Mark Assad

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Public Service Alliance of Canada recently conducted several talks, unsuccessful so far, aimed at reaching an agreement with the Government of Quebec on hiring 26,000 federal public servants now residing in the Outaouais, in the event Quebec separates from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, are these promises not rather unrealistic and liable to create false hopes, considering the obvious fact that this cannot be done, administratively speaking?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the clerk at the table just mentioned my name. I did not hear him. I am in favour of the bill, of course.

[Studies Commissioned By The Government Of Quebec, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the daily, Le Soleil , reported in its February 14, 1995 edition that the head of the Quebec public service and secretary general of the Quebec government's executive council, Louis Bernard, had asked all deputy ministers last November to carry out detailed studies on the goods and services the federal government provided Quebec.

The purpose, for Mr. Bernard, was to find out how government functions would have to be reorganized so that the Government of Quebec could take over from the federal government before Quebec became sovereign. An initial draft of the study was to be delivered to Mr. Le Hir by the end of the month. That was in February.

Over seven months after the secretary of the executive council made his remarks, these studies by officials of the Government of Quebec remain shrouded in utter secrecy. Where is the so-called transparency of the-

[Ocean Day, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of Ocean Day, which is today, is to raise the public's awareness of the danger in which the negligence of the world's governments has put the planet.

There is no direct link between the ocean and the people in a riding like mine, Gatineau-La Lièvre. However, oceans are necessary for our survival, for they produce more oxygen than rain forests and are the planet's biggest water supply. They provide us with an incredible quantity of protein and remedies for certain illnesses.

We can all help clean up our oceans. If we do not, we will be destroying our planet. On this day, it would be a good start for each of us to identify one habit that we could change in order to contribute to saving our oceans and Canada. Limiting fishing activities is a good start.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-76, which is the continuation of the budget and deals with the Work Force Adjustment Directive, is a rather important one. It drew many comments, especially from the Reform Party and the Bloc. I believe there are some fundamental elements we should take into account in Parliament. For all intents and purposes, we are the voice of our fellow citizens, and it is important that they know exactly what is at stake here.

I listened to the Reform members talk about the deficit, government spending, and the debt which is growing at the rate of $100 million a day, and also to all their arguments to the effect that the government must cut expenditures. As we know, it has been proven, on many occasions, that at the present time, except for the debt service, the regular operating expenditures of the government do not exceed its revenue. The debt service is very high in Canada because we have an accumulated debt of close to $500 billion.

Members opposite keep on talking about government spending. But we must not forget that expenditures are only one of the elements of the deficit we are facing in this country. One must not single out the expenditures of the Canadian government as the only reason for our deficit.

In the past, deficits were very high, as compared to total expenditures. Expenditures were high in the past, as we saw under the previous government. I am not trying to say that we were blameless in the past; in some instances, expenditures went well beyond what should have been tolerable. In any case, what is important now is to correct the situation. One must not lose track of the fact that expenditures are but one element.

Second, we must recognize that our tax system being slightly obsolete, the in-depth reform of our tax system is one of the elements which is going to put our economy back on a level that is acceptable to all Canadians, especially the middle class.

Third, and this is important, it is the monetary system of this country which causes our interest rates to be too high. We must recognize that the Bank of Canada has a role to play. In the past, the Bank of Canada played a very important role in controlling interests rates nationally. But, because of our deficit, we lost this power. However, with good management, it should be possible to get it back. We are trying. It will take several years, but let us hope we will succeed within one mandate or one and a half at the most. We want the Bank of Canada to really play an

active role, we want complete fiscal reform, and we hope that our monetary system, which is not working to our advantage, will be modified.

So three different elements come into play.

Furthermore, the Minister of Finance proposed some workforce adjustments. Since we are being told to reduce spending, we tried to achieve this by streamlining of the public service.

When I hear that 45,000 employees will lose their jobs, I think this is a bit of an exaggeration, because this will happen over a three-year period, and most of these 45,000 people will either take normal retirement or early retirement, or accept what we call a buy-out.

In conclusion, therefore, I would like this House to understand that our problems cannot be ascribed to one thing only, that is spending alone. High interest rates, largely the result of our monetary system of the last 15 to 20 years, made it difficult for us to carry out reforms, especially the reform of the tax system which is sorely needed because of the very heavy tax burden on the middle class.

[Committees Of The House, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food which deals with Bill C-75, an act to amend the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act.

It is reported with no amendments.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I must correct something. My colleague opposite said that, in 1984, the Liberal government left behind a debt of $250 billion. The debt was not $250 billion, but $160 billion. There is a big difference. In 1984, in terms of the Canadian economy, the debt was one of the lowest among the industrialized countries. I therefore find it a bit odd that he is providing incorrect figures. He could look at the facts.

Secondly, he mentioned that Mr. Rivard, the head of the dairy producers association, had said it was a tough budget. It is true. It is pretty tough, but it must be remembered that a Liberal government elevated the dairy industry to its present level. With milk quotas, dairy farmers in Quebec have become some of our wealthiest farmers. We must look at both sides of the issue.

I would tell my colleague across the floor that he should try to quote figures accurately. There are consequences for failing to do so.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the remarks made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn and the questions posed by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden show the conflict that exists in the agricultural sector and the need for reform.

Of course, we are concerned about the changes or budget cuts recently announced by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In its motion, the opposition denounces as unfair to some Canadian farmers the budget cuts recently announced by the Minister of Finance. These people are clearly acting in good faith but I am sure that they are mistaken.

Sometimes, our colleagues opposite do not realize that this country is facing a crisis as a result of the deficit accumulated over the past 15 to 20 years. Our deficit represents 73 per cent of GDP. We can no longer put it off. Whatever difficulties await us in the future, certain problems must be solved, namely bringing public spending under control and introducing sound management for all Canadians without exception.

The Department of Agriculture was asked to cut spending by 19 per cent. Other departments were also required to make sacrifices. The Department of Agriculture met the challenge and found a way to sweeten the pill by ensuring that the cuts are fair to all farmers across Canada.

Breeders in animal feed deficit areas receive feed grain transportation subsidies aimed at reducing the cost of this feed and allowing breeders to compete. Financial help is provided to breeders almost everywhere from the Atlantic provinces to the Yukon, including parts of Eastern Quebec, Northern Ontario and British Columbia. Those are the facts.

A subsidy on which rely the producers in most provinces, including Quebec, is about to disappear, but there is more. The government recognizes that this may not be a popular measure. It also knows that it cannot, and must not, ask producers to drastically change their operations overnight.

Contrary to what some might think, the government is willing to listen. During our post-budget consultations, we learned that

the initial date set for the elimination of the FFAP, the Feed Freight Assistance Program, which was October 1, did not give enough time to the producers and to the industry to adjust to such a major change. Consequently, the government agreed to wait until December 31, 1995, and not reduce the level of assistance provided during that period.

While the government will eliminate the subsidy provided under the FFAP, it will inject $62 million, over the next ten years, in the regions where the FFAP is currently in effect. Part of these funds will be used to make the payments provided under the program, until it expires later this year. The government is also providing financial assistance by giving a lump sum payment to western farmers affected by the repeal of the WGTA. We are receptive to the concerns of producers, while also showing fiscal restraint with the taxpayers' money.

This financial assistance will be provided to affected producers in every province and region in the country. How will that money be spent? As you know, we do not have that answer yet, but we decided to seek the help of experts. The government feels that those who are most qualified to answer that question are the producers, the people in the food and cattle industry, the feed producers and the animal farmers from the regions which will be most affected by the gradual elimination of the FFAP.

This is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced that consultations would be held with the producers, in the coming weeks and months, to look at ways to use the FFAP adjustment fund and the transition fund. Moreover, these people will look at various financing options offered by other programs run by the Department of Agriculture, including the joint investment project in agri-food research.

The government is aware that hard times lie ahead. This is not necessarily the best solution, but under these circumstances, we have to act. However, we would be grateful if the opposition could come up with better solutions. I remind the House that, because of the disastrous economic situation we have inherited from the previous government, we have no other choice but to take rather drastic measures.

National consultation is the only way to establish closer ties with representatives from the agricultural industry. Together, we can find solutions, come up with new ideas and even reach compromises that would ensure that all farmers are treated fairly. This agricultural reform should have been implemented several years ago. Think about what is happening in the area of fisheries and oceans, where the fish stock has been declining for the last ten years, where we are still waiting for changes that should have been made more than 10 years ago, and look atthe results. We do not want the same situation to occur inagriculture.

The whole world is undergoing unprecedented changes and in turn we have to make fundamental changes to preserve our agri-food industry.

Finally, all those who know something about agriculture realize that this industry has been very efficient in the past in Canada. We are one of the most fortunate countries in the world, because our agri-food industry has evolved rather nicely. However, with all the changes that were made in terms of GATT and NAFTA, and with the competitiveness of the United States south of our border, we are under a lot of pressure.

There are times, I must say, when the dealings of the United States on the world market create unfair competition. A country with a tenth of its population is bound to be affected by its actions. This is why the Department of Agriculture must make changes. We do not want the situation to worsen. It could have very disastrous consequences for all of Canada.

So, we must recognize that the measures put forward are not perfect. But nothing is perfect in this world. Any way, the important thing is to act. As the situation evolves, we will make adjustments to ensure that all farmers are treated fairly.

[Human Values, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the regional commissions have finished their work in Quebec and have submitted their recommendations to the national commission. Unfortunately, some remarkable facts came out of all this which were not reported by the media. Many people set aside the constitutional and political option to discuss a blueprint for society, a society based on human values and social measures that enrich all members of society and reflect the philosophy that we are our brother's keeper.

They rejected out of hand a number of corporate values, including those of multinationals who want no government intervention, and free trade where the profit motive is king and one must be competitive at any cost.

I am convinced the same exercise would produce the same results across Canada, in other words, all Canadians want to live in a country where human values come first, and the economy must serve the people, not the other way around.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will first answer the hon. member's second question. I said, as did Mr. Fortin to the Standing Committee on Finance, that we have to exert pressure to lower interest rates.

Increasing the deficit will not solve the problem: it will only postpone it and make it worse. We have to find a way to lower interest rates, so that small and medium size businesses can get the money they need to expand. Let us not forget that there is a production capacity in our country.

The hon. member mentioned that the deficit started under the Liberals. That is true. However, when the Liberals left in 1984, the deficit stood at $160 billion, whereas when they came back last year, it had grown to $460 billion. Between 1984 and 1994, the deficit grew by 250 per cent, in spite of unprecedented levels of revenues.