoking, will the federal government be prepared to listen to the arguments?

There are logical measures being put forward and we applaud them, but taxation measures are not what is going to solve health problems.

I will close with the remark that, if it is a good thing to address youth smoking by adding more tax and to use those funds for awareness and education campaigns, it is surely also a good thing to reinvest in the entire health system the necessary funds to provide choices to people, not just Quebecers but all Canadians, so that they can live healthier lives.

We applaud Bill C-26 and await Bill S-15, these financial legislative measure introduced in this parliament, which make sense for the health of those we represent. The Conservative Party will be supporting them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I wish you good health.

[Health, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the study submitted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information indicates that our chances of survival vary according to where we live.

We have in the Health Act five major principles, including that of accessibility. What is clear is that the people living in the regions do not have the same services and run more risks than those living near the big cities.

What does the Minister of Health plan to do to ensure, with his provincial partners, that the people living in the regions have access to properly equipped hospitals and quality health services.

Finally, is it not time to review the Canada Health Act?