Jean H. Leroux

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is not aware of all that happens in his department.

Since we now know, based on the events at Petawawa, that all levels of the Canadian military can keep information from this House, does the minister not realize that it is absolutely vital in order to rebuild Canadians' trust for him to order a public inquiry, not only on the events at Petawawa, but on the entire system that allows the army to elude parliamentary control?

[National Defence, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question of taking issue with the position or activities of young military personnel.

My question is to the minister of defence. Clearly, Canadians' trust has been shaken by the backlash of the events at Petawawa. Not only did the minister make hasty decisions without being fully informed, but it appears, moreover, that not even the chief of defence staff had all the information.

Now that it has been established that a lot of information had been concealed from the chief of defence staff and from the minister of defence, himself, can the minister assure Canadians that he retains full control over the armed forces?

[Social Program Reform, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the consultations on social program reform, the following message came across loud and clear: the main problem is lack of jobs, and students and the jobless should not have to shoulder all of the deficit reduction measures, because social program budgets have already been squeezed enough over the past 10 years.

However, despite the opinion of the majority of witnesses who spoke before the committee on the proposed reforms, the ministers of finance and human resources development appear poised to revisit last year's budget this winter, by heaping most of the budget cuts on the most needy and the middle class.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to make the two ministers see reason? Any effort to get our financial house in order should target those who are best off, the rich who are still able to avoid paying taxes.

[Access To Information, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and an honour for me to represent the people in my riding of Shefford, who elected me in the last federal election and who expect a high degree of integrity from us.

It is my opinion that the Access to Information Act should be extended to all government institutions, as tabled in Motion No. 304 by the member for Red Deer. The purpose of this motion is to make the whole Canadian federal administration more accessible and open.

This transparency is necessary if we are to win back the confidence of the taxpayers, particularly in this period of economic austerity, when the federal government is preparing to make cuts in a multitude of social programs, when, at the same time, the heads of Crown agencies are getting rich on taxpayers' money and enjoying privileges beyond the reach of the average Canadian, and when this same government is making thousands of partisan appointments, with no public control.

Nevertheless, in his Speech from the Throne last January 18, the Prime Minister stated that integrity and public trust in the institutions of government were essential. In addition, he said, and I quote: "The Government is committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament. Changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide Members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public policy and legislation".

The time has now come for the federal government to table legislation designed to ensure that its institutions and Crown agencies excluded from the Access to Information Act are more transparent.

The Bloc Quebecois particularly wants to stress the need for federal institutions such as the Senate and Crown corporations to be transparent. The public should be able to scrutinize the actions of these bodies which are undemocratic because non-elected and more likely than not using taxpayers money.

For the sake of democracy and to make the current system more transparent, the Bloc Quebecois can only concur in the March 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, which recommended that the Access to Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.

This committee recommended at the time that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act apply to all 53 parent Crown corporations and their 127 wholly owned subsidiaries. These corporations and their subsidiaries had assets tens of billions of dollars in assets over which the public has absolutely no control.

On the other hand, these recommendations did not apply to other corporations, including 140 subsidiaries that were not wholly owned by Crown corporations and 26 joint ventures and mixed enterprises, of which the capital stock is jointly held by the federal government and other levels of government or organizations.

The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General states that there are certainly other entities with no capital stock for which the federal government has the right to appoint, directly or through a Crown corporation, one or more persons to the board of directors or similar body, with the public being systematically excluded from the process, except to foot the bill.

Canadians pay for all that. Therefore, they have a right to know. Since these are theoretically Crown corporations, the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada are entitled to and should know how these corporations are administered. That is why they must be subject to public scrutiny.

I would like to ask a question in this House: Why are some Crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act while others are not, when they all receive public funds?

The burden of proof rests on the federal government. The Liberals-yes, the Liberals-must keep their word and restore trust in public institutions.

You will tell me that we all want to see positive changes and ensure that our political institutions and Crown corporations operate with honesty and integrity.

I know for a fact that these issues were raised by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Now that they are in power, I hope that some of them will remember the importance of making public institutions more open, accountable and honest.

Quebecers and Canadians have never been so disillusioned with federal institutions, public administration, politicians and the public sector.

The people must be able to trust those in power. Obviously, they have little confidence in the federal government, while the credibility of public institutions is steadily eroding.

This disaffection may be attributable to several factors: some elected officials committed indiscretions while others governed arrogantly, it must be said.

Citizens are unhappy because they are not really consulted, because their views are ignored, because public affairs are dealt with behind closed doors as soon as they become crucial.

Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada are disappointed and unhappy with the poor quality of many public services, given government overspending and the tax burden imposed on them.

Although Quebecers and the people in the rest of Canada attach great importance to social programs and our democratic heritage, they are annoyed by the apparent confusion among the various public powers. Likewise, duplication in federal government services is unacceptable to all our taxpayers.

I agree with the essential part of the motion proposed by my colleague from Red Deer, that all publicly financed government institutions should be subject to the Access to Information Act.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 3, I spoke on Bill C-53 in this House and I rise today to denounce the mandate which the Department of Canadian Heritage is about to give itself. It is unacceptable for me and for

all Quebecers that this new department's mandate makes no reference to Quebec as a society or to its cultural and linguistic specificity.

Why does the Liberal government again stubbornly persist in wanting to deny the existence of Quebec, its language rights and its cultural specificity? How can the federal government claim that it wants to promote Canadian identity and intentionally omit from its bill any reference to Quebec culture?

Therefore I will support the amendments moved by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to include in Bill C-53 references to the specific nature of Quebec's culture, language and identity.

I will continue in the same vein by demonstrating to this House that this new department's mandate is to assimilate Quebec culture, no more or less.

Let us take the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a specific case in point supporting my argument.

The Broadcasting Act says that the CBC's programming should seek to be of equivalent quality in French and in English.

On this subject the law is clear: French and English must be treated as equivalent.

Let me give you another quotation, this time from part of CRTC decision 87-140, in connection with a public hearing of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on January 21, 1994 concerning the licence renewals of the English and French networks.

Among the long term objectives which the CRTC set for the CBC is the following: to achieve a fair and equitable balance in production, distribution and scheduling of regional and network programs on both networks, English and French.

The CBC's mandate is clear since it is dictated by the CRTC's directives and the Broadcasting Act. The French and English networks must be equally productive and have the same rate of programming.

The two quotes which I just read to you clearly show the federal government's apparent intentions. These views are clearly reflected in the act, as well as in the guidelines published by the Crown corporation responsible for the monitoring and renewal of licences for television and broadcasting in Canada.

The federal government says that it seeks to promote the use of French in Canada. However, the daily reality does not support that claim; in fact, it shows just the opposite.

The government cannot merely tell us about its good intentions: It must also act. It is nice to claim equal status for French and English, but that claim must be supported. These are mere statements of intention with no real basis.

On July 27, 1994, the CRTC approved the budget allocation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in an internal document entitled CRTC Decision 94-437. That document clearly indicates that the CBC allocates 63 per cent of its TV network budget to the English language network, and only 37 per cent to the French language network, this for the term of its next licence.

Moreover, the CRTC feels that the CBC is in the best position to decide how to allocate its funds. Thus, the CRTC is satisfied that the corporation's decisions do not violate the legislation.

If you look at the overall programming costs for the two networks, you will see that the proportion for the French language network is now below 40 per cent, its level of six years ago.

Furthermore, in 1970, there was no difference at all between the two networks. I think this proves that the federal government is gradually limiting the scope of its duties and obligations to accommodate a not so subtle policy of assimilation.

The Broadcasting Act and the CRTC required the corporation to give equal treatment to both networks. Furthermore, both the legislation and the CRTC specify that production of programming should be equivalent for the English and French networks.

However, when it is time to share financial resources, the French network gets half the funding that goes to the English network.

This reduction in financing for the French network reflects Ottawa's lack of vision, which has been very harmful to the development and vitality of the country's francophone communities. This is a typical example of the federal government's policy of ignoring reality.

In fact it reflects the policy of cultural and linguistic assimilation favoured by the federal government: legislate fair and equal treatment for English and French, while this is not followed through in the allocation of financial resources.

I will give a few examples of the corporation's disproportionate allocation of financing.

In 1992 the average investment per hour of programming was $37,496 on the English network and $18,390 on the French network. In other words, half as much.

The average cost of news bulletins was $18,000 on the English network and $7,000 on the French network. Less than half.

The average cost of drama programs was $90,000 on the English network and $68,800 on the French network.

I realize that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the President of the CBC, Mr. Manera, will try to justify what is being done by his crown corporation by saying that Canada has three times as many anglophones as francophones. However, the tv ratings for the French network are three times as high as for the English network.

In fact, ratings for the English network vary from 11 per cent to 13 per cent during prime time. The Chairman of the CRTC, Keith Spicer, even referred to recent figures below 10 per cent. Ratings for the French network, however vary between 30 per cent and 38 per cent.

In other words, the French network reaches the same number of Canadians as the English network. So why are financial resources not allocated accordingly? Why is the French network at such a disadvantage when it manages to reach the same number of viewers as the English network?

I would like the heritage minister to be able to reply to these questions, because this looks like a policy of assimilation designed to bring about the death of Canada's other cultural community.

Is it the goal of the federal government to destroy the stronghold of the French language in North America? In any event, that is what I think and what the assimilation rate that grows from one census to the next would seem to indicate. Is this the federal government's covert policy of ignoring reality?

This is an unacceptable situation, especially when Canadian legislation stipulates clearly that the treatment must be equivalent. Not more, not less, but equivalent.

How, then, can the federal government continue to claim that it guarantees the equal treatment and use of French in its federal institutions when there are examples such as those of the CBC and the CRTC?

These facts reinforce the findings of the Official Languages Committee. The annual report on official languages demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Canadian heritage organizations are in fact agents for assimilating rather than protecting the French speaking citizens of this country.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage must deliver the goods to the French speaking community in Quebec and elsewhere in this country. The federal Liberal government has the responsibility to guarantee the rights of the cultural minority in this country, especially when they are clearly enshrined in its legislation.

I would like to take the opportunity available to me today to denounce the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the CRTC. This department and these crown corporations are giving credence to decisions that are contrary to the rights of French-speaking communities in Quebec and elsewhere in this country. The federal government has no right to sanction these decisions by the CBC and the CRTC.

The federal government and this new Department of Canadian Heritage deny the cultural identity of Quebec and work against it.

I therefore salute this democratic exercise to which we have been called by the Government of Quebec, in the form of the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.

This draft bill sets out the political plan that the Government of Quebec recommends in order to resolve, for once and for all, the constitutional problem in which Quebec has been mired for too many years. I think that it is the only way we have left to promote the full development of the people of Quebec.

[The Economy, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 successive weekly increases, the central bank rate set by the Bank of Canada went up 71 basis points yesterday. With this decision, the Bank of Canada will slow consumption and investment, and will paralyze the housing market, a sector crucial for the creation of jobs, especially at a time when the reduction of unemployment is a major concern of Canadians and Quebecers.

Unfortunately the employment crisis is not a priority in Ottawa. The government does not have the courage to seriously tackle government spending in order to reduce the deficit and the debt which are responsible for these pressures on interest rates. There is no job creation policy and the Bank of Canada is allowed to maintain an anti-inflationary monetary policy which undermines the economic recovery.

Meanwhile interest rates are going up and the unemployed remain without jobs.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec sovereignty issue is again at the centre of debate.

In the 1980 referendum campaign, Prime Minister Trudeau said that a "no" to the referendum meant a "yes" to renewed federalism. We know the rest: exclusion of Quebec from the Canadian Constitution, failure of Meech Lake, failure of Charlottetown.

This time, federalist leaders promise a "flexible federalism", at the same time we learn that the federal government refuses to pay $282 million in transfer payments owed to the Quebec Treasury.

The rest of Canada no longer wants to hear about the legitimate demands of Quebec. As for Quebecers, they have had enough of the status quo. The positions are clear. Why the false pretences? Quebecers will soon have to choose between sovereignty and fossilized federalism. We are confident of the outcome.

[Unemployment Insurance, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government refuses to consider requests from the business community and citizens' groups for a reduction in unemployment insurance premiums. High premium rates slow down job creation in addition to putting an additional burden on the taxpayer, who is always paying more for fewer services.

How can the government keep turning a deaf ear to taxpayers' demands, when it knows that the current rate, according to the Minister of Finance, is killing jobs?

The minister should establish a genuine job creation strategy instead of trotting out the pretty speeches the Liberal government uses to impress the public.

The Liberal government should find a more imaginative solution than squeezing Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to service the debt.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully, although with a little bit of difficulty, to the remarks made by my colleague opposite. He talked about the consultations that the Minister of Finance has been holding for a month now.

We could easily accept his arguments if the Minister of Finance were the only one holding consultations. Unfortunately, we have a government that is continually consulting. The 25 committees consult and so do the departments. And while all these consultations are taking place, no decision is made. I think the government is trying to muddle the issues by making Canadians believe that it is taking their opinion into consideration. After all these consultations, decisions will eventually be made, but they are constantly being delayed.

Instead of talking about what divides us, I would like to ask my colleague from St. Boniface a question about what unites us.

The redistribution of wealth has united this country for more than 25 years. We have, in Canada and in Quebec, a unique social system and I think we should be careful not to lose it. My concern and the concern of all members of the Bloc is that the government may destroy this system, reduce it, make it less effective.

And our greatest fear is that middle and low-income Canadians will end up paying the price. My question is this: Can the member for St. Boniface assure this House that it is not only middle and low-income Canadians that will end up paying for these changes?

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech. I think that it is very sensible. He is an opposition member and the opposition's role is to ask questions. The role of the government is to find solutions and solve problems. I think that the Liberal government facing us was not in opposition long enough to really prepare for governing, but you know that Canadians, outside Quebec and the west, decided that it would be the government so it should govern.

I would like to discuss something about my colleague's speech, his reference to the Quebec problem. Quebec does not have a problem; I think that the rest of Canada has a problem, because Quebecers will decide freely in a referendum.

He talked to us about Charlottetown. That accord was a historic event which shows us beyond any doubt that Canadians and Quebecers voted no, but for entirely opposite reasons. So Charlottetown clearly shows the differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

My question for the hon. member, who made a very good speech, is this: Is it not time now to see what Quebec wants and let Quebec develop fully?