Christiane Gagnon

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government is blatantly guilty of applying a double standard. This very same government, which not so long ago attacked the least fortunate in our society, is now getting ready to protect and compensate persons with no redeeming value whatsoever, other than the fact that they helped fill the coffers of the two major federal political parties.

This is the same government that, less than one month ago, announced restrictions to unemployment insurance entitlement, thereby propelling more workers into the ranks of social assistance recipients.

Unlike the unemployed, lobbyists and heads of corporations with close ties to political parties need not be concerned about incurring losses. There is certainly no question of them losing their benefits, remuneration or compensation. Their interests are well protected since they are directly tied to party finances.

The dealings surrounding the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport are a striking example of how Canadian governments unfortunately resort all too often to playing politics. Many of those who have already spoken in this debate have recounted in detail the saga of this deal. Therefore I will not go over the same ground again.

My purpose in speaking today is to emphasize the odious nature of this affair and the offensive attitude of the two governments who have been successively involved in it.

Take for instance the way the privatization bids were solicited. A 90-day bidding period is highly unusual for such a major contract. Did anyone in the federal administration protest? Certainly not! It was better kept in the family.

With the result that we know: Paxport and Claridge Corporation were the only bidders. The Nixon report had a great deal to say on the subject. While the quote may be a tad long, it is well worth reading and rereading:

The RFP [request for proposals] having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame, created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2. Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the manoeuvering preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted.

The winner, as we know, was Paxport, in spite of the fact it was grappling with financial difficulties. Which leads to the next question that has to be raised again: How could the government let a contract of that magnitude to a company without checking its financial statements? Can anyone imagine even for a moment that an unemployed citizen would be granted a subsidy, a loan or a contract, to start up a small business without having to prove profitability?

The answer is obvious. Never, ever, could such a thing happen. Principles like the need to manage public funds soundly would be argued. Always the same double standard! If you are rich and close to those in power, the usual conditions just do not apply to you, or barely.

Another unknown in this matter is the role played by lobbyists in obtaining these contracts. We know that the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed by the Conservative government in 1988 and came into effect in September 1989. It is interesting to stop and look briefly at the basic principles underlying this legislation. There were three principles.

First, accessibility, meaning that the public has the right to express its opinion and have unrestricted access to government; second, transparency, that is to say that activities involving governments should be clear and open; and third, simplicity, which means the administration of the registration system must be simple. To that end, lobbyists must register with the registrar

in one of the categories established by law. In theory, nothing could be simpler.

Assuming I am a lobbyist, I register with the registrar and thereafter, anybody refering to the register will know that I am working as a lobbyist. Depending on the category I am registered under, information concerning my activities will be more or less elaborate. Many problems with the application of the law have been identified, but the gist of it remains valid.

Let us move on to the role of lobbyists involved in the Pearson Airport case and the treatment provided for in the act. We will focus on three major players, namely Donald Matthews, Hugh Riopelle and Patrick MacAdam. Mr. Matthews is president of the Matthews group, which has a 40 per cent controlling interest in Paxport. As you know, Mr. Matthews presided over Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign in 1983. In addition, as a former president of the Conservative Party, he ran fund-raising campaigns for that party.

Mr. Riopelle was chief of staff to former Tory Prime Minister Joe Clark and was later to be appointed to lead the transition team of ex-Prime Minister Kim Campbell. Mr. Riopelle was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president at the time, Ray Hession.

The third lobbyist is Mr. MacAdam, a friend of Mr. Mulroney and of the Conservative Party. These three men have one thing in common: they never registered as lobbyists.

Should the law not apply equally to everybody? It does not seem to apply to Tory lobbyists. What about Liberal lobbyists? It is an open question. We think it would be appropriate to look more closely at the lobbying firms involved in the Pearson Airport deal. Here are some of them. Working on behalf of Paxport is the Government Business Consulting Group Inc., whose CEO is J.A. Fred Doucet. Surprise, surprise! Mr. Doucet was Mr. Mulroney's chief of staff and senior adviser on Kim Campbell's campaign. It is a small world.

John Legate is president of J.S.L. Consulting Services Limited. Coincidentally, he was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president when he had access to the Tory Cabinet through the minister then responsible for Toronto, Michael Wilson. As you recall, the airport is located in that city.

Last but not least, Atlantic Research Canada Inc. whose president at the beginning of the privatization affair was Ray Hession, who was also president of Paxport. Mr. Hession was Deputy Minister at Supply and Services under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Once the contract was awarded to Paxport, he resigned as president to be replaced by Don Matthews' son.

At Claridge Properties, Earnscliffe Strategy Group Inc., one of the lobbyists, is represented by William J. Fox, a former political attaché and personal friend of Brian Mulroney.

At Near Consultants and Associates Limited, we find Harry Near, who is also involved in the Earnscliffe Group. Mr. Near has long been active in the Conservative Party.

There is no need to continue this litany of names and companies, the conclusion is clear and obvious: they were all related to one another and to the two federal parties which have succeeded each other in office.

Other questions arise. Who exactly do these people and these companies represent? Who are the directors of the various companies involved? We must clear that up. These people have had great influence with political decision-makers, so much so that the former government violated an important parliamentary principle according to which a government at the end of its term makes no decision that could endanger the decision-making power of a future government.

They were so influential that on April 13, 1994, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-22 which is being debated today. This legislation would allow the government to pay corporations, especially the T1 T2 Limited Partnership, large amounts for cancelling the contract. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to ratify another transaction from which corporations tied to the two traditional parties will benefit. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to forget all the transactions between the corporations and the Department of Transport were in flagrant violation of the government policies in effect. Their influence is such that the government is asking us to forget these policies intended to encourage marketing the airports and their contribution to economic development and to make them aware of local concerns and interests.

We want to know whose economy was to be developed. We want to know what local concerns and interests were served by these agreements. We want to know who benefited: the taxpayers, local communities or corporations.

These questions indicate how openly the government conducts its affairs and how easily the public can access information on this. Remember that these principles are affected by the law and that lobbyists must respect them.

The picture we have just painted shows us a group of influential people, well connected with ties to the political parties, who can bend government decisions to their financial advantage.

We have many questions and very few answers. We all know that you must first have your questions answered before you can make a decision.

The taxpayers of Canada and Quebec need light to be shed on this issue, an intense, bright light. That is why the Bloc Quebecois demands setting up a royal commission of inquiry on this matter.

[Immigration, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the years to come, Quebec will receive a major influx of immigrants. The need to make these people welcome and to integrate them into Quebec society would seem paramount, non only to guarantee the continued existence of the French language but also to strengthen economic links between new immigrants and Quebec's institutions.

The Mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins, one of the motors of Quebec's economic development, has shown leadership in this field.

[Immigration, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he has intervened to rectify this unacceptable situation and condemn the behaviour of immigration officers who inflict physical abuse to foreign nationals being deported or expelled?

[Immigration, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Last Friday, the CBC reported rather disturbing conduct on the part of immigration officers. For example, some of them were said to have administered a sedative to a pregnant woman before deporting her to Zaire. Also, a two-year old child with pneumonia was apparently deported to Ghana. Such practices are unacceptable and unfitting of a civilized nation such as ours.

Is the minister of immigration aware of these allegations and does he condone practices which, insofar as the Zairian woman was treated, are inhuman as well as medically unethical?

[Pay Equity, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On the issue of pay equity, the media recently reported that the Government of Quebec and the Quebec union of provincial employees had come to an agreement. Some $90 million will be paid in catch-up wages and another $25 million in pay equalization adjustment in certain employment categories.

In view of the fact that the provincial governments in Quebec and Ontario continue to consider pay equity a key priority, does the minister intend to finally pay female employees of the Federal Public Service the amounts owed them pursuant to a ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal over three years ago?

[Income Tax Act, April 19th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child support payments).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act so that child support payments can no longer be deducted from the income of the individual paying child support and are no longer added to the income of the person receiving the payments. The bill ensures that child support payments are covered by the definition of earned income included in the provisions on deductions for child care expenses.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Co-Operative Housing, April 14th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reach agreements with the government of Quebec to reactivate the co-operative housing program, introduce a renovation assistance program for rental housing and reintroduce a social housing program, while leaving complete authority for all these programs in the hands of the government of Quebec.

Madam Speaker, the motion I have the honour to present today in the House is composed of two very distinct parts, the reinstatement of several social housing programs and the transfer of authority for such programs to Quebec. I will first comment on the two parts separately before explaining how they are linked together.

Let us begin with the reactivation of social housing programs. Canada is one of the industrialized countries investing the least in social housing. In fact, in 1990, the national social research institute noted that social housing accounted for only 4 per cent of all housing in Canada, whereas it varied between 15 and 40 per cent in most Western European economies. One can wonder why there is such a difference in housing policies between governments facing the same economic ups and downs.

This government replaced an administration renowned for its weak commitment towards social housing. Nevertheless, if our new government goes on the way it chose in the last budget, its record after one mandate will be even worse than the previous one's.

A review of the social housing situation over the last few years is imperative. In accordance with a 1986 federal-provincial agreement, funding for social housing built in Quebec was shared by Quebec and Ottawa. In the case of low-cost housing, federal funding was at 59 per cent. For housing cooperatives and non-profit housing for low-income persons, it reached 75 per cent. Pierre Graveline, journalist at Le Devoir , mentioned in an article published on April 5, 1994 that one out of six households renting their dwelling must spend more than half its income in rent and one out of three spends more than 30 per cent. Since this is too much for some of them, the number of claims presented by owners who want to cancel the leases and recover their rent has increased by 250 per cent between 1990 and 1993. In all, 341,000 households have a core housing need in Quebec and would be admissible to social housing, and I am not counting the 20,000 totally homeless persons.

In fact, between 1989 and 1994, federal expenditures for the building and renovation of housing units have gone from $112 million to zero. As for federal budgets for building new cooperative housing, they went from $7.2 million in 1988 to nothing in 1992.

Therefore, people who need housing in Canada have lost a total of $119.2 million. Even if, during the last campaign, the Liberals committed themselves to unfreeze the CMHC's budget in order to make it possible to build 5,000 new cooperative housing units annually in Canada, they have made no provision for cooperative housing and the building of housing units. On February 16, 1994, when answering a member of the Bloc Quebecois who was asking if the rents of the recipients would in fact increase by 5 per cent of their income, the Minister of Public Works declared, in this House: "One cannot put a hand on one's heart and plead for new social housing for Canadians across this country and only look at one side of the ledger, which is to cut expenditures and duplication, without looking at the other aspect in terms of revenue increases".

How can this government make such statements? How can this government calmly contemplate the idea of charging the population it wants to help for the cost of the assistance it brings? This is what will happen in fact. The government will say to the have-nots of our society: We will help you find housing because you are poor, but you will have to pay an additional 5 per cent of your income for rent to cover the costs of that help.

How can any government look at a social housing program as if it were a business deal meant to bring in profit?

Does the word "social" mean anything to this government? Madam Speaker, the poor should not have to bear the cost of social housing. Governments should cut unnecessary spending and reinvest these amounts in programs for the neediest members of our society.

Different problems require different solutions. People on low incomes who are home-owners need financial help to make repairs. The RRAP program which has just been reinstated can provide a partial response to this kind of situation. Unfortunately, the program has its limitations: income criteria are such that very few people living in urban areas can take advantage of the program.

On the other hand, certain needs are no longer being met. Take, for instance, people who would like to be part of a housing co-operative. This type of housing meets a specific need. Often it may be the only way for low and middle-income families to become home-owners.

In its report released in May 1991, the Conseil de la famille said that "a housing co-operative is an excellent way to help families become acquainted with the responsibilities and advantages of home-ownership".

It is also a fact that housing co-operatives generate employment, whether we are talking about construction or renovation. Furthermore, every new co-operative housing unit that is built provides governments with significant tax revenues, including personal and corporate income tax, contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, sales tax and development tax. Finally, providing access to home ownership makes it possible to free accommodation for other families that are in need.

There are also people on low incomes who want access to low-cost rental housing. As we all know, there is no budget for building new units. According to the FRAPRU, we would need at least 195,000 new social housing units in Canada. In Saint-Sauveur alone, in my riding, an estimated 3,000 new units would be required. However, this government has decided not to build any.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Mr. Brown, president of the canadian housing coalition, questioned payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan for housing. Like other coalition members, he feels that this money could be better spent. They decry the fact that a good part of this money goes towards paying the rent and ends up in the landlord's pocket. According to Mr. Brown, it is not an investment. Instead of being invested in co-op or non-profit housing programs, this money is just poured down the drain. We agree with Mr. Brown.

Current rehabilitation assistance programs for rental housing are inadequate. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that instead of dealing with things that are important for tenants, such as insulation and soundproofing, renovations are done for purely cosmetic reasons. Between 1990 and 1992, in Quebec alone, $44.84 million went towards painting against $7.31 million for insulation and soundproofing. One will understand that poor insulation affects only tenants since they are the ones who have to pay for their own power and heating bills. It was also noted that there was no systematic control of rent increases after renovations.

A study undertaken by the City of Montreal in 1989 showed that renovations had disastrous consequences for tenants. It was found that the average rent increase was $127 a month. Similarly, a CMHC survey concluded that subsidies benefited landlords, not their tenants.

Indeed, slightly more than half of these tenants stayed in their apartments after the renovations and they experienced an average rent increase of 11 per cent. So, we can draw the conclusion that, in the end, tenants pay for part of the landlord's investments and that rents still keep on increasing.

To remedy such a situation, we believe that the government should implement measures to ensure that subsidies for renovations benefit tenants.

The government could also be in favour of grants being directly paid to tenants, which would allow them to get some decent housing or even buy a house. This would help people who spend more than 25 per cent of their income on rent. As we have seen, the needs are great and the programs are inadequate.

Let us now talk of Quebec's control. The Canadian government stresses the fact that it needs the cooperation of the provinces. In Quebec's case in particular, we believe that this cooperation is unnecessary, since the whole housing assistance budget should be transferred to Quebec, and Quebec should have total control over it.

The federal government entered the social housing field by virtue of its spending power, whereas social housing is first and foremost a provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Duff, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated in 1938, in the referral on the Ontario Adoption Act: "Provinces have the responsibility to care for people in need". Nobody will deny the fact that social housing is for people in need.

We demand that the federal government give back to Quebec total control over social housing programs. We demand also that it transfer to Quebec the amounts that are due to it according to the needs of the Quebec people.

As it was said over and over again, 25 per cent of all renting households in Canada that spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent are in Quebec, and 33 per cent of those which must set aside more than 50 per cent of their income just for rent are also in Quebec. It shows how important social housing is for Quebec. It is important that the Quebec government be able to decide, according to its needs, its organizational structures and its social priorities, where it wants to invest.

For investments to be more efficient, it is important that the decision-making process be exclusively in the hands of provincial and local authorities. It is important that the allocation criteria be based upon the situation in Quebec, and not the situation in other parts of Canada. Also important is the harmonization of the social housing programs with other social programs made for and by Quebec, for and by its citizens. Quebeckers do not want the federal government to interfere in areas of jurisdiction they consider their very own.

Thus, to get better social housing, we need massive investments, under various forms, to meet the needs of all Canadians and Quebeckers. However, Quebec wants these investments to be managed by its own government, according to its needs, its standards and priorities. Social housing is only one component

of social programs, which fall under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec must be put in charge as soon as possible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we say no to Bill C-17; no to the so-called reform of unemployment insurance; no to this government's budget measures; no to the $735 million grabbed with impunity from Quebec workers; no to the $1.620 billion lost by Canadians; no to misleading and devastating savings; no to reducing the benefit period; no to reducing benefits, sole means of subsistence for many workers;; no to offloading expenditures onto the provinces; no to regional inequities penalizing Quebec and Eastern Canada once again; no to social assistance as the only recourse left after unemployment insurance benefits run out; no to undue delays in reducing unemployment insurance premiums.

We reject any policy conceived and adopted under pressure that penalizes workers and the provinces under the guise of economy. These savings are achieved at the expense of workers who lost their jobs because of the dismal state of the current job market. Moreover, half of these so-called savings, in the order of $635 million in Quebec alone, must be absorbed by the provinces through social assistance payments.

Finally, negative consequences will not be distributed equally among the provinces. When we hear that the benefits paid to Quebec taxpayers will be reduced by $735 million while those paid to Western Canadians will only go down by $430 million, we must reiterate vigorously the disadvantages suffered by Quebec within the Canadian federation.

We say no to the harmful attitude perpetuating the idea that the unemployed do not want to work. It is not the unemployed who lack vision, it is their governments. People cannot be blamed for the lack of jobs, but governments can. We say no to unsound, ineffective and unfair policies; no to government mismanagement; no to the systematic overlooking of the real problems and the real solutions. Young people say no to the alarming unemployment facing them. They say no to the unpalatable placebo called the Youth Service Corps. Young people need jobs, not measures which will penalize them right from the start. We say no to harassing the poor and the unemployed; to conducting underhand attacks against poor working women; to letting civil servants interfere in the private lives of mothers; to tolerating paternalism toward women; to having to prove everything to get some minor benefit; and to creating tensions between spouses regarding who will have custody of the children.

We know, and this has been repeated time and again, that women have precarious jobs, which do not pay well and which are very vulnerable to the swings of the job market. Women need permanent well-paid jobs. They have no need for new constraints in their family and private lives.

We say no to precarious and poorly paid jobs; to the lack of job-creation measures which has the shameful effect of increasing the number of unemployed; to overlappings in training programs and to political decisions which favour the rich at the expense of the poor.

Until this government takes the required objectives measures to ensure that the rich share their wealth with others, we will oppose any legislative policy penalizing young people, low-income workers, women and the unemployed.

We say no to misleading statements to the effect that savings will be reinvested by businesses.

The government's evaluation regarding the reinvestment of such miserly savings is not based on any solid ground. Nothing is provided to promote or control this aspect. Moreover, only large corporations might be able to create a few jobs because of the lowering of contributions. We know that small and medium businesses are the ones which create the most jobs. How can we expect them to pay a full salary with annual savings of $40, for example? Employers need real job creation programs.

We say no to the dead-end in which Quebeckers and Canadians find themselves and we say no to despair.

We would have loved to have the opportunity to support real job creation initiatives, as well as the transfer of training programs to Quebec, the promotion of social justice, the respect of privacy and the implementation of programs which would have generated some hope.

However, in light of these phoney measures, the people of the riding of Quebec say no.

The women of Quebec say a flat "no", not even a "no thank you".

[Semaine De La Francophonie, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today it is a great honour and a great source of pride for the Bloc Quebecois to draw the attention of the House to la Journée mondiale de la Francophonie.

For Quebec and for all francophones in the rest of Canada, whose common destiny is necessarily linked to that of the Francophonie, this is a particularly memorable day.

Incidentally, this anniversary coincides with that of the founding of the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique, the first francophone intergovernmental organization.

Quebec's participation in this international body illustrates that in matters concerning the Francophonie, as in all other matters, especially when they concern our identity and cultural ambience, as the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned earlier, it is important to run our own affairs.

Promoting the French fact also means promoting our viability as a community, and in this respect, we have no outside allies other than the solidarity of francophone countries.

We must remember that the destiny of francophones outside Quebec should not be dissociated from the affirmation of Quebec's identity, because our community owes its survival to its will to endure as a people. This solidarity among francophones in Canada must be strengthened.

Canada's francophone communities must not only survive, they must also be able to develop their cultural, economic and social potential in their own language.

The situation is not reassuring. Everywhere in Canada and even in Quebec, the position of French is precarious. Twenty-five years of official and individual bilingualism have not been able to stop the assimilation of francophones. Bilingualism is still too often a Francophone that speaks English.

It is also a fact that Canada's provinces have ignored the rights of their francophone minorities. Even worse, in a number of provinces, francophone communities are considered just

another ethnic community, a situation that was aggravated by the federal government's support for multiculturalism.

The closing of Collège militaire in Saint-Jean also brought to the fore the case of the French high school in Kingston, which is located in a building without washrooms or running water. Reality can be pretty grim!

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that to Canada, belonging to the Francophonie also means revealing to the rest of the world what is unique about Canada's situation, one wonders what situation he is talking about!

The Forum international de la Francophonie, which includes 47 countries from all continents, must continue to develop and make itself heard. This applies to all areas, including education, for instance, where the association of partially or fully French language universities, whose headquarters is in Montreal, does remarkable work, and also to the information technology sector and all other economic and cultural sectors.

I think that although it is appropriate to celebrate this international day of the Francophonie, we must not forget that we still have a long way to go, especially here in Canada.

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that fewer racial discrimination complaints were received by the Quebec human rights commission last year. We all know that racist behaviour has not been eliminated and that making other cultures known is one of the best ways to stop this behaviour.

On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the members of the Official Opposition associate themselves with the thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians for whom racial discrimination is a social evil which must be fought at all cost.

We must strive daily to eliminate any form of intolerance toward people with a difference. We must promote a society where nobody feels out of place because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their country of birth. That is the challenge facing us all at the turn of this century.