Debates of Feb. 10th, 1994

Supply

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment and Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking 20 minutes and so will each of the members from this side who will speak after me.

I would like to start with a brief comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Terrebonne who wanted to explain to my colleague, if he had more time, what the position of Quebec is. How arrogant of him to think that he owns Quebec's position, that the Bloc Quebecois owns Quebec's position. As far as I know-

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the speech of the hon. member opposite. The question and comment period is over. He should be making his own speech instead of commenting mine. Is that not so?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Members are allowed to refer to a speech that was just made. He can make a comment, and you can ask questions after his speech.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had not been sitting in this place for such a short time, he would know that I am allowed to say whatever I want in my speech. I am sorry if that bothers him, but I will say it anyway.

What I wanted to tell the hon. member is that neither he nor his party represent the position of Quebec. As far as I know, they are not the Government of Quebec. Quebec has, as far as I know, a government which still has the right, a right that it exercises very freely, to remain in Canada.

As far as I know, Quebecers will have to make a choice, but there are some, including myself and my colleague here, who hold views on Canadian federalism which are necessarily those of the member opposite. For example, it is certainly not right to assume that everyone in Quebec is an indépendantiste. That is defeinitely not what the outcome of the referendum held in 1980 leads us to conclude, and it is certainly not what Quebec will say if there is another referendum.

To take for granted that all Quebecers want to leave the Canadian federation is to fool oneself, as some did in 1980.

Those of us on this side of the House also like to think that we represent Quebec. I spent nine years as a member of Quebec's national assembly and I have always worked hard to help my fellow citizens from Quebec, regardless of where they live, of their religion, or of their language, and I refuse to accept this notion that Bloc Quebecois members are the only ones who speak for Quebecers.

I am aware that federalism, and especially the Canadian federal system, is responsible for everything that is wrong in this world, at least according to the Bloc Quebecois members. It is always the federal government's fault. I have heard this old tune time and again. Of course we can look at the Auditor General's reports and find things which we would all like to see changed.

I remember those Auditor General's reports when I was a member of the opposition in Quebec. I remember the investment of several hundred millions in asbestos mines. Asbestos was a mineral which nobody in the world wanted and the United States were going to ban its use. I remember that. I also remember that millions of dollars were invested in Quebecair. I remember as well the investments made in that sugar refinery on the south shore. I could give you all kinds of examples where the Auditor General said to the government: "Look, a lot of bad decisions were made". This happened under Conservative and Liberal governments in Ottawa, as well as under the Parti Québécois and the Liberal governments in Quebec.

It is unfortunate that such things happen. However, we want to look forward and try to correct these mistakes. We accept criticisms, and in fact the ministers who answered questions the other day said to the Auditor General: "We accept those criticisms. We know that these things happened but we are not going to blame our government because another government was in office then. However, we recognize that things must change".

In our red book, we undertook to change things and to ensure that government administration would be a tighter and more efficient management exercise. I know that the federal system is complex. In fact, any government structure is complex. We recognize that but, at the same time, it is a system whose value has been proven. After all, our country has so far enjoyed 126 years of peace, freedom and kinship, this because French and English speaking Canadians understand each other. The problem is a political one. It is a problem which we created ourselves.

The Canadian federation is, in many ways, a model. I know that we are going through a recession. I also know that a lot of stupid decisions were made over the years, both at the federal and provincial levels. Today, all the provinces, including Ontario, which was formerly the engine of our economy, Alberta, Quebec, and all the others, are experiencing very serious economic difficulties.

We want to try to make things more practical. In fact, we want to use this recession as an opportunity to think about what we are and what we have to do to be more effective.

That is what we want to do. We do not want to look back and say it is the fault of the federal government, it is the fault of the Alberta government, or the Quebec government, or the Newfoundland government. We want to say: Is there a way of making this federation work better?

The whole principle and thrust of the red book is: Let us put the parochial quarrels of the past aside and behind. Let us look above and beyond. Let us find a way to work together to solve these problems rather than fighting these silly quarrels.

This hon. gentleman cites the mounted police as an example of Quebec paying more than it receives. In turn we could say in the milk industry Quebec has 48 per cent of the share of all milk distribution in Canada, much more than the share of its population. We could say in unemployment insurance Quebec receives $1.5 billion more than its proportional share because of course its unemployment rate is proportionately higher than that of comparable provinces. We could say Quebec receives three times more from the federal treasury through the manpower training program than it invests itself: $900 million versus $300 million.

We can quote these figures to prove our points one way or the other. What does it prove in the end? That in a federation there has to be a system of checks and balances. Sometimes a province pays a little more here, sometimes it gains a little more there.

What would Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario say, the provinces which contribute the total share of the transfer of moneys to provinces that are in a less favourable state? What should they say?

What Canadians in general say, and in Canadians I include Quebecers because they are also Canadians and would prove that they want to be. I know they will stay in Canada. However, all Canadians say that the system is not perfect. It was not invented to be perfect. Surely we can make it more responsible, make it fairer, make it work better.

For nine years I served at the provincial level. For nine years I know there were a lot of frustrations among us because of overlap, because of duplication, because of federal legislation or rules that impeded our work. I concede this. One can say: "Fine, there is duplication, there is overlap. I am going to turn my back on it. I am going to make sure the federation works

worse. I am going to walk out and destroy what we have created together". But there is another solution. Address it.

I was environment minister for three years. I had all kinds of discussions and debates with my federal counterpart and other provincial counterparts. Within the council of environment ministers of Canada we tried to look for solutions to delete the overlaps, to address the duplications. Duplications are still there, but it is possible to find examples in Canada where we can work together.

Recently we created an infrastructure program. Somehow all provinces without exception have joined in voluntarily. Agreements have been signed. It is an example of the three levels of government working not only efficiently but in harmony to create a system that works.

Recently the Minister of Finance met with Quebec and the other provinces regarding transfers from the federal government to the provinces. Again they worked in harmony to arrive at a common solution.

It is not always going to be harmonious. The other day the ministers of health met and certain of them had objections regarding the latest move on tobacco taxes.

At the same time we have to look into the overall pattern and make sure that within our system we meet, we talk and we dialogue.

The minister for whom I work is sitting next to me. In May she is going to meet for the second time with other environment ministers. I know my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois was citing the environment ministry and the 18 problems. Sure, there might be 18 problems. There might be 28. But the idea is that when we sit together we can harmonize our laws, our regulations and our objectives. Today we are in a recession together and we either sink or swim together. That realization is coming to pass more and more.

We have all come to the realization-be it the Government of Quebec, of Alberta, of British Columbia or the Liberal federal government-that unless we work together to reduce duplication and overlap, unless we get together and act like people who have a common goal of resolving problems, we will never get anywhere. This realization seems to have sunk in today.

Let me give at little example to my friends from the Bloc Quebecois who think that nothing is working in Canada. In my region, back in the days when I was sitting at the National Assembly-14 years ago already-we had instituted quarterly meetings where all the provincial and federal members of Parliament and all the mayors of the region regularly got together to address the common problem of duplication and overlap. There were no distinctions based on political affiliation. Well, these people have been sitting together for 14 years. We have looked into public transportation, public health and environmental problems. We look for solutions together.

Today, in that region and Sault-au-Saint-Louis, the neighbouring region, instead of waiting for a quick fix concerning manpower training programs, they have decided to work together: the federal government, the provincial government, the municipalities and the target communities.

In fact, by assuming responsibility for ourselves and coming up with practical solutions that work in the real world, we will demonstrate to our fellow citizens, wherever they live, that the federal system can work. But if anyone creates difficulties along the way or tries to throw a monkey wrench into the works, as you are trying to do, it will not work.

You are saying that the public accounts committee's mandate is not broad enough to examine all that you want to examine. The public accounts committee is under your control. The chairmanship will be yours. Just the other day, the Solicitor General stated in this House that the autonomy of House committees will be significantly enhanced. You have here a committee that you will chair, where you can examine all the public accounts of the federal government and you are arguing that it will not deal with separate departmental accounts. Look, the standard practice is that all departments are represented to defend their account statements.

I was in the opposition for four years, so I know what I am talking about. I have examined the accounts of the ministries of International Affairs, the Environment and many others in Quebec. You have full latitude to ask questions. In fact, by making all the figures available to you, the Auditor General is helping you. And your work will be transparent because we all want to be transparent. You have control over this committee. You will be quite free to examine all cases of overlap. You say that we must cut spending but you now want to create a kind of ceremonial committee in addition to the one that already exists. Use the committee you already have. Make it work. Find constructive solutions to its problems. Do not use it to make your little speeches on Canadian federalism that never lies, but rather to help make it more effective, more real, more equitable if you think it is not equitable enough.

Our respective positions do meet in the end. What we are all pursuing is a better quality of life for ourselves and for our children. We want to become full-time citizens who can enjoy their complete freedom. My philosophy is different from yours because I think I can attain these objectives within the Canadian federation, while you think that it must be destroyed so that something new can be built. All the tools are in your hands. You have all the House committees. You have the public accounts

committee to prove, while waiting for tomorrow's dream, that your ideas count.

In conclusion, as I was saying the other day during the throne speech debate, I know that we are talking about expenditures, about public efficiency. The government I am a member of today is committed to changing things for the better. And if it does not do so, it is your job to show us the right way. At the same time, I think there is a fundamental issue underlying all this. What you are trying to do is emphasize what my colleague from Ontario pointed out earlier; you are trying to prove that Quebecers and Canadians are completely different, and never the twain shall meet.

On this side of the House, we will work honestly and most vigorously but without enmity. We may be opponents but we will never be unfriendly. The greatest tribute that you can pay to Canada is, as I stated the other day, your mere presence in this House, which all parties have graciously accepted, including the representatives of British Columbia and Alberta. However, if the situation were reversed, I wonder whether you would have been as obliging. In my view, your presence here is the best possible proof we could have of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in Canada, of the spirit of warmth and generosity embodied in the Canadian federation.

I hope that as you go about your work, scrutinize the public accounts, examine the work of the Auditor General and take a close look at everything that does not work in the federation, you will be able to work with us to improve things, not merely for the sake of some ideology, but for the welfare of citizens who, far from worrying about ideology, want a better standard of living, a job, opportunities for young people who today are looking for work. That is the message I am getting, in both francophone and anglophone areas of my riding. Constituents are not concerned about Quebec's independence. They are worried more by the fact that if Quebec independence soon becomes the focus of discussions in a referendum, the issue will divide us, just as it divided us in 1980. It will divide families and create economic instability, something that you yourselves wanted to avoid. It will create instability-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member's time is up. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has the floor.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In any case, I have often heard the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis make this kind of speech before, in the distant and not so distant past. All I can say that the Bloc Quebecois is here in force with 54 members, not because people were doing us a favour but thanks to our democratic system. If the hon. member has no respect for democracy or for the choice of Quebecers, then he is the problem. We feel quite comfortable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, order. As far as I know, there were no interruptions during the speech by the parliamentary secretary. On behalf of all members, I would ask that the same courtesy be extended to other speakers.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said there is not a single member of the Bloc Quebecois who feels uncomfortable in this House, and I will tell you why: because Quebecers gave us a very clear mandate. And if you ask your constituents, you will find that Canadians are satisfied with our role as the Official Opposition. It is just as well we are there to monitor this government, not only on behalf of the Quebecers who elected us but also on behalf of Canadians, because otherwise you would do what you felt like doing and cause as much harm, socially and economically, as the Conservatives did before.

That being said, we may not get it right all the time, but I think that since 1980, the federalists have got it all wrong. In 1980 during the election campaign, they told Quebecers: "Vote no for renewed federalism". In 1981 we had the night of the long knives. In 1982, unilateral patriation of the Constitution. At the time, the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, and he voted against patriation of the Canadian Constitution, against the majority in the National Assembly. He was there, or rather his government, the government to which he belonged.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the hon. member said is entirely incorrect. I voted for patriation of the Constitution.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis may respond in a few minutes.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made a minor historical mistake. Not many members voted in favour, did they?

[An hon. member]

Five.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

The National Assembly voted almost unanimously against unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

In 1984, the sovereigntists decided to take the "beau risque" and give the federalists another chance, like the hon. member opposite. Meech failed. Bélanger-Campeau resulted in a consensus unheard of in Quebec. The federalists responded with two years of nonsense which led us to the moment of truth. I will explain

In 1992, Quebecers voted massively against the Charlottetown nonsense. That was the moment of truth for Quebec and Quebecers. And again on October 25 last year, they gave us a clear mandate. Why did they not vote for you? Why did they not vote massively for the Liberals? Quebecers who vote want to

choose their option for the future, and I am sure they will chose the option of sovereignty.

I have one more important item. The Leader of the Official Opposition extended his hand in friendship when he arrived here. We intend to work very hard to improve public finances and the state of the economy in Quebec and Canada. Do you know why? Because when Quebecers choose the sovereignty option, we do not want to be stuck with an even bigger share of Canada's debt than would be the case today, and second, we certainly don't want Canadians, our friends and trading partners, to suffer as the consequences of an economic situation created by this government and its poor economic decisions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would invite the hon. members, and especially very senior members, to direct their remarks to the Chair.

Does the parliamentary secretary wish to respond?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said what I had to say. I think we should let the people be the judge.

I do want to repeat that I think it is very sad to hear this distinction made between Canadians and Quebecers, as though we were two separate nations, two foreign nations that do not talk to each other.

As far as I know, Quebecers are Canadians. If they decide otherwise, then we will see, but so far they have decided to be Canadians. Again, I think making these distinctions between Canadians and Quebecers is a sad reflection on the current situation, where people are trying to divide a country which should be united in hard times, when we all have to work together to solve our problems. Solving problems is a joint endeavour. We must be united and work together, and I don't think the kind of distinction they are purposely making is conducive to Canadian unity.

I intend to work very hard, and I hope to be able to convince the Bloc Quebecois that working together is better than working divided.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit concerned and sad when I listen to the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. Unfortunately I forget which riding he is from because I met him here and there, in Chambly during the byelection of 1991, and I do not know which riding he belongs to now.

I want to ask the hon. member in what way he represents Quebecers in a more legitimate manner with 16 members from Québec sitting on the other side of the House when we are 54 on our side but we are not allowed to get our point of view across in this House.

In the 1991 byelection, he got about 7 per cent of the vote in the Chambly county. Who wins elections, the minorities or the majority? We are 54 elected members in this House to defend our point of view. Do we still have to get on our knees before the hon. member from God knows where to ask permission to stand?

We made a proposal and submitted it to the House. If he wants to rise against it, I do not have a problem with that, but, nevertheless, he has to respect the democratic dimension of Quebecers's vote on October 25.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not respond directly to what the member said. I think he is showing a lack of class and courtesy. I am not the member from God knows where, I am the member representing a Quebec riding of 73,000 constituents. I was elected in the same capacity as he was. I was sometimes defeated in my lifetime, these things happen, but I have accepted defeat with great magnanimity. I did not say that I always win, but I work according to my beliefs.

I would say to the member that I never said that he does not represent the majority of Quebec electors in the Canadian federation. That is obvious, his party has got 54 seats. I had said that very clearly to the member for Terrebonne, who was saying that we were talking about Quebec's position. I said the same thing as the minister of Foreign Affairs did the other day, that is that the Bloc members do not have a monopoly on talking for Quebec, that we too, even if we did not get as many votes, are also Quebecers and have a say in the matter. The present Quebec government represents a position which is not separatist and it too was elected with a majority.

That majority and minority issue saddens me. I am above all a Canadian. I do not have this problem with majority and minority, French speaking and English speaking, division and narrow-mindedness. I want to work for all my fellow citizens. I do not accept to be called a member from God knows where. I am a member representing a riding where almost 45 per cent of the people are French speaking, and they too matter in Quebec.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in any country, when the tax rate reaches excessive levels, as is the case in Canada now, the ordinary, even traditional discontent of taxpayers towards taxation turns into resentment. And when the people learn that their hard earned money is mismanaged and wasted, such a mess transforms their resentment into frustration.

When taxpayers witness financial mismanagement in a country, there is always a threshold, a limit it would be dangerous for any government to cross.

When, in this country, people see part of the population break the law with complete impunity, they see it is necessary to act illegally to have an unreasonable tax reduced, they see that very rich people are legally exempt of income taxes while others are crushed under the tax burden, social uprising is not far. I am not saying we are there already, but I think, in spite of the infinite

patience of Quebecers and Canadians, it could very well happen. History is full of such cases.

Without going back to the beginning of times, let me remind you of an event we all know about very well. The French Revolution was triggered by nothing else but excessive taxes and the squandering of the royal court. Remember that the main point in the list of demands drawn up by the Estates-General was the existence of a privileged class which paid no taxes.

In Canada and Quebec we have our own kind of aristocracy, a class of people who pay almost no income tax. The marquesses of today are the family trusts. I do not want to get too sordid, but I suggest there is in our country, as there was in France in those days, a toiling and struggling population which is shocked by such injustice and incompetence.

Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I am not saying the two factors of frustration I mentioned, mismanagement and an unfair taxation system, will lead us directly to a revolution. We are two very patient nations, too wise to let the situation reach that point. In our country the individual is far from ready to attack the state, but to escape taxes, he is quite ready to hide from the system and hide his activities.

That kind of behaviour is spreading and, because of that, our government is losing control over, even knowledge of, a complete section of the economy. Civil disobedience is no longer reproved by public opinion. What a failure, Mr. Speaker, what a decline!

Year after year, the Auditor General, without succeeding in shaking the government out of its lethargy, displays for the public, who eventually becomes blasé, damning examples of carelessness, shortsightedness and waste on the part of previous federal governments. This year takes the cake. And, to my knowledge, the Auditor General, when reviewing our finances, stays strictly within the federal jurisdiction and consequently, does not look into this generous source of administrative abberation and squandering of public funds which is the overlapping of jurisdictions.

Here is a particularly painful example of this mess, in view of its victims, old age pensioners. Let us see what the Auditor General has to say about that. This meagre pension which is, as you know, the only source of revenue for a lot of people, could be increased, without dipping into the public purse, if the $200 million or so in overpayments were clawed back or, better yet, if they were never paid out, thanks to a better managed fund.

If, at least, old age pensioners could be heard by the government when they have a problem! But the Auditor General tells us that there are 17,000 inquiries on a waiting list and sometimes, it takes more than a year before they are answered. And that is not all. Service centres and regional offices receive 4 million telephone inquiries a year, but 7 million calls are either cut off or dropped by the caller, out of despair, I guess.

Overlapping and duplication of services are another source of waste and paralysis, exposed time and time again but always in vain.

A study done by the Treasury Board of Canada in 1991 indicates that in five provinces at least there was duplication in 60 per cent of federal and provincial programs. That situation being obviously profitable to some officials, it is doubtful they would readily propose to eliminate those duplications.

As for those elected, they have ignored to date a situation which they find politically beneficial since it enhances their visibility.

I would now like to talk about duplication, particularly in Quebec. The hon. member for Joliette recently made a declaration in this place and I find it useful to repeat it. "The Bélanger-Campeau Commission has estimated that the elimination of duplication resulting from the sovereignty of Quebec would allow a saving of $233 million in transport and communication costs. This is therefore a potentially important issue, although there is no recent study evaluating the cost of present duplications in provincial and federal programs". The hon. member went on to say that some sources estimate the total cost at close to $3 billion. Those figures come from the Bélanger-Campeau commission whose recommendations were accepted, namely by the provincial Liberals. It was five billion according to them. This is why we ask this House to give the Auditor General, without any political partisanship, the mandate to conduct a serious and comprehensive study on duplication and overlapping in all those spending programs.

In conclusion, it is imperative that we regain the confidence of Canadians in the government's expertise and sense of justice. If not there will be no revolution but we will see the rise of an underground economy in Quebec and Canada. Tax dodging would become socially acceptable, still illegal perhaps but legitimate. Elected officials would be despised. In a word, our model democracy we pride ourselves on, and rightly so, would slowly deteriorate.

To win back the trust of Canadians, we must first have a parliamentary committee review mercilessly all public expenditures, particularly areas of unnecessary overlap between federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Second, the government must put an end to undue tax privileges for the Canadian tax aristocracy. Like the aristocracy which once caused the fall of monarchy in France, these lucky few are not only undermining our finances but are also threatening our institutions, since the public feel treated unfairly in the face of these privileges.

Such is the double price we will have to pay, that is review of expenditures and suspension of privileges, in order to restore in the population the minimum of respect that institutions and governments should command. Without such respect, institutions are in danger.

A last word, inspired by this morning's newspapers. Put in headlines over four columns, La Presse states ``Martin's first budget will hurt''. We knew that. A lot of people are afraid the budget will hurt the have-nots, sparing the rich once again. If the awaited elimination of abuse-ridden tax shelters turns out to be nothing but a snow job, while social program cuts turn out to be too real, the resentment of taxpayers could lead to social behaviour that would make us all sorry.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes.

He obviously is not aware that a member of his own party, the member for La Prairie, was appointed chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts this afternoon.

Is he, then, leading us to believe that a member of his own party is not capable of doing this job? If so, then he should ask for his immediate removal. As his own party now chairs the committee on public accounts, elected this afternoon, perhaps he should consult with his member for La Prairie.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is at least the sixth time today that we have been told that the committee we are asking for would duplicate the work of the public accounts committee.

The committee we are calling for is an ad hoc committee with a specific time limited mandate and more power than the public accounts committee; in particular, it could look at some aspects of provincial accounting to gauge the overlap between federal and provincial authority. These two committees do not duplicate each other. One is permanent with a specific but relatively limited mission; ours has a precise mission and we want increased power for it.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing forward those points and I want to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion. It points to a very serious problem, the fiscal and monetary situation that Canada is in.

We have seen successive governments plunge this country into debt to the point where the members who speak on behalf of the Fraser Institute of Canada, which held a seminar here that many of our members attended, are suggesting we may be beyond the point of return in getting our fiscal and monetary house in order.

I want to thank the member for bringing a debate to this House that focuses to a certain degree on that issue. It is the greatest and most serious issue facing Canada today. The powers of the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments to tax wealth away from the people is the greatest threat to the economic well-being of our families and individual businesses and so on that we have in this country today.

The unbridled power and the irresponsible exercise of that power as reflected in the governments of the 1970s and the 1980s and up until this time poses a very serious threat to the economic well-being of our future.

If those experts from the Fraser Institute know what they are talking about, and I believe they have put forward a very logical case, then the government should be focusing on this aspect of the crisis, and that is the economic, fiscal and monetary aspect.

We are looking at the signs of a tax revolt. We see the underground economy, cross-border shopping, and we ask ourselves why thousands of normally law-abiding citizens will buy bootleg cigarettes. These are all signs that people are simply giving up on a tax system that has burdened them to the point where they can no longer make ends meet and they are seeking illegal ways to get around it.

I would like to compliment the hon. member and ask him a specific question. He has answered my question partly but could he highlight the differences between the committee he is recommending and the existing public accounts committee. Would he respond to that please?

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who just spoke for his approval, basically, of the motion we tabled.

Before answering him, I would like to point out that, as one of my fellow Bloc members said just now, the committee that we are calling for would meet one of the promises made by the Liberals in their red book to examine spending thoroughly. If the Reform Party agrees with our proposal, why are we arguing with each other? We all agree.

Now, to answer the question about the difference between the public accounts committee and the one that we are calling for, as I just said, this is to be a committee with a specific time-limited mandate and increased powers which would go beyond the annual auditing routine done by the public accounts committee and which would tackle a specific current situation that the hon. member said was urgent and current.

It would be an ad hoc committee for the present situation, with increased powers to meet their objective, which, like ours and the Liberals' objective, is to track down unnecessary spending.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why a special committee of the House should be set up to examine public expenditures, especially in the context of employment. The first and most obvious reason is the absolutely disastrous situation of government finances in Canada.

The second reason is the fact that the public has lost confidence in its parliamentary institutions, which is something very dangerous for democracy. Indeed, the general public, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, feel that there is still some fat in the government administration.

Moreover, because more and more people live in poverty, and because the middle-class is getting poorer and poorer, the government has a moral responsibility to the public. It must have a transparent style of management, and it must also demonstrate the efficiency of its structure. In other words, the government must prove its integrity to all Canadians, regardless of their economic situation and class.

Economic growth must be accelerated and unemployment must be reduced to lighten the deficit and the national debt on a long-term basis.

I come from a working family in Chili, where unemployment and underemployment are extremely high. As a lawyer in my country, I worked for unions and for the government, mostly in labour relations.

Here, I was a servicing representative for 19 years in Quebec's labour movement. I was very active in the FTQ and the Conseil des travailleurs et travailleuses du Montréal métropolitain.

My first concern has always been employment as well as the well-being of laid off workers. I sincerely believe that every person has the right to a job which is well-paying, satisfying and compatible with his or her skills.

Through my involvement in the union movement, I often witnessed tragic events, for individuals and families, when workers would lose their job, particularly when a company would close down for good. This is even more tragic when the people affected are workers over 45 years of age who have spent their entire working life with the company. Unfortunately, the legislation, both federal and provincial, does not adequately protect the workers who are affected by mass lay-offs.

Statistics Canada said that the recession was over. However, the current economic recovery is very different from the one which followed the last recession in 1981-82, in the sense that it has taken a long time to come and it is still slow. This is mainly due to the refusal or the inability of federal and provincial governments to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The current financial problems of governments have more to do with increasingly insufficient revenues than with expenditures.

This insufficiency is due to the large number of unemployed people who, of course, cannot contribute and must instead get help from the state. The fact that the last recession eliminated more permanent jobs than the previous one in the eighties says something about the magnitude of the present economic dislocation.

The deterioration of the job situation has adversely affected every sector and region, as well as every category of workers.

However, it is the manufacturing sector that was hardest hit, and very early on, by the recession. A total of 248,000 jobs in this sector have been lost across Canada. What a disaster! In the space of four years, one in every six jobs disappeared.

The recession has affected full-time jobs the most. The only net gains in this sector have been in the part-time field. Job losses have been concentrated in Canada's two main industrial provinces, namely Quebec and Ontario.

Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson has just wrapped up a trip to Europe. During his trip, he announced investments in the order of $180 million which he claimed would create some 350 jobs. However, since he was sworn in as premier last January 11, roughly 1,800 jobs have either been lost in Quebec or have been targeted for elimination.

Virtually every region has been affected, either by a plant closure, by staff cutbacks or by relocations. Plant closures have been the heaviest in the Eastern Townships. The closure of the Asea Brown Boveri kettle plant was just announced. A total of 340 workers will lose their jobs.

I personally came to the aid of ABB, Asea Brown Boveri, employees in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu when another plant shut down two years ago. I also helped the workers at the Philips plant in Saint-Laurent when a decision to close the facility put more than 1,000 people out of work.

The Montreal region has also been hard hit. Proctor and Gamble is closing and laying off 100 employees in Pointe-Claire. Dominion Textile is shutting down its dyeing plant and as a result, 105 jobs will disappear.

On the cultural scene, the Musée pour rire is closing its doors after receiving several million dollars in public funds. As a result, 40 people have been laid off.

In my own riding of Bourassa which includes the municipality of Montréal-Nord, the unemployment rate is hovering around the 30 per cent mark, if we include social assistance recipients who are able to work. And yet, Northern Telecom has just shut

down its facility, throwing another hundred or more people out of work.

I should also point out that the fishing industry which provides work for the vast majority of the 6,000 Quebecers from the lower North Shore, is in dire straights.

Unitel has announced it was cutting 150 positions in Quebec and the Discus record chain that it was closing down 13 stores and laying off 200 employees. And the list of closures and layoffs in Quebec and Canada goes on and on.

Yet the federal government ran and won the last election on a platform of job creation. Their slogan was "jobs, jobs, jobs". The opposite is happening, with more and more massive layoffs.

On Saturday, February 12, 1994, the FTQ will be holding its annual meeting on the solidarity fund, the primary purpose of which is to create jobs. I take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to its founding president, my friend and colleague Louis Laberge.

He will soon be replaced by Mr. Fernand Daoust as chairman of the board of the solidarity fund. Known mainly for his three years as president of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec and 22 years as secretary general of the same central labour body, my very dear friend Fernand Daoust is also a man totally devoted to the cause of the workers.

Fernand Daoust is a man of great stature. The Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec is gaining in him a president who will no doubt apply all the talent we is famous for to help achieve its goals. On that subject, I would like to tell you more about this FTQ solidarity fund which is a positive labour initiative to save and create jobs.

I am not done, Mr. Speaker, but I will close on this. True economic recovery will result in less unemployment and more tax revenues.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Opposition motion that says essentially this: to examine federal expenditures by focusing on overlap between federal and provincial government programs.

This is a noble and essential objective. But why is the Bloc asking for such a committee? It is something we should look at. Of course, like us and like members of other parties, they want to know if it is possible to spend better or less. It is a very good thing and I share this feeling. I want to do it and I think we all agree that it must be done.

We heard today an interesting comment from a member of the Reform Party. There are still a few differences between the Bloc and Reform. It is sometimes difficult to see these differences but I think there is at least one. This member from the Reform Party indicated that, in his opinion, the Bloc was trying to open a constitutional debate.

Why would the Bloc want to open a constitutional debate? If we analyze this comment carefully, could it be to promote their goal, namely separation from Canada? I hope I am mistaken. I do not want to accuse them, but I should remind Bloc members that this comment was made today by a Reform member. If there are any doubts as to the validity of my interpretation, one only has to check Hansard .

It is one possibility, but I think that the Bloc may want to move in a different direction. Every now and then, they remember that they are the Official Opposition so it is only natural that they want to embarrass the government. It is only natural that they try to create a situation suggesting that the current system of government, namely federalism, is not working.

Why is it that I make those particular points?

The Bloc knows very well that there is a committee which exists right now.

There is a committee which exists right now that can attain all of the objectives that are in the opposition motion. The Bloc chairs that committee. It has the key position on the committee. If there is a mechanism that exists to achieve the objectives that have been enunciated here on paper then are there other objectives that it is trying to pursue? Why is it asking to create something that already exists essentially to do those things it says it wants to do and that we all want to do, and that is to see whether we can spend better and more wisely fewer public funds?

As we examine this question I would hope that we would ask ourselves some very serious questions. We talk about concepts such as overlap and duplication as if they were the same thing. When I raised a question today of a member of the Reform Party, whether the member made a distinction, the member sloughed it off, I cannot say the party did, as simply being interested in saving money. Let me assure the members that we are interested in saving money as well.

It seems to me that before we go forward we have to have a clear sense of what it is we are trying to accomplish. Do we want to attack duplication only which to my way of thinking is another program that is essentially the same? Do we want to simply look at overlap? Do we know the difference between overlap and duplication? Overlap is where there are similarities but not necessarily a total similarity and a total duplication. We are just sloughing that off.

There may be a necessity for overlap in some situations. It is my view that the more we can eliminate overlap and duplication the better off we are.

Let me give an example. In the whole question of environment there are certain provinces that abut territories. There are questions of environment that flow from the federal government to the territory as well as to the province. There may even be a need for duplication.

Let me give but one example. We have schools, generally speaking that are administered by school boards. In certain instances we need schools that are administered by the federal government for our aboriginal people. That is changing and it is going in the right direction.

To simply say we want to get rid of all overlap, all duplication without knowing the distinctions between overlap and duplication, without considering whether there are some needs for overlap and duplication, is not doing this particular activity justice.

Everybody would agree that there is overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments that needs to be looked at in a very serious way. What I am surprised at as well is that we have not talked about another level of government. Is there a need to examine whether there is too much overlap and duplication among the various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal? There is in many instances.

Let us remember that if we are allowing ourselves to look at overlap and duplication between federal and provincial levels we ought to be able to extend that to municipal levels because municipal structures, governmental structures, are created by provincial governments.

What about overlap itself within certain levels of government, within, for example, the federal government, within provincial governments, within municipal governments?

Let me give a good example of overlap within federal governments. I am told that during the last government there were programs related to education, training, retraining; education broadly defined, if you wish, to be found in over a dozen federal departments.

Is that necessary? Is that good for the nation? Can we have a focus with that kind of spread, that kind of non-co-ordination. I think not.

In my own province of Manitoba a very serious duplication exists between the provincial and municipal authorities. It is social assistance. In some cases people receive social assistance from the provincial authorities. In other cases it is from the municipal authorities.

Sometimes it is very difficult to follow why one gets it from one level of government or the other level of government.

There are differences in programs. There are administrators in both and one could logically ask whether that should continue to exist.

Let me broach another topic. I do not think we have looked at the public accounts committee in a serious way. It can review spending. If it can review spending, clearly it can ask questions about overlap and duplication. Why would we not use this committee?

In a sense there is a contradiction there.

Since we already have a committee, why should we set up another one? The existing committee can reach the same objectives as those mentioned in Official Opposition's motion before us today.

It seems to me there is a glaring contradiction. We want to attack overlap and duplication and yet we are prepared to undertake an act that will cause overlap and duplication.

It doest not make any sense at all.

There are many studies that point out that there is a problem in this area. The House has heard reference to the 1937 Rowell-Sirois commission, the 1978 study of the École nationale d'administration publique, of the 1978-79 federal provincial duplication of services review, of the 1984-85 task force on program review, of the regulatory reform initiative, of the 1991 Treasury Board secretariat study on federal-provincial overlap and duplication.

The House will perhaps be happy to note something that falls in line with the debate today. In this most recent study, in all studies, there were activities of overlap in many areas and duplication in a number of areas. Overlap in federal and provincial programs took several forms. In general, governments were managing some of these overlaps and duplications in an effective way. However, they all admitted that there is considerable scope for improving program delivery through better co-ordination or harmonization.

Let me review the motion to make sure that we are talking about the same thing.

The motion before us today reads as follows:

That this House urge the Government to strike a Special Committee of the House, composed of representatives of all the official parties, with a mandate to examine public expenditures by the federal government, in light of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, concerning overlap between federal and provincial government programs and in accordance with the following guidelines:

(1) the Committee's deliberations would be an open and transparent process allowing for the public examination of official matters;

This is not possible.

(2) the Committee would have the power to subpoena any witnesses whose testimony would be considered helpful;

This is possible.

(3) the Committee would be required to report to the House by June 23, 1994;

I believe that the date is different but surely accommodations could be made if this is important.

I see no reason to create an additional committee but I see reason to pursue the objective of examining where we could spend less and yet serve all citizens in a meaningful way. There is a committee to do it and I would urge that it be done.

Let us do it. I think we should all work together to cut government expenditures at all levels and to create jobs for all Canadians.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to my hon. colleague from St. Boniface, Manitoba.

I note his statement to the effect that in Manitoba, everything is for the best in the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, I must also note that in Manitoba, not as many people speak French as in the last century. I would not want the same thing to happen in Quebec.

As for his question concerning the public accounts committee, may I ask if most of the members on that committee are from the party in power? If so, could the party in power assure us that the proceedings of the public accounts committee will be non-partisan? I would really like to hear the member on that.