Monique Guay

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. These programs obviously do not work, since the needs of each region are different. Where I come from, there are associations and groups conducting economic impact and regional development studies specifically for our region. However, these studies are not taken seriously. Valuable work is done at these conferences and meetings. Sometimes, it takes two, three, four or five months to do a serious study.

Studies are done, but the federal government ignores them. The FORD does not work with us at all regarding these issues. We have always had problems. Even members of Parliament, try to get information from that office, but nothing happens. Everything is on hold. It goes without saying that regions must be involved in regional development. We are tired of seeing young people leave our regions and move to large urban centres because we have no jobs for them.

In Quebec, we have a very good structure to develop our regions; consequently, if we have our own development tools and if we can look after our own regional development, we will certainly do very well. However, in the meantime, and as long as the federal government tries to control and centralize everything and does not let the regions decide anything, we will unfortunately live in poverty as is the case now.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just gave an example from my riding, but throughout Quebec and Canada there are several such examples of overlapping and duplication. The hon. member could probably provide examples from his own riding.

I will not give him any additional example, but I do know that, particularly in my region and in Quebec, there are enormous problems. The FORD is not doing what it should, while Quebec is doing its job. I am sure that if the hon. member checks, he will find similar problems in his region.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this Official Opposition day to speak on regional development. My remarks will focus on the Laurentian region, a major part of which is in my riding.

The situation faced by individuals in my region is very serious. In April 1994, the unemployment rate was 16.6 per cent. Add to that all employable welfare recipients who are out of work and this rate easily rises to 30 something per cent. One person out of three is out of work.

In Saint-Jérôme, a major regional center, the average annual income of renting households was $22,835, while the provincial average was $28,136. That is $5,500 less. In Saint-Jérôme, one household out of four spends over 30 per cent of its income on housing. Things are even worse for 20 per cent of these, or 1,340 households, since 50 per cent of their income has to be used on housing. Most of these households, or 66 per cent, are lead by single mothers.

These figures are telling. They speak volumes about the conditions that cause an escalation in poverty, hunger and health problems. These problems are increasingly palpable as they set in and take on proportions never seen before.

This account of the situation of the people in my region clearly shows a declining economy. For several years now, there has been no growth. We are justified in looking seriously into the whole issue of regional development, because, as we can see, it clearly does not meet its primary goal, which is to enable people to live comfortably in their regions.

The federal government was not successful in developing my region. The regional economic base is crumbling in spite of massive injection of money under general agreements. The social fabric is disintegrating, rural migration is continuing and young people are the first to leave their regions.

Developed regions, major centres, are expanding at the expense of regional resources. The problem can be readily identified on site and all those concerned are unanimous in denouncing the cause.

The interference of the federal government in the development of my region is causing horrendous administrative chaos, costly duplication and inconsistency. Development, which entails consultation, joint action and harmonization, is not designed by the federal government to accommodate these notions.

On the contrary, the government moves in and acts as if it owned the place. It does not examine the situation. It does not consult people. It does not have any regard for what has been accomplished so far. Even worse, they are incoherent and illogical in their regional development policies.

I have a specific example for you. In my riding, in a small municipality, the federal government, through the Federal Office of Regional Development, FORD, asked hoteliers and innkeepers to come up with plans to renovate their outdated and run-down facilities and to harmonize them with the development of a major private ski resort then under way. The hoteliers and innkeepers produced these projects and plans in the expectation of federal financial support under APDA, the Assistance Program for Designated Areas.

These people did their homework seriously. The first step was taken; it only remains to carry out the projects. Unfortunately, they are still waiting and uncertain, since there is no money for this program. What good planning! What consistency! It is as if you drew up plans for a house but stayed outside because you did not have money to build it. These business people have been sorely misled.

Now let us look at strategic development plans. All regions of Quebec recently adopted such plans for themselves. They are drawn up in concert with the RCMs, local stakeholders and regional sectoral organizations. These plans are based on consultation and co-operation. They were developed very carefully, following a very thorough process to consult all local and regional interest groups.

What disturbs many community stakeholders is the lack of concern and of consideration for these plans shown by federal agencies and departments. All federal officials in the regions have these plans, but they never replied or bothered to compare their point of view with what the regions want and consider important and strategic for their development.

Even worse, since it did not consult the various interested parties in the regions, the federal government, through FORD, went so far as to have a firm of consultants draw up its own regional plans and this firm used data provided by the producers of the regional plans. This borders on fraud and is certainly a shameful waste of public money.

It is another fine example of duplication and, even more, an illustration of federal contempt and disrespect for Quebec's regions and the interest groups that seriously spent so much energy and money to come up with a clear vision for their regional development.

The federal government must change its approach to regional development. I am not talking here about section 25's or DEPs, which can be termed the welfare approach to regional development. I am talking about export assistance programs, technological development support programs, the program to help disadvantaged regions and so on. I am talking about programs which have real impact on regional development and are in no way linked to the regions' initiatives.

I would like to make a digression about international markets to indicate that the regions are already selling goods and services on these markets. Given these facts, you have to agree that the federal government should review its regional development policies and harmonize its actions with those of the regions

which are already taking into consideration the new situation on the world market.

In matters of regional development, the federal government's record is far from brilliant. I think they should go back to the drawing board and fast. For the taxpayers, it is sad to see how the government is wasting their money.

Harmonious regional development requires more consistency in the actions of all levels of government. Given its inefficiency in this area, the best thing the federal government could do is to withdraw from this jurisdiction, as all social and economic experts have asked him to do, and to transfer to the province of Quebec all the funds allocated to the economic development programs which have some regional impact.

Of course, a sovereign Quebec would resolve this issue.

[English]

[Starred Questions, June 1st, 1994]

For the periods from December 1, 1992 to December 1, 1993, and from December 2, 1993, to the present, (a) what is the distribution by province, expressed as a percentage, of all contracts awarded by the Department of Government Services (formerly the Department of Supply and Services) (b) what is the total number of these contracts, the amount of each contract and their distribution by province (c) to whom were the contracts awarded and what was the province of residence of the contractors?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Laurentides that I represent, the unemployment rate is 18 per cent, which is significantly higher than the national rate. One would have to be a little naive to believe the Liberal government's recent actions can lower this unemployment rate.

All you have done since October 25, all your decisions and actions are only a drop in the ocean. With your false optimism and pompous speeches, you try to mislead the population by telling them that your plan is working and producing results. In fact, you throw a few crumbs here and there. You aim for the precarious and the very short-term. In Quebec and in my riding, the pre-election period brings its usual jobs.

The provincial and federal Liberal ministers announce here and there that financial assistance will be provided under the infrastructure program, thus creating or preserving some temporary, short-term jobs. The government opposite is satisfied and delighted with its miraculous action.

But where is the true vision, Mr. Speaker? Where are the longer-term plans that would bring us a more stable economy, one that would create more jobs? Instead of seriously tackling the problem and looking for solutions, the ministers opposite go from place to place and see themselves as the bearers of good news.

The people opposite practice day-to-day management while waiting to see what will happen tomorrow. The unemployed people of Laurentides know full well that nothing has changed. There are no more jobs available for them since you moved over to the government side.

What they know however is that after unemployment insurance comes welfare. That is the Liberals' real contribution to the economy. That is what is really happening in our ridings.

The federal government has shifted its responsibilities to the provinces. This transfer, this shameful process shows the laxity and inertia of the Liberals. Welfare, UI cuts, dead-end jobs, increased taxes for the middle class and empty rhetoric, of course, are the only results achieved by the red book government.

The finance minister's Bill C-17, a real post-budget grab bag, introduces amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We find several changes completely unacceptable. The amendment of my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup concerning the change to the premium rate would make this rate change earlier.

We want to end as soon as possible a measure that hurts employment. Instead of waiting for January 1, 1995 to bring the rate back to $3 per $100, we want to bring it back to 3 per cent on June 1, 1994. The Liberals have not been very honest on this rate issue, since they themselves increased it from $3 to $3.07 on January 1, 1994.

Now they are acting like real comedians when they tell the public that they are correcting this rate which is too high, when they themselves just increased it. The process is not honest and the Liberals are making it worse by pretending that they will create 40,000 jobs by correcting this rate.

For one thing, if the government is so confident about the positive impact of a lower rate, why did it raise it on January 1, 1994, and why is it delaying the decrease until January 1, 1995?

Furthermore, this projection of 40,000 jobs is illusory or hypothetical, as it is based on the old schedule which would have seen the rate rise to $3.30 on January 1, 1995. This lower rate simply eliminates a deterrent to job creation and, according to the minister's very debatable figures, reduces job losses.

As far as I know, reducing job losses is not the same as creating jobs. Maintaining jobs or stopping job losses keeps the unemployment rate from rising, while creating jobs lowers the unemployment rate, but for the Liberals, it is the same thing.

Their recipe for employment, which is in very poor taste, combines all the ingredients blindly, without measuring them and without discernment. Then they give the people their product and hope that they will just swallow it all.

Well, wake up. The people know very well what is going on every day. My constituents want real action and tangible results. The people of Laurentides want jobs. They are ready to train, retrain and upgrade themselves to acquire the skills needed to meet the needs of the labour markets.

The 30 per cent of my constituents who are unemployed, I repeat, 30 per cent, want to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They ask the government to put forward programs that will help them go back to work. Long-term employment that will give them some security. Not more small jobs lasting just a few weeks and created through programs designed only to ensure the required number of weeks to be eligible for UI benefits.

We are not getting anywhere with this system. The government only supports a vicious circle which workers cannot escape. It must change its approach to get better and more profitable results, both for workers and employers.

The new changes to the UI program make it harder to be eligible for benefits. In my riding, these changes will adversely affect a large number of workers who are simply not able to work the 12 weeks required, because of a regional economy based on tourism. This is their ticket to welfare. Nice job by the Liberal

government. It never occurred to the decision makers opposite that some workers have all the trouble in the world to find work for the required weeks of insurable employment.

The Liberals go even farther. They say: You work more but we give you less. Fewer weeks of benefits and those benefits are reduced. This translates into less money to spend and a declining purchasing power which, in turns, means that other workers are laid off, no jobs created, and the spiral continues.

The Liberals make cuts in the UI program without offering alternatives to workers. They do things the wrong way round. Their logic has nothing to do with common sense. This is worrisome and depressing for my constituents. It clearly shows that the Liberals are more interested in figures than in people.

Consequently, I ask the Liberals to support our amendment regarding the premium rate. If the Liberals are so sure of the positive effects of that drop, they have to support our position. However, it remains to be seen whether they have the courage and the will to do so. I have strong doubts about that.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say how surprised we are with the amendment to the motion of the Reform Party, and I would like very much to congratulate them. I think that they perhaps have a much more realistic vision of the public service today and that they made the right decision.

The lack of motivation of public servants is such that I think it is high time that the government opens its eyes. They already have had a wage freeze for several years, and what the government is doing this year is simply carrying over that freeze once again.

That is totally irresponsible on the part of the Liberal government. With all its good will, it could have renegotiated its contracts with public servants in order to find an area of agreement so that things would be much more realistic. Since it came into office, the government has been proving to us that it refuses to make cuts where it counts.

Again, we are talking about tax shelters, an issue that remains taboo in this House. We and the Reform Party are the only ones who talk about it. We talk about family trusts. How many times did we ask for studies? The government still has not responded. It is impossible to get answers on that issue.

Our economy is not as its best. We should not delude ourselves. I think it is very well known that the economy is not about to make a big start this year. If the government decided to give good wages to its public servants, it would probably help the economy considerably, because the economy is like a wheel. When you give good wages to your employees, they buy more products and they make the wheel turn. The more you freeze salaries the more prices go up and the less people will make the economy work. This is all quite normal.

The government really has made its choices this time. Again, it is always the same people who pay the bill. We have talked again and again in this House of the poorest in our society. We have had discussions on many occasions about social housing, among other things, but the government ignores the issue. We have also talked about the middle class which is the public service.

I have relatives working for the public service who are responsible for big departments and who told me that the rates of absenteeism and sick leave in the public service are so high that it has created a real problem. People loose their motivation and this of course gives rise to absenteeism, sickness, depression problems and what have you, while the number of single parents is constantly increasing. This is why the salary freeze is totally unacceptable.

I do not want to go from one extreme to the other and say that we have to give everything away, but perhaps we should accept open collective bargaining. This is what matters here. I am very happy to see that our Reform friends have changed their minds. I support the Bloc Quebecois' motion and hope that for once the government will make wise decisions and sit at the bargaining table. Being at the beginning of its mandate, the government has an opportunity to do so, to prove it is a good government, to sit with civil servants and renegotiate so we can have a public service which is efficient rather than dissatisfied as it has been for many years.

[Canada Communication Group, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I read the statement made by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services concerning the Canada Communication Group. Some elements sound vague and raise some very serious concerns.

As all stakeholders and certainly the minister himself knew, the outside firm Deloitte and Touche confirmed there was a conflict of interest in this special operating agency or SOA.

The minister either did not keep his eyes open or did not have the ability to review this matter himself, since it was an outside firm that made him see the light. In any case, it may be better this way since this firm only took six weeks to write its report whereas the minister would surely have taken six or twelve months if not more to do the same.

The first concern relates to the transfer of the Canada Communication Group's purchasing operations with all 150 employees affected to the supply operations arm of the department. Should this transfer exercise not be subject to an extensive review to rationalize departmental staff and resources?

The Bloc Quebecois periodically asks for a comprehensive review of public expenditures. Would it not be appropriate to take advantage of this adjustment to streamline spending and cut the waste of public funds?

Can the minister also assure us that the supply operations group within his department will be completely transparent and that the new status of the 150 employees will effectively stop any conflict of interest with the Canada Communication Group?

The announcement by the minister that an advisory committee will be set up to examine the status of the Canada Communication Group does not come as a big surprise to us. The Liberals have become the undisputed champions of advisory committees. We wonder whether ministers need their own staff since they always rely on advisory committees. Do ministers of this government have the authority to analyze, consult and make decisions on their own? Can they do the job themselves?

What guarantee do we have that this other advisory committee will not be made up of friends of the Liberals? On what basis and under what conditions will members of that committee be appointed? There are numerous concerns, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the minister that all members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations should sit on that committee. The minister should use a committee which already exists and whose members are MPs elected by the public. Instead of doing your usual show, I ask you, when the committee does its work, to open the books, to provide all necessary information, to invite your civil servants and let them express their views, and to consult all those interested in this issue. In this way, we will be able to shed some light on the issue and propose new options through a transparent and open process, as is the public's wish.

We are concerned by two other aspects in the minister's statement. While setting up an advisory committee, the minister is asking Communications Canada to develop and release a policy on conflicts of interest. Why is that not the committee's responsibility? Given its mandate, it is incumbent upon the committee to recommend such a policy. Again, more duplication of studies and consultation processes!

Finally, the minister says that he is reviewing the whole issue of Special Operating Agencies, including Communications Canada. What a mess, Mr. Speaker. The minister is looking at SOAs, the advisory committee is looking at a SOA, and the SOA is looking at itself. As far as we are concerned, this is pure improvisation.

Logic, intelligence, simplicity and common sense do not seem to be the forte of the minister responsible for SOAs.

[Government Contracts, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister have us believe that the government has no information on the regional distribution of federal contracts?

[Government Contracts, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of public works. Last February 18, I gave notice of a question appearing in the Order Paper in which I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services what the regional distribution was of all contracts awarded by his department and to whom these contracts were awarded in the past two years. The Standing Orders require the Minister to respond within 45 days.

Can the minister tell us what he is waiting for to finally shed some light on the distribution of federal government purchasing contracts throughout the various regions of Canada?

[Point Of Order, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could I have the unanimous consent of this House to table draft letters of satisfaction to be sent to BioVac by the office of the Minister of Public Works?