Antoine Dubé

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra spoke of the lack of coherence in the Reformers' program. What took me a little aback, coming from him was that, without any prodding, he spoke of Canada's constitutional development over the past 30 years. I realize that the riding of Vancouver Quadra is quite distant from mine, Lévis, but I must say that one cannot truly talk about constitutional development over the past 30 years because there has been none. All of the constitutional conferences ended in failure and, in particular, I would like to remind him that the first version of the Meech Lake accord, which was signed by 11 premiers, was called into question because, following elections in various provinces, three Liberal premiers refused to respect the accord.

Given that the tone of the hon. member's speech would suggest that he is very open to consultation, relating back to the first point he made, which was the Reformers' lack of a coherent program, I would like him to explain to us the coherent program being followed by the Liberal government concerning the constitution.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington tried to point to contradictions in the speeches made by Reform members.

I will let Reform members take care of themselves. However, I myself see contradictions between the Liberal Party program, the famous red book, and some of the things which have taken place since the election campaign, including free trade. I asked the same question earlier to another Liberal member, and I was told-the member's colleague will certainly be able to give me an answer-that so many changes had been made to the free trade agreement that, in the end, the Liberals could not follow up on the matter.

There is also the GST. The Liberals said they would change and even remove this bad tax on goods and services. Unfortunately, the GST is still there. There is also the issue of transfers to the provinces. What did the government do to these transfers? First, it froze them and then announced, in this year's budget, a major cut which will take effect next year.

I represent the riding of Lévis and I was told that a summit on the future of Canada's shipyards would be held during the year. That was 18 months ago and there is still no summit.

The government can certainly point to the contradictions of the Reform members of the opposition, but I am talking about commitments made by the party now in office, when it was in opposition. There is a definite difference between the commitments made and the actions taken.

I want to ask the hon. member about another issue. What does she think of the power of banks as regards the monetary policy, among other things, given that six of the ten largest contributors in Canada are banks? I would like to hear her opinion on that issue. Would she support federal legislation which would limit political financing to individuals, instead of major corporations?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I noticed in particular that, according to him, all the decisions made by the Liberal government so far were in keeping with the promises in the red book.

I wish to remind the hon. member that, during the election campaign, the current Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, was against free trade and in favour of GST reform and said that he would not touch social programs and transfers to the provinces. But we know what happened to all these resolutions. The Liberal government did just the opposite.

I remember another matter that was widely discussed during the election campaign, especially in Ontario, namely the Pearson airport deal. It is one of the areas in which the former Tory government had to pay for its poor performance under the circumstances, since the Liberal Party had promised to review the matter. Yet, once in power, the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Nixon, a former Ontario finance minister, to look into this deal. During the investigation, Mr. Nixon himself said that there might have been certain irregularities due to lobbyists.

A little later, the ethics counsellor, who reports not to the House of Commons but to the Prime Minister, admitted at committee meetings that Bill C-43 would not have changed anything regarding the misconduct of lobbyists in the Pearson airport deal. He said himself that it would not have changed anything. Yet, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands brags about the merits of the bill.

I have two questions for him: First, how does he explain that it took the government 18 months to table this bill with the Pearson airport deal in the background, when the information obtained under the Access to Information Act reveals that Bill C-43 has been modified and is not in keeping with Liberal promises, precisely because of lobbyists' influence? I would like him to answer this question.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe for his excellent presentation. He correctly identified all aspects of the problem. He reminded us that the official opposition had proposed amendments. I want to ask him a question which, in my opinion, is related to the issue. As he said himself, many people seem to have lost confidence in government because they see links with large corporations.

Does the hon. member think that there is a way to change this, if only symbolically, for example by providing that political parties should be financed only by individuals and that businesses should not be allowed to contribute?

[Employability Of Young People, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to make me say a lot of things, but he need not look very far since the files are on his desk.

Does the postponement of these decisions mean that the minister has a hidden agenda, namely to cut even more deeply than the 15 per cent reduction announced last year, or is the minister punishing those Quebec organizations which refused to integrate the youth service corps or the young trainee programs into their activities?

[Employability Of Young People, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

After some enquiries, we have discovered that several of the organizations seeking to enchance the employability of young Quebecers are still waiting for an answer from the minister regarding the renewal of their subsidy for the current year, which began on April 1. Moreover, others only got a

three month extension, in spite of the fact that the training they provide usually lasts an average of 16 weeks.

Why is the minister waiting to provide an answer to these organizations, given that the agreements have already expired, or are about to expire?

[Seasonal Work, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently is in no hurry to answer the question, but aside from this evasive reply, does the minister not realize that discrimination, whether it is directed against women, seasonal workers or young people, is entirely unacceptable and has no place in his proposals for unemployment insurance reform? It seems to me he could at least say that today.

[Seasonal Work, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Rejecting the proposals for unemployment insurance reform tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the task force on seasonal work recommended, as did the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, dropping the provisions in his green book that discriminate against women and seasonal workers.

Considering the broad consensus that has developed on the discriminatory aspects of these two proposals in the green book, will the minister promise to drop them immediately?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

He wrote the dissenting opinion himself and his document was very carefully thought out. I think what he did was very important-and I am not saying that just to flatter him-but, thanks to his work, we can condemn the Liberal government for taking too much time, in my opinion, to fulfil a promise it made.

Let me come back to the specific question that was put to me: should the ethics counsellor be accountable to the House? I think it would not set a precedent since, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, the auditor general reports to the House on financial matters relating to the operation of the government. Why should it be different when we deal with ethics, a more technical aspect of the operation of the machinery of government? If there is one thing that can help us restore trust, as proposed in the document, it is the kind of proposal made by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, which would help to improve government operations and especially restore trust.

You may wonder why a sovereignist who expects to take part in a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty would make recommendations which could apply for the next seven years. This just shows you the non-partisan way the Bloc Quebecois is speaking to this bill. We even said to Canada, our future neighbours-because we do like English Canadians-that we all ought to do a really good job in this instance, so that we can pass on to our future neighbours a House of Commons and a machinery of government that are truly open and honest.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot refer to the absence of hon. members in this House, but you are right to point out that, since there are no Liberal members to ask me questions, a question was put to me by our own critic. This is a little unusual, since we are having a debate today. To have a debate, it usually takes two opposing sides to present the pros and cons of a bill. This is the way it has always been since Greek Antiquity, since the beginning of democracy. True democracy began with debates.

Today, I was able to speak to this bill a little earlier than expected because no member of the Liberal Party wished to speak. And now, after my speech, I have one hon. member from our own side of the House asking me questions. This is a bit surprising.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm for the really remarkable job he has done on this issue.