Jean-Paul Marchand

[Social Housing, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the amounts allocated to social housing by the federal government have been falling at an alarming rate since 1992. Last March, the Minister of Finance cut the CMHC's budget by $307 million, effectively killing any hope of new social housing initiatives. Yesterday, 20,000 people demonstrated in Quebec City to remind the government that social housing was one of their nine key demands.

Does the Minister of Public Works not agree that his cuts to social housing subsidies are a direct attack against the essential needs of the most vulnerable families in our society, despite Liberal election promises that these people would enjoy an acceptable standard of living-

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague for Simcoe-Centre was saying, it is true that the Liberal government does not understand anything. But, unfortunately, the Reform Party has not yet understood that Canada's fundamental problem is not about to be solved.

Despite their good intentions, Reform members have not understood that, when powers are centralized in Ottawa, it just perpetuates a long-standing problem in Canada. When powers are centralized, taxes go up, costs go up and we do not get the services we need. So when a Reform member rises in this House to tell us that what we need is more services for the people, I have to tell him that it is certainly not by centralizing powers in Ottawa that we will be able to provide more services to the people. Anybody with good common sense would recognize that, if we want to provide more services at a lower cost, we have to get closer to the people. Therefore, powers have to be decentralized.

We can see through all the bills I have talked about that the Liberal government is trying once again to centralize even more. And, once again, it will be expensive, it may even lead to tax increases, it will certainly cause more waste, more irresponsibility, more lobbying and all the other evils that come with excessive centralization of powers in Ottawa.

If members from the Reform Party, from the west, really want to offer a solution for Canada, they have to try to return powers to their provinces. They really have to do that. If they do, government will become more efficient.

We, in Quebec, understand that bureaucracy has to be reduced. We have known that for a long time. That is exactly why we are sovereignist. We have understood that it is the only solution for us if we want to provide more services to the people, to reduce costs, to reduce duplication and to get the federal government out of the picture.

And if Reform members and western Canadians really understood the situation, they would agree with us because the option for Canada-

[Grand Parents' Day Act, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have another instance of lobbying, patronage, and maybe corruption with the Agusta affair involving an Italian firm, Agusta S.p.A., a manufacturer for the EH-101 helicopter contract which was cancelled and for which there was to be no compensation.

The present Prime Minister said that there would be no compensation. And I quote:

"The program is cancelled and there isn't any compensation for anybody".

And yet, there has already been some compensation. The firm Unysis has received $166 million in compensation. There are ongoing negotiations with Agusta, and with Westland, regarding compensation, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said that there would be no compensation, despite the fact that some ministers have already spoken against it and would have liked an inquiry into this affair.

This is serious. As we know, Agusta was found guilty of corruption in Belgium, and gave bribes in Italy. This firm has a very bad reputation. Yet, the government is now reaching agreements with lobbyists, some of whom, like James Deacey and Daniel Despins, are well known Liberals with very close connections to the party, are currently negotiating compensation for a firm. At the same time this government is cutting social programs. It has reduced the social housing program by some $300 million in Canada. Of course, the poorest people arre getting hit, but the government is about to give millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars to a firm which does not deserve it at all.

This is another example of the power lobbyists exert on the federal government, as was seen in the case of Power DirecTv, which was perhaps an even more serious example of nepotism. As we know, the son-in-law of the Prime Minister had succeeded in having a CRTC decision overturned, in favour of his own company. This is yet another example of the power of lobbyists and of the patronage which prevail with this government.

The issue concerning Agusta is whether or not to provide compensation. We asked the minister responsible and he seemed to indicate that he was negotiating to that effect. But do we compensate or not? I know that the government's answer will be very vague. We will not know for sure. The government will tell us: "Well, we are negotiating, we are discussing, but this is not really about compensation".

We are suspicious because, in fact, the government will once again try to find a few hundred millions and give that money to a company which does not deserve it, all this at a time when it makes cuts in social programs and social housing in this country.

Can we say that the Prime Minister of Canada is keeping to his word, since he said this regarding the EH-101 helicopter program:

"The program is cancelled and there isn't any compensation for anybody".

Those are the Prime Minister's own words. Is this Prime Minister keeping his word or not? We want to know if there is any compensation. If there is, and if there are negotiations, perhaps we should even have an inquiry into this case, because Agusta, as I said earlier, has a very bad reputation, and has already been convicted of corruption in Italy and in Belgium.

So, I ask the question, and I hope to get a clear answer from the government.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-248 is a good bill, because it meets a blatant need. It is an open secret that there is considerable waste and abuse in government. I am vice-chairman of the committee on public works. As the hon. member for St. Boniface who spoke for the government knows full well, we have seen many cases of waste and abuse in the public service, particularly when contracting out is concerned, with an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion a year in contracts awarded by the government to private enterprise.

In that sector alone, hundreds of millions of dollars may be wasted through abuse and errors. The Public Service Alliance told us about some absolutely incredible cases of waste. For example, painters employed by the federal government were moved aside as contracts were awarded to private sector entrepreneurs, who were paid to do the work while public servants stood by watching them. Some contracts and leases were a real waste of government money. The waste is legendary.

If public servants had the right to denounce such cases of abuse, the government could save millions of dollars every year. The public is well aware of this, and one of its most common criticism is that the government is not careful enough about its spending, especially since Canada faces a huge deficit.

It would be a good idea to draft such a bill in light of the potential savings. This bill would also help restore the credibility of the government and of politicians who, to a certain extent, are held responsible for public service waste and abuse.

If public servants could denounce cases of abuse, this would not only save money but also probably bring to light events or actions endangering public health or safety.

Public servants reporting cases of abuse must be protected. Thus, they would fell more inclined to report or blow the whistle on the conduct of their superiors and coworkers. That is why government employees need the kind of protection this bill is designed to afford them.

There are many examples around the world of governments that have already passed legislation to allow employees to disclose instances of abuse and squandering within the public service. In fact, this public administration philosophy is increasingly popular in the United States.

More than 20 states in the U.S., including major states like New York and California, are reported to have put in place similar legislation enabling public servants to report abuse and protecting them; in some states, the protection of the law even extends to disclosure of abuse and squandering in the private sector. We are light-years behind them in that respect.

And the U.S. is not alone. England also has similar legislation. But we, in Canada, do not. It would be great, of course, if the federal government could act on this. There is every reason to do so. In fact, there is no valid reason not to pass this bill, except perhaps a lack of will on the part of the government. This is not even a partisan issue; it does not have anything to do with being a federalist or a sovereignist. It is strictly a matter of common sense. As other members mentioned, public servants themselves and the Public Service Alliance have come forward and expressed full support, for the reasons stated previously.

There really is no reason not to pass this bill, because this is a bill that will help the public service operate better and more economically. Why not agree in principle with this bill, as suggested by the hon. member for Saint-Boniface and the representative of the Reform Party? Why not refer it to committee, where improvements can be made if required so that we can go some way toward providing Canada with a piece of legislation enabling public servants to disclose instances of abuse without being subjected to unfair retaliation.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to comments by the member for Edmonton Southwest and I will have an opportunity to do so during the debate on Bill C-88. However, I must first provide a few details on the bill.

Often, when we are discussing bills in the House, people tune us in on television or come in to the House not knowing what the discussion is about. This is why I would first like to provide a few details about Bill C-88 itself. This government bill is aimed at promoting freer trade between Canada's provinces. It puts a number of administrative measures into effect to permit freer trade as of July 1, 1995, that is, in barely a month or two.

A whole series of measures are involved, as are a number of laws governing, for example, transportation, public liability, communications and other matters. Therefore, first and foremost, this bill, puts into place the measures that will lead to freer trade in Canada.

When we speak of liberalizing trade, we mean that, in principle, people, capital and goods should move as freely as possible and that uniform standards and rules will be established so that one province cannot prevent the free movement of goods, capital and people.

The most striking example is, of course, the limits on the movement and production of beer in Canada. Each province was required, so to speak, to produce a certain volume of beer, which could not be exported from one province to another. Quebec could not export its production to Ontario and vice versa. Marketing will now be freer, and not only for alcoholic beverages, but also for such sectors as farm products, food, communications, transportation, energy and, of course, manpower.

This bill from all appearances improves the trading system in Canada. I should point out that, as regards the liberalization of trade in Canada, Quebec has always been in favour of freer trade. It strongly supported free trade with the United States. We believe in unrestricted competition. In Quebec, we believe in the ability to compete on the open market.

However, this bill contains a few flaws, important flaws, such as the fact that a panel can be set up if disputes arise. Problems may occur. Disputes may have to be settled. In such cases, this bill provides for the creation of a panel to review disputes. Should one province accuse another of not playing by the rules, the mandate of such a panel would be to review the situation and recommend retaliatory measures on behalf of the injured party, the one that would have been somehow wronged.

This panel would have no power to enforce. It would only have the authority to review the problem and recommend retaliatory measures where required. And here we come to the troubling part, since, in the end, retaliatory measures will rest in the hands of the federal government.

Not only will the members of this panel and of the committee that will oversee the enforcement of this piece of legislation be appointed by order in council without being ratified by the House of Commons-which is a flaw one must point out-but once again, through this bill, the federal government is seizing additional powers, the authority to enforce the panel's decisions, and even to intervene when it, the federal government, is not involved.

Indeed, the wording of clause 19-or more precisely article 1710, but mainly clause 19-leaves room for interpretation, in such a way that if there is a dispute between two provinces, and the federal government is not directly involved, it can intervene. It can exercise its power of judgment so that one province is favourably judged, even favoured over another.

In fact, the federal government is taking on a lot of power, too much power, in our view, the power to intervene in disputes between provinces, if need be. These are powers it has assumed, without being asked to. The federal government is assuming the power to intervene in disputes between provinces. We think that this is in fact an abuse of power. Why would the federal

government interfere in interprovincial disputes in which it is not involved?

This is not the first time this government has tabled a bill in an attempt to give itself additional powers. As you probably know, it tried to give itself additional powers through Bill C-52, for example, which would allow the government to compete with engineering and architectural firms in Canada, and Bill C-91, which would change the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank. Again, the federal government gives itself new powers that would allow it to centralize operations and intervene in the country's development, thereby putting some provinces at a disadvantage compared to others.

In the case of Bill C-52, for example, it is obvious that the powers the federal government tried to give itself could be used against Quebec in particular, since we know that engineering and architectural firms are concentrated in Quebec. In the case of Bill C-91 regarding the Federal Business Development Bank, we can ask ourselves if the government is once again giving itself additional powers and trying to compete with very successful Quebec institutions such as the credit unions and the FTQ and CNTU solidarity funds, which are very effective in developing small and medium size businesses.

We also know that small and medium size businesses have experienced significant growth in Quebec over the years. That was one of the reasons why Quebec supported free trade with the U.S. Industry and trade in Quebec are locally based. Quebecers have worked to set up their own businesses and establish themselves in Quebec. It is something that should be pointed out to those who do not know Quebec.

The difference is visible for instance between Quebec and Ontario. As we know, Ontario benefited from American investments and most major business concerns established in Ontario were American companies' subsidiaries. In fact, that is one of the reasons why so many jobs were lost in Ontario after the free trade agreement with the U.S. was signed. American companies established in Ontario simply packed up and moved back to the U.S. They can trade with Ontario from the other side of the border. But many jobs were lost because of this in Ontario, where there are more people on UI and welfare today than just about anywhere else in Canada.

While we, in Quebec, were hit quite strongly, and we can say that the federal government did not do much to help us, we nonetheless are blessed with a strong small and medium size business sector which is still developing in many areas. In Bill C-88, as in Bill C-91 and Bill C-52, the federal government is abusing its authority. It gives itself powers that it did not have before, which could have the effect of putting Quebec at a disadvantage in rulings on trade between Quebec and the other provinces.

Finally, this is the main reason prompting us to propose to the government an amendment providing that the federal government be required to rule only when it is directly involved, instead of any time it feels like stepping in to tip the scales in favour of one province at the expense of another.

As I said at the very beginning on my remarks, Quebec has always been for free movement and the freest trade possible, because this is in our interest in Quebec, since our economy is solidly grounded. Much remains to be done, but we are nonetheless building on solid ground, relying on small and medium size business firmly rooted in Quebec. Much remains to be done to strengthen it.

Were it not for this abuse of authority on the part of the federal government, interprovincial trade liberalization would be great for the rest of Canada as well as for Quebec. Again, Quebec is in favour of this kind of liberalization. For example, Quebec imports from Ontario alone goods and services totalling $25.852 billion per year, while its exports to this province total $22 billion. That is almost $30 billion in trade just between Ontario and Quebec.

In fact, trading between Quebec and all Canadian provinces is quite substantial. In Alberta, Quebec sells $2.8 billion in goods and services and buys $3.25 billion in petroleum, natural gas and the like. In the central region, we buy wheat. I think that these trade relations will be maintained after sovereignty is achieved. We are working at making Quebec realize that it will be to its advantage, in the medium and long term, to opt for sovereignty, take charge and be in control of its economy and its future.

Once Quebec has achieved sovereignty, existing trade between the provinces will most likely be maintained. There is no reason to believe that it will be reduced. It would be disadvantageous to the other provinces, including Ontario and even Alberta, to refuse to sell their products to Quebec, and vice versa. It would not make economic sense. In fact, economic sense dictates that current trade be maintained.

We live in a world where trade liberalization is increasingly more prevalent. For example, GATT was set up precisely to liberalize trade between all the countries of this world. Some agreements and regulations were implemented under GATT, and they will also be maintained once Quebec becomes a sovereign nation.

The same is true as regards free trade agreements with the United States. There is no reason to believe that these agreements will not be maintained and that trade will not continue. It is only those who seek to instill some unfounded doubt or fear who say: "We will cut or block trade between Quebec and the

other provinces". This is nonsense. It goes against economic sense. It goes against the common sense which governs existing treaties, including GATT and the free trade agreement.

Bill C-88 does includes many provisions which make it appealing to the Bloc. As I said earlier, Quebec has always been in favour of liberalizing trade between provinces and countries, and it always will be, because this is its forte. We can compete with others. We supported free trade because Quebec has the economic, cultural and social confidence required to face its North American competition.

It is for these reasons that Quebec will be in an even better position once it achieves sovereignty, and that is also true for the other provinces. Indeed, English Canada will also benefit. I think it will get along better with Quebec, and it might even manage to reduce the power of the federal government, which is not necessarily concerned with the interests of the individuals or provinces. It is concerned with its own interest. And the federal interest here in this Parliament is not the same as that of the provinces.

This is why we oppose Bill C-88 which is another example of abuse on the part of the federal government, which seeks to gain additional powers, to centralize, and possibly interfere in interprovincial trade so as to favour the interests of one province at the expense of another. This is one of the reasons why we will oppose Bill C-88.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Charlevoix for taking such a responsible stance. He demonstrated, for example, that we in this House are reduced to discussing bills of this kind which are of little or no importance. This bill does not really create savings, will actually cost consumers money and, to top it off, does not even create any jobs. I agree that we should use more of our time to debate bills that are much more serious than this one.

I would also like to ask my colleague, if you will allow me Mr. Speaker, if in effect he can see any good in this bill? Regarding

the $400 million he mentioned, we calculated that business people are going to have to buy new cash registers, that municipalities may have to install new parking meters and that all vending machines will have to be recalibrated and changed. This will cost the private sector a lot of money and consumers will ultimately foot the bill.

The consumer will be the one who pays. In fact, the only party that this bill will help is the Royal Canadian Mint. So I ask my colleague for Charlevoix if he can see anything good about this bill.

[Winnipeg Jets, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Revenue confirm information suggesting that the donations made to Manitoba Entertainment Complex would be considered as donations to the state or to a provincial Crown corporation, thus substantially increasing federal assistance to the Winnipeg Jets by allowing the deduction of such donations for federal income tax purposes?

[Winnipeg Jets, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

It is unjustifiable on the part of the federal government to help a professional hockey club to the tune of $20 million, while cutting billions of dollars in social program funding.

After deciding that the federal assistance was inadequate, the Manitoba Entertainment Complex Save the Jets group applied to Revenue Canada for charitable status, so as to become eligible for indirect federal assistance in the form of tax deductions.

Can the Minister of National Revenue tell us what is the status of the application made by Manitoba Entertainment Complex and whether he intends to increase federal assistance to the Winnipeg Jets through tax deductions?

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in the House to talk about Bill C-91, which aims at changing the function and mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank and at renaming it the Business Development Bank of Canada.

I have a few questions to ask about the bill. It is a bit disturbing because the Federal Business Development Bank as we know it works very well.

I met its president in Quebec City. As we know, the Bank lends almost one third of its money-about $1.3 billion-in Quebec. Finally, it serves very well its purpose of bank of last resort. Moreover, the Federal Business Development Bank, as it is now, gives training courses for people who want to start new businesses. These are excellent courses and many Quebec entrepreneurs have taken them. Right now, the bank is self-financing and does not cost Canadian taxpayers one penny.

Nonetheless, Bill C-91 will change the mandate of the bank and radically transform its capital structure. The bank now has a statutory borrowing limit of about $3.2 billion but it is proposed to eliminate that limit and to allow the new bank to borrow as much as it wants. I will come back to that later. This change in the capital structure is disturbing because it will allow the bank to enter into partnership with other organizations and other banks.

The capital structure and the mandate of the bank will be changed completely. Right now, the bank is a last resort lender. It makes loans to business people who cannot borrow from commercial banks via the usual channels. There is a real need for that kind of service. But the Federal Business Development Bank will not necessarily have this last resort mandate any longer since the new mandate will require the FBDB to support other projects through partnerships or through top-up funding. This compromises its original mandate which was to offer last resort funding to businesses.

This is quite disturbing because one has to wonder who will do this job if the Federal Business Development Bank is no longer doing it. If the FBDB changes its mandate and works increasingly in partnership with other banks, who will take over the mandate that is presently carried out so efficiently by the Federal Business Development Bank? It is just as though all last resort cases will be ignored.

But the most troubling question regarding this bill relates to the government's motive for introducing it. Why is the government proposing to change the bank's capital structure and mandate? Why is it removing the loan ceiling and telling the bank not to be a last resort lending institution any longer but to go into partnership with other banks and other agencies in projects related mainly to small and medium size businesses

and exports? There are good reasons for trying to find out the motive for such changes.

Do we really want to help small and medium size businesses or do we want to compete with existing financial institutions? We have to ask the question because this bill allows the Federal Business Development Bank, under its new mandate, to compete directly with existing financial institutions. It is troubling.

In fact, should the federal government compete with the private sector? The government has already made such an attempt in another bill, Bill C-52 brought forward by the Minister of Public Works, giving itself the power to compete directly with engineering and architecture firms. Strangely enough, this bill was withdrawn when we started to criticize the government after realizing that these engineering and architecture firms were concentrated in Quebec. We realized that 90 per cent of the businesses that the government would compete with were located in Quebec, and that is why the bill was withdrawn.

But the government is at it again, giving the Federal Business Development Bank a similar but broader mandate since we are no longer talking about one sector, engineering and architecture, but almost any kind of partnership for economic development. And anybody who takes the time to read the definition of the mandate in clauses 20 and 21 will see that it is very broad. There are no limits to this new bank's mandate.

This is what is troubling, because we know that some of the best examples of the growth of small and medium size businesses in Canada have been in Quebec. It is well known that, if there is one sector in Quebec that has distinguished itself, and is on the cutting edge, it is the small and medium size business sector.

We have established funds in Quebec for the development of small and medium size business, such as the solidarity funds of the FTQ and the CNTU, and a number of programs, such as those of the caisses populaires. It is a very active sector. Why, then, is Canada changing the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank in order to enter this sector? Does it want to compete with Quebec's caisses populaires? Does it want to compete with the solidarity funds of the FTQ and the CNTU?

Ultimately, can it overstep the authority of the province, which has already established a regional development program, in order to once again increase the visibility of the federal government in Quebec, as it has done elsewhere in Canada furthermore, but particularly in Quebec? Is there a hidden agenda in this bill, a deliberate wish to weaken the many programs that have been established in Quebec by the banks and the solidarity funds, as well as the programs established by the Quebec government itself?

These are some of the questions that come to mind with respect to Bill C-91. There is no compelling need for the Federal Business Development Bank to have a new mandate, when the one it now has is perfectly sufficient. One could wonder whether beyond the economic purpose of this bill there is not another deeper political purpose. That, in fact, is why I personally will not support this bill. Basically, the purpose of this bill is a purely political one. Coming from Quebec, from the riding of Québec-Est, I can see that the Federal Business Development Bank, this new bank, holds nothing for us. It would be better to keep it in its present form.

[Winnipeg Jets, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Deputy Prime Minister refusing to admit that the federal government uses double standards when it deals with Quebec? Indeed, when asked to come to the rescue of MIL Davie-the industry minister knows this well-and its thousands of workers, who do not skate for one million dollars a year, the government demands to see a business plan, but when it comes to the Winnipeg Jets, the money is paid without conditions or guarantees.