Benoît Sauvageau

[International Trade, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, the then Minister of International Trade told this House that various details relating to the future free trade agreement between Canada and Israel had yet to be settled, including manufacturing, garment manufacturing for example and bathing suits and lingerie in particular.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since Israeli companies, unlike Canadian companies, have free access to the European textile market, will the minister and his government make sure that measures are taken to prepare the Canadian textile industry to compete with Israeli companies in a free trade environment?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the member for St. Boniface criticized the official opposition, I have no choice but to reply to him. The hon. member comes from a very nice region where the francophonie thrived and is still alive.

However, people in his region cannot get a daily French newspaper, only a weekly one.

I discussed this issue with the hon. member for St. Boniface about a year ago, but the situation has not changed.

The member, who spoke eloquently about education during most of his speech comes from a province that, since about the beginning of the century, has been violating the rights of French speaking people to education in their own language. I find it hard to understand the member's sudden interest for education and youth.

If he is serious about giving his attention to this issue, he should read the Constitution carefully. He will probably be surprised to find out that education and training are two areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. This is not a statement made by bad separatists: it is, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the House one sits, spelled out in the Constitution. We are simply asking the government to comply with the Constitution.

We are told that we only criticize, that we do not fulfil our responsibility to propose positive changes. I remind the hon. member that about 75 per cent of all those who sent submissions to the human resources development committee opposed Bill C-12. As elected representatives we represent people and we say that this bill, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi said earlier, is unacceptable to them.

If Bill C-12 is so promising for young people, how-I too will conclude by asking the member a question-can we accept that, if it is passed, a new entrant will have to have worked three times more than under the current system, that is 910 hours? This requirement alone shows how absurd Bill C-12 is in the way it treats young people. If the member can, at some point, provide an answer I want him to explain how this requirement of 910 hours, which is three times the number currently required in the case of young people or women who apply for the first time. These were my answers to the member for St. Boniface, along with a question.

Before getting on with my speech as such, I want to congratulate two members whom I know very well-there were certainly others who were out there this past weekend-and one of them even got a sunburn during the demonstration. I am referring to the hon. member for Chicoutimi who, along with local interest groups, succeeded in getting over 1,000 people to protest against Bill C-12, and the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who also convinced many of his constituents to come protest and show their discontent regarding this bill. I believe that people in every riding and region have shown their dissatisfaction with this legislation.

However, the best way to avoid all these problems with Bill C-12 remains job creation. Government, however, does not create jobs. We have seen how ineffectual this government is in that field also.

In my riding, there are two groups that are creating jobs. Since we are talking about unemployment insurance, employment insurance and jobs, I want to point out the outstanding work done by these two groups. I will start with the Société de développement économique de la Rive-Nord, under the chairmanship of Raymond Gervais.

This economic development corporation, which brings together the communities of the regional county municipality of L'Assomption, is doing outstanding work. With the stakeholders and the businessmen and women in the community, this economic development corporation seeks to attract businesses to our area and has had more than its fair share of success at it. It has a pretty good record of job creation, I want to emphasize that.

There is also the Société de développement économique des Moulins inc., which forms the other part of my riding, that is the regional county municipality of Les Moulins, except for the city of Mascouche; its chairwoman, Lise Brouillette, is doing a tremendous work to attract and keep businesses and to help create and maintain jobs in the area. Hats off to the Société de développement économique de la Rive-Nord, as well as to the Société de développement économique des Moulins inc.

These two organizations work day in and day out to create jobs. When I last spoke on Bill C-12, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to my Liberal colleagues the problem with the Terrebonne employment centre which does not make any sense.

Let me remind those who might have forgotten or not heard about it that the Terrebonne employment centre was affected by the infamous employment centres restructuring, as improvised as the infamous constitutional process, and was asked, summoned or ordered to move to a brand new building the federal government has rented for ten years in order to meet the required standards.

Even before the official opening of the new employment centre, not a few weeks after but before the opening, the director of the centre received a nice letter asking him to inform his staff that in a few months time, within a year or two, the number of employees would have to be reduced from around a hundred down to 10 or 15.

This is truly the way to destroy the climate in a workplace. This is truly the way to inspire the people hired to help young people, women and everybody to find a job. Instead of trying to encourage the people who try to help others find a job, we crush them by sending them a letter in which they are told, even before the official

opening of their brand new centre, that it will be closed and they will have to move. We do not know when, we do not know where, but do not worry.

The homeowners, the children in school and the people in that community cannot accept what is going on, and I, as their member, cannot accept it either. That is why however often we speak of unemployment insurance-and I can say it in this House-we will never accept this decision on the Terrebonne employment centre.

Now, as for the bill itself, as I said a little while ago to my colleague from St. Boniface who prides himself on having implemented, contrary to what he used to say when he was in opposition, a system that is truly against the people, how can he accept and tell the people that 75 per cent of the briefs that were presented to the human resources committee havbe been ignored? Some 75 per cent of the briefs that were tabled expressed serious reservations,or simply called for the withdrawal of Bill C-12.

Even researchers hired by the department to assess the reform expressed serious reservations, and one of them is Marc Van Audenrode. He said: "If we can easily imagine what the impact of a specific amendment on one aspect of a system would be, it is almost impossible to imagine what the consequences of an as deep a reform as the one proposed would be. I could, like many other economists, give a very precise evaluation of what, I think, the consequences of reduced benefit periods or replacement rates would be, but I cannot give even a hint of what the consequences of the proposed reform would be and, frankly, I do not think any economist can". My colleague from St. Boniface has probably just got his degree in economics, because he gave us all the figures demonstrating that it was a good thing to cut young people and women off and to ask them to work three times longer to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

I want to quote some briefs that were tabled. "The two-tier system created by this legislation goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it discriminates against women and young people. The government is blaming those who have to live with decisions dictated by financial considerations". That was from the Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec. Another brief that was submitted says this: "The potential advantages of a system based on the number of hours worked are nullified by the increased number of hours labour force entrants or re-entrants, or other people, must accumulate to become eligible for benefits. A disproportionate number of women and young people belong to the labour force entrant or re-entrant category". That was from the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

Some will say that all these comments are from Quebec. Here is one from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. "Benefits will be reduced through a number of proposals. This reduction is economically and morally unjustified. The proposals will have severe repercussions on women who earn less than men in general and who will receive benefits that will be much lower than those paid to men". Again, that was from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

I will read you one more comment-I have several others-that comes from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. "The use of family income to determine eligibility (to the family supplement) is discriminatory against women. We are opposed to the dilution of unemployment insurance through a form of income support similar to welfare; if this measure is adopted, it should not have the effect of making women even less independent". Those were some of the comments-and there are many more-indicating that the majority of people, not only in Quebec, who have anything to do with this bill are strongly opposed to it. That is the most astonishing thing.

As for manpower training, it should not even be an issue. In Quebec, everybody agrees that manpower training should be the responsibility of the province. It is a unanimous opinion. Even Ghislain Dufault, who could be cited as an example, agrees that the federal government should withdraw, that it would be much simpler.

In conclusion, the minister talked about abusers. We also have statistics on abusers. We were told that this bill would eliminate abuse or reduce the number of abusers. The percentage of benefits received by abusers among unemployment insurance recipients is 0.0068 per cent. If, for less than 1 per cent, the government is willing to make everybody pay, we will certainly not support such a measure.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, this debate has injected some passion into our Liberal and Reform friends. We have seen the number of people who have risen to take part in the debate.

But, more seriously, it is with some surprise that we note that even with a debate as important as that on unemployment insurance reform, which, in several ridings represented by Liberal MPs, has led to very large demonstrations, these MPs, who were elected, let us not forget, to represent their constituents, nonetheless remain silent, probably to toe the party line yet again.

These MPs are remaining silent in the face of a bill that will hurt all, or many, of the inhabitants of their ridings, especially the MPs representing remote areas, those representing the Atlantic provinces, those who should be aware of what is going on and of the demonstrations that have taken place in their ridings.

I am very surprised to see how quiet these MPs are, but I would like to say "well done" to the members of the Bloc Quebecois, including the member for Mercier, who did an excellent job in bringing to the public's attention the hidden agenda, the effects of which would have been felt by the people of Canada and Quebec in a few weeks or months.

I think it is thanks to the work of the hon. members for Mercier, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Lévis, to name but a few, that we can now discuss here in the House, for one day or several, a bill the government tried to sneak by us. But thanks to the work of that committee, we have the opportunity to discuss it here.

To start off, I would like to quote from a brief submitted to the committee, a brief Liberal members most likely wanted to shelve quickly. It was written by Jean-Guy Ouellet and Georges Campeau, who are not professional agitators or bad separatists, but lawyers specializing in social law, respectively lecturer and professor in the legal sciences department of UQAM.

They say in this brief, and I quote: "The bill on employment insurance-already the name is somewhat strange, and I will explain what I mean by that later-is part of a policy aimed at

using the unemployment insurance fund to finance an increasing number of activities other than benefit payments. Not only is this policy to the detriment of the right to benefits of an increasing number of contributors to the system, but-and this is the most important thing-its constitutionality-as my colleague from Bellechasse was saying earlier-is far from being certain. By using unemployment insurance premiums, a surplus fund of $5 billion, to finance more than benefit payments, the federal legislation is de facto transforming these premiums into a regressive tax. Because of the capping of maximum yearly insurable earnings at $39,000, such a use of the unemployment insurance account is not only inequitable-the authors repeat-but its constitutionality is doubtful".

Further along in the text, we can read: "The federal Parliament's jurisdiction in the unemployment insurance sector is to collect premiums in order to compensate people in case they become unemployed". Not to meddle into all provincial programs. Not to try to reinvent programs sponsored by the Council for Canadian Unity. It is, I repeat, to collect contributions to cover those who are insured in the event of unemployment. This is the principle of fire insurance, of theft insurance. Not reinventing the wheel, not reinventing numerous programs.

The conclusion reads: "It is therefore appropriate to wonder if this new direction the plan is taking, with its discriminatory effects on certain disadvantaged groups such as young people and women, does not also run counter to the equal rights protected by the Constitution". First the authors question the constitutionality of Bill C-12, and second they question whether it does not infringe upon the equal rights protected by the Constitution.

In closing they say: "Instead of denouncing unemployment insurance fraud, the Minister of Human Resources Development would be well advised to check out the constitutionality and legitimacy of his bill before announcing it and passing it openly". I believe this article clearly demonstrates the immoral nature of the bill presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

A few years ago, the present Prime Minister himself condemned the unemployment insurance reform bill when it was introduced by the Conservative government of the day. Let us keep in mind that the bill in question was far more difficult and far more harmful to workers than the one introduced now by the Liberals. However, they call it employment insurance, but this is not the case. It is not employment insurance, it is still a piece of legislation that will mostly penalize seasonal workers, along with young people and women seeking first jobs. What should be done is to set a maximum percentage of unemployment that is acceptable, and that is not done here. In this bill we should specify pro-job creation measures, and that is not done here.

I will give you an example of the way it not only does not encourage jobs creation, but it contributes to increasing the number of people unemployed or on welfare and wastes public funds. As you will recall, not so long ago, six or eight months perhaps, the government decided to redistribute, reorganize employment centres across Canada. Only a few weeks before, not months but weeks, the Terrebonne employment centre, in my riding, had moved into brand new offices in order to meet federal standards. The federal government, through the Terrebonne employment centre, had to pay huge costs for moving, a ten-year lease, purchase of material and furniture. How much? Thousands or even millions of dollars? We do not know.

Even before the official opening of the employment centre people there received a letter saying: "Sorry, but we moved you a bit prematurely; the centre will be closing soon, but we do not know when exactly". You can imagine the atmosphere these people in my riding who want to help people find jobs must work in. Instead, their morale is undermined by a letter informing them that in six months, eight months or a year the centre will be closed and they might have to move to Sainte-Thérèse, Saint-Jérôme or God knows where. Many of them could even lose their jobs. This is the kind of motivation this government is giving to its civil servants, who are asked to help people.

I believe that if we want to help people find jobs, to reduce the unemployment rate, to find work for every Canadian, we should first make sure that government spending-I was about to say waste-is a little more effective and efficient.

A small business with an annual turnover of $100,000 is supposed to have a business plan, which means a government should have one too. I will never accept that a government which is wasting money to take an employment centre, move it elsewhere while telling the employees concerned that their centre is to be closed after hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on it-and ruining the atmosphere they work in-I will never accept that such a government introduce a bill that is harmful, dangerous and unfair for Canadians.

I say again for young people who, some day, will have to find a first job: if they unfortunately have to turn to unemployment insurance, the present system requires them to have worked 15 hours a week for 20 weeks to be eligible. The bill introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development requires that people work twenty-six 35-hour weeks.

In other words, a message similar to the one sent to officials of the Employment Centre of Terrebonne is being sent to a number of students. It tells them: "Go to school, get an education but, let us warn you right from the start, if you have difficulty finding a job after, do not count on the federal government to help you, you will

be on welfare. We will never help you with our new laws and our new standards". Given today's job insecurity, it is almost impossible for a student to work a minimum of 35 hours weekly for 26 weeks in his first job.

Therefore, on behalf of young people, of women, of people from the various regions, my colleagues in the Bloc and I oppose Bill C-12.

[Energy Price Commission Act, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I will admit that after listening closely to the two previous speeches by our colleagues from the other two parties and despite our friendship for our colleague from Regina-Lumsden who introduced this bill, we unfortunately cannot support Bill C-220 for the various reasons I will explain during my presentation.

Again, the purpose of this bill is to establish an energy price commission to regulate the wholesale and retail price of gasoline. In our opinion and that of the government party-and according to my own observations-this bill would give the government the authority to meddle in a flagrant and unjustified manner in the normal process of free market pricing, which goes against the global trend of market pricing of gasoline in this case.

On the one hand, history shows that setting a ceiling price on gasoline can be dangerous and even create some serious shortages since oil companies tend to sell less when prices are low-and this is normal-while demand increases. They thus stockpile their products. These shortages can lead to quota problems, waiting lines and corruption, as we saw in some countries in South America and Asia.

On the other hand, the setting of a ceiling price by the commission could also result in an economic slowdown for oil producers in western Canada.

An example of an unsuccessful attempt to control gas prices is the national energy policy-as many members on the other side will recall-initiated by former Prime Minister Trudeau during the oil crisis, which, as you may recall, caused widespread discontent at the time.

In fact, every time the federal government interferes in the oil or energy sector, as in the case of the Varennes tokamak, Quebec loses out. If an energy price commission is established, as my colleague proposes by introducing Bill C-220, it should review not only gas prices but also the injustices done to Quebec through past federal interventions. This commission could perhaps recommend that the House give Quebec a generous compensation like that given to the maritimes for harmonizing the GST.

We would then try to set the amount of this compensation. An example of the injustices that could be reviewed by this commission is the impact of the famous Borden line imposed by the federal government in the 1960s. Members will remember that the Borden line energy policy systematically blocked the development of Montreal's oil production from Venezuelan and Middle Eastern imports by completely closing the market of those provinces located west of the line, to protect western oil development.

However, the policy was abolished when world prices started to rise quickly between 1973 and 1977. This resulted in the oil production from Sarnia and the prairies flooding the eastern Canadian market, in the closure of most Montreal refineries and in the loss of thousands of jobs. In addition to refineries disappearing because of this totally unjust policy towards Quebec, our whole petrochemical industry was also severely affected.

To this day, Quebec, and particularly the Montreal region, still suffers from the consequences of this policy implemented by the federal government of the day. Unlike the maritimes now, for the GST, Quebec was never compensated for its heavy losses. If the commission that the hon. member hopes to establish with Bill C-220 does become reality some day, perhaps it ought to take a look at the issue of compensation for Quebec.

The commission could also look at the development of the Athabasca tar sands. It should definitely not limit its role to regulating gasoline prices, but should look at the current investments being made to produce gasoline in Canada. Perhaps it should also examine the famous Hibernia project, that cock-and-bull story which has cost taxpayers in Quebec and Canada astronomical amounts of money. This is another example of failed federal involvement in the energy sector, which has had serious consequences on the economy as a whole. This project was launched before the 1989 federal election. Now, the current government is trying to get out of it.

At election time, the government had decided to withdraw from that project. However, it has since absorbed 25 per cent of the production costs. The government allocated over $1 billion to that project, but that was not enough. In addition, the present government promised loan guarantees corresponding to 40 per cent of construction loans, up to $1.66 billion.

A promise was made to stop using the taxpayers' money for this scheme. But a promise was made to scrap the GST and that was not kept, a promise was made to cancel the helicopters and that was not kept, a promise was made to cancel the Pearson Airport contract

and that was not kept, a promise was made by the Clark government to put a limit on the price of gasoline-which led to their defeat-and that was not kept. However, the federal government was probably quoted out of context or forgot about that promise too, and continued to pour more money down that drain.

The energy price commission, which my hon. colleague would like to see established, would have a field day if we gave it a mandate to investigate this matter.

But getting back to Hibernia, Ottawa then spent $350 million buying back 25 per cent of Gulf's shares in the Hibernia project. In addition, Ottawa financed the shares acquired by Murphy. And to top it off, it gave deductions and tax credits to Murphy, Mobil and Chevron, oil companies raking in billions of dollars, to reduce their income taxes, poor things, and the government gave them interest free loans, guaranteeing them benefits in the event that they were unable to take advantage of these deductions and these credits.

Chevron and Mobil each took advantage of $40 million in interest free loans from the federal government. Thus, while the federal government was increasing the tax on the price of gasoline, it was squandering public funds at a terrible rate. The increase in the gasoline tax is being used, among other things, to offset the accumulated losses in the Hibernia project.

I very much doubt that federal intervention with respect to the price of gasoline can solve any problems and provide even the remotest additional guarantee of fairness. I also very much doubt whether the creation of this commission can give taxpayers in Quebec and Canada a degree of stability in gasoline prices. I do, however, recognize the good will of my colleague. But they say the past is an indication of the future, and I would far prefer that the federal government stay right out of areas that, in any event, do not concern it.

When the Hibernia project was first launched, the federal government's top advisers predicted that the price of a barrel of oil would reach $70. We, as taxpayers, have paid billions of dollars for their mistaken forecasts.

We Quebecers fervently hope that this government will not get involved or, if it does, that it will do so only with the consent of the provinces so that they can have a say in the appointment of commissioners as well as in the operation and mandate of the commission. All the money invested in Hibernia, the billions of dollars wasted, could have been spent on reducing the gasoline tax, thus giving taxpayers a much needed break.

While presenting his plan to harmonize-or rather to hide-the GST last Tuesday, the Minister of Finance said that the federal government had an obligation to help the poorest regions and provinces, that there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth. He should now put his money where his mouth is.

Instead of wasting vast sums of money on foolish projects like Hibernia, it would be better to reduce the gasoline tax. If they simply want to offer a fair compensation to the regions or the Atlantic provinces, it would be better to reduce the gasolinetax rate.

If this government wants a more equitable Canada, it should put its money where its mouth is by finding more legitimate uses for this money. It should see to it that these oil companies, which too often benefit from unjustified tax exemptions, pay their fair share of taxes.

Finally, this government should let the provinces take responsibility for their own areas of jurisdiction and let the market set the prices. In short, the federal government should mind its own business.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member from the Reform Party. In my opinion, the Liberals have not done their job as far as cuts are concerned, they dumped it all on the provinces because it always looks better to have cuts done by a neighbour rather than doing them yourself.

The Liberals were also negligent because, if I am not mistaken, they were offered the possibility of a parliamentary committee to determine priorities regarding corporate tax cuts-you did so yourself.

But they simply refused because it was easier to say: "We will keep our money, but we will impose cuts on those who put money in our wallet, namely the provinces with their taxes". Why did the Liberals neglect their job? Simply because they wanted to make the provinces responsible for the cuts and make them out to be the bad guys. It is as simple as that.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments made by my hon. colleague. Simply because it is difficult. Regarding the quality of the French used in the budget, the nice rhetoric used to hide the drastic cuts imposed on the people of Quebec and Canada, I could indeed admit that it is well written. It is written so that transfer payments to the provinces can be cut by $7 billion. At first glance, it almost appears to be well written and appealing.

However, if we look at it more closely, as Jean-Robert Sansfaçon did in the March 7 edition of Le Devoir and as several other analysts and columnists did as well, if we look at the figures instead of the quality of the French used in the budget, how can I praise the government for cutting transfer payments to the provinces by $7 billion over two years? How can I praise the potential increase in tuition fees for students in Quebec and the rest of Canada? How can I praise the government for cutting transfer payments while maintaining national standards? How can I praise the government for cutting transfer payments for health care? How can I praise the government for practically robbing the UI fund of $5 billion?

That is why I would rather comment on cuts, on the government's inaction, instead of praising the quality of the French used to try to hide cuts from the people of Canada and Quebec.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking today on the budget, if my Liberal colleagues will give me the chance. There is a place where people may discuss respectfully.

Therefore, with the opportunity afforded me, I would like to show that the 1996 budget does not represent, as they like to say, any additional savings, that it really does not add anything new and that it represents the end of the plan to put the country's finances in order. In this budget, the minister is not cutting expenditures and this year's deficit at all. On the contrary, there is in fact an increase in expenditures of $104 million.

The Minister of Finance is demonstrating the government's indifference. It is as if there was no waste, no duplication and no tax inequity. It is all forgotten; out of sight out of mind.

The government is dumping $7 billion of its 1996-97 and 1997-98 deficit on the provinces. Furthermore, it artificially reduced the deficit by taking the $5 billion surplus from the unemployment insurance account, which is funded entirely by contributions from companies and individuals. It is unacceptable to see the burden of the social programs left to the provinces and to those who forced to depend on them. In matters of employment, the government is deceiving the people, and particularly young people. It claims to be creating jobs and improving the economy, but clearly its measures are either inadequate or totally ineffective.

The Minister of Finance cut funding to student job programs by $26 million over the past two years. And then, all of a sudden, perhaps because of an election year or an election on the horizon, he changes direction. He doubles to $120 million the amount of aid to student programs-an increase of $60 million. Nevertheless, the government is hitting young people by cutting funding to post-secondary education.

The government will reduce funding by $150 million in 1996-97 and by between $400 million and $500 million in 1997-98. This will inevitably lead to an increase in education costs, hence the demonstrations by young people and university students in recent months and years against these draconian cuts. In the end, the students will be the ones paying.

For more than two years now, the Bloc has been calling for an investment fund to promote defence conversion. The Liberals promised $200 million per year over five years starting with 1994, for a total of $1 billion. They made this commitment in the red book and during the election campaign. As is too often the case, this promise was then forgotten. The Minister of Finance is proposing $150 million in 1996-97 and maybe $200 million in 1997-98. We would not be surprised if the $200 million figure was revised downward, as is too often the case.

Furthermore, for two years, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a major reform of the business tax system. The government has come forward with the proposal to set up a committee made of tax experts, several of whom would come from businesses already benefiting from tax shelters. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, joked that this was like choosing members of the Hell's Angels because they know how organized crime operates.

It seems obvious that the only purpose of such a committee is to ward off criticism and to pretend to examine the issue. We can already anticipate the conclusions of this committee. They will not contribute anything new. In any case, the members of this inner circle are both judges and judged. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, want fair and equitable reform. To this end, we have been asking since we came to Ottawa for a parliamentary committee to analyze federal policies concerning business taxation.

Regarding these same subsidies to businesses, last year the government substantially reduced assistance to the dairy industry, which is mainly concentrated in Quebec. This year, it is simply abolishing it altogether.

Is the Minister of Finance really aware of the negative impact this measure would have on Quebec agricultural and dairy producers? We already know the answer is no. Does he know that these cuts are excessively dangerous, that Quebec is still the federal government's poor relation? Recently, civil servants who had nothing better to do got this great idea, they would go after raw milk cheese. They had a brainstorm over the Easter break. It would give them something to do. They said to themselves: Let us throw another monkey wrench in there. More often than not, the agricultural sector is the one that has to pay.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the government get its fiscal house in order by seing to it that those who do not pay their fair share do so.

Mr. Speaker, I must ask you if this is a questions and comments period. If not, I would ask my colleague to please be patient a few minutes before making his clever comments.

When will the government act in a real fair and responsible manner? We have now been waiting for two and a half years.

Last year, unpaid taxes amounted to $6 billion and the government was not even able to do better than the year before. There are lots of funds that the government could recover. But because of its ineptitude, its incompetence, the government too often does nothing at all.

The last estimate of the finance department shows that, as far as business taxes are concerned, the government forgoes nearly $10 billion. When will members of Parliament undertake a thorough review of business taxation? Before anything else, the government must put an end to that type of evasion, that tax dodging.

Part of the deficit reduction is due to the country's economic situation, which is relatively good, not because of the Liberals, but because all G-7 countries are currently enjoying a good situation.

Undeniably, the government is making political hay with this. It is true that exportations are high, interest rates are low and unemployment insurance premiums are higher than payments. However, if the economic context was to change, either because of higher interest rates or a stronger pressure on the unemployment insurance system, the impact would be immediate and catastrophic for public finances. I am convinced we would then see a major change in the Liberal government's attitude.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As such, I would like to stress that we will have to examine what seems to be the main problem of new exporters, that is financing, whether it is easy to obtain financing. Above all, we will have to establish parameters in order to facilitate access to foreign markets for small and medium size businesses.

According to what he said on page 78 of his Budget Plan, the finance minister seems to be aware of that problem. I would like to know how much of the $50 million injected into the Business Development Bank and the $50 million added to the working capital of the EDC, will go directly and through concrete measures to small and medium size enterprises trying to export?

Government must recognize that Canada is made up of regional markets: atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia, which are separately integrated into larger trade and economic continental entities. For British Columbia, the northwest United States and the Asia-Pacific area are natural markets.

For Quebec it is another matter altogether. Its favoured markets are North America, 80 per cent of its exports, and Europe, 12 per cent. We should note that for Quebec European markets are three times as important as Asian markets. It is up to individual companies, and not the federal government, to determine, on the basis of their strengths and the nature of their productions, what their export targets should be.

The federal government should limit itself to providing support. Again the priority in the area of assistance to exporting companies should be a better access to financing.

I would like to stress that we believe Quebec and Canada have lost something when they renegotiated the agreement on lumber with the United States. The fact that we agreed to reopen an agreement already in force will probably serve as a precedent for the United States, which will demand the same in other disputes with Canada.

To conclude, I would like to quote an article by Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, published in Le Devoir on Thursday, March 7: ``While Ottawa continues to pretend that it reduced the deficit by cutting expenditures from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $106 billion in 1997-98, a more thorough analysis shows that at least 5 of these $14 billion come from a normal reduction in the number of unemployment recipients due to economic growth, and another $6 billion come from cuts in transfers to the provinces for health, social assistance and post-secondary education. We know that a new recession would make the unemployment insurance fund surplus melt like new snow and, therefore, increase the budget deficit of the government. Like last year, the victims of this budget are the provinces, especially provinces like Quebec''.

This is the reality: The federal government is not assuming its responsibilities, it is transferring to the provinces the burden of making most of the cuts called for in this budget.

[Mascouche Board Of Trade, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Mascouche board of trade is celebrating its 20th anniversary.

The Mascouche board of trade has managed to stay the course and reach full maturity. Through hard work, efforts, motivation, and perseverance, its members, headed by Richard Boies, have shown their ability to help businesses.

Success in business requires a great deal of consultation and flexibility on the part of individuals, who must join forces to succeed. In these difficult economic times, we must recognize the need to work together and merge our energies to reach our goals.

I would like to congratulate all the members of the Mascouche board of trade who, I trust, will know how to be as successful and committed as during the past 20 years.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

And my colleague for Lotbinière, I am sorry. It shows how impossible it is for those members to do their job well and to know about the expenditures that have been made in their ridings. Departmental officials tell us that it is impossible to give us an answer, that they do not know how much they are spending and they do not know either how the contracts are awarded.

The public service, and more specifically the Department of Public Works and Government Services, have set up impressive obstacles to confuse people, like members of Parliament, who try to understand the workings of the federal machinery for awarding government contracts in our ridings.

The number of contractors who try to get contracts from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, but do not manage to understand all the ins and outs of the government machinery, is very large. I think every member from every party gets that kind of complaint in his or her constituency office. That explains how a select club of contractors came to exist, people used to the workings of the system, who too often take advantage of the government largesse.

Official opposition amendments providing for simple and transparent rules have all be defeated. Another amendment I will deal with momentarily provided for a contracting out code. It has met with the same fate. As the hon. member for Témiscamingue mentioned a while ago, I think we need easy, clear and transparent rules and standards. Contracting out is a fact, and I will give figures later on, but it could be made more effective.

The Bloc Quebecois amendment simply reflected a tendency to contract out that has been growing over the years in the federal public service. The last available data are for fiscal year 1992-93. According to Treasury Board estimates, services that have been contracted outside the federal government totalled $5.2 billion during that year.

The federal government was certainly not unaware of that trend when it introduced Bill C-7. It should have taken this opportunity to regulate this new procedure.

The President of the Treasury Board has told us year in and year out: "The number of public servants has dropped by 3 per cent, or 5 per cent, and the public service has been shrinking". What he forgot to tell us is that, in the meantime, contract budgets have been rising. What we would like to know, as elected representatives of the people, is how much money is being wasted-yes, wasted-in contracts and how these contracts are awarded.

Why is the number of public servants decreasing year after year while contracting out is on the rise? We have a good idea. It means fewer responsibilities in terms of labour relations and job security, fewer responsibilities for the employers towards their employees.

Should we issue a contracting out code? We did propose one. What did we get for an answer? Nothing. The Bloc Quebecois thought Bill C-7 would establish such a code, or at least rules for the government to properly control the contracting out process and to make it more open.

Everyone from the government and its employees to the general public would have benefited from such a contracting out code. This is the kind of code that ensures better work relations between the government and its public servants, while contracting out is often perceived by the public service and unions as a fearsome enemy they have to fight all the time.

By developing clear contracting out rules, everyone's role would be well defined and everyone would benefit. Also, such a code would have cleared up the whole contracting out process, something the population would have appreciated. We would have solved the problem. It is by setting these kinds of standards rather than by rejecting a whole series of proposals to make positive changes to the awarding process that we will restore the Canadian population's confidence in our abilities and revive their expectations.

By refusing to follow up on the two recommendations from the official opposition regarding the importance of establishing a contracting out code and establishing clear guidelines, the Liberal government is encouraging or giving the appearance of encouraging outmoded practices, for which the public is still and always the first to pay.

I would remind you that in a recent survey, school board officials and municipal, provincial and federal politicians had the trust of about 4 per cent of the population. If we add up the number of school board officials and municipal, provincial and federal politicians, they represent about 4 per cent of the population. This was not a very strong vote of confidence and it is not going to get any better with standards like these. If we then look at the error rate, something like 4 per cent, we did not do very well.

In another vein, I would like to draw the attention of this House to another recommendation of the Bloc Quebecois which never went anywhere, that being the involvement of MPs, regardless of affiliation. This is not a partisan recommendation, to involve them in the letting of Public Works and Government Services contracts in their respective ridings, as is now the case with infrastructure projects.

At the present time, it is literally impossible-let anyone correct me-for an MP to find out about contracts let by the department in

question in his or her riding, as we mentioned earlier. This makes no sense, if we accept the principle that MPs are the people most aware of what is going on in their own ridings.

The problem of the wharf in Témiscamingue was mentioned earlier, as well as another problem in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. It is now my turn to tell you about a problem in my riding. It concerns the unemployment office.

We learned at one point that, because it did not conform to standards, the Terrebonne unemployment office had to be moved-which is quite commendable-to another location that was larger, better suited, more modern, with new carpeting, new furniture, new lights, a new computer system, etc.

The move was made about six months ago. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars with the work that was done at the new location and the signing of a ten-year lease. To show you the great consistency between government departments, a month later, we learned that the Terrebonne unemployment office was going to be closed.

How many tens of thousands of dollars, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, were spent on a ten year lease for beautiful, brand new premises, just to announce one, two or three months later that the office was being closed down? When? Unknown. That makes for an excellent work atmosphere. They tell the workers: "You will be cut, and the office will be shut down. We do not know when, but give us a year or two and it will all be over. We have just set up fancy new offices, but forget about an office-warming party". There was not even an official opening ceremony. No time, it was closed. Or going to be closed. Now, that shows a really coherent policy. How more with it can anyone be?

So that is another example, and we could go back a bit in time for several more. As my colleagues have said, MPs need to be aware of what departmental contracts are being awarded in their ridings, so as to be effective and efficient, and to help the government as well. Whether Liberal, Bloc Québécois, or Reform, who are the ones who should be informed of what is going on in our ridings? The MPs, first and foremost, not the public servants, but the MPs. Not so that we can carry out our own political patronage, but to offer our opinions, as is done everywhere.

Besides, this recommendation of the official opposition was based on the principle that the competence of members of Parliament goes beyond the legislative framework, inasmuch as they have to study matters of state and this, of course, has practical administrative consequences. Nevertheless, even if members of Parliament are consulted, even if they are invited to vote on various kinds of issues, as they will be called to do in a moment, they are still denied any means of verifying if votes, expenditures, income tax and government decisions comply with the recommendations and legislation of the House.

In a few moments we will vote on one bill and tomorrow we will vote on another. Then we will try to see whether our vote is well represented in our riding, and we will be denied this information. If members cannot have access, as the minister wrote, to information on the expenditures by the various departments in their ridings, how can an ordinary individual unfamiliar with the intricacies of government machinery obtain information? It is impossible.

The government's refusal to inform a member about federal government activities in his or her riding is another of its failings. Why not consult, or at least inform a member, as in the infrastructure program, when a contract is awarded in his or her riding? This would be an opportunity to encourage transparency and efficiency in an overloaded system.

Furthermore, members of Parliament could be used as safeguards against the blind waste of public funds. They could, for example, advise a public servant who does not know how things work in Témiscamingue and who, in turn, could advise an architect before any plans were drawn up. A public servant could visit the riding to consult other public servants before setting up premises, drawing up a 10-year lease, etc. if the office is to be closed before its official opening. I think there may be more intelligent standards to be set in the public service if we want to get more than 4 per cent.

In addition to stressing the merit of having members of Parliament involved in the system, the Bloc Quebecois stressed the importance of making public servants accountable since these are the first to know how public funds are used. The Bloc Quebecois recommended the implementation of an instrument allowing-even though I do not like the term-exposure of waste of public funds by civil servants and valuing the practice. What we mean by that is not a "stooling" system revealing situations where someone is spending more than the other. It is simply a system allowing civil servants to report the inadequacy of some program without being penalized.

As I said, the underlying principle is not to frighten employees who would suspect others of checking up on them, but rather to admit that useless spending is made regularly.

Finally, I would conclude this short speech by reminding the House of another recommendation we made and which is largely approved by many MPs of all parties.

The Bloc Quebecois seized the opportunity to firmly condemn the practice of advance payments. What is advance payment? It is a practise which consists in using all the resources available to a

departmental unit. This way, the department makes sure it will have the same budget for the following year.

What does this mean? It is simple. If, in a department, you have $1,500,000 to spend, you must make sure you spend it all. If, towards the end of the last month, you still have $150,000, buy $150,000 worth of dictionaries if you want, but spend it all.

Practices like these account for a rating of 4 per cent in people's confidence in the government. Practices like these have been condemned by the Bloc Quebecois throughout consideration of Bill C-7.

To conclude, these four amendments, these four proposals by the Bloc Quebecois would have allowed every one in this House, not only the Bloc, not only the sovereignist movement, to regain some respect and improve their public image.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-7 to merge two former departments, namely Public Works Canada and Supply and Services Canada.

This bill does not change the legislation much at all. On the surface, the bill is not controversial. That is the problem. Since Bill C-7 was introduced, the official opposition has taken issue and continues to take issue not with what the government has done but rather with what it has not done. Basically, the old system is being kept. Change the designation, change the first page and put everything back together unchanged.

Members will recall that this is the department handling the majority of the federal government's goods and services procurement contracts. Billions of dollars are involved, and with billions of dollars at stake, almost nothing is being done, no effort made to determine how this money could be spent more efficiently. Contrary to what they had promised in the red book, they are not taking the time to put in place a transparent system to make these expenditures more efficient and effective. I will give you more examples from my riding in a moment. If the hon. parliamentary secretary who wants to see whether we have done our job, he could start by telling me if he has done his.

When tabling Bill C-52, now Bill C-7, the federal government had an opportunity to innovate. It had an opportunity to establish a model department, a department from which all the cumbersome red tape would have been removed. As a rule, a modern government uses modern tools to meet public expectations. The federal government, thanks to proposals from the official opposition, had a chance to fulfil its electoral promises and ensure maximum transparency in all aspects of power.

As my colleagues said earlier, people generally feel that opposition members object for the pure delight of it, but our party proposed four clear and precise amendments that would allow the government to improve its supply and services system, boost its popularity, and, at the same time, restore public faith lost because of the all too present patronage seen in government. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. They replaced the front page, changed the title and the number of the bill, and trotted it out again.

So, nothing at all was done. Of all the amendments presented by the Bloc Quebecois during the previous debates on the bill, none was retained. Let me recall a few just to show how appropriate they could have been to improve the bill's effectiveness.

First of all, I must state the Bloc Quebecois's concern that there were no simple and transparent rules. If a contractor in my riding wishes to deal with the federal government, he will have to go some distance to locate a resource person. Before knocking on the right door, before speaking to the right person, before reaching the appropriate service, this contractor, or his business, must have the following qualifications: he must be very familiar with the system, be a generous donor, have a lifelong knowledge of the system, and have friends in the right places.

This is precisely what we wanted to change. We wanted to change that perception regarding access to an imposing structure that discourages anyone, including ordinary citizens, experts and elected representatives, interested in finding out more about the department and how public funds are spent. I will give you some examples later on.

As I said earlier, it should be possible and in fact easier for anyone, such as a contractor, to have access to that structure and offer his services. I want to remind this House of the experience of some of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who, a few months ago, sent a written request to Public Works and Government Services Canada to obtain a list of the contracts awarded by that department in their ridings.

Such a request from an elected representative is perfectly in order. After all, in the case of the infrastructures program, we regularly receive in our offices a list of the projects submitted in our ridings. The list also specifies which projects are approved and which ones are rejected. That list is a public document. We can quite appropriately discuss it with local politicians.

So, some Bloc Quebecois members simply asked the department responsible for awarding the supply and services contracts how the government spends public funds. As member for Terrebonne, I should know how that money is being spent in my riding.

These members sent their written request to the Department of Public Works. The minister's reply was especially surprising and disappointing. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services answered that it was unfortunately impossible to reply to their requests because it would entail too much expense. We do not know how he did it, but he gave an estimate of $160,000 for those expenditures at that time.

This example clearly shows how cumbersome the department is. It also shows how members who, like my colleague for Témiscamingue, like my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm, like myself and like all my colleagues, including Liberal members and Reform members, want to do their job-