Benoît Sauvageau

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, several questions have been raised since yesterday regarding the famous Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Several questions, to the total amazement of our friends opposite, had escaped them, not all of them though. Some Liberal members are more lucid than others, such as the member for York South-Weston, as demonstrated on page 3539 of yesterday's official report. I quote what he said:

I would submit that it would be unconscionable if they were paid any money whatsoever not only because of what was said during the election campaign, and what happened behind the scenes, but also because of the very clear statement and the request for proposals that was put out in March 1992. At paragraph (8.6.3.), it says this. Again Mr. Bronfman and all those who were participating in this contract were well aware of what was in the request for proposals.

It said: "All costs and expenses incurred by proponents relating to proposals will be borne by the proponents. The government is not liable to pay such costs and expenses or to reimburse or to compensate proponents in any manner whatsoever for such costs and expenses under any circumstances, including the rejection of any or all proposals and the cancellation of the project".

This paragraph shows very clearly that clause 10 of Bill C-22 makes no sense whatsoever, unless the minister, the Minister of Transport in this case, has to, heaven forbid, reward friends of his party.

Liberal members are surprised by our relentless attacks on this bill but what has happened to their commitment to transparency, now that they are six months into their mandate?

Among the promises which filled a whole chapter of the red book, what has happened to the ethics counsellor in charge of advising ministers, MPs and other public officials? The government could really use somebody like that, these days. What progress has been made in the drafting of a code of conduct for Parliament? It seems to me that it has fallen by the wayside.

What has happened to the new rules regarding lobbying? The Liberals will undoubtedly answer that it is a priority for them, but if we were to make a list of the priorities they have been talking about since January 17, I would feel sorry for issues that did not make it in their eyes because, for this government, everything is a priority, or rather, nothing is.

With respect to the new lobbying rules, we learned only yesterday from a report in La Presse that the federal government had decided to extend by one year very lucrative advertising contracts prior to establishing its new lobbying rules.

Clearly, there must be some mistake, Mr. Speaker. And yet, the government is now giving us the impression of taking care of its friends, before passing legislation to protect them, as I just mentioned. Perhaps we are mistaken, but the perception is rather different. And perception is the key to whether or not the public trusts the government. In this particular case, positions are relatively clear.

With your permission, I would like to quote the hon. member for Red Deer who stated the following yesterday, which appears on page 3529 of Hansard. I quote:

-I certainly agree with that. I would agree wholeheartedly with the member's comments that they know better and they obviously should not be expecting any compensation.

As you can see, I have introduced quotes from Liberal and Reform members who agree with our amendments, but none from Bloc members.

It is clear that Bloc members stand solidly behind this amendment, as do Reform members and even a few Liberals. Therefore, they have no business saying that we are being paranoid and that we are nitpicking.

Not so very long ago, in addition to the member for York South-Weston, the Minister of Immigration himself, the President of the Treasury Board and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry spoke out on this agreement. Even the

Minister of Transport said that the federal government was considering setting up a royal commission of inquiry into the privatization of Pearson Airport. This fact was reported in La Presse on November 29 last. The Minister of Transport himself suggested that such a commission be established.

Why then are our colleagues opposite so surprised when barely a few months ago, they shared our position on this issue? Could it be because the members on this side have not changed their minds and are not in the habit of doing so every few months?

Why did we not change our minds? Why are we asking for a royal commission of inquiry to save millions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions in the long run, to the taxpayers, but above all to clarify whether the government's hands are clean? That is the whole question.

Why is it that, while the Nixon report, which surprisingly enough took only 30 days to produce, states that there has been wrongdoing in connection with lobbying, it gives no specific example of such practice?

Also, why compensate people for costs incurred in such instances? My mother used to tell me, as a child, that honesty pays. Was she right or not?

Why does the government continue to refuse to release the privatization contract concerning Pearson Airport? There are many unanswered questions, are there not? Many questions that will do nothing to improve the Liberal Party's credibility rating, if it has any credibility left.

The reason we are opposing Bill C-22 and asking the government, for its own good and in the interest of the Canadian population as a whole, to shed light onto these obscure dealings is to get all these questions answered. Of course, that is if the government has nothing to hide; otherwise, its reluctance is understandable.

In closing, let me repeat the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois:

"This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, An Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, because the principle of the Bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent."

We also support the amendment to amendment moved by the Reform Party to add "in Canada" after the word "lobbyists".

[Premier Of Quebec, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of this House to the statement Senator Kennedy made yesterday, within the context of the Quebec Premier's pre-election visit to the United States.

Senator Kennedy said that as far as the Americans were concerned, whatever the outcome of the decision, they respect the right of Quebecers' to self-determination.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here at last is a level-headed statement reflecting profound respect for democratic values. Unfortunately, you are more likely to hear that kind of remark abroad than within this chamber.

The universal standard for democracy is respect for other people, respect for the decisions made by the people.

I urge the members from the other political parties represented in this House to follow the example of Senator Kennedy and show the same open-mindedness, the same democratic regard, the same respect for political diversity.

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

Our expertise in the management of our assets is well established, but given the persistent opposition by the ruling government, I repeat, we have realized that it is only by being sovereign that we will be able to patriate those powers that are essential to Quebec's economic renewal.

We must also ask ourselves the following question: In its deficit reduction plan, did the government opposite do its share? Did it penalize only the unemployed and the old people by taking away their tax deductions?

Here is a long excerpt from an article by reporter Claude Piché which appeared in La Presse on February 22 this year. He wrote: ``Here are some figures. Let us not forget them when the minister socks it to us while saying he has to put government finances in order''.

It seems that the reduction and restriction spectre did not keep our diplomats from sleeping. Last year, and the figures are accurate, they are dated February 22, the Foreign Affairs budget exceeded $3.8 billion, a 13 per cent increase over the $3.4 billion recorded in the previous year, when spending was up 5 per cent as compared to the year before. Alone, spending directly related to representing Canadian interests abroad , such as embassies, high commissions, consulates and other diplomatic activities, including everything that goes with it, planes, trips, and soon, increased by 23 per cent over two years, a figure that does not show an obvious concern for austerity.

The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, by far the main agency of this department, spent $2.2 billion last year. CIDA increased its expenditures by $232 million last year and by $133 million the year before, for a 19 per cent increase in two years.

The budget of the Department of Indian Affairs exceeds $4 billion. This is another department where it is obvious that they do not know about making sacrifices. Their expenditures have increased by 7 per cent last year and by 9 per cent the year before for a total of 16 per cent. More than half of their budget, more than half of those $4 billion is made up of grants and contributions to band councils and tribal organizations. These payments have jumped 23 per cent in two years to reach $2.6 billion last year.

The inflation rate in Canada was 1.8 per cent last year and 1.5 per cent the year before. We have to wonder.

Let us now take a look at the Correctional Service of Canada, the very agency which builds for criminals luxurious condos such as the majority of honest workers could not afford. It has spent $876 million last year, an increase of 7 per cent over the previous year.

At Fisheries and Oceans Canada, expenditures took a 30 per cent leap over the previous year to $869 million.

The increase in Communications Canada's budget is close to 10 per cent. This department is spending $2.2 billion of your taxes and mine, nearly half of this amount being allocated to CBC. But the biggest chunk which makes all other expenditures look insignificant by comparison is the debt service. This is when we stop counting in millions and talk about billions of dollars.

Last year, Ottawa spent $39 billion to service its debt. If one were to add all the expenditures, the subsidies, the grants-whether justified or not-and multiply the total by four, the result would be the cost incurred last year by the government only for servicing its debt.

Such is the painful assessment of twenty years of poor public finance management.

This article tells us what is wrong. The government asks Canadians to foot the bill and, at the same time, increases its spending-in that case, by an average of 17.7 per cent in the departments I have just mentioned. While the cost-of-living index rose by 1.7 per cent, government spending increased ten-fold.

It is also important to recall the position of the Liberals when the late Conservatives changed the Unemployment Insurance Program. Remember the shouting and the insults of the Liberals against such changes when they were in the opposition. They changed their tune. Remember the position of the Liberals on the issue of granting more authority to the Auditor General. Now, they are opposing a motion proposed by their own party. Change of side, change of heart.

What consistency! They wonder why there is a lack of confidence on the part of the public. A used-car dealer is more popular than they are! I therefore repeat my position with regard to economic recovery and job creation.

In conclusion, the government is once again trying to fool the public. But this time, it does not work because citizens are much better informed than they used to be and cannot abide trickery.

The government must stop believing that it alone can create jobs. You said it, we said it, we agree on that, small businesses have been the main job creators for many years and they have to keep on playing that job-creating role.

The failure of the previous government and the one foreseen for the liberal government should get them to become a bit more responsible. They have difficulty doing that. An efficient government has to be a custodian of public funds, it has, in principle, to keep its spending under control, to keep the deficit

under control and to restore confidence in the economy. I said so last week.

That confidence is the basis of a healthy economy. The illogical decisions that have been made by governments for too long and that are still made today hinder the establishment of that confidence, which is essential for the economy to recover.

It is not by creating temporary jobs and, while doing so, by ignoring the role played by the small business that the government is going to revitalize the economy, but rather by restoring the climate of confidence which will stimulate investment and, at the same time, will create real jobs, for good.

However, it is not a federal government, with its departmental overlapping and its heavy management, that will meet that simple objective, but a sovereign Quebec, sole master responsible for its decisions and its management, which will inevitably-

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

Madam Speaker, the party across the way is acting like a parent who does not want to recognize the autonomy of his children who have grown up. The Prime Minister says that he has to maintain control over budgets and decisions related to job training because we have unemployed workers. Are we not big enough and responsible enough to know our needs? Have we not proven our economic know-how and buoyancy over the past 30 years? Let us go back a little to look at the economic expertise of Quebeckers.

There are, for example, the Caisse de dépôt et placement, the Société générale de financement, the REAs, the financial institutions reform, and Hydro-Québec. I would like to point out that these initiatives are mainly the brain-child of a single man, who will most likely become the next Quebec premier in a few months, Mr. Jacques Parizeau.

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

Madam Speaker, to begin with, a Canada-wide committee was struck to examine the proposed changes to the UI program, as part of the review of social programs. I have talked many times about the creation of committes up until now.

Even before the conclusion of the study, the Prime Minister refuses to give Quebec what rightly belongs to it. Everybody in Quebec, even the Liberals-and these are the Prime Minister's words-who are not big bad separatists, is demanding it, but the Prime Minister rejects out of hand what he calls the "whims" of Quebec.

They are not whims, but Quebec's most basic demands; they are also a way of asking that the Constitution be respected, as it applies to education, which is explicitly described as an area of provincial jurisdiction.

At this point, I wish to announce to members of the House and to you, Madam Speaker, that this very afternoon, the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously in favour of a motion giving Quebec exclusive powers in the area of job training.

[Montreal, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following Montreal's selection as the host community for the NAFTA Environmental Commission, many inaccurate and vengeful things have been written about this city. Montreal has been described by some as an island in the middle of an open dump, as the worst city from an environmental standpoint not only in

Canada but in all of North America. These allegations reflect deep-seated contempt and are cause for indignation.

The Mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Doré, has reacted to these comments and has issued an update on the major achievements of the Montreal Urban Community in the field of sewage treatment. A number of important sewage treatment projects are in the works. In truth, Montreal has nothing to learn from other Canadian cities as far as this or any other field is concerned.

In our opinion, this kind of thinly veiled insult directed at Montreal only serves once again to tarnish the image of this city and of Quebec. It is an instance of provocation which must be denounced.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-17. This five-part omnibus bill makes major changes to unemployment insurance.

The minister presents us with a bill, let me point out, dealing with compensation in the public sector, the Canada Assistance Plan, public utilities income tax transfers, various transportation subsidies, the CBC's borrowing authority and finally changes to the Unemployment Insurance Plan. Once again, it is quite a hodgepodge. The more things change, the more they are the same.

Radical changes are put in a bill without any specific orientation and we are told to take the whole thing as is. I will remind the Liberals, in case they no longer remember, that they were elected with a clear objective, supposedly to create jobs. But again, nothing, I repeat, nothing, has been done to achieve this objective.

A catch-all infrastructure program will create barely 40,000 temporary jobs, at an astronomical cost. I give you the figures quoted by the Liberals themselves; 40,000 new jobs is very nice, but if they achieve 100 per cent of their objective, they will not even have reached 10 per cent of the unemployed young people in this country. According to Statistics Canada, in February 1994, 428,000 young people aged 15 to 24 were collecting unemployment insurance, and the Liberals are proud that they may create 40,000 temporary jobs in a few years.

This government really shows disrespect for the people. If the Liberals cannot take significant action, even for the 15-24 age group, we can well wonder when people, seeing construction trucks driving around, as the Prime Minister said, will regain confidence in the economy, confidence in the government and confidence in general. So, as my fellow member from Mercier proposes, we should amend Bill C-17 so that it contains specific measures to reduce youth unemployment.

Furthermore, how can the minister bring in such a bill considerably modifying unemployment insurance while at the same time he is launching a Canada-wide consultation on how UI works? Strange. We can well wonder about this consultation or these consultations. In fact, what have the Liberals done since they came to power?

In finance, Canada-wide consultations, and bogus ones at that, as confirmed by the budget. In defence, they have struck a joint committee, with senators. Nothing but the best. Again, consultations. In foreign affairs, another joint committee. We really have to thank our senators for their contribution. Consultation again. In social programs, consultation. How wonderful!

A question comes to mind. I would like to know-and I would like comments on that later, please-if Liberals are totally devoid of ideas and opinions after nine years in opposition and, if so, how does it feel coming in from the cold after nine years? It was a rude awakening, was it not? One can certainly wonder, seeing that nearly six months into their mandate, the Liberals remain incapable of making decisions or making sensible ones when they do.

Through UI cuts, the Liberals hoped to save $5.5 billion dollars, over three years that is, and in a clearly inequitable fashion, as Atlantic Canada and Quebec will bear the brunt of the cuts. In fact, Atlantic Canada will suffer a shortfall of about $630 million, while Quebec will lose some $735 million a year in revenue. With 25 per cent of the population of Canada, Quebec will actually foot 31 per cent of the cuts announced by the minister. So, as you pointed out, and rightly so, it does happen that people get more than their fair share from the federal government. But in this case, it is at our expense.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a quote from the red book that I have used in a previous speech: "-cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored." I agree with that statement. I agree with the Liberals on that. I do not agree on everything but on that, I do. I will be bringing this up often because they are not acting accordingly and it is true that we must all work together to restore confidence in this place.

But what kind of cry from the heart will it take to make our friends opposite show a little good faith in their decision-making? In examining the budget papers, we see that this year's budget for the Governor General's office is $10 million. Ten million! One hundred million will be spent over five years for educational videos. One hundred million over five years, while the provinces and the unemployed have to shoulder $5.5 billion! And this is supposed to restore some confidence in our institutions.

If we are to make any headway at all in resolving the unemployment problem in Canada and Quebec, we have to consider occupational training. I would like the minister to explain to us how responsibility for occupational training is to be shared and what his position on this issue is. Under the Constitution, occupational training is a provincial matter, one which falls, therefore, in Quebec's jurisdiction. It arises from the province's exclusive jurisdiction over education. In 1942, Ottawa encroached on this and several others fields by virtue of its jurisdiction over unemployment insurance and its spending power. Increasingly, the federal government has meddled in

fields such as worker placement and the funding of occupational training.

Since the unemployment insurance reform of 1989, the federal government has used the Unemployment Insurance Account for training purposes. At the same time, it has considerably expanded its field of intervention to include helping labour markets adjust to the opening up of markets and free trade.

A total of some thirty initiatives have been grouped into four major programs, namely Labour Market Information, Community Futures, Employability Improvement and Labour Market Adjustment. The last two programs offer services to individuals and businesses, respectively. At the same time, Quebec adopted a similar program structure as recently as 1992. It entrusted its management to the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or SQDM, a partnership between the private and public sectors.

To finance these services, the federal government's contribution to labour force training and adjustment in Quebec amounts to a little over $900 million for 1993-94. Of this amount, $320 million comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or $150 million less than three years ago.

As for administration at the federal level, the Quebec region, which is described as one region among many others, is divided into ten networks roughly equivalent to the Quebec administrative division. About 100 Canada Employment Centres are responsible for administering unemployment insurance and managing manpower programs in their respective areas.

Each of these employment and immigration centres has its own local planning strategy or LPS. It includes some degree of co-operation with Quebec.

Last April, the job training centre network in Quebec was converted into 10 regional branches of the SQDM. In association with local partners, each of them is responsible for the management of Quebec manpower programs. Their action largely depends on federal funds and is often incompatible with the LPS, and federal priorities are applied to the regions.

Through its spending power and its jurisdiction over unemployment insurance, the federal government's power on job training in Quebec is practically absolute. This power was reinforced with unemployment insurance reform in 1989 when it became the federal government's favoured intervention tool in labour force adjustment and free trade.

Quebec's role has been reduced to that of a mere manager of some federal programs, as demonstrated by the January 1993 conference of federal and provincial employment ministers. Despite unanimous support by Quebec labour market partners and the creation of an administrative structure adapted to its needs, the SQDM, the federal government refuses to withdraw from this area and to transfer the allocated funds. It has kept its network of Canada Employment Centres despite Quebec's decisions.

At the federal level, manpower adjustment services offered by the federal government are divided into four main programs and 27 components. The result is something that can be a real headache for clients.

There are over 100 criteria, depending on the type of client, available resources and also on the region and local CECs. There should be three sets of priorities: national, regional and local. However, under this system, the needs of Quebec and local organizations are ignored. The result: unemployed workers who are wasting their time and courses for which there is no demand.

Quebec has two sets of programs administered by two separate networks: the manpower development corporations or SQDM, as I said earlier, and the Quebec labour centres. The first set of programs has 15 components and is aimed at people on welfare. The other set consists of ten operations which, since last year, have been regrouped in three main programs intended for businesses, individuals and victims of mass lay-offs, respectively. This adds up to a total of 25 programs.

The cost of operating all these programs is about $580 million for the federal government and about $70 million for Quebec, with $62 million being spent on the SQDM, the Quebec manpower development corporation.

My point is that it is high time we patriated this sector and put it under Quebec control. Another aspect of this bill seems rather absurd. I am referring to the premium rate of $3.07 for every $100 of insurable earnings which in January 1995 will be rolled back to $3. Remember, it was the Liberals who raised the rate from $3 to $3.07.

According to the Liberals, the roll-back planned for next year will help create 40,000 new jobs in 1996.

We will try to give a brief analysis of the Liberal approach to this question. It may seem complicated, but we will give it a try. Our conclusion will be somewhat Kafkaesque, to use a favourite expression of the hon. member for Verchères. Let me explain.

According to the old formula, unemployment insurance premiums would be as follows: in 1993, $3 for every $100 of insurable earnings; in 1994, $3.07, which is what we have now; and in 1995, premiums were to be raised to $3.30 per $100 of insurable earnings. According to the government's proposal, premiums which were at $3 per $100 of insurable earnings in

1993 will be raised to $3.07 as of January, which is the case now, but the rate will be reduced to $3 in 1995.

Let us see what happens if we pursue this scenario.

If the Liberals had maintained the old premium formula, we would have lost 9,000 jobs in 1994 and 31,000 jobs the year after. By raising premiums to $3.07, the Liberals get the following result: 9,000 jobs lost in 1994 they realize that, they said so themselves and 9,000 jobs gained in 1995, which means a grand total of zero. We lose 9,000 this year, we create 9,000 the year after, and the result is zilch. Wow, that is really something. Or so they say.

Actually we are not talking about 40,000 new jobs but 31,000 jobs saved and 9,000 new jobs after losing 9,000. Obviously, the end result of their excellent theory is zero.

We must conclude that once again, the government is trying to fool the public, but today's public is better informed and no longer prepared to swallow this kind of proposal.

In any event, it is clear that the previous government was a failure and that the Liberals will not be an improvement. The government should no longer play a leading role in creating jobs. Recent figures have shown that small businesses have been the main source of new jobs during the past few years and will continue to play that role. The Liberals realize that. Give credit where credit is due.

Today, for investors and small businesses, the government's role should be to protect public finances. A good government should control its spending. A good government should control the deficit, and by the same token, a good government will restore a climate of confidence.

The economy is based on confidence, and governments-I said governments-undermine that confidence by being inconsistent and have done so for far too long. To create employment we do not need construction equipment, as the Prime Minister seems to think. We need to restore a healthy climate of confidence that will encourage genuine economic recovery, which in turn will attract investment and by the same token create jobs, durable jobs.

However, we are convinced that because of overlapping programs and interdepartmental duplication, the federal government will never manage to meet this very simple objective. However, a sovereign Quebec that is master of its own destiny and controls the levers of its economy and decision-making processes will be able to meet this immense challenge. There is no doubt about that. We know, as Félix told us, that the best way to kill a man is to keep him from working.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by quoting from the speech of my colleague. She said: "Government cannot do it all when it comes to job creation". This is very nicely put, and we agree with that. However, we feel that the government should not be doing nothing, which is precisely what it is doing right now.

The reliance on an infrastructure program takes us back to the Trudeau era, and maybe even earlier than that. This recipe for restructuring the economy dates back to the 1930s, at the time of the great depression, when an infrastructure program was put in place. I believe that times have changed. The economy has also changed and I just hope that the Liberals have kept pace with those changes.

The way this infrastructure program will work is dreadful, and I will give you an example. I do not know whether the people in my riding have come to the same conclusion, but here it is. In a small town of my riding, Repentigny, the council had to borrow $6 million in order to get its share of money from the infrastructure program. After it has borrowed the $6 million-and I am not talking about Montreal here, I am talking about a town of 50,000 inhabitants-the town will receive the same amount from the federal government. How much is this going to cost in interest payments? How much more taxes will the residents have to pay? And how long will the program last?

I regret, Madam Speaker, but I must say that it is disgrace for the government to come up with such a program, claiming it is going to create jobs, and nothing else.

[Revenue Canada, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently a constituent in my riding wrote to inform me that it was impossible to get through to a federal telephone service, Revenue Canada's 800 information number on child tax benefits.

Nearly three million people are affected by the failure of this service. These are the same people who are asked to pay their taxes without delay, while being deprived of a quality information service that could allow them to claim a deduction to which they are entitled.

This situation is intolerable and shows a total lack of respect for taxpayers. I do hope that corrective measures will be taken as soon as possible so that our fellow Canadians do not have to put up with such a frustrating situation any longer.

[Cable Broadcasting Industry, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are here to get some answers.

Does the Prime Minister not recognize that this monopoly in the cable broadcasting industry and Rogers' 32-per-cent ownership of Unitel shares give this company an unfair advantage over its cable and telephone industry competitors in terms of the development of the information highway?