Roger Pomerleau

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say to my colleague that we are not the only province, we are not alone in asking for compensation, since three provinces agree with us on this, and the BC premier acknowledges that Quebec should be compensated.

I was listening to a colleague before me say, in response or in a question to another member who spoke before me, that the Reform Party's position is that the maritimes should never have been compensated.

Had the maritimes not had any compensation, Quebec would not be asking for any. What we want is fairness. If a thousand million dollars are sent to the maritimes, we in Quebec are entitled to ask for the $2 billion due us, which the Liberal Party is denying us.

As far as the sovereignist movement is concerned, I would remind my colleague that Quebec's demands have been known, clear and simple for 40 years. All Quebec politicians, whatever their party, have said the same thing. In the mid-1950s, Mr. Duplessis demanded his share of the spoils. Mr. Duplessis was a member of the Union Nationale party.

He was followed by Mr. Lesage, a Liberal and a federalist, who talked of Quebecers being masters in their own home. Next came someone else from the Union Nationale, Daniel Johnson Sr., who called for "equality or independence". Then came René Lévesque, who said: "We cannot go on fighting endlessly like this for 30 years; what we want is Quebec's sovereignty".

Through all these movements and all these premiers, Quebec continued to make the same clear and simple demand. These people were federalists. Quebec has always asked to be recognized for what it is-a nation-with certain privileges in the Constitution enabling it to defend itself as a nation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The refusal by the Canadian government and the Canadian establishment to accept this fact will mean that Quebec will become a country, in the long term. A look at the sovereignty movement in Quebec leaves no doubt that it is a growing movement. The Parti Quebecois was born in 1968. There were hardly any sovereignists in the early 1960s in Quebec. In 1968, the PQ was born. That was less than 30 years ago.

In 1976, the Parti Quebecois was elected for the first time and formed the government in the National Assembly. Three referendums were held. In the first, in 1980, the no vote was 60 per cent and the yes vote, 40 per cent. In the Charlottetown referendum, it was the reverse: 60 per cent voted against the Charlottetown accord. Canadians voted against the accord too, for reasons differ-

ent from ours: they thought we had too much already. In the last referendum, it was 50-50. So it is clear that the sovereignist movement has grown in the past 28 or 29 years.

The government could stop this movement tomorrow, if it wanted. It would be very easy to do, by recognizing in the Constitution that the people of Quebec form a nation and, therefore, have the right to protect themselves and this concept of a nation.

That is all Quebecers are asking for. Not me. Personally, I am an unconditional sovereignist, in that I fail to see any point in a nation living as a minority within another nation, because as a minority, you then have to do as you are told; you do what they want, when they want.

I want to be independent. I want to make my own choices, speak on my own behalf and take my own responsibilities. That is how it should be.

But that, we will never get from Canada. I will never be a true federalist, but if this kind of recognition was included in the Constitution, most Quebecers would go for it. They would sign the Constitution they have never signed, and I would democratically fall in with the people's will and stop fighting for sovereignty. But that will never happen because this Prime Minister and his predecessors have never stopped attacking Quebec.

Remember the long knives stuck in the back of René Lévesque by Trudeau and the little guy from Shawinigan, who will soon be calling an election and whom we will beat in his own riding.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

I will come back to that. That is what I was going to reply to my colleague.

In fact, we lost the last referendum and I have often heard my colleagues in the Reform Party wondering why we did not respect the decision of Quebecers.

The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are political parties advocating the sovereignty of Quebec. We are not the ones who decide, of course; that is up to the people of Quebec. To this end, we must hold referendums in Quebec. We cannot, however, hold referendums unless we have been elected to do so. In the end, therefore, it is the people of Quebec themselves who decide whether or not they want referendums by electing or by not electing the Parti Quebecois, which alone, of course, can make this proposal.

We therefore have great reservations about this bill, another promise not kept.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-70, the Senate amendment and the government's response to this Senate amendment, on which we are being asked to vote.

At this stage of the game regarding Bill C-70, the GST bill, it may be useful to review a bit of the history of the bill, so that our listeners know exactly where things stand.

First of all, one must realize that Bill C-70, together with the Senate amendment and the positive response from the government, is the result of an election promise. That is how the GST bill got its start.

In the March 11, 1996 edition of the Globe and Mail , the Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying:

"I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished I will resign".

We will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister made that commitment precisely because a promise had been made to kill the GST. The cost of this empty promise, at least inasmuch as it relates to the Deputy Prime Minister's decision: $500,000. That is how much the byelection in the riding of Hamilton East cost. Strangely enough, although the Deputy Prime Minister had made a promise to all Canadians and Quebecers, she let the people of Hamilton East settle the issue on behalf of all Canadians.

During the 1993 election campaign, the current Prime Minister said, and I quote: "We will scrap the GST". To scrap means to kill, to eliminate, not replace the tax with more of the same, just by changing the name of the tax, to make it look like the election promise was kept.

On May 2, 1994, the Prime Minister made the following statement about the GST: "We hate it and we will kill it". On the basis of this election promise, as we know, the Deputy Prime Minister was later forced to resign and run in a byelection.

The Minister of Finance has said openly both in this House and outside: "We should never have made such a promise. It was a mistake".

As for the Prime Minister, he maintains he never promised any such thing. We have the videos, and the press clippings, in French and in English, to prove he did, but he still maintains he never said it. We now know what people think of this unfulfilled promise about the GST. In fact, there are many unfulfilled commitments made by the Liberals, including: tearing up the free trade agreement that was signed; recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and giving it a veto, something that was never done, as Quebecers know; deprivatizing Pearson airport, and we are all aware that this issue has become a real mess; creating jobs, but the number of unemployed is just as high as it was when the Liberals took office, while there are an additional 500,000 children living in poverty.

These were promises made during the election campaign. I remember taking part in a debate, in my riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, with my opponents of the time. People asked each and everyone of us what we would do with the GST.

I remember that the Liberal candidate of the time, Normand Biron, said the GST would be abolished, which was his party's official position.

I have no grudge against Mr. Biron, who is an excellent person. He is also a good, intelligent and strong candidate, who is familiar with the issues and who is very involved in the local community. Strangely enough though, the Liberals are trying to get rid of him. They have chosen someone from Quebec City to run againstMr. Biron for the Liberal nomination. That person will have to resign in Quebec City to run against Mr. Biron. I find it sad that the higher ups in the Liberal Party are trying to get rid of one of their best people.

What did the Liberals have to say about the GST when the Conservatives were trying to put it in place, and when they formed the opposition? Here are some excerpts from the November 1989 Liberal minority report on the GST. These comments were made when the Liberals formed the opposition. On page 283, and again these remarks are from Liberal members, we find the following: "The Liberal members of the finance committee maintain that the goods and services tax proposed by the Tory government is bad and that no 'repair job' of any kind will make it fair for taxpayers".

What are the Liberals doing with Bill C-70, if not a repair job? The GST remains the same and its rate remains the same. In fact, it is the provincial tax that is being harmonized. The Liberals are only doing a repair job on the Conservatives' GST and, if we are to believe their own words, given that only the name of that tax was changed, this new HST is as bad and unfair for taxpayers as the old GST.

Here is another excerpt from the Liberal minority report of the time. This one is from page 300, and I quote: "Sales tax reform cannot be undertaken independent from income tax reform, corpo-

rate tax reform, social welfare reform or independently of the other levels of government. Canada is in need of an overall tax reform that encompasses all forms of taxation and all levels of government".

The fact is that no tax reform took place. The Bloc Quebecois is the only party that tabled a comprehensive study on tax reform, for both corporations and individuals, which is a first in Canadian history. The fact is that on certain occasions governments have proposed tax reforms, but it has never happened, in the whole history of Canada, that an official opposition party has proposed these reforms to the government, after studying them with the resources available to the opposition for research, resources that are meagre compared to the absolutely enormous resources available to governments.

After these broken election promises, Bill C-70 was introduced in the House, went to second reading, to committee, and then to third reading, as a cover-up for the unkept promises. We know that in many other cases, cover-ups have been the standard procedure.

There is the tainted blood inquiry, the Krever inquiry. There is the Airbus affair, where top-ranking government officials sent letters incriminating Mr. Mulroney, treating him like a criminal, to Europe, when it is common knowledge that Canada has a very strict law known as the presumption of innocence. This law says that people are officially innocent-in the best sense of the word of course-until proven guilty.

But these laws were ignored. In official letters from the government, outside Canada, Mr. Mulroney was called a criminal. There was the Somalia inquiry, which they are now gagging, while the judge in charge of the inquiry says himself that they will never get to the bottom of things if they are prevented from investigating further.

The minister tells us that this inquiry has already been granted two extensions and that they want to wrap things up. They were nice, they allowed more time. But let it not be forgotten that the reason a little more time was needed for this inquiry, or for those conducting it, was precisely because for months and months and months the army concealed documents that were being looked for everywhere. If extra time was needed at one point, it was not because the government was being nice, but because the documents were not available because the army had hidden them.

Bill C-70 contains the amendments allowing harmonization of the GST with three maritime provinces, and of course this is a cover-up to help the pill go down more easily. They are sending a billion dollars to the maritimes.

What is the government's motivation in doing so? We know very well. The Liberal government is, of course, embarrassed that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage broke their promise to scrap the GST, the tax they claim to hate.

So, in order to have more than just excuses when questioned on this broken promise when the election comes, the Liberals want at all costs to reach an agreement with the maritimes, in order to give the impression that they have tried to do something about keeping that promise. Even if this bad promise will cost Quebecers and Canadians close to $1 billion, what counts for the Liberals is to get the fat out of the fire, and to do so as promptly as possible.

This new harmonized sales tax, the HST, will be included in the price, or at least that is what the government was proposing before the Senate returned the bill with an amendment that states otherwise.

To return to the 1989 Liberal minority report, what did the Liberals have to say about this suggestion to include the GST in the price? On page 298 they state as follows: "If the GST is camouflaged in the price, it will be far easier for the government to raise it later on". They put a serious damper on the idea of including the tax in the price. Until just recently, they wanted to do exactly the opposite of what they claimed in 1989 was not a good idea.

What is more, some years ago the Minister of Finance was saying the exact opposite of what he has done in his bill. The new GST is hypocritical, because it is camouflaged in the price of goods and services. On this subject, the 1994 Liberal majority report stated, and I quote: "It would simply be improper to "hide" from Canadians the amount of tax they pay to their governments, and hiding the tax interferes with the ability of taxpayers to make government accountable for the taxes it levies and, to a lesser degree, for how it spends the revenues". That is what the latest Liberal report said, yet they are about to do just the opposite.

In 1994, the Chamber of Commerce of Canada surveyed its members, 70 per cent of whom were opposed to the idea of hiding the tax in the sales price. This survey is still valid today. In February 1996, the Chamber of Commerce conducted the same survey again, just to realize that 76 per cent of its members now held that opinion.

Through all the stages-second reading, committee study, third reading-the Bloc Quebecois expressed a number of concerns about this bill. We suggested the government should meet with the people of the maritimes before imposing a harmonization they clearly did not want. In spite of the work done in committee, and repeated requests from the Bloc Quebecois, all our arguments fell on deaf ears.

The Bloc also recommended that the HST not be included in the sales price. This is another point made by the Bloc that the government ignored until the Senate came up with this proposal to

delay tax included pricing until 51 per cent of Canada's population agrees to include the GST in pricing.

The changes proposed by the Senate are identical to those previously proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and rejected by the government. How will the government respond to the Senate? This is what the motion before us today is all about. It reads as follows:

That this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent-

They disapprove, but agree just the same.

So, the government made sure to tell the senators: "We accept your amendment, even though we rejected the same amendment when it was proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. We accept it, provided you will not see this as a precedent". But, as was pointed out by my colleagues, it is very disturbing to see the government accept a legislative amendment from a House whose members were not elected, after rejecting the same amendment when it was proposed by elected members of this House.

Unfortunately, the senators did not do as we did in this matter. We in the Bloc Quebecois also demanded that the government pay-and yesterday again we asked questions on this issue to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister-$2 billion in compensation to Quebec for having harmonized its own tax with the GST, long before any other province. In so doing, Quebec showed that it was perfectly able to get along with the federal government, in fact more so than the other provinces. Yet, the maritimes received $1 billion, while Quebec got nothing at all. We are owed $2 billion, and the hon. member for Chambly clearly explained why Quebec is justified in making that claim.

In the end, what was the cost, to Quebecers, of this whole operation to cover up unfulfilled promises? Again, let us look only at the costs which can actually be estimated. First, the re-election of the Deputy Prime Minister cost $500,000. As you know, Madam Speaker, 25 per cent of Canada's revenues come from Quebec, which means that 25 per cent of federal spending in Canada is paid by Quebecers. Therefore, the re-election of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was forced to resign as a result of an unfulfilled promise, cost Quebecers $125,000.

Let me explain, for those who are listening to us. We understand what $25 represents. Billions of dollars is a lot of money: one billion dollars is equal to 1,000 million dollars. So, 2,000 million dollars is owed to Quebec for having harmonized its tax with the GST, but it will not get one penny. So, $125,000 to elect the Deputy Prime Minister, 2,000 million dollars that should come our way for the GST, plus the $1 billion they are giving to the maritimes. Once again, I repeat that 25 per cent of everything Canada pays out comes from Quebec; of the $1 billion going to the maritimes, $250 million comes from Quebec.

This is common knowledge. It has come up in oral question period. It is still getting a lot of coverage in the newspapers. What is Mr. McKenna doing in Quebec? He is wooing away our own businesses with money we provided that was transferred to New Brunswick.

So, the total cost of this operation, of this broken promise to scrap the GST, leaving us with a botched Bill C-70, is $125,000 to elect the Deputy Prime Minister; 2,000 million dollars due Quebec that it will probably not receive; and $250 million of Quebecers' money going to the maritimes. All so that the maritimes can conduct their corporate raiding in Quebec.

In the case of all bills tabled in the House, the Bloc Quebecois has done the work it was elected to do, which was to defend Quebec's interests ahead of all else.

It is extremely tiring in the long run to defend oneself daily, to go after dribs and drabs of rights and powers, or to try to hang on to dribs and drabs of rights and powers, when the only way out, for Quebecers, is to have full rights and powers. For this to be possible, we must become a country.

Each of the bills introduced here in the House-

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Absolutely. He did not understand.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of the three maritime provinces are advertising in Les Affaires and the Globe and Mail the advantages of harmonizing the GST, which are greater for these provinces than for Quebec, simply because they have not had to pay the costs of harmonization. No wonder.

How long will the Minister of Finance continue to finance this unfair competition with Quebec and this shameless raiding of

Quebec businesses with part of the taxes of Quebecers? When will he redress this injustice and pay the $2 billion he owes Quebecers?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 19th, 1997]

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

In Quebec, to defray the cost of harmonizing the QST, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out, the tax rate on the profits of small and medium size businesses increased by66 per cent, and the contribution to the health services funds and the capital tax have both increased by 23 per cent. In the maritimes, however, there is no need for an increase, because of the $1 billion that Ottawa paid out. Quebec therefore is being deprived unfairly of its sole tax advantage compared with these three provinces and is being penalized for its earlier tax choices, which are not those of the maritimes.

Will the Minister of Finance put a stop to the unfair competition from maritime businesses by giving Quebec the $2 billion that would have cost a maritime-style harmonization?

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, March 17th, 1997]

There is indeed no lack of examples showing that, every time Canada's and Quebec's interests come into conflict, our friends opposite, originally from Quebec, francophones from Quebec, are the first to come down on Quebec and vote in a way that serves Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec.

I think that my hon. colleague can fully understand that, any time nationwide issues are discussed, Liberal members from Quebec, who are a minority in their own caucus, will eventually toe the line of the Canadian majority, and put Canada's interests before those of Quebec.

Take for example the tobacco issue. Every single member on the other side, including those from Quebec, voted with the government, knowing full well that this legislation directly affects all festivals held in Montreal. They all voted with the government.

We will recall that, when we were dealing with the raw milk cheese issue, in a fanciful departure from reality, the Minister of Health decided it was harmful to people's health, even though people have been eating raw milk cheese for ages and no one has ever died from it. All of a sudden, the minister decided that raw milk cheese, which just happens to be sold, made and widely sold in Quebec, was bad for our health and that its production should be discontinued. The Bloc Quebecois then had to organize a sampling of this "poisoned" cheese in this House to show the public and those voting on the other side that there was nothing wrong with it. Not one member from Quebec on the other side took a stand with us on this issue.

These two recent examples show that members from Quebec elected under the Liberal banner inevitably stand on the side of Canada, for the interests of Canada, as opposed to those of Quebec.

Before I conclude, I will remind you of the famous words of the Minister of Interdepartmental Affairs who, just a few months before the referendum, and that is why he was made a minister, said in Toronto-I heard him myself and could not believe my ears-that the best way to resolve the Quebec issue was to make Quebecers suffer.

A member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers and sent here to look after their interests, comes here with only one idea in mind: to make Quebecers suffer. That is what Quebec members on the Liberal side are like.

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, March 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should repeat everything I just said.

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party indicated, in 1992, the federal government conducted a comprehensive review of the legislation governing the operation of financial institutions and changed things that had remained unchanged for 50, or even 60 years, in some cases.

At the time, the industry asked that the act or amendments thereto be reviewed after five years to see what, if anything, had gone wrong with the 1992 reform. That is why we are doing this now, in 1997.

We have before us Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions. My hon. colleague from the Reform Party referred to this bill as a highly technical 250-page bill, which it is indeed. These amendments will affect a fair number of acts. It will affect the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Canadian Payments Association Act, to name a few.

This bill is very much a symbol and an object lesson for Quebec. A symbol because, once again, it contains provisions that encroach upon Quebec's jurisdiction-but I will get into that later; we have used the word "encroachment" so often in the past three and a half years that it is beginning to stick in my craw-encroachments that fly in the face of the Canadian Constitution.

It is kind of funny to see Quebec being taken to the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether we have the right, under the constitution, to take a democratic step in this country, while every day, the Liberal Party, the government in office, encroaches on, invades provincial areas of jurisdiction without even bothering to ask permission, thus violating its own law. It even amended the Canadian constitution in 1982 without asking Quebec's permission. In fact, it did so in spite of the unanimous opposition of Quebec's National Assembly, which included federalists. The federal government uses the constitution when it wants to and the way it wants to, while forcing Quebec to comply with it.

I want to take this opportunity to stress that the decisions to be made in the next Quebec referendum will not have to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks, what the Minister of Justice thinks, or what the Prime Minister of this country thinks. Quebecers will make a decision that concerns them alone. I am reminded of a famous line coined by Mr. Bourassa, who was a known federalist in Quebec. He used to say: "Quebec is, today and forever, the master of its own choices and of its destiny".

The bill is also a great object lesson in that it tells us a lot of interesting things I will get back to later.

Generally speaking, we can live with the bill in its present form. However, we deplore the fact that the federal government is trying to interfere, as I was saying, in areas under provincial jurisdiction, through the back door as it were, as is often the case. That is why our main amendments-and I give advance notice, there will be a few covering the bill as a whole once we have gone over it in depth-will be along the lines that the federal government should just require federal institutions to respect, which they do not do, the provincial legislation in effect where they conduct their activities, when these activities come under provincial jurisdiction; insurance being strictly a provincial matter.

In a joint brief mentioned by my colleague, the member for La Prairie, some twenty minutes ago, which was signed by a number of people, including the Canadian Life Insurance Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Canada Trust, the Trust Companies Association of Canada, and Credit Union Central of Canada-we are talking about a lot of people here-they all asked the federal government to allow, with the minister's approval, life insurance policies in Canada to be transferred from a federal to a provincial underwriter. This is not in the bill, with the result that the injustice to provincial underwriters and specifically those in Quebec continues to exist.

A provincial underwriter may not buy blocks of insurance policies from a federal underwriter under the law as it now stands. What exactly does this mean? It means that when underwriters want to obtain a charter, they are better off going for a federal charter, which lets them buy up blocks of provincial insurance policies, because the reverse is not permitted under law. In the long term, underwriters in Quebec and elsewhere will always be better off obtaining a federal charter, while Quebec already has legislation covering this. In the long term, underwriters will gradually switch over to federal charters, with the result that, in a few years, the federal government will be able to say that the legislation we

have in Quebec covering these fields of activity is redundant, without purpose, and should be abolished.

This is how the federal government has gradually taken over the provinces' and specifically Quebec's fields of jurisdiction. In the long term, the purpose of this interference is to increase Ottawa's powers. This has been going on for a long time. People have been talking about it as far back as 1867, well before my time. This is how they have gradually turned Canada from a confederation into a federation.

The term "confederation" has an extremely specific meaning. First of all, it is the name that was given to Canada: the Canadian confederation. A confederation is a group of virtually autonomous states which decide to provide themselves with a central government less powerful than the sum of themselves, to pool certain things. That is what we are seeing in Europe. Europe will be a confederation.

But, gradually, the central power has taken over certain jurisdictions, or taken over from some participants in this power, and the circumstances have gradually turned Canada into a federation. In other words, the central power is now greater than the power of the provinces, not what the Fathers of Confederation initially planned. This has led to the political impasse we are now at, going from one referendum to another, until the next one.

The goal of all of the federal government decisions is to transfer more and more power to Ottawa, more and more political power, while the economic power is being transferred, generally speaking, to Ontario. To refer to Gordon Gibson's famous book, Plan B , which I think my Reform friends have read, he says that the major problem in Canada is not Quebec, the problem is Ottawa.

I recommend that my colleagues, who think we are the only ones saying this, read Gordon Gibson's famous Plan B , where he states that the federalists are the problem. The problem is Ottawa, and the senior public servants, the bureaucracy that exists here, which is perpetuated by inertia.

I will return later to a discussion of the invasion of jurisdictions, but this act is one of the many we have spoken out against since coming to this House. I could not begin to list the laws we have spoken out against as invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, as gradually transferring powers that belong to Quebec to the central power in Ottawa.

We know very well that being a political minority leads inevitably to being an economic minority. The one with power over the purse strings has control, and vice versa. The more power, the more control. Ottawa is gradually assuming all of the power by invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, and it is making the decisions. This bill represents a decision to invade one area of jurisdiction: insurance, which belongs literally to the provinces. It has been decided to pass legislation to cover all insurance, whereas Quebec already has a set of laws governing this.

So this is a minor decision in a 250-page piece of legislation that will have long term consequences for Quebec insurance companies.

I would like to give a few examples of minor decisions made in the past that have had disastrous economic consequences in the long term. Take for instance when they dug the St. Lawrence Seaway. At one point it was decided to dig the St. Lawrence Seaway. What have the consequences been for Quebec? Well, Montreal lost its basic economic infrastructure. As you know, ships used to stop in Montreal before the seaway was built, and all the plants were there. The government wanted to shift the economic centre to Toronto to have direct access to the core of the U.S. market: Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee, via the Great Lakes.

So they created the St. Lawrence Seaway, which took away Montreal's basic economic infrastructure, and you do not have to take my word for it. Mordecai Richler said as much himself in his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! My dear friend Mordecai tells us:

"Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place Montreal's slippage was inevitable".

Once the St. Lawrence Seaway was built, Montreal's decline started. It was inevitable. A minor decision made in Ottawa which had disastrous consequences for Quebec, in the long term, exactly like those we find in Bill C-82.

Another example, much more recent, is the Borden line. In 1963, the federal government started to regulate the sale of crude oil by establishing the Borden line. All oil sold in Ontario had to be western oil, and the pipeline built from the west to Sarnia ended in Sarnia. At the time, the petrochemical industry was in the east end of Montreal, in my riding, in Montréal-Est, in Anjou. That is where the oil companies were. We were refining the oil.

So what happened as a result of this minor political decision? The oil companies in Montreal that were refining oil had to get the oil in Sarnia, refine it and return it to Ontario. In the long run, the oil companies realized they would be better off if they transferred their refineries to Sarnia, got the oil locally, refined it and then delivered the finished product to Quebec. We lost 8,000 jobs when four of our six major oil companies moved out.

A minor decision was made in Ottawa, with disastrous economic consequences in the long run for Quebec, like the decision we see in Bill C-82.

What about the auto pact? The entire automobile industry was established in Ontario. Quebec never got any of the tens of thousands of jobs in that sector.

Air transportation: more minor decisions were made in Ottawa.

They decided one day to build the Mirabel airport, because Dorval was busy and had too much air traffic. Once the Mirabel airport, which cost an arm and a leg, was built, and tens of thousands of people were moved out of their homes, a minor political decision was made: the requirement that air carriers arriving from the east serve Montreal ahead of all other Canadian cities was lifted. The requirement was eliminated.

What costs airlines the most is not flying time, but take offs and landings. So it is to their advantage to land in only one place to serve Canada, and of course they chose Toronto.

Once Mirabel was emptied, hundreds of millions of our dollars were allocated to expanding Pearson airport in Toronto. Money was spent to empty the place, because a decision was made in Ottawa, just like the decisions that appear in C-82.

What happened as the result? Ottawa could then question the use of having the air traffic controllers' school in Montreal, when Toronto was where the action was. So the school was moved to Toronto, and the head office of Air Canada was moved to Toronto, because that was where the action was. A minor decision to transfer things to Toronto had dreadful economic consequences.

In the energy system, what about the billions of dollars that were spent? I think $12 billion was spent in all over 20 or 25 years in Ontario to create 40,000 jobs in atomic research, whereas Quebec all on its own developed the single it controls, hydro electricity. One quarter of the $12 billion came from Quebec and went, because of a government decision, to the development of atomic energy in Ontario, which will eventually become a competitor.

Then there was the tobacco debate. Today in Oral Question Period, we saw that the federal government has been doing research up to now to increase levels of nicotine. I worked in the tobacco fields in Ontario for a number of years, and the research centre is in Delhi. I know this city well, because I spent some time there.

They did studies for about ten years in order to increase the nicotine content in tobacco and then they turn around and, choking with emotion, make decisions in the House to show their concern about smoking among young people and they abolish tobacco company sponsorships.

Where does most of the tobacco sponsorship occur? In Quebec. In two to three years, we may lose the Montreal Grand Prix, the Jazz Festival or the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire because of a government decision. All this is happening because the government has decided to pass laws and make decisions encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction.

All those cases are examples of small decisions with catastrophic consequences, the same way a small provision in Bill C-82 encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is trying to justify this-and what an object lesson it is-by claiming that the transfer of insurance blocks between a company with a federal charter and a company with a provincial charter raises a problem of civil law and common law by virtue of what is called "novation", an extraordinary word.

This means that someone cannot transfer his debts to another person without the agreement of his creditor. In other words if I borrowed, for instance, $6,000 from a bank, I cannot tell the bank that my brother will pay my debt. Under the principle of novation, a bank will never accept that, and the peculiar thing is that this principle is being used in bill C-82 to encroach on one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Double standards again, if that principle applies-and, as I just explained it largely does-a debt is not transferrable. The government has used this principle in a bill to encroach upon Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and has failed to specify that the same principle would apply to the transfer of Canada's debt.

You will remember, I am sure, that the Bélanger-Campeau Commission received three studies. One was conducted in France, the other in England and the other, if I am not mistaken, under the aegis of the C.D. Howe Institute. They all came to an extraordinary conclusion saying that Quebec is not legally required to take on part of Canada's debt if it becomes a country. These studies were conducted by people outside the government.

We all remember what Ross Perot said. During the presidential campaign in the United States, he said: "Poor Quebecers, you do not have to carry that debt". Those are the words of Ross Perot, who was then in the running for the presidency of the United States. He did not get in, but he did say that.

These studies tabled before the Belanger-Campeau Commission explained the principle of "novation", and they were taken up by English columnists across Canada. I will briefly read from one of those texts to show that whenever you refer to principles in a bill, you have to recognize that these principles apply everywhere and at all times. The principle is the following; I am quoting in English

from a December 13, 1994 article by David Crane. As you know, David Crane is the financial editor of the Toronto Star . He said:

"Canada's foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of Canada's debt to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not Quebec. There is no way in the world you can go to an international banker and for every $100 Canadian bond get a $75 Canadian bond and a $25 Quebec bond. In a way that helps Quebec because it means that Canada would have to reach an accommodation with Quebec. Since Canada cannot force Quebec to take its share of the debt technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the debt".

That is all. I yield the floor to my friends. However, William Johnson has a similar text.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Dodging questions is an art, Mr. Speaker.

We will recall that, when the Minister of Health was considering banning raw milk cheese a few months ago, the Minister of Labour rose in the name of common sense. In the name of Montreal's economic health, will a Liberal from Quebec rise in this House today and speak up in its defence?

Will the Minister of Labour dare, once again, to rise and oppose this breach of common sense that will cost Montreal millions of dollars and thousands of jobs?