Jean-Paul Marchand

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the way the federal government used the unemployment insurance fund is tantamount to a fraud. It is a fraud to use this fund for purposes other than what it is usually used for. It is a misappropriation of public funds. The money employees and employers put in the unemployment insurance fund is supposed to be used for unemployment insurance purposes. It is not all that complicated. The unemployed are either compensated by directly receiving unemployment insurance benefits or by taking part in training programs. This is why the unemployment insurance fund was set up in the first place.

When the money is used for purposes other than to help the unemployed, it is called fraud. It is dishonest. We are lying to the Canadian citizens, to employees and employers. They are asked to contribute to a fund which is not used to meet their needs, so it is a misappropriation of funds. I do not think we can be any clearer over the fact that the government is guilty of fraud, since it is misappropriating public funds. We, in Quebec, are at least honest enough to avoid all the hypocrisy shown here by the current Liberal government.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the latest federal budget, which smells suspiciously like an election budget, because the measures it contains are not particularly heavy or harsh. We could even say the budget was a sort of pacifier for Canadians, except perhaps for the cuts to the dairy subsidies-a flagrant injustice to Quebecers and milk producers.

Apart from this injustice, the latest budget could be called an electoral budget to mollify Canadians, in preparation for elections this fall or next spring perhaps. The most difficult measures have already been put into effect, in the previous two budgets. When the Liberal government was elected three years ago, the government was widely known to have a big problem, that of the debt and the deficit. They have reached $550 billion and have even been predicted by department and government statistics to go over $600 billion by the year 2000.

It is a huge problem. It is Canada's major problem, which the Liberal government undertook to resolve. It is so serious that Canada has the highest debt in the world in terms of its gross domestic product apart from Italy. Canada has already been warned of the precariousness of its position by the International Monetary Fund. There are leaks everywhere. Technically, we could even say that Canada is bankrupt, so to speak.

This is all to say that the problem of the deficit and the debt is extremely complex, severe and serious. What have the Liberal members done since their election three years ago? Not much. They could have done a lot. They could, for example, have reduced the number of senior officials, because there are a lot of them and their salaries are very high and their expense accounts substantial. There is a lot of waste here.

The government has decided to reduce the number of public servants by 45,000, mostly at the lower and middle levels. Normally, some 15,000 public servants retire every year. This certainly does not qualify as a major effort to reduce the size of the public service. The federal government could have cut its spending or at least contained its losses.

As a former member of the public works committee, I know that there are many loopholes for federal funds to slip through, contracts being one of them. Some $10 billion a year is spent on contracts. There is a great deal of abuse and waste in this area. So far, the government has not done much to close these loopholes.

Even the auditor general's numerous recommendations were not taken into consideration in the government's previous budget measures. Senate spending was not cut. Senators' pay could have been reduced to $1 a year rather than the thousands of dollars they receive for doing nothing. The Senate costs Canadians $50 million. This is a rather shameless waste of Canadian taxpayers' money.

The government could have made significant cuts to its defence spending. DND's budget exceeds $12 billion a year. The Somalia affair and other recent events clearly show that DND is not the most effective of federal government departments. Had the Liberal government been seriously committed to reducing the federal debt and deficit, it could certainly have cut the defence budget by several billions of dollars.

It could have tightened up tax measures for corporations. As we know, tax evasion in Canada represents between $3 billion and $4 billion. Corporations shelter their profits in countries like the Caribbean islands to avoid paying taxes. Canada's losses due to tax evasion are estimated at $3 billion to $4 billion. The federal government did not act in this area either.

Another option would have been for the government to crack down harder on the banks. Last year alone, banks made $5.2 billion in profits, record profits, but this government, the Liberal government, collected from the six chartered banks something like $100 million over two years, which represents less than one per cent of their net profits.

The government could also have imposed restrictions or made other changes to family trusts. Again, this is an especially interesting case, in that family trusts benefit the wealthy, Canadian families which are fabulously rich. The Minister of Finance himself is one of the fabulously rich Canadians who can invest their net profits in family trusts to avoid paying taxes for generations and generations. Because of such trusts Canada's wealthiest families avoid paying taxes altogether.

It is estimated that taxation is avoided on nearly $100 billion through family trusts. The federal government could have collected taxes on family trusts to help resolve its very serious debt and deficit problem.

I have just listed nine measures this government could have taken to reduce its debt, but it did not see fit to act in those areas. Instead, the government decided to act in two well-known areas. It is worth repeating because it reflects the basic thinking of this Liberal government. It very clearly shows that, in Canada, the rich, the wealthy are spared while the most vulnerable are hard hit.

The only two measures taken by this government to reduce its deficit and its debt were to cut transfer payments to the provinces by a few billion dollars, some $7 billion, by the year 2000. As we know, these transfer cuts will affect education by reducing funds available for education purposes. This means that Canadian youth are directly affected. Health transfers are cut, which means that the sick will be affected.

The other measure soon to be announced concerns changes, cuts to old age pensions, which, as we already know, will affect mostly senior women. Cutting transfers to the provinces is a measure designed to leave the provinces holding the baby by giving the impression that they are the ones making cuts.

The measure to be taken in another area, namely unemployment insurance, is perhaps the most outrageous measure this government has ever taken. It is actually asking the unemployed to contribute to the debt reduction effort. Nothing less. Since 1990, the federal government has not contributed a single dollar to the UI fund. The money comes from the contributions of workers and employers. The federal government does not contribute one penny to the fund.

Last year, the federal government took out about $5 billion from the UI fund. It will do the same this year and next year. Over that three-year period, $15 billion will have been taken out of the UI fund and used to reduce the federal government's debt.

This is a disgrace because it is basically a misappropriation of funds. The money in the UI fund should be used to provide training programs for the jobless, but the government has other ideas. This Liberal government is dishonest to the point of reducing the amount that the unemployed can receive, setting tougher eligibility criteria so that fewer people will qualify for UI benefits and, in addition to that, misappropriating money from the UI fund and using it to reduce the debt.

This is a dishonest and unfair measure which is tantamount to a fraud. The government is defrauding those who contributed to the fund, namely workers and employers. It is purely and simply a fraud. That money was to be used for the benefit of the unemployed and to provide training for workers. Instead, this government is using it to reduce its debt.

Of all the initiatives that it could have taken to reduce its debt and its deficit, the government opted for two measures which mainly seek to get money from the most vulnerable members of our society, namely the unemployed, the sick, young people and women, while protecting rich people, family trusts, banks and corporations.

In conclusion, this series of measures spread over a three-year period clearly show the spirit of that Liberal government, which seeks to spare the rich and to hit the most vulnerable ones in our society.

[Official Languages, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the International Development Research Centre, which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, apparently decided, recently, to stop publishing the French edition of its magazine Explore , which, for reasons of economy, would only be available in English, from now on.

How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the fact that an agency for which he is responsible is contravening the Official Languages Act, and does he intend to reverse that decision as soon as possible? If he does not, it is clear that francophones will once again be the ones affected by federal cuts.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services, November 27th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-52, in Clause 20, be amended: a ) by replacing line 38, on page 6, with the following:

"20. (1) Subject to any regulations that; and"; and b ) by adding after line 4, on page 7, the following:

"(2) Within the first five days of every month or, if the House of Commons is not then sitting, within the first three days next thereafter that the House is sitting, the Minister shall cause to be laid before the House copies of all contracts entered into under subsection (1) since copies of contracts entered into under subsection (1) were last laid before the House.

(3) The copies of contracts laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (2) shall stand permanently referred to the committee established to consider matters relating to government operations."

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-52, in Clause 20, be amended: a ) by replacing line 38, on page 6, with the following:

"20. (1) Subject to any regulations that; and"; and b ) by adding after line 4, on page 7, the following:

"(2) Within the first five days of every month, the Minister shall cause to be sent to every member of the House of Commons a list of the contracts entered into under subsection (1) in the preceding month that relate to a corporation or a firm a ) having a place of business in the member's constitutency; or b ) providing products or services pursuant to the contract in the member's constituency.''

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to clause 20 is once again an attempt by the official opposition to provide greater transparency in the activities of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

We certainly understand that the Department of Public Works and Government Services has an important mandate, which is to award contracts. However, we also know that there is a lot of patronage related to that process, and that is something that can be very costly. As you know, the federal government contracts out almost $10 billion worth of services every year. The committee which reviewed this bill was told at one point by Treasury Board that these contracts amounted to only $5 billion. Then we learned that it might closer to $7 billion. Now we know that, for all intents and purposes, these contracts amount to some $10 billion, and not all of them are necessarily justified.

Again, we were told by Treasury Board officials that, while the government is in favour of relying more on the contracting out process, as confirmed from year to year, particularly since the Liberals took office, and while that practice has indeed increased, Treasury Board has not set up any written assessment system to effectively show that this process was good for the government, in terms of money saved and increased efficiency.

Just recently, the committee heard some Treasury Board officials who showed us, through their studies, that the total value of non-competitive contracts was greater than that of competitive contracts. Just think. Contracts under $30,000 awarded by the government are not subject to a bidding process, nor is any assessment done by any independent agency or department.

In other words, all contracts worth less than $30,000 can be awarded to anyone, without any bidding. These are non-competi-

tive contracts and, as I said, their total value is greater than that of all the contracts which are subject to the competitive bidding process.

I think this is outrageous, because we know perfectly well that the present government has monstrous debts. It seems to me that a responsible government would want to use every means at its disposal to ensure that these contracts with agencies that do business with the government are honest and efficient.

However, there seems to be no desire to take any initiative in this respect. The motion on clause 20 is quite straightforward. Its purpose is to ensure that all contracts entered into by the government with outside firms are published. It is certainly not too much to ask the government to publish contracts, if only to inform members of contracts entered into in their ridings. This is elementary.

It is not a matter of cost either, although the government keeps saying it would be extremely costly for the Department of Public Works and Government Services to table in the House copies of contracts entered into with outside firms. It is certainly not too costly, since the Quebec government already does this.

This mechanism already exists. Clearly, if contracts awarded by the government were published, this would be one more way to monitor the system, so there would be less patronage involved in awarding these contracts. Members of Parliament and others with access to this information would be able to draw attention to the many cases of abuse that would be easy to detect.

However, the government will not budge, it continues its policy of concealment and shows no desire to be transparent. As far as we are concerned, the kind of information we want is elementary. We want to know. This is nothing out of the ordinary. We would have this information if the government had the political will to inform the general public, but we are not even asking that. We just want members of Parliament to be informed, as is the case in Quebec. The government has rejected our request. In fact, in the past two years we have filed several requests with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for access to this information, and we were turned down many times.

In my opinion, this refusal on the part of government to make contracts entered into with outside firms public seems to be a desire to conceal information. It seems to me that it is not a desire for transparency, and the fact that waste and patronage may be at a very high level in this government perhaps explains why access to this information is being refused. Not only does this denote a denial of transparency and information, but it is also an obvious reflection of the desire, or lack of concern, on the part of the Government to try to really reduce waste and misspending when it comes to contracts with companies outside the government.

Where subcontracting is concerned, in connection with contracts of under $30,000 with no tendering process, I can personally tell you that I have met a number of people who are familiar with all the tricks used within the public service, all those readily implemented tricks that can be used to get impressive amounts out of the government, under the pretext that they are non-tendered, non-competitive contracts. Shockingly high amounts have been wasted once again by these departments.

All that we in the official opposition want is to be responsible, to set up an initiative which will ensure greater transparency by enabling us to obtain the necessary information to denounce abuses and waste. This, I feel, is elementary. These are things to which one ought to be entitled.

It seems to me that the government itself, if it were really concerned about transparency and reducing waste, would have brought in modifications to ensure that those involved were better informed. It seems to me that the government is refusing things which are self-evident.

To my eyes, this is an extremely worrisome action. We can understand why the government is not reducing its deficit. We can understand that the debt is going to continue to increase. The economists are even predicting that the debt will exceed $800 billion by the year 2000. This situation is cause for alarm.

With this, the government would have the opportunity to implement measures to limit these abuses. It could even go so far as to adopt an act, as my colleague from Portneuf has said, to protect public servants reporting waste within government, or to propose bills to protect private businesses who have dealings with the government, so that they too may report wastage, rigged contracts, abuses and so on. But the government does not do so.

In closing, I would like to express my wish that the government adopt this motion so as to guarantee greater transparency in contracts outside government, thus reducing waste in Department of Public Works and Government Services contracts.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is proposed essentially to allow the government to be more open in its method of setting the price of goods and services. Our suggestion, basically, is that all changes involving the price of supplies, the awarding of contracts or almost anything else be published in the Gazette and even in daily newspapers.

Clause 17 in fact gives the government or the minister the right to change the charges for passports, for example, or for any other service the government supplies at the present time. The minister would be entitled under this section to change the set charges without notifying the House or the public in advance. All we want

is for all changes to be published in the Canada Gazette and in newspapers, so that people are informed and the government is transparent.

The non-transparency of government can be seen in a number of areas. Moreover, the government does not even listen to the suggestions made by the general public. For example, the preceeding clause, 16, contains the same problem as 17: lack of transparency or not being attuned to the concerns of the general public.

Where clause 16 is concerned, it is even more flagrant. It is not solely a question of publication, but is really a question of respecting private enterprise. The committee even heard representations from the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers. Engineering representatives joined with more than 12 other Canadian organizations to oppose clause 16. In fact, that group of associations was a coalition of 12 of the most important organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, the architects' association, boards of trade, the federation of independent business, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, and so forth. These 12 associations represent 280,000 Canadian companies opposed to clause 16. They were violently opposed to clause 16 because, with it, the minister assigns himself the power to compete with the private business sector, particularly in the areas of engineering and architecture.

In my opinion, this is an abuse of power. The hon. member for St. Boniface said that the minister had no intention of competing with the private sector.

However, in a letter sent to committee members, the minister himself stressed they did not intend to bid the private sector out of the market, but he did say they intended to compete. This is in fact abuse of power, because not only does the government not respect the opinion of those concerned, as in the case of clause 17, but it acts as though nothing was wrong.

After all the representations made in committee, the government fails to act on this request by the coalition of Canadian associations. The hon. member for St. Boniface said that they set up a committee to review this sector, at least as far as competition between the government and the private sector on engineering and architecture projects was concerned, but this is just another phoney committee. The federal government is very good at setting up committees that do nothing, know nothing, hear nothing and see nothing.

The committee was set up nearly a year ago. Can you believe it? In fact, the president of the coalition, Pierre Franche, told me they had yet to meet. Imagine, they have not discussed the problem. In fact, he said there was absolutely no hope for any changes, especially in clause 16. That is pretty obvious, because today in the House, the government wants to adopt the same clause tabled a year ago, without any changes.

This is not openness, and this is not necessarily listening to the general public. We can hardly say this is a government that is working very hard to meet the needs and deal with the concerns of Canadian citizens or associations. They are doing nothing. Zilch. Not one word changed.

In fact, the government's proposal concerning clause 16 is to maintain all the elements that have raised the concern of these 12 Canadian associations which represent 280,000 companies in Canada. That is a lot of people. The government did not budge and insists on maintaining this clause, while saying, of course, that no, this will not necessarily increase the minister's powers: no, the minister will not act in such a way as to establish competition with private businesses; and no, we will be on our best behaviour. This power, accorded the minister under this clause in the bill would not be abused.

Well, if government members are honest, candid, and really up front, as we hope they are, if indeed the minister would not abuse this increased power, if indeed he would not use it and if 200,000 companies in Canada oppose this clause, let the government abolish it. It should abolish it. Why are they keeping it saying they will not use it, despite the opposition to it? If they keep it, it is because, hypocritically, they want to use it.

Obviously, the government would not hang onto increased power knowing that it would not use it, despite the opposition expressed by so many responsible companies and organizations across Canada. It wants this power. And this, basically, is why the government is keeping the clause intact. What also concerns me is that any engineering industry and architectural expertise we may have in Canada is mostly concentrated in Quebec.

Engineering firms have developed admirably in Quebec. The industry is very important to Quebec. It is one of the most important ones given all the hydroelectric projects and the consultation development done.

Is the federal government positioning itself to set up coalitions with certain private corporations in these sectors? Does it want to set up coalitions that may compete with and even destroy other engineering firms? Could this lead to patronage? Is there a possibility of collusion to support certain policies rather than others?

This provision opens the door to abuse, to competition between the government and the private sector. I find this extremely dangerous. We have seen, across Canada and around the world, several cases in which competition between government and private enterprise is never good. This morning, we talked about Canada Post, a crown corporation that competes with the private sector in the area of courier services and mail advertising delivery, for example. This is costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money. Do

you know why the federal government is running such a huge debt and deficit? It is because it is not really dealing with this.

I basically think that clauses 16 and 17 are unfortunate. Again, the main purpose of our motion is to ensure maximum openness, so that the general public will know exactly what the government is doing, because between you and me, Mr. Speaker, this government does not always act honestly and in a straightforward manner.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services, November 27th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill c-52, in Clause 17, be amended: a ) by replacing line 5, on page 6, with the following:

"17.(1) The Minister may, subject to any regu-"; and b ) by adding after line 16, on page 6, the following:

"(2) Before any fees or charges are fixed under subsection (1) or increased, the Minister shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer than two leading newspapers in each province a notice clearly indicating a ) the products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or use of facilities provided under subsection (1); and b ) the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased pursuant to paragraph (1)(a).''

[Financial Institutions Act, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before question period in connection with Bill C-100, I find this bill unfortunate for Quebec, because it is an attempt to set up institutions that already exist in Quebec and work very well there.

I said that the great misfortune of the Canadian federal system is this business of duplication and that a policy of decentralization had to be implemented as quickly as possible. The people of Quebec, like elsewhere across the country, have spoken in favour of more decentralization.

Here is the government introducing Bill C-100, which goes against the trend and the wish expressed by so many people. Common sense itself dictates the need for more decentralization in Canada. Quebec has already suffered considerably from the wastage caused by departmental duplication. I was saying that, according to certain studies submitted to the Bélanger-Campeau commission, including the one done by Pierre Fortin, duplication cost Quebec alone some $3 billion a year. This money is wasted. This is pure and simple loss. Not only is it money lost, but it means departments and governments are unable to function and to provide people with quality services.

It seems to me that, if I were in government, and I wanted to save this great and fine country of Canada, I would undertake to decentralize. It seems that it is just good common sense for the government to decentralize; it is obvious. If only the people in government would listen, it could be done. They would understand that, in fact, decentralization is the only way to save the country. I repeat: centralization, the federal government's tendency to take over powers and to duplicate services already available provincially, is costing the Government of Quebec $3 billion. Studies have proven this; these are not groundless allegations.

Just in the area of transport and communications, there has been much talk-call it dispute if you want-much debate about the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments. It is estimated that, in the area of transport and communications alone, the shortfall is about $233 million. If the responsibility for transport and communications came under only one level of government instead of being shared by two governments, hence duplication, the Government of Quebec would end up with $233 million more in its pocket. So, there is a shortfall in that regard.

It is the same thing with taxes. If there were only one government collecting taxes in Quebec, this would generate $299 million in savings. In other words, this much, $299 million, is lost, squandered, because of duplication and overlap between our respective departments.

I could give you more examples, with respect to regional development and business assistance for instance. In fact, Bill C-100 is brought forward under the pretext of providing assistance to businesses, when there are well established new business start-up services in Quebec to assist small business. Why more duplication? Why establish more agencies and institutions that we already have at the provincial level?

Same thing with health and culture. The worst of all, of course, is manpower training, an area where the federal government is essentially copying the services provided by the province, duplicating programs. This duplication is apparently responsible for a $250 million shortfall in Quebec and, again, not only is money being lost, squandered, but manpower training is not being conducted.

We are told that, in Quebec, thousands of jobs may have remained vacant because this training was not provided. In many cases, these jobs require special technological training. Since this training was not provided because of intergovernmental duplication, the people who should be holding these jobs end up either on unemployment or on welfare because of the government, again, because of this duplication.

This creates not only deplorable waste but also a great deal of poverty. In fact, this keeps a number of people unemployed and on social assistance. Of course, the federal government does not have a good reputation in this area so far. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that since the last budget the federal government has introduced a whole series of measures to make cuts in unemployment insurance, in the health sector, in education, and even in old age pensions, which all amount to rather virulent attacks against the most vulnerable in our society.

Allow me to quote from an article by Jean-Robert Sansfaçon that appeared in the May 2 edition of Le Devoir : ``To this day, the only result of the federal government's social reforms has been to move people from unemployment to welfare rolls. Yet, one does not have to be a separatist to know that the provinces are in a better position than the central government to find the solutions that can best meet the needs of their people''.

In fact, we should all learn this lesson, which is constantly repeated in this House. The lesson is that the provincial government is often in a better position to fulfil certain functions, as in the case of financial institutions. Unfortunately, Bill C-100 would put in place institutions that already exist at the provincial level. What a waste.

[Bank Act, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill C-100.

I feel obliged to say that this is yet another unfortunate federal initiative which, despite some slight impression that they are willing to help small business and create employment, is only intended, when it comes right down to it-at least in the eyes of a member from Quebec-to increase the powers of control and centralization over certain of the country's financial institutions.

The truth at the heart of the matter is that assigning powers to a superintendent of financial institutions under Bill C-100 increases his powers. It also allows Ottawa to take action more promptly when financial institutions are in difficulty, and here again, in the eyes of a member from Quebec, this is merely a move to increase the power in the hands of the federal government, since we in Quebec already have institutions in place which do the job and, what is more, do it very efficiently.

The Commission québécoise des valeurs mobilières is already in place and working very well. We have an inspector general of financial institutions who carries out the same duties Bill C-100 now wants to give to a superintendent at the federal level.

The game is therefore, of course, once again to beef up the federal government's power, the power of centralization, unfortunately at great cost, since once again there is overlap and duplication. Duplication is part and parcel of the history of Canada, the waste of having a federal department doing something, and a provincial department doing the same thing. There is a virtually endless list of examples of this fundamental problem of Canadian federalism, which essentially seems to me to want to monopolize powers in Ottawa, although there are already competent institutions on the provincial level.

This bill is, I repeat, not the sole example of this logic, or political attitude, within the federal government.

I could easily recall from memory some six or seven other bills brought before this House recently, since the election of the Liberal government. Without going into them in great detail, I could mention Bill C-52, which once attempts to add to federal power in areas that are not only under provincial jurisdiction but also concern the private sector. Then there is Bill C-95, which attempts to establish national health standards, often contrary to the interests and powers of the provincial governments.

We have C-96, which addresses human resources and also gives increased powers to the minister in applying the department's legislation. We have Bill C-91, which grants broader powers to the Federal Business Development Bank, we have Bill C-88 on interprovincial trade, which quite openly gives the federal government residual powers, including the power to intervene in agreements between the provinces. And there are many more examples. I could go on all day about this.

This government is quite simply intent on increasing its powers to guarantee a certain level of centralization and to keep the provinces well under control. We have this enormous deficit in Canada because the federal government in Ottawa has far too much power and, as a result, is wasting money left and right. It is the same old sad story of this country. As a system, Canadian federalism has been wasteful, and the federal government has failed to learn from its past mistakes. Even today, government members tell us, in speeches that are hypocritical and make no sense at all, that they are helping small business and will find ways to give them more money.

We are already doing the job in Quebec. We have agencies that are perfectly capable of meeting the requirements of small businesses. In Quebec, we have set up a number of creative initiatives to meet these requirements, in large municipalities and also in the regions. Our financial institutions work very well. We have all the resources and agencies we need to supervise these institutions. And it works.

So why bother today with Bill C-100, which would establish at the federal level a series of activities and institutions that already exist at the provincial level? Again, and we keep repeating this all the time, this is what is fundamentally wrong with the federal system. I could go on and on about the disease, as it were, that exists here in Ottawa, which is-perhaps unfortunately-not only due to a lack of political will on the part of the government but is reflected in the very survival of the whole bureaucracy established in Ottawa for so many years, which is very invasive and whose resistance to decentralizing powers to the provinces is ingrained, although across the country, people keep asking for decentralization.

The federal government has now tabled a bill that is a complete contradiction of these repeated requests for decentralization. The government cannot or will not listen. This is irresponsible, especially considering the deficit, which is cause for serious concern. It is extremely disturbing when a government tables bills like the one before the House today.

Bill C-100 is purely and simply another tiresome and costly duplication gimmick. In Quebec, we know what this means. We have problems with this, and perhaps this is one major reason for Quebec's wanting to leave and its wanting to change the way negotiations are conducted with the federal government. We want to negotiate as equals, because, it would seem that English Canada is unable to give the federal government a wake up call.

It will take Quebec's sovereignty to wake up the other provinces, and it will be in their best interests, because they will be able to reorganize themselves in more effective terms. When I talk of duplication and the costs of the waste it entails, we know what that means in Quebec. We have done a lot of studies on this. There have been commissions and studies, including the Bélanger-Campeau study in 1990, which gathered a lot of information. There was also the study by Mr. Fortin, a Quebec economist, who said that, in all, some $3 billion had been wasted due to federal and provincial duplication-and this was only as far as Quebec was concerned.

In other words, Quebec as a province could save some $3 billion if there were not this duplication. Three billion dollars; that is a lot of money. You will agree that $3 billion a year is a substantial amount. If the Government of Quebec had this money to create jobs, to lend it to small and medium businesses, jobs would be created.

It is time the government stopped kidding us about wanting to be more efficient and to create jobs, when, in fact, the only thing it wants to do is increase its power. There are examples of duplication. I tell you: all the latest studies show that Quebec alone is losing $3 billion. If we were to look only at the matters essential to Quebec's development, we could point, in the case of manpower training for example, to another study showing that, because of duplication between the federal and the provincial governments, Quebec loses $250 million a year. There is no training and the reason is that the federal government is trying to do the same job as the province. Often the federal government implements initiatives that run contrary to Quebec's interests.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this private member's motion this morning.

As we know, the role of Canada Post will be reviewed by a committee recently set up by the minister; my remarks are therefore subject to this committee's proceedings and subsequent report.

If I understand correctly, today's motion calls for privatizing Canada Post. In principle, since this is a private member's motion, I will speak first on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Bloc. Of course, I myself am not opposed in principle to privatizing government controlled businesses. In principle, one should not be against this. Even the present federal government cannot come out against any kind of privatization, since it has just privatized CN. It is easy to see that this privatization may eliminate some rural services and that this is not necessarily a good thing for people across Canada.

But they may have done the right thing by privatizing CN, especially because of the competition with CP. As for Canada Post, it is indeed a monopoly, which raises questions on the risks of privatizing such a large monopoly.

We already know about the numerous problems with Canada Post. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has exposed many cases of waste and inefficiency, accusing Canada Post of misusing its money and running considerable deficits from one year to the next because of this. There have also been complaints from private firms, including courier service and mail advertising companies, which deliver information packages from door to door.

I have reviewed this matter quite thoroughly, since industry representatives have complained to me personally that Canada Post unfairly competes with private sector companies. This is something of an outrage because, if I understand correctly, Canada Post can make a profit from its monopoly in first class mail delivery by charging 48 cents for every stamp. If we look only at the revenue from stamp sales and first class mail delivery, Canada Post makes a profit, but uses it to compete with businesses such as home delivery, courier service and mail advertising firms.

This is unfair and I am totally opposed to this kind of competition from the government, whether we are dealing with the postal service or the engineering sector. Canada Post comes under the responsibility of the public works minister, and we will soon have an opportunity, perhaps even this afternoon, to debate Bill C-52, which testifies once again to the government's tendency to compete unfairly with the private sector.

For a government that wants to encourage private enterprise and put in place legislation to promote job creation, this is totally unacceptable. In the case of Canada Post, this is blatant. It is inevitable. Last year, Canada Post's deficit was approximately $70 million, if I am not mistaken, and, before that, I think it was $280 million. But these deficits can be attributed, to some extent, to the fact that Canada Post is spending money it makes as a monopoly to compete with the private sector for courier services and direct mail advertising.

Canada Post's services are not competitive. It is in fact digging in the public purse, because, as a crown corporation, Canada Post belongs to all of us. It belongs to all Canadians and uses its revenues from mail delivery to compete with the private sector. It is obviously unacceptable and, at the very least, Canada Post's should be reviewed to ensure that, if Canada Post maintains its monopoly on first class mail delivery, it should not compete with the private sector, at least not any more.

That is for sure.

But I am not sure how effective it would be to privatize Canada Post and limit, say, its role to first class mail delivery. I wonder because, as I said earlier, Canada Post only turns a profit on first class mail delivery. So, why do that if the service is there and is adequate, or at least cost effective, although there may still be room for improvement within the organization. As I said earlier, according to labour, postal workers, inside staff and others, service delivery could be improved, but there does not seem to be any net benefit in privatizing Canada Post.

But again, it all depends on how Canada Post's mandate review will be conducted. Perhaps, over the next few months, moving away from a monopoly, service delivery could be broadened, in the sense that several private companies could provide the service.

However, there are many instances where, when we try too hard to liberalize certain sectors, ordinary people end up footing the bill. For example, the government's decision to end Bell Canada's monopoly resulted in a significant increase in the costs of telephone services. The same thing also happened in the transport sector and in several other ones.

Sometimes, the liberalization process is taken too far and is detrimental to public interest. Since consumers have to pay more, we must ask ourselves this question: If we privatize Canada Post so that a number of companies can offer services currently provided exclusively by the corporation, does it mean that, instead of paying 48 cents for the delivery of a first class letter, consumers

will have to shell out 75 cents? If this is the case, I do not see how such a change would be beneficial. It would create an excess in the other way.

So far, the government has not used adequate judgment to restrict the mandate of Canada Post and ensure that the corporation does not compete unfairly with private businesses in the delivery of mailings, or even as regards courier services. This an abuse of power and an aberration. It is unacceptable. It may even be immoral. However, it would be just as bad to go to the other extreme, liberalize all the services provided by Canada Post, and trigger a substantial cost increase in the delivery of a first class letter for ordinary Canadians. That could be an excess of another kind.

As a matter of principle, we cannot oppose the privatization of crown corporations. The government has already shown that it was open to privatization. However, a balance must be sought regarding the mandate of Canada Post. Hopefully, once that mandate is reviewed by the minister's committee, balanced recommendations can be made and take into account the interests of all Canadians.

[Agusta, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given Agusta's involvement in dubious events in Belgium during negotiations for a similar helicopter contract, and given that the contract for the EH-101s was negotiated at the same time as the one that was the focus of the scandal in Belgium, how can the minister persist in his desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to Agusta, without a preliminary investigation?