Benoît Sauvageau

[Amateur Sport, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister sincerely aware that this incident is symptomatic of a much deeper malaise: Canadian amateur sports organizations have only one official language, and it is English. This situation penalizes athletes from Quebec.

[Amateur Sport, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and ask the Minister of Cultural Heritage a question and I hope I will get an answer from him.

The Canadian Sport and Fitness Administration Centre has indicated in its report that it was unable to publish a French version of the summer edition of its guide to Canadian sports because of a cut in funding.

This was the justification given by the paragovernmental organization for publishing its guide in English only. I would point out too that Biathlon Canada did the same thing recently when it invited athletes to a training camp by letter in English only.

How can the Minister allow an organization subsidized by his department to so openly defy the provisions of the Official Languages Act?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the floor to briefly thank my Liberal colleague for so respectfully listening to all of our speeches. I would like to make a few comments before asking him my question.

As he said at the beginning of his speech, he shed some crocodile tears because of the abolition of 45,000 public service positions in Ottawa and across Canada. I have half a mind to ask him where the Liberals boasted about cutting 45,000 positions in the red book they talked so much about during the election campaign. Since everybody already knows the answer to that question, I will not ask it.

However, I would like to say that public servants probably have more reason to fear a Liberal federalist government in Ottawa than to fear the sovereignists who promise that they will be integrated into the Quebec public service-a promise that will be kept-in their draft bill. These public servants have much more to fear, and we now hold the proof-45,000 jobs cut-from the other side of the House, because that is where the cuts are coming from, and not from our side.

I would also like to mention something that my colleague did not deem worth repeating in his speech. The cuts for the next two years will be in the order of $7 billion, I repeat $7 billion. If we, on this side of the House, are mistaken, if this is not truly what is written in the Martin budget, perhaps they could give us proof and give us other figures than those that the Minister of Finance already gave us.

Now to my question. Earlier in your speech, hon. member, through you, Madam Speaker, you said to us: "There are no strings attached whatsoever to post-secondary education. Of course, we have a number of strings attached on health". So, why does a committee on national education standards exist and why has this committee already issued a 130 page report on national education standards?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane for asking me this question. Education is my specialty, and although I do not think I have the answer, I may have part of the answer.

First of all, as he said earlier, at the post-secondary level students, like workers who have trouble finding a job, have to cope with overlapping programs and duplication, whether we are talking about federal or provincial programs.

I believe that as members of the Bloc Quebecois, we are more interested in education, which is a provincial jurisdiction, than members on the other side of the House, and I know why. They have other things on their minds, so let the government render unto the provinces what belongs to the provinces, like education, so they can get on with other business.

Now I would like to explain why young people are against national standards for education. As my colleague said, in Matapédia-Matane, for instance, they might need special emphasis on a particular sector, and that is what the états généraux de l'éducation au Québec are bound to conclude.

But how can we have national standards in an area that, when the Fathers of Confederation signed their agreement, was a provincial responsibility? Or so we are told. But how can we have similar standards for health care in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland? The federal government has imposed national standards for health care. What Bill C-76 wants to impose is the same medicine-no pun intended-this time for education. They want to set national standards for education.

When? Just when the government is going to cut funding. In other words, it gives less money to a province, gives more orders, and the province has to fall in line, otherwise funding for all programs will be cut: social assistance, education and health care. That is why we object.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I find that, when it comes to streamlining this whole transfer process, Quebec probably has the ideal solution: we pay our taxes to the province and we make our laws in the province. This is what we call sovereignty. This is what we want to do, so as to avoid all these problems.

The reason why we oppose these national standards and these costs is very simple. As I said earlier, the number one recommendation of the committee on national standards for education provides for basic national standards on all subjects taught and on all training programs. The federal government also says in the report that it wants to see more science and technology courses. Sure, but if, for example, Newfoundland would rather offer more courses related to fisheries or social issues, what will happen if national standards are in place? That is my first example.

Let me give you another. Do we really want to allocate the money earmarked for education to education, and the budgets for health care to health care?

I am personally convinced that the Canadian provinces as a whole are responsible and that they will allocate the funds where it is necessary.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak on a bill that, according to the government opposite, gives the provinces more decision making room, while taking $7 billion away from them, in the space of two years.

With absolute seriousness, the Liberals are proclaiming for all to hear that this is new flexible federalism. The provinces are not being given the right to withdraw; the federal government is clearly opting out financially with the aim of reducing its debt and balancing its budget, if possible. In reality, the federal government is cutting off the provinces and giving itself more right to supervise and to intervene.

During the course of this debate you have heard words like demagoguery and bilge. I am going to quote documents of the present government, not documents of the Conservatives and not documents of the wicked separatists, but documents of the Liberals, who lacked the courage to note in their red book that they would drop the most disadvantaged after cutting them off.

They also failed to note that they would make students in Quebec and Canada meet national standards after they cut off their financial support. I am going to quote documents from members and documents from ministers, who are present today in this House. The $7 billion cuts are contained in the latest budget. It provides for $2.5 billion in 1996-97 and $4.5 billion in 1997-98; 2.5 and 4.5 add up in my books to $7 billion in cuts, as set out in the budget.

As regards the national standards, which cause the Minister of Finance to say, and I quote: "[I] will be inviting all provincial governments to work together on developing, through mutual consent, a set of shared principles and objectives that could underlie the new Canada Social Transfer". This is a quote from the minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard.

What happens if there is no agreement, no mutual consent? It seems to me that, in 1981, there was agreement and mutual consent in the case of nine provinces out of ten. Since that agreement, Quebec has suffered the shame and affront of unilateral patriation. Our motto is: "Je me souviens", and we remember.

We must also bear in mind that the current Prime Minister was a major player in this coup against Quebec, and that he is now promising to be reasonable, as he told this House. But if the future is anything like the past, in Quebec, we are in for more unilateral encroachments.

They talk about agreement, respect and mutual consent, while at the same time federal officials are producing documents that I would describe politely as somewhat centralizing. The report of the national education standards committee, a 130 page report submitted to the Prime Minister recommends among other things-this is recommendation No. 1-that standards of excel-

lence be defined at every level and in every field of education and training. These standards should reflect the highest national and international levels of performance and should be regarded as the primary objective to be achieved by students.

This recommendation, made in a report dated May 1994, under the Liberals, clearly shows the direction taken by this government even before any consultations were conducted: cuts and growing interference in an area which, I remind you, has been under exclusive provincial jurisdiction since 1867. That gives us an idea of what to expect from Bill C-76 and mutual consent.

That is not all; there is more. Recommendation No. 2 states that a higher percentage of education spending should be directed to research and development. What spending? Who will control that spending? Every one in Quebec, including Ghislain Dufour and the Liberal MPPs, wants control over manpower training to be returned to the province.

Further in the report, it is recommended that the federal government provide assistance for the development and administration of tests on every basic subject. It should be pointed out that we are talking about a provincial jurisdiction here.

Another recommendation: That every level of government make it a priority to earmark sufficient funds to analyze and make maximum use of the results and implement recommended changes.

It so happens that, in Quebec, we have a Ministry of Education with 5,000 employees. Other provinces also have ministries of education. In addition, in Quebec, we are currently holding a summit conference on education. That shows how little respect the federal government has for local and provincial authorities. Why is it so bent on increasing costly duplication and overlap?

Through Bill C-76, the federal government makes $7 billion in cuts here and there. As was mentioned with regard to the report on national education standards, its presence is being intensified in exclusive local or provincial jurisdictions.

This report refers to an annual conference on national education problems, to a national review organization, and so on. From the outset, I have been trying to demonstrate that Bill C-76 provides for national standards, that the federal government's centralizing approach has led us to expect the worst as far as the definition of these standards is concerned. The only report on national education standards reflects the education policy contemplated by this government.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to address the issue of social services or that of health care, which, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières said earlier, has also been under exclusive provincial jurisdiction since 1867. Other reports by the Bloc Quebecois have demonstrated the federal government's irresponsibility in these areas in connection with Bill C-76.

In conclusion, I would like to quote two excerpts from an editorial by Michel Vastel. The first excerpt relating to Bill C-76 reads as follows: "Any province that does not mention the federal government's contribution will be fined. The financial penalty, to be recommended by the federal minister, can go as far as withdrawing the total contribution under the Canada social transfer. Such a penalty could amount to roughly $7 billion".

A Liberal member asked earlier why we objected to putting social programs, health and education in the same bag. Failure to comply with a given agreement may lead to the loss of the whole package. For Quebec, this would translate into a $7 billion penalty simply on the recommendation of the federal minister.

The second excerpt from the same editorial is this: "Notices saying something like "This service is provided thanks to a contribution from the Government of Canada" will now be displayed in hospital lobbies and on Quebec health insurance forms". The size of letters, the colour of the maple leaf will be determined by memorandums of understanding, mutual agreements and umpteen meetings of federal and provincial officials.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to speak to Bill C-76.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Let me just say this to my hon. colleague that I do not know the periodical chart by heart; perhaps a chocolate coin wrapped in gold foil would be better. Seriously, our point is that the $2 coin your are proposing makes no sense. The people of Canada know it. Content-whether nickel, plutonium or what not-is not the issue, but rather the basis or rationale for this bill. Tell me which clause deals with coin alloys in the bill before us, then I will take your question seriously.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to tell my colleague from Charlevoix that I am in complete agreement with him, especially on what he said in the conclusion of his speech. Not knowing that he would talk in the House about the workers in Charlevoix, and the relevance of the $2 coin, I will start my speech this way.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the Liberals had given in to the joint demands of the Bloc and of the Reform Party and agreed to an emergency debate on Bosnia, but not before this evening. In spite of the fact that 326 hostages, including 55 Canadians, are being held in Bosnia, that we have learned that the head of Bosnian diplomacy was killed yesterday, that the conflict has led to 200,000 deaths, that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are asking for an emergency debate to be held immediately on a matter of extreme urgency, we are told that there are too many emergencies, too many important debates, such as this one on the $2 coin.

We now know what the priorities of our colleagues opposite are. Canadians soldiers and UN troops have to take a back seat to the debate on the relevance of the $2 coin. In this context, I will be pleased to spend a few minutes discussing whether the $2 bill should be maintained or withdrawn from currency.

First, I would be pleased to provide you with a few facts and figures. Today, in Canada, it costs around $30 million a year to produce, print and issue $2 bills. They have approximately a one year life expectancy, some do not last as long, but the average life expectancy is around one year; as I said, the total cost of producing $2 bills is approximately $30 million.

So, we question and rightfully so-the thinkers and mandarins are probably conducting studies on the subject and they will spend tens of thousands of dollars, maybe millions-whether we should continue this great Canadian tradition of a $2 bill with the Queen's effigy.

A $2 coin could save $250 million over a 20-year period. Therefore, many Canadians will say: "Down with the $2 bill and up with the $2 coin which will make us save $250 million over 20 years". A simple decision.

However, we should go a little deeper and look at more rational arguments. Earlier we were talking about technology. If we do not proceed with a $2 coin will we still have nickels, dimes, quarters and loonies? Why not apply technology to this? Do not try to make us believe in a lot of things which make no sense.

First of all, the Royal Canadian Mint and it alone will save money, not you and me, not the taxpayers, not the merchants and certainly not the people operating vending machines.

There was no lobbying from vending machine manufacturers because the whole thing was obvious. We had estimations based on the same principle as the figures given to us earlier. As the member for Charlevoix said, it is estimated that the $2 coin will necessarily cost vending machine manufacturers around $300 million.

This is an estimate just as our colleagues opposite used the word "estimated" to say that there will be savings of around $250 million. Why an estimate? Because there has been no serious study on a change like the introduction of a $2 coin.

Therefore, I and the Bloc Quebecois propose to abolish the $2 bill or at least to undertake a serious study showing the real savings that could result from the replacement of the $2 bill with a $2 coin.

While bringing these changes to the Canadian monetary system we could take the opportunity to abolish the penny, which costs one and a half cents to produce. There are presently an estimated 10 billion of those coins in circulation. Ten billion one cent coins which cost one and a half cents each to produce. It is important to repeat it. Lets put an end to that waste by eliminating the one cent coin and the two dollar bill. For once the government could recover that money, that is tens of

millions of dollars a year, and put it clearly and totally into a definite policy designed to create jobs and help the poor.

Tens of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, are currently being cut in transfer payments to provinces and systems such as these will be allowed to continue.

What we are saying is that we will save tens of millions of dollars by abolishing the $2 bills, but instead of losing this amount in overall public spending, we should develop a good framework and put in place a specific program of job creation or assistance to poor people.

In view of the current economic and social situation, we have neither the right nor the means to invest funds in areas such as these, when thousands of our fellow citizens live below the poverty line and destitute people are knocking at our doors every day.

To quote only one example, a lady came to my riding office. This 62-year old lady cannot get old age benefits from the federal government and does not have any salary insurance because she never had a job. Many women of her generation stayed at home, so they are not eligible for salary insurance. So, this woman is getting welfare payments of $642 a month. She came to me asking: "Is there a solution to my problem?" Situations such as these, how many dozens are there in my riding, how many thousands are there in Quebec and in Canada? And here we are discussing changing $2 coins for paper bills. As my colleague for Charlevoix was saying earlier, I think that it is a shame to brag about such things in the House.

Do not tell me that the government has no other possibility or place to spend the savings that could be made, to help people like that woman or thousands of others in our ridings, rather than perpetuating a timeworn system or replace it with a system just as inappropriate, because the $2 coin would be inappropriate. Our American neighbours have no $2 bill, and they are not any worse off for it. The same can be said of other countries. It is a very easy system to understand.

The Royal Canadian Mint-someone talked earlier about the Royal Quebec Mint but there is no such thing-says its position is based on a survey. Before we go to the questions and comments period, it is important to put this survey in its true context. This survey was biased because of the questions it contained. You will ask how it was biased. Simply because it asked people if they were in favour of keeping the $2 bill or if they preferred to save tens of millions of dollars. People were never asked if they were in favour of abolishing the $2 denomination, because the answer was known already. Quebecers are used to biased surveys. They have seen many of them in the past.

People never had a chance to ask themselves if they were for or against the abolition of the $2 denomination. I am convinced that we cannot allow such a waste of public and private money at a time when our society faces serious problems and our country is sick.

My speech is a drop in the ocean of words spoken in this House on this debate. However, it is through such savings that we must show our concern for the population. If we wish to restore people's confidence in politics, politicians and the House of Commons, minor debates that may not seem very important can enable us to save tens of millions of dollars per year, as we have seen in this case, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars with one cent coins and two dollar bills, in order to ensure proper redistribution among our businesses, create jobs and help the disadvantaged, as I said earlier.

Concrete examples such as those I just listed would allow us to save millions of dollars and hopefully create thousands of jobs.

In closing, simply eliminating the $2 denomination would save some $30 million a year and the one cent coin, several millions of dollars. In addition, except for children with piggy banks, everyone would be happy not to have these coins in their pockets.

[Jacques Villeneuve, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, racing driver Jacques Villeneuve won a brilliant victory at the 79th Indianapolis 500 on the weekend.

Overcoming a two lap penalty, Jacques Villeneuve made up his time, caught and then passed all the other drivers, moved into the lead, and stayed there to the finish.

This was the twenty-four year old driver's second time only at this American racecourse and his first victory. Quebecers will remember his father, Gilles, a Formula 1 driver and his brilliant victory at the Montreal Grand Prix. They will also remember with sadness his tragic death in 1982, during race trials in Belgium.

Quebecers will now be keen to follow the exploits of Jacques Villeneuve who, this weekend, reached the first milestone in a motor racing career that we hope will be long and happy.

[Program For Older Worker Adjustment, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while Ottawa keeps procrastinating regarding the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, the Quebec government is taking concrete action. Yesterday, Quebec labour minister, Louise Harel, announced that her department would help older workers who are victims of mass layoffs but are not eligible to POWA.

For five years now, the Quebec government has been asking that the program be amended, since many older workers are not eligible because of criteria which are too restrictive. When they were in opposition, the federal Liberals strongly supported Quebec's claims. However, now that they are in office, they are not following up on their stance.

Once again, to ensure fair treatment to all Quebecers, the provincial government is forced to go ahead without federal financial support, in spite of the fact that Quebecers pay close to $30 billion in taxes every year.