Antoine Dubé

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-43 which concerns the registration of lobbyists.

The recent publication of the committee report on Bill C-43 has shown once again that the Liberal Government and the Bloc Quebecois have widely differing views of the work of lobbyists and the framework that should regulate their activities.

My first comment, and I realize Mr. Speaker, that I cannot show it because it is against the rules of this House, but I would nevertheless like to say that the colour of the document does not necessarily reflect the title, which is about restoring confidence, since the document in question is red. I would even call it a Liberal red.

My second comment is that although this red document comes after a Liberal red book we saw during the election campaign, it is pretty obvious that this version is quite different from what we read in the initial red book.

Lately this government has shown, by its conduct, that it has decided to govern under pressure from lobbies hired by large corporations and financial interests instead of governing in the best interests of the people of this country. Recent excesses in this respect by the Liberal government occurred in the matter involving the CRTC and Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power Corporation headed by none other than the Prime Minister's son-in-law.

Let us see how the government managed to discredit itself in this affair. Everything started in the spring of 1993, when the CRTC indicated that it wanted to encourage the development of a Canadian industry involved in direct-to-home services by satellite, the so-called DTH. Last August, the Expressvu consortium, a competitor of Power DirecTv, obtained an exemption from licensing, allowing it to offer DTH to future subscribers.

The CRTC granted this exemption because Expressvu intended to use one or more Canadian satellites. Power Corporation planned to use the satellites and programming used by its American associate, DirecTv Inc. That is why Power's subsidiary did not qualify for an exemption from licensing by the CRTC.

Unfortunately for Expressvu, Power DirecTv had a direct line to the Prime Minister. Recently, the Liberal government tabled two orders obliging all DTH companies to obtain a licence-orders that were tailored to meet the demands of Power DirecTv. These orders had the effect of taking the advantage away from Expressvu, a consortium that, unlike Power, had decided to offer its subscribers Canadian content.

I may recall that Expressvu planned to begin operations on September 1 this year. By taking this unprecedented action, the Liberal government blithely ignored the independence of a regulatory agency that also has quasi-judicial powers to enforce legislation and regulations pertaining to telecommunications.

This was a serious decision. In the process the Government of Canada adopted a measure that will take effect retroactively and thus have a negative impact on a Canadian corporation-a procedure that flies in the face of all the traditions of democratic countries. Furthermore, the government is sending a message to the entire DTH industry that it no longer intends to support the development of a Canadian industry.

If the legislation applied by the CRTC no longer serves to ensure the development of the Canadian communications industry, what purpose does it serve? The government must stop hiding and must make public its intentions-if indeed the legislation serves no purpose.

The worst part of all this is that it occurred because the president of Power Corporation had the good fortune-and there is no mistake there-to marry the daughter of the Prime Minister. The ties between Power Corporation and the Liberals do not stop there, as I will demonstrate.

Here are a few examples. The current president of Power DirecTv, Joel Bell, was Pierre Trudeau's economic adviser and was designated by him to launch Investment Canada. The president of Power Corporation, as the head of the China-Canada business council, organized the economic part of last November's trip by the Prime Minister and Team Canada to Asia. Former Prime Minister Trudeau continues to sit on the international board of Power Corporation.

In addition to being the Prime Minister's son-in-law, André Desmarais was his assistant in the early 1980s when he was Minister of Justice. John Rae, vice-president of Power Corporation, directed two leadership campaigns for the current Prime Minister and the 1993 federal election campaign for the Liberals, and so on and so forth.

The government's shady dealings do not, however, stop at this. While some are well married, others, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, have, it would seem, the incredible good fortune to find themselves at the site of one of the most spectacular financial deals of the century, claiming all the while that they were not involved. This story does not lack for interest either. It could even be made into an excellent sitcom with the film and television talents of our neighbours, the Americans.

A journalist with the Journal de Montréal even wrote last week that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, like the hero of the film Forrest Gump , has the ability to be involved almost incognito in the major events of his time.

Here are the facts. Three weeks ago, Edgar Bronfman Junior, an American citizen, and Seagram announced the acquisition of the American cinematographic giant MCA-a multi-billion dollar deal. This announcement was made in a hotel in Los Angeles. Well, surprise, surprise, the Minister of Canadian Heritage just happened to be in the room next door.

No problem up to this point, at least no apparent one. It must be said, however, that MCA owns 20 per cent of the shares of Cineplex, a Canadian company controlled by another branch of the Bronfman family. And it must be said that MCA wants to make off with Cineplex by amalgamating with Dallas-based Cinemark USA Inc.

Yet, the presence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in Los Angeles got me thinking. In fact, it appears that Edgar Bronfman Junior's attempt to convince the federal government that MCA is a Canadian company is working. He hopes that this will permit him to escape Investment Canada's scrutiny.

Need I remind you that the government's official policy is that companies dealing in cultural goods must be controlled by Canadian interests, which explains why Mr. Bronfman is trying to put on a Canadian identity.

After the astonishing performance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in California, Mr. Bronfman will certainly gain what he set out to gain by bringing the minister to Los Angeles in the first place. It should come as no surprise then that the population is becoming increasingly put off, especially young people. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I am the official opposition's youth critic. My meetings and discussions with young people have made it clear to me just how much they have lost trust in the political machine. Hardly surprising, given the topic of discussion over the past few weeks.

Along the same lines, there was the Pearson airport scandal over the previous government's privatization proposal. The Nixon report, a report regarding the privatization contract which was signed when the election campaign was in full swing, was handed to the Liberal government on November 29, 1993.

This report incriminated beyond a doubt the lobbyists, public servants and political assistants involved. There are several questions which remain to be answered regarding the identity of unethical lobbyists and the illegal or illegitimate conduct of public servants and political assistants in this case. Up to now, the government has preferred to turn a blind eye and to be closemouthed about the information contained in the report, even though these grim events compromise the credibility of our democratic institutions. The demands of the Bloc Quebecois to have the government shed some light on this pitiful remnant of the Conservative era have fallen on deaf ears, up to now.

Of course, the government will claim that it appointed an ethics counsellor to navigate the murky waters of its contacts with lobbyists. Unfortunately, when the heritage minister once again tripped up by writing to the CRTC, which comes under his authority, a letter supporting the licence application of one of his constituents, it took the Prime Minister three weeks to consult his ethics counsellor on this most sensitive issue.

By waiting so long, the Prime Minister himself proved how little importance he attached to his own ethics counsellor. Furthermore, he refused to reveal to the House the gist of the ethics counsellor's recommendations. Such lack of transparency can only lead people to believe that the government has something to hide. The Bloc Quebecois reviewed Bill C-43, an act aimed at monitoring the activities of lobbyists, in all good faith. A strong piece of legislation is essential to help our democratic institutions deal with the wave of public scepticism surrounding the affairs of government.

Even if Bill C-43 brings about some improvements in the somewhat incestuous relationship existing between elected officials and lobbyists, they fall short of the Liberals' commitments as stated in their own red book, the first one, the campaign one.

According to the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister, even if Bill C-43 had been in force at the time, it would not have helped Canadians to learn more about the troubling events surrounding the attempted privatization of Pearson airport.

The Bloc Quebecois presented interesting proposals giving more teeth to the bill in order to make the process more transparent and to restore public confidence in the management of the affairs of government. The issue of monitoring lobbyists should not be the sole responsibility of a political party, a Prime minister, or a government, because it belongs to an essential

democratic institution, the House of Commons, which is made up of representatives duly elected by the people.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing that the ethics counsellor be appointed for seven years by Parliament rather than by the party in power. This ethics counsellor, whose appointment is permanent, should be accountable to Parliament and should also have the authority to conduct public inquiries and report on his activities, findings, conclusions and reasons for his conclusions to the House of Commons.

In short, the ethics counsellor should be more than a toothless watchdog serving his political masters and therefore vulnerable to pressure. The Bloc Quebecois also asked that all classes of lobbyists be merged into a single one. We also asked that all lobbyists be subject to the same information disclosure rules.

This recommendation shows the constructive, non-partisan spirit that guided the Bloc Quebecois in its consideration of Bill C-43. In fact, this recommendation can be found in the June 1993 Holtmann report, which is the basis for the Liberal commitments regarding the use of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activities. That is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, do not understand the Liberals' refusal to implement this recommendation, which is included in their red book.

The strict disclosure provisions proposed in the Holtmann report would allow the population to find out quickly about a lobbyist's status. Since lobbyists try to influence public policy to further private interests, their activities and identities should be disclosed to the public.

I would now like to address the issue of lobbyists' contracts. This bill exempts in-house corporate lobbyists from reporting information on their contracts, although consultant lobbyists are required to report this information. Again, legislators should learn from the aborted attempt to privatize Pearson airport. If the bill is adopted without changes, businesses may be tempted to hire only in-house corporate lobbyists for megaprojects such as the privatization of Pearson airport.

Greater transparency in that regard would certainly be to their advantage, as it would put an end to biases against them as well as sometimes questionable speculations about their income. I would like to say, however, that the purpose of a lobbyists registration act is not to regulate the profession, although Parliament has the right, and even the duty, to supervise the functioning of the public administration that lobbyists try to influence.

The close ties connecting a large number of lobbyists to public officials, politicians and their political staff in the Pearson airport affair demonstrated the magnitude of the problem. Yet, the press was not allowed to disclose the troubling facts surrounding the Pearson airport deal to the general public until the privatization process was over. This sorry affair, which had repercussions on taxpayers, could have been avoided had legislation been in place to prevent the kind of uncontrolled skids that have sullied this privatization attempt.

It is therefore reasonable that those who seek to influence the actions of an administration should also be subject to public scrutiny. Let us be clear on one thing: in a democracy, it is normal for organizations, businesses and lobbies to solicit support from the elected representatives of the people. This is totally legitimate. What is unacceptable, however, is that individuals and businesses who can afford to do so get tax deductions for their lobbying expenses. This has the effect of disadvantaging even more those organizations which cannot afford to counteract the pressure brought to bear by businesses that can afford to hire lobbyists.

That is why we recommend that tax deductions for lobbying fees be abolished. Also missing in Bill C-43 is a provision forbidding lobbyists from circumventing the act. Here again, that provision was included in the Holtmann report which the Liberals appreciated so much when it was tabled.

The government should, if its commitments are sincere, include a clause to prevent avoidance of the law. Secret rules between lobbyists and public office holders are another problem. They contribute to the mistrust of Canadians toward elected representatives. That is why we ask the government to give the status of statutory instrument to the code of conduct of public office holders.

This debate is an opportunity for the Liberal government to demonstrate to the public that it really wants more openness in the dealings of lobbyists with the federal government. The recommendations of the Bloc are not meant to promote the image of a specific political party. They would be a great service rendered to all politicians in this House and to other public office holders.

This whole issue is too important to be left to partisan debate. It is the price we have to pay to restore public trust in our democratic institutions. Another great means to restore that trust would be to pass legislation on political party fundraising. That would contribute to renewed confidence in the operation of the House of Commons.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I think that the last part of his comment reflects the extensive parliamentary experience of the hon. member for Longueuil. And I will draw from this experience to raise the following because, after all, the numerous attempts of the Conservative government should be mentioned. The member for Longueuil, now in his third term, is aware of all the Conservatives' efforts in this respect, including at the time of the Meech Lake accord. The previous Conservative government may be criticized for many things, but certainly not for not having tried to reach an agreement. The same thing in Charlottetown.

Quebecers are aware of the fact that, over the past 30 years, numerous attempts were made to reform the federal system. It never worked, to the point that, weary of federal inaction, a number of members of Parliament-and the hon. member for Longueuil is one of them-resigned and, with the current Leader of the Opposition, they formed a new federal party, a party focusing on the only way to change anything to anything in the coming months or year: the Quebec referendum.

In this referendum debate, faced with all these failed attempts, empty promises and window dressing about possible administrative arrangements that never materialize-or when they do materialize, it is because the federal government acted arbitrarily and unilaterally as usual-the people of Quebec will realize that they have no choice but to vote "yes" in the upcoming referendum on Quebec sovereignty.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the invitation extended by the hon. member for Outremont, but I prefer to keep my comments relevant to this debate, because today we are discussing a motion tabled by the official opposition. I think it would be very useful to recall what the motion says.

That this House denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere consultant by imposing on them new national standards for all social programs through the introduction of the Canada Social Transfer, which will enable the federal government to interfere even more in such areas as health, post-secondary education and social assistance, all of which come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

We are talking about national standards in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Finance keeps repeating that he wants this program to be more flexible, to provide greater flexibility than before, but the fact remains that the same national standards prevail.

To illustrate my point, I will quote from Bill C-76 which implements certain provisions in the budget. In section 13, Part V, we read the following:

-a Canada Health and Social Transfer may be provided to a province for a fiscal year for the purposes of- (b) maintaining the national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, including those respecting public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility, extra-billing and user charges; and (c) maintaining national standards, where appropriate, in the operation of other social programs.

I would also like to recall what was said by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, when he explained that by combining all three programs into a single consolidated block transfer referred to as the Canada social transfer, beginning in 1996-97, the provinces, and I quote: "-will now be able to design more innovative social programs, programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules. However"-and this is particularly important-"flexibility does not mean a free-for-all. There are national goals and principles we believe must still apply, and which the vast majority of Canadian support".

I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which travelled across Canada last fall and was one of the members who visited every province. I listened to the testimony of all the groups that appeared before the committee,

a total of 1,200. It is not true that everyone across Canada wants national standards for education and social programs.

In Quebec, there was a general consensus against this principle. For instance, for the second time this year, I think it was on February 2, a unanimous resolution was passed by the National Assembly. Not just the Parti Quebecois but the Liberal Party as well supported it. The resolution was moved by the leader of l'Action démocratique, who asked the federal government to withdraw from manpower training. This has been said time and time again, and the government is still trying to give the impression that it intends to be more flexible.

I may recall that Bill C-76 does not contain all the measures that are to be implemented. Other legislation was passed previously. Bill C-28, for instance, which was about financial assistance for students and was passed on June 23, 1994. What did this bill provide? It was supposed to provide for two things, basically. First of all, for appointing the appropriate authority that may designate institutions of learning that may receive financial assistance from the government. What did it do? Instead of leaving this authority with the provinces, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council as before, it decided that the Minister of Human Resources Development would determine the appropriate authority. First point.

Second point. There were new conditions regarding the right to withdraw with full financial compensation. In the past it was automatic. However, the bill which precedes this one, but which remains in effect with the government's national standard, provided that Quebec, or any other province wishing to take advantage of this right to withdraw, had to propose a program exactly the same as the federal program on all counts, or receive no funding. Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cited a series of cases in which the Canada assistance plan did not fund programs, among others, the current PWA program in Quebec.

He listed seven or eight others and talked of the current situation, saying it would likely change with the amendments not yet officially tabled and whose legal scope was still unknown. What we are saying is that the federal government said very clearly in its budget, and in this bill, as well, that it wants to pay less and that it wants to transfer part of its deficit to the provinces, but that it wants to continue to impose conditions. This is rare. It would be normal to expect that certain conditions would be dropped. This, however, seems out of the question.

At first glance, when we reduce the expenses in the Canada social transfer and combine the three programs, if we take things literally and dropped at least 11 clauses from the bill, which contains other provisions, national standards, what would this mean for the reduction provided for in the budget? It means letting three sectors fight for the same money. This is not really acceptable. At least set guidelines and let provinces do their own thing.

Earlier, I felt like putting this to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who seemed almost to be talking about heaven. In talking about the current situation and federal flexibility, he almost seemed to be talking about heaven. Everything was fine. What is the real situation, however? For a year now, no Minister of Education in Quebec or in the other provinces has wanted to support the federal program of the Minister of Human Resources Development. No Minister of Health has participated in the forum on health. No provincial minister responsible for social assistance has wanted to take part, because they find the federal program unacceptable.

Is this flexible federalism? Is this the flexible federalism that is so fine, so positive, that none of the provincial authorities want to even take part in it? No, this is simply window dressing. As long as we have these national standards and we do not see the amendments that the Minister of Finance alluded to this morning, as long as the federal government does not withdraw entirely from areas of strictly provincial jurisdiction in health, education and social assistance and does not give the provinces the tax points that would allow them to manage their own programs, we will not be able to talk about flexible federalism.

Having another minute to go, I will talk about another situation. We talk about flexible federalism, but in actual fact there were enormous cuts which mean that 5,000 to 6,000 households more per month are currently requesting social assistance. Why? Because last year, in Quebec, on April 17 precisely, $2.5 billion were cut from unemployment insurance. The period of entitlement to benefits was reduced and that has meant 40 per cent more welfare cases in Quebec.

Is that going to give Canadians and Quebecers greater confidence in the flexibility of the federal government? No. I repeat, what the federal government wants is to pay less and to require more through its national standards.

[2002 Olympic Games, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not resist pulling another dirty trick on Quebec at the convention of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada last weekend.

Showing incredible contempt, Quebec's political godfather in the federal cabinet said that the referendum report was hurting Quebec City's chances of hosting the Olympic Games in 2002, even though both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister told us that all Canadian diplomats were actively supporting Quebec City's bid to the International Olympic Committee.

We hope that the Canadian embassies and consulates responsible for promoting Quebec City's bid will do their job without paying attention to their boss's comments.

After the Prime Minister said that Quebec City was prevented from hosting the G-7 summit because the Canadian flag does not fly in front of its city hall, the federal government is once again resorting to threats in the matter of the 2002 Olympic Games.

[Interpretation Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-254 deals with children's rights. I am glad to participate in this debate as the official opposition's critic for training and young people's issues to support the good intentions the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing expressed regarding children's rights in his private member's bill. I find it a little sad that there will only be a debate, and no vote, on his bill.

With issues such as sexual exploitation, child labour, health and education, social assistance, special care for handicapped children and especially when we consider that the bill is based on a convention signed by Canada and on a declaration of rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is a little surprising to see that the Liberal government, represented by its parliamentary secretary, has reservations about a bill of this kind. After all, it deals with rights which are, all told, quite basic.

The official opposition does have reservations, however, about certain rights falling under provincial jurisdiction. Take education and health, for example, over which the provinces have exclusive power, as you know. This does not stop us, of course, from agreeing in principle with the provisions of the bill, since the Bloc Quebecois is clearly very much in favour of giving children the best education and health care possible.

It is all well and good to wish to implement the principles of a bill based on a declaration of rights passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1959, as I said earlier. All well and good, but how does one go about really implementing such a measure?

I will now quote what the current Minister of Human Resources Development said on November 24, 1989, when he was an opposition member, regarding a private member's bill which also dealt with children's rights.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Winnipeg, said the following: "I ask members to shed the speeches prepared by their departments. Open your eyes and your hearts a little, start looking at the reality of what is going on, and begin to talk about what is the real vocabulary in this country. A day does not go by in this House of Commons that we do not hear ministers or members of the Conservative regime talk about the deficit. That has become the icon of our times: the deficit. I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit in this country-" and at the time, he said the real deficit was "-those one million kids in poverty". He went on to say: "That is where we should invest. That is where the real tragedy lies. Ten years from now, these children should be our teachers, business people, politicians and journalists. They will never get there because they will never be able to get started. When one million children live in poverty, that is a considerable loss. That is the big deficit we have to deal with. But nothing is being done to solve this serious problem". This was in 1989.

But what about children today, in 1995? How are they doing? I would like to quote the figures in the latest report from the National Council of Welfare for 1993, in Canada. What does it say? It says that in Canada 1,415,000 children live in poverty, which means that 20.8 per cent of Canadian children are living below the poverty line. There were one million in 1989, and now there are 1,415,000.

In Quebec, 348,000 children live below the poverty line, which means 20.9 per cent or slightly more than the national average. So the situation is getting worse instead of better. If we take the figures for 1981, we see that, since that time, the number of poor children has doubled. In 1981, Statistics Canada set this number at 700,000. This is incredible!

So if we have poor children in this country, it is because their parents are poor. There are no poor children without poor parents. So what has the Minister of Human Resources Development done since he was appointed a year and a half ago to remedy the situation, the same man who, in a speech in November 1989, condemned the Conservative government's failure to act in this respect? He said we should drop all our prepared speeches and start speaking from the heart and do something about the problem.

We saw the minister make cuts in unemployment insurance totalling $2.5 billion, so that the Minister of Finance could balance his latest budget, meaning that the budget would come in right on target. This was done by cutting unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, do you really think that by cutting unemployment insurance, by hitting the families of the unemployed, we have helped to reduce child poverty in Canada? Everyone knows the answer to that.

Was that the end of it? It was not just $2.5 billion. He also announced it would be $2.5 billion annually, in other words $7.5 billion over three years. That was just the first year. So what does the Minister of Finance have in store for this year?

Additional cuts which may get worse, starting with next year's budget. So we may be talking about a cut in social programs totalling $15 billion since the Liberal government came to power, in other words, the $7.5 billion that have already been announced and another $7.5 billion in the future.

Social programs include more than just unemployment insurance. There is also, of course, the federal contribution to welfare which may be as much as 50 per cent. Will cutting and freezing transfer payments to the provinces for social welfare financing help reduce child poverty in Canada?

I think the answer is obviously no. There are other serious situations. In the end, however, many children are poor because of the increasing number of single parent families here. In Canada, 453,000 children live below the poverty line because their mother is the head of a single parent household. Ninety per cent of children living with single mothers are living below the poverty line.

Worse yet, increasing numbers of couples with children are finding themselves living off only one salary. For those earning only minimum wage, the breadwinner would have to work 73 hours a week just to stay above the poverty line. Does this situation indicate an improvement in the child poverty situation? No, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, beyond the speeches and beyond the principles and good intentions of the hon. member presenting this motion, there is the matter of applicability and implementation and, in the end, of the government's political will to really work to reduce child poverty.

I would like to talk to you about a situation in Quebec. Particular efforts have been made in Quebec to protect young people. There are rehabilitation services. When I was a member of the committee on human resources development, I noted that, in many provinces, people asked us about services available in Quebec, which seemed to spark some jealousy in certain provinces. In a way, I say so much the better. True, Quebecers are very proud of their social programs in general.

Many people talk about the rights of children. Of course, I agree with them but I think that we should start right here in Canada and in our democratic societies to teach our children about their responsibilities with regard to the rights of others, particularly the people in their families, their communities and their schools, and their responsibilities to themselves. We should make every effort to ensure that our children can improve their knowledge while learning how to exercise their right to criticize, even at a young age, public policies in Canada and everywhere else.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on March 30, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question on the effectiveness of his Youth Strategy. Of course, since his answer was not satisfactory and contradicted his own department's assessment of his own program, I would like to get back to this matter. Allow me to reiterate my quotes, taken from page 2-41 of the Estimates for the Department of Human Resources Development.

The first one stated that program evaluations revealed no significant improvements in terms of job opportunities compared to what could have been anticipated without the Youth Strategy program. The second quote, a little further along, indicated that the Canada-New Brunswick Youth Strategy also increased participants' dependency on social assistance. Still further along, the Strategy is described as not obviously affecting dependency on social assistance in Newfoundland. Participants and non-participants alike were more dependent on social assistance after the program. Considerable money was spent.

For example, the Canada-New Brunswick agreement provides that $120 million will be spent. The Youth Strategy program in Newfoundland will spend $56.6 million. If I have the time, I would like to give you some statistics for Quebec to show that young people's dependency on social assistance increased not only in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I will give some statistics for Quebec.

In 1991, Quebec had 116,000 welfare recipients under 30 years of age. In 1995, we now have 140,000 young people on welfare, of whom 74,000 are under 25, if we want to correlate this with the figures from Statistics Canada used by the Department of Human Resources Development. I find it hard to understand, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will be more persuasive than his minister, that although according to a document prepared by the department, an internal assessment of this program shows there has been an increase in the number of young people on welfare, the minister says it is the best program in the world. I find that hard to believe.

There is also the fact that last year, we had cuts in unemployment insurance totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C-17 increased the waiting period for unemployment insurance benefits, reduced the benefits themselves, and also reduced the benefit period. As a result, there has been a significant increase, in Quebec and other provinces as well, in the number of people who go from unemployment insurance to welfare. The most frequent casualties of this situation are young people, because they have 40 per cent of the insecure jobs in Canada and are the first to be unemployed, and thus the first casualties of cuts in unemployment insurance. Their only alternative is welfare. I wish the parliamentary secretary would be a little more forthcoming than his minister about the assessment of this program.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We know the Chief Whip for the government is quick on his feet but I think he knows perfectly well that we cannot refer in this House to the absence of another member, even in jest.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe talk about possible cuts to the funds given to what he calls interest groups. However, his list of organizations contained a large number of what I would call community groups, which the hon. member urged to put greater reliance on fundraising. I feel that he is very sincere and that is why I will ask the following question. At the

very end of his speech, he addressed the issue of political party financing.

As you know, political parties in Quebec are currently financed only through individual donations, although in Canada, any corporation, union or group has the right to contribute to the financing of federal political parties. They make fairly large contributions. However, we in the Bloc Quebecois have decided not to rely on donations from corporations, businesses and special interest groups, because of Quebec's Bill 2 respecting political party financing as it was then called.

To follow his reasoning, would the hon. member agree at some point to a review of the legislation regarding political party financing in Canada in order to restrict such financing to individuals?

You also know that, at the federal level for example, unlike the situation in Quebec-I am not as familiar with the situation elsewhere-even individuals are allowed to claim tax credits of 75 per cent, which means that the federal government gives $3 for every dollar given by an individual to a political party. Does the hon. member think we could start with political party financing in order to set an example? We should at least restrict financing to individuals rather than to community interest groups which, hit by government funding cuts, also have to deal with reduced social services, leading to an increase in the number of clients.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the advisability of a law restricting political party financing to individuals in order to avoid the abuses that may exist at this time.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since we did not have time to discuss it, and my colleague for Drummond is the health critic, I would like to ask her what she thinks of the absence of the provincial governments from the national forum on health.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cumberland-Colchester spoke about the changes to freight subsidies in eastern Canada. The way she presented it, in a very positive manner, is of course self-interested. However, I must say that this measure changes the whole picture.

Last week, there was a debate on railways. Now, they want to change the shipping assistance program and focus more on road transportation of goods. We must realize that in the past, many businesses had their goods shipped by rail. What did this mean? It meant that they avoided making abusive use of road transportation which, we know, is bad for roads at certain times.

It is all very well to talk about a form of flexible federalism because money is transferred to the provinces so that they can carry out public infrastructure projects. However after a few years, when the roads are a mess, everyone knows that it will be up to the provinces to repair and maintain them with their own funds. I would like to hear her comments on this. She can contradict me if she can. I believe that it is a short sighted view. It harms rail transportation which was appreciated by many.

The need to build a railway was even the pretext used to create the Canadian confederation and what do we have? All of a sudden, in order to control its expenditures, the federal government transfers an equivalent amount on the short term from the railways to road transportation or to businesses. I would like to hear what the member has to say about this transfer and about offloading such expenditures onto the provinces.