Pierre Brien

[Capital Gains, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while the government and its ministers are skating around the issue, rich families are consulting with their lawyers, their accountants, their tax experts, and preparing to tax-shelter their assets by moving them out of Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue. Would one or the other agree to suspend Revenue Canada's advance ruling, which could be used as a excuse to move major assets out of Canada? Would he or she agree to suspend this decision, yes or no?

[Capital Gains, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who, I hope, is much more familiar with this issue.

On March 16, Revenue Canada made public its advance ruling allowing rich families to move their assets to the U.S. without paying Canadian taxes. This morning, the auditor general reiterated that the government needed to act quickly to avoid losing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes once again.

Does the minister confirm that, since the decision was announced, it has been possible to move large pools of capital out of the country every day and that this situation will prevail until the minister finally decides to act?

[Report Of Auditor General, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

According to the auditor general's report tabled today, senior officials met several times so they could issue an advance ruling on the taxation of capital gains from family trusts. The auditor general questions the validity of this ruling by finance officials.

What does the Minister of Finance intend to do to correct the situation and prevent the government from losing the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes it will forgo if nothing is done in the next few weeks?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this bill. Not many of us will have this opportunity, since the government decided to gag us by resorting to time allocation, as it did in committee. This is indeed what the government did in committee and it is doing the same thing now, at report stage, in the House.

In the nine or ten minutes at my disposal, I want to stress a number of points concerning which the government's approach in this bill is very ill considered. But first I want to congratulate the 250 to 300 people from my region who came Saturday to protest against the unemployment insurance reform, now called employment insurance, and to tell this government that it is headed the wrong way and that it must go back to the drawing board.

Of course these people are upset that, through all sorts of schemes, the government will take $5 billion from the unemployment insurance fund and use it to reduce the deficit in a somewhat artificial way. The government will appropriate $5 billion from the UI surplus and use it to reduce the deficit. This is tantamount to a hold-up by the government. Yet, Liberal members rise one after the other in support of the bill. People are obviously upset by such manipulative techniques.

Again, it must be stressed that, while the government wants to appropriate this money, it does not even contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, which is totally funded by employees and employers. Employers and employees' contributions are administered under an act of Parliament, and the public would have liked to take part in the debate so that, together, we could decide the future of the unemployment insurance program as a whole, not unlike Quebec is currently doing via its socio-economic summit, where we first agree on the goals and then try to come to an agreement on the terms and conditions.

This would have been the ideal course of action. Instead, the government conducted all kinds of so-called consultations to finally substantiate its position and make it look like what the people wanted. That is not what I heard last Saturday in my riding and what was heard in most Quebec ridings either. Demonstrations were held in many places in this regard.

We have missed an excellent opportunity-with the government's several initiatives to amend the unemployment insurance scheme in recent years-to finally reach a consensus about the main goals. For instance, should unemployment insurance funds be used to stimulate job creation or only to operate a real insurance scheme? This would have made for a healthy debate. Instead, the goal set by the Minister of Finance was the following: "Do as you please, but just make sure a $5 billion surplus is maintained for us to dip into year after year". As a result, the surplus is added to the consolidated fund, giving the illusion that the deficit has been reduced.

But something bothered a number of people, and on Saturday I had the chance to explain in some detail one of the main reasons I oppose this bill. This reason is that, at a time when the year 2000 draws near and when we are looking at new ways of sharing the labour market, here comes a piece of legislation which will have the opposite effect by encouraging people to work more extra hours and employers to have employees do more overtime instead of hiring more employees, which would make the labour force grow.

At a time when the unemployment rate is extremely high, when, at the social level, the gap between the wealthier and most disadvantaged segments of society is widening, there is food for thought here.

Let me explain in more technical terms the effect of reducing maximum insurable earnings from $42,000 to $39,000. When an individual has exceeded the maximum insurable earnings or is about to exceed them, neither he nor the employer pays any more unemployment insurance premiums. So, if you put yourself in the place of the employer, you will say: "Well, I have work to be done, what shall I do? I can take an employee who has already reached his limit and make him work more hours, and, what is more, I will not pay any more premiums on his new hours". Or, you could hire a new employee. But if you do that, you have additional employer costs to pay and you will pay unemployment insurance premiums.

So, automatically, to avoid all the bureaucratic paper work already required of businesses, employers say: "So, we will give our employees even more hours of overtime". It is a vicious circle. More overtime, more fatigue, more accidents, and so it goes. This is totally opposite to the way things should go into the 2000s.

This represents a serious problem and there is nothing in this reform which will mean that the job market will be better shared under this new arrangement which goes by insurable hours instead of weeks.

Another point, without going into worker training in detail, is that the total muddle that already exists in this area is being maintained; that perhaps, one day, they would consider turning training over to the Quebec government, that this will be discussed.

Meanwhile, the department brings in supposedly transitional programs, but these are planned for three years, so little confidence is there that any real agreement can be reached with Quebec about turning training over to the province.

In short, the government would have the opportunity with this reform to have what our colleagues over there are talking about so often, an administrative reform. They could preach by example, going beyond mere words, and ensuring that this bill transfers the administration of active employment measures and the unemployment insurance fund to the Government of Quebec, in the case of Quebec.

But there seems to have been the usual slip between cup and lip-a big one. This leaves people somewhat cynical about politics. That on top of all the unmet commitments and unkept promises makes any confidence in this bunch impossible. I see you are in agreement with me on that, Mr. Speaker.

A last point: a problem that is still cropping up in the 90s in many places, and one from which our region is not exempt. There are many businesses that have been around a long time. In some sectors of economic activity there have been major changes, speeded up by the arrival of free trade. Certain economic sectors, the textile industry among others, have not been extremely competitive, except in certain subsectors, so massive layoffs are now taking place and major businesses are being restructured. Some people who have been working for the past 15, 20 or 25 years, a number of years in the same job, are finding themselves at age 40 or 50 faced with plant closures and not much hope for the future. They are extremely worried, yet they have a number of good working years left to give. Work is, after all, part of our lifestyle and impacts on all other aspects of our lives. We have missed the opportunity here to look at the changes to see how we might adapt an employment insurance program, as they want to term it, and as they want to really make it, to that new reality.

It should be remembered that when we were sold the idea of free trade, and I was one of those who believed in it and still do, they said that there would have to be transition mechanisms. These are not just to support business, but also to support individuals. Here, we have a number of years where absolutely nothing has been done, and the impact on people has been tragic.

So why was provision not made for longer periods of unemployment insurance, for manpower training to be turned over to the provinces, which, if they had had increased resources, would have been able to offer longer training periods that were more adapted to needs? You do not just go from working in textiles to working with computers overnight. This is quite a leap, as I was saying earlier. So, nothing in that sector.

There are many things missing from this bill. In the minute I have left, I am going to look at the real purpose of this reform. Is it to make cuts that will enable the Minister of Finance to save $5 billion, or is it to adapt our social programs to the reality of the next century? If it is for the latter purpose, we would have a different sort of bill before us. The sole purpose of the bill we are now looking at is to bring down the deficit temporarily by dipping into the unemployment insurance fund, and not to adjust to the new reality of the job market.

In conclusion, I would like to remind hon. members that this money belongs to employees and employers. This must always be pointed out, because people often have the impression that the government contributes to the fund. Since 1990, it has not contributed a red cent, and yet it uses the unemployment insurance funds, manages them, and they have become an employment tax.

It is unacceptable that in a reform such as this, those who provide the money that goes into this fund are not involved to a greater and more genuine extent. That is why there were 250 demonstrators Saturday in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and a number in other locations in Quebec, and that is why people will continue to express their disagreement, because they do not believe that the government is capable, in this and in many other areas, of adapting to the reality of the next century.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-12 to express a viewpoint which resembles that of my colleagues, of course, and also that of a lot of people in the riding of Témiscamingue. In fact, next Saturday, people will hold a demonstration in the streets of Rouyn-Noranda to show their opposition to this legislation, which will affect many of them.

We have to ask ourselves some questions. This legislation is called the Employment Insurance Act. That is awfully close to being false representation because it does not deal with employment in any way. The government wanted to change the name of the old unemployment insurance plan to show that it was proposing a reform involving significant changes. There are two ways to criticize this bill. It can be criticized for what is included in it, and for what was left out of it. Let me say at the outset that nobody can oppose the idea of modernizing our social programs, of adapting them and adjusting them to the reality of the 21st century.

I will have the opportunity, in the second part of my speech, to talk about the measures that could have been included in this bill to undertake a true unemployment insurance reform for purposes other than those of the finance minister. But even that is not very clear.

The first question I ask myself is, what is the real purpose of this reform? We know that after the first cuts made in the 1994-95 budget, there was a $5 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund at the end of the year.

There must be no mistake, the fund is not in a state of catastrophe. There are revenues of $5 billion more than there are expenses for unemployment insurance. Obviously, people will say there were years when there was a deficit. If we look cumulatively at it, since its inception and as we know it today, the unemployment insurance fund has a surplus of about $1 billion. In 1996, another $5 billion will be added to this surplus.

It cannot be said that the unemployment insurance plan was in a catastrophic state. However, the Minister of Finance made sure, in all sorts of ways, that he could take out this surplus and use it to lower his deficit. With most of his other reforms not giving any results, apart from his cuts in transfer payments, the minister decided to use the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to provide a certain amount of revenue to reduce his deficit in the short term.

People have not got the time to put a magnifying glass to every government program. However, the unemployment insurance fund is supported by contributions from employers and employees. The Minister of Finance puts no money from the consolidated fund into it. It is paid for by employers and employees. So, to use this surplus is to steal from the unemployment insurance fund, it is to impose a sort of tax on employment. If that is what they want to do, let them say so. Let them cut contributions and add an employment tax to pay stubs. Let them explain the real things, because that is what is happening.

We could discuss the surplus for a long time, but I also want to speak of one measure in particular which goes against the present trend. Many people wonder about the way the job market is divided up. Many workers do a lot of overtime, while many people who could work are unable to find a job. How could the work be divided more fairly? Such a thing will not happen unless the government takes a number of courageous steps, sending out very clear signals that this is what it will support.

In this bill there is one measure which reduces maximum insurable earnings from $42,000 to $39,000. Concretely, this means that when people earning more than that do overtime work, the employee and the employer-but particularly the employer-will not have to contribute anything to unemployment insurance.

Put yourself in the employer's shoes. You have a job to be done, and you have a choice between paying a new employee, who will have to pay into the unemployment insurance fund-as will you-and paying someone who already works for you and for whom you will not have to make a contribution, if the work is done in overtime. If all of the social responsibilities of employers are defined in this way, there is a very clear message: Get people to do overtime, do not hire anyone new, it is more cost-effective that way.

The objective of people in business-legitimately and understandably so-is profit, personal accomplishment and so forth. If there is no clearer guidance, if they are not helped to discipline themselves a bit in this area, they will never of their own accord say that they are ready to divide the available work. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that policy orientations correspond to our realities.

This bill could have provided a good opportunity to modify contributions in the opposite direction, making sure it was more advantageous to hire new people than to pay a lot of overtime, too much in some cases. It must be understood that, in the medium term, employers would notice that those working slightly fewer hours were less tired, with fewer work-related accidents, and thus lower worker compensation contributions, and so on. But this requires a signal, something to set them off in the right direction, and there is no such thing in this reform.

I referred to the things that are lacking in this bill. I remember that during the debate over the free trade agreement-which I wanted, promoted and strongly believe in-there was a lot of talk about the adaptation it would necessarily bring about. For weeks, years now, we have heard about massive layoffs, job cuts in many companies. Often they are people who had held the same job for 15, 20, 25 years and who now, at 40 or 50, are unemployed, with many productive years left in them; as members of the labour force, their everyday life would be more stimulating and they could contribute to society.

Why are these people, who held a job for a long time before losing it now when we are entering a new era where technology is becoming more specific, not treated differently? Why not consider longer training or rehabilitation programs for these people and why not keep them much longer on UI?

I do not mean for the federal government to put in place its own training programs, far from it. Another thing lacking in this bill is the transfer of this area to the Quebec government and to the provinces wanting it, such as Quebec where the consensus is very obvious, and lengthening the entitlement period. You cannot go overnight from the textile industry to computer science, 25 to 30 weeks are not enough.

We must be realistic. I say it again, nothing in this bill guarantees that our unemployment insurance plan will be better adapted to the realities of the years 2000, namely changing jobs often, many human tragedies for those who had held a job for a long time and who will have to work in new sectors. There is nothing to this effect in the bill.

During the minute and a half I have left, I would like to go back to manpower training because I find nothing more frustrating than seeing someone come to my office and say: "I am unemployed, I would like to take a course. I read in the paper that the unemployment insurance, or some other organization, was offering a course". To know whether he is eligible or not, I have to ask him 56,000 questions: "Are you on UI? Have you ever been on UI? Are you on welfare?"

This situation is due to the fact that there are two levels of government with their own structure giving their own courses according to their own criteria. Obviously, since it is managing the unemployment insurance program, the federal government's objective is to target the unemployed. For its part, the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for social assistance, gives priority to welfare recipients. And in all of this, people without any income are nobody's priority.

That is a major problem that we will not be able to resolve as long as there are more than one level of government responsible for this matter. In Quebec we resolved this problem a long time ago. We decided that it would be the Government of Quebec, but some people here are stubborn, as they say; they have a hard time getting the message, which is very clear in Quebec and which was repeated during the last socio-economic summit.

So, for all these reasons, we cannot support such a bill, absolutely not, and I conclude by inviting the people back home in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Témiscamingue riding, and especially those from Rouyn-Noranda-where there will be a demonstration this Saturday-to come and join us in condemning this manipulation of the unemployment insurance account and this bill, this so-called reform totally lacking in vision for the future, for the years 2000.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Drummond, who will speak during the second half of the period. Afterwards, there will be a 5 minute questions and comments period.

It is my turn to have my say on the last federal budget that was brought down on March 6. During the next 10 minutes, I would like to address certain elements of the budget pertaining essentially to the new Canada social transfer.

We knew since last year that the federal government planned to merge its old cash transfers to provinces into a single new program, the Canada social transfer. This program is a combination of established program financing and the Canada assistance program.

What the government has done is reorganize various transfer programs, establishing a single program and reducing the global envelope. The amount of funds that will be devoted to the Canada social transfer will be $11 billion. By creating this new package, the government is trying to delude us into believing that, in the field of transfer payments, it did not make real cuts. And to come to this twisted conclusion, it ads up the tax points which were given in the past, and it ads up the equalization payments if that can be helpful in certain cases. In short, the government is twisting the facts.

Let us simply look at the figures, the real ones. When it came to power, this government devoted $17 billion to the old programs, the cost shared program for post-secondary education, the Canada assistance plan and the cost shared health program. The government provided $17 billion; this year, it will provide only $11 billion. At one point it was even almost $18 billion. So, it reduced that amount by 6 or 7 billion. It is simple: 17 minus 11 gives 6. It cannot have us believe that it is giving us more money than before. No matter what numbers you add, no matter how you present it, reality speaks for itself.

At the same time, the government is maintaining the same standards. A few minutes ago, an hon. member on the other side said: "We guarantee social security because we are still maintain a presence in the health field to ensure a universal system for all Canadians". What the Liberals do not say is that they ask the provinces to find new ways to give the same services with less money but by applying the same standards. The government

announced its cuts one or two years ago but, in practice, the provinces are the ones that have to live with them.

We see Quebec and Ontario trying to cope with those cuts that were imposed on them. In fact, I am not sure that Canadians are convinced that the federal government is there to ensure an absolute social safety net, as the members opposite claim. The federal government wants to take credit for the good things and pass the bad things on to the provinces. Often in politics, someone will reap the benefits from a situation and have others pay for it. That is the strategy behind the Canada social transfer.

I think that we must be honest with the public and say that the $6 billion in cuts made by the federal government in transfers to the provinces is in money that went to social assistance, health care and education. These are three areas from which the federal government has withdrawn, asking the provinces to make the more surgical cuts.

I now want to deal with the area of post-secondary education. In the case of Quebec, there have been cuts totalling nearly $300 million. The federal government is telling students that it is the institutions and the provincial government which are raising tuition fees, that it has nothing to do with it. Of course, what choice do they have when they end up with $250 to $300 million less? They either have to make substantial cuts in the system or increase tuition fees. For the moment, the Government of Quebec has chosen to try to absorb the cuts without raising tuition fees. But other provinces have had to do it, and Quebec will have to consider doing it also, if the federal government continues to follow this path.

Students are told that there are no cuts, but there is a $250 to $300 million shortfall that, sooner or later, will inevitably result in increased tuition fees or reduced services. At the same time, the government proposes a student summer employment program. Many of us know about that kind of program. When we were students, we all have looked for summer jobs to help pay for our education and to try to gain practical experience in a field related to our field of study.

In its first year in office, the government maintained the funds allocated in this area. Last year, it reduced these funds by about 40 per cent. This year, it is practically doubling these funds to make the annual cuts of $300 million in the case of Quebec less difficult to swallow. The government will pour $60 million more into the summer student employment program for one year only, so it can say: "Look what we are doing for you". It is getting as many political points as it can from these $60 million.

We will see what kind of program the federal government will announce to get more visibility, while cuts are being made in a more indirect way so that somebody else has to deal with them and pay the political price for them.

Figure it out yourself. Take $300 million a year and multiply that by five, ten or even fifteen years if you want, and compare that to $60 million for one year. Will there be more? We will see, but I would be surprised. The government has not said that this was a permanent increase in that program's budget.

So this is a way to make students swallow the bitter pill, to avoid creating too much dissatisfaction among a client group which seriously questions the existence of the federal government and which counts a high percentage of sovereignists in Quebec. The government avoids creating discontent as much as possible among students or tries to make sure they will not be able to clearly understand what is really going on.

I have discussed with some representatives and no one is being fooled. Student associations have a clear picture of what is going on. They too have problems understanding how they come out as winners in such a situation. This does not mean that we should make no financial effort in this sector. We still must have the honesty to recognize what is being done. A budget must not be nothing but words that conceal reality.

In the last two or three minutes I have left, I would like to talk about subsidies to dairy producers. The two regional county municipalities located at the southern and northern ends of my riding, Témiscamingue and Abitibi-Ouest, have numerous dairy producers. The last budget announced a phasing out of subsidies to dairy producers.

This will create a new reality: there will either be a rise in the price of milk or a major income crisis for dairy producers. The federal government would like us to believe that it took this decision in consultation with producers. The government refers to industry and says it talked to industrial entrepreneurs but it never says it talked to producers. This is difficult to accept.

What people accept even less is that at the same time, the federal government has long had an agriculture policy that supported in a very substantial way the grain industry in the West. We had the Western Grain Transportation Act and the Crow rate, known by everyone in the agricultural sector. When the federal government decided to abolish that, generous compensation programs were set up.

For them, there was a transition period, but for Quebec producers, there has just been talk of looking into it, discussing it, but nothing has been done, nothing concrete announced, and no major developments are expected.

How can it be that, when abolition of the Western Grain Transportation Act was announced, compensation mechanisms were already in place? How is it that, when Quebec and eastern Canada are involved-for it is not just Quebec but also part of

Ontario-the thing is impossible, while, when the west was involved, it was an absolute priority?

In the federal government's eyes, right from the start, agriculture has essentially equalled western beef and grain. This is hard for taxpayers in Témiscamingue to swallow, when they are dairy producers or the neighbours of these producers.

This last budget contained something unacceptable to the people in the rural areas of Quebec, and Ontario, and the dairy producers of these areas. The industry is, as we well know, mainly concentrated in Quebec.

I could have spoken about unemployment insurance as well, as many of my colleagues have done, about making use of a $5 billion surplus, year after year, instead of making less of a cut to the benefits paid to the unemployed or to the amounts workers and employers have to pay into the fund, thus injecting more money into the economy and trying to make use of it to revive employment,

Employment was a recurring theme during the campaign, but there is no sign of government action on it between campaigns. This creates a problem, and it is something I hear about constantly from the people in my riding. It worries them a great deal to see that employment is being taxed, because the surplus is being tapped year after year. That $5 billion represents a lot of money that could have been put to another use, instead of reducing the deficit with it.

These are the elements in the budget on which I wished to speak, the ones I see as the most negative. There are also a number of measures that are not bad, but I am sure that the hon. members across the way will enjoy listing them, so I decided to concentrate essentially on those three.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Not to apologize, it would be asking too much, but at least to congratulate my colleague in some future speech, because we know that he likes to revisit past issues, the next time he has an opportunity to do so in about 20 minutes.

In closing, I would like to get back to what the hon. member said about working harder and not being afraid of work. We are certainly not afraid of work. What we are asking him is to submit contracts worth $25,000 and above to House committees, to elected members, for review and analysis so that we can do our job properly. We are not afraid of work. If he himself is afraid, that is his problem. We, however, want to be more effective and, as I was saying earlier, more accountable.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in the three or four minutes I have left, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary. First of all, I would like to remind him of a few points. In his comment, question or lecture, if you like, the hon. member referred to my work as a member of Parliament. I say to him that the constituents in my riding will decide for themselves in the next election and I invite him to come to my riding to discuss this matter, perhaps sooner than he expects. I will then be pleased to be accountable to my constituents.

He referred to the situation in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. I wish to tell him that some of the information he gave is wrong. He should ask the people in his department to do the job if he does not want to do it himself. First of all, the first public assembly was held January 15 and not January 5, and it was in Sorel by invitation. Only one person from the north shore had been invited and was present.

The second public assembly, which was held March 14, was organized by my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm and not by his department or by the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

So I would ask the parliamentary secretary-

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-52. I must tell you that even as late as this morning, I was not going to speak, but upon closer examination of the issue, I am pleased to comment on this bill and to echo a number of my colleagues' concerns with respect to the nature of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

A great deal of money flows through this department. It could become very closely linked to patronage, unless a very stringent code is developed that would place tight constraints on its ability to act without a transparent process, give everyone equal access to contracts, and allow effective control of the system for managing public funds.

First of all, I would point out that it is no small amount that Parliament and cabinet are called upon to manage. This year, the federal government will spend some $165 billion, of which of course close to $45 billion will go to interest on the debt; this aside, $120 billion are nonetheless spent on programs.

A good part of this budget will funnel through the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which approves the operating expenditures of the various departments, whether for rental of accommodation, or all the other sorts of things departments need to operate.

It is quite surprising to discover just exactly how difficult it is to obtain precise information in this regard. I had some fun a few months back trying to determine how much had been spent renovating buildings in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. It was a very difficult exercise because, even when it is possible to obtain overall figures, total amounts, there is never any very precise data on who won the contracts and how large they were. Were there cost overruns compared to tenders? Information like that requires painstaking research. I did not get the feeling that the people I consulted were very enthusiastic about helping me find out what I wanted to know.

The Bloc has made some very interesting suggestions. I would like to address each of these items briefly. One of the first suggestions made by the Bloc for improvement, to ensure that administration was more efficient, was to make sure that one or more committees-of the many House committees-the standing committees, would be able to make a quarterly examination of the expenditures of the various departments. Initially I think the suggested level for this was $25,000 and up.

So, all expenditures in excess of $25,000 ought to be assessed by parliamentary committees. This would get MPs more involved in government administration. It would increase monitoring and all those who might be tempted to fiddle with public funds would be more nervous if they knew that these expenditures would be examined in a public exercise where a number of people could voice opinions and even hold a debate. If it was felt appropriate, they could even call the people in question in to explain themselves. This strikes me as merely a normal process to ensure more efficient and more responsible administration.

At a time when the public is being asked to make sacrifices in the battle in which the various governments are engaged against the deficit, we must ensure that what we are administering is at least administered as efficiency as possible, in order to improve public confidence.

If I recall correctly, those words were used in the Liberal Party's red book, which talked of greater transparency and restoring public confidence. When the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, and to bow to the arguments suggested by the opposition parties, one might say that their reflex for self-protection, keeping the political machine as non-transparent as possible, won out over the Liberals' good intentions while they were in the opposition and were experiencing the frustrations a goodly number of MPs are now experiencing.

Of course, there must be some members of the government party who manage to obtain some information, thanks to their good relations with ministers or because of their participation in previous campaigns, the support they gave, or I might even say because of political debts tied to a leadership race or similar things. Nevertheless, this is not a normal situation because as elected representatives, whatever our political party, we were all elected in ridings and therefore each of us reflects a majority of electors in his or her own riding.

Of course, those constituents voted for a political party but they also voted for an individual and they expect their member of Parliament to be as effective as possible and to be the best representative possible in Parliament.

Therefore, being able to study all those expenditures in committee can harm no one. I would like the government party to tell us why it is against such a measure. How would the suggestion that all expenditures over $ 25,000 be thoroughly examined by a committee render Parliament less efficient and less vigilant regarding in terms of managing public funds?

We are aware that it would impose a large amount of work on members, but this is part of our role. We might be much more efficient if we did this rather than certain things done in committee and which, and I hope you will allow me to be sceptical, have very little impact on departments if they have not given directives, or circulated reports from the committees. This is why members of committees should be given more autonomy.

For those who are following this discussion, committees are composed of members of recognized political parties. There is a number from the government party and from the two opposition parties, the official opposition and the third party. These people could look at these expenditures over a few weeks, meeting a few times a week.

The government has said nothing about the follow-up to this suggestion, and today is not the first time we have made it, but nobody has considered it worth acting on.

Another aspect concerns contracting out. In recent years, the government has cut its staff drastically and contracts out increasingly. It can thus save money. We have nothing against this of itself, but it is very dangerous if it becomes a devious way to provide work for one's political friends.

Need I point out that, unlike Quebec, which has very strict legislation on the funding of political parties, here, companies can make donations to political parties. Recently I was looking at a 1994 report which revealed that a lot of companies contribute to political parties. I am talking about the traditional political parties, because this does not apply to the Bloc, which is funded by individuals. Companies provide most of the funding of these parties. I cannot believe that this is a disinterested gesture on their part. When an individual gives $75,000 or $100,000 to a political party, I am not so sure he is expecting nothing in return.

It is more complex than that. Contributions can even be made through numbered companies. So, trying to find out who really financed the political parties can be a very difficult and demanding task, requiring a lot of time and energy to see who financed what and whether contracts are awarded according to contributions as well.

As we know, there is a growing trend toward contracting out. How is it that the government did not deem it appropriate to clearly define a code of ethics on the awarding of those contracts that would be far more severe than the one in place? Here again, transparency, a word repeated over and over in the red book, is absent. They did not find it appropriate to act on that recommendation.

I will make the same argument as earlier. How would this make Parliament less efficient? It seems to me to be a good suggestion. You know, today people expect a lot from us. They ask us to not just criticize the government but also to make suggestions forcefully. That is what we do. We make concrete suggestions in order to make the management of public funds as efficient as possible.

I have a third point, and it is important. The member for Berthier-Montcalm referred earlier to something that occurs sometimes, and more often recently. One learns that important things, major things are happening. They may happen in our ridings without us being informed whereas if we, as representatives of those citizens, had been informed, we could have warned people and reacted as efficiently as possible. In his case, it was a problem with major environmental impacts. A similar example came to my mind.

Public Works has transferred, or is in the process of transferring, the management of docks to the municipalities. I represent a little municipality of barely 250 inhabitants called Moffet. There is a federal dock in Moffet. The kind of renovations done to that dock could have been managed much more efficiently by the municipal administration. One day officials from Public Works came to undertake the renovations-in co-operation with Fisheries and Oceans, of course-but these people did not take into consideration particulars or comments. Because the town's mayor showed up at the site. In a small town, when people from outside are coming in, they are spotted at once. On that day, the people rushed to meet them and seeask what they were doing. Then, they realized they were coming to repair the dock. It was obvious to the local population that what was about to be done would not be work, but nobody had told the contractor. He had the contract, and he had to abide by it to get paid.

The person who got the contract said: "If I want to be paid, I must follow the specifications, and I will". Six months later, everything had to be redone, because the repairs did not last. There had been an error in assessing spring flood levels and other factors.

If my office or myself had been advised that the government was considering such work, we could have contacted the municipality's officials or officials from other regional county municipalities that had carried out similar projects. We could have been more efficient and we would not have had to do it twice. Moreover, we could have informed local contractors that repairs were to be done and that the bidding process was open. We can say repeatedly that the process is open, but not everybody knows that. If we were more involved at the local level, we could be more efficient. There would be more economic spinoffs in our regions.

What the Bloc Quebecois suggested to avoid this kind of thing was to inform members of what is going on, and in the present case, namely the management of public funds under federal jurisdiction, to give notice to the elected representatives of the people of what is coming, what will have to be done, and even what has been done so far. But of course, acting in a more transparent and efficient way is not one of the present government's priorities. I insist because I am convinced that it will lead to more efficiency.

Why not try to be more efficient? This is a question we might well ask.

It might be to protect certain interests. To play politics, or worse, to use patronage to reward friends of the government by granting them a number of contracts and kickbacks in exchange for their political ties.

When people elect us they believe that we have a lot of power. They think we can change many things easily. Increasingly, they get the feeling that we are fighting a machine trying to protect itself, to be more or less transparent, to account for things in a certain manner. Three or four years later, the books are kept differently, the way data is presented is changed, it is very confusing, several sets of data are combined together, the whole of Quebec is lumped together, even the whole of Canada. It becomes very difficult to know exactly what was done in each area.

Returns which are more local in nature or deal more with specific ridings are more difficult to get. Sometimes, it is possible, but it is generally quite rare. They are certainly not available from the new Department of Public Works and Government Services. And yet, a lot of money is channeled through this department.

Perhaps, if there was more consultation, if people were more involved, there might be fewer buildings with empty offices, fewer very expensive buildings or fewer very expensive renovations.

Once I spoke with someone responsible for building maintenance or improvement, especially for federal buildings. This person benefited from the spinoffs and said to me: "I certainly have no right to complain, but it is incredible to see the amount of waste".

That is what he said. And I, a member of Parliament, felt totally powerless in front of that situation. When you call for information, you would think you were asking for the moon because it takes quite a considerable effort to obtain a statement of expenditures for a specific building and to find out if there were misuse or squandering.

Naturally, people who authorize squandering try to justify it. To prevent that, we should act before and not after the fact. This is one of our problems. Our society is largely focused on remedial action; we try to solve problems but we do not try hard enough to prevent them. It is the same with the management of public funds. It would seem only normal to ask for statements.

The year 2000 is almost here. Computer services are well developed and it would be very easy to obtain statements from the different ridings.

The auditor general is supposed to be the watchdog of government. It costs nearly $50 million a year for us to monitor the

government, for the government to check its own administration. His task would be made easier if elected members were more involved in the monitoring of public spending. Everybody knows that we have administrative assistants, people who work for us, and we could follow very closely the spending of public money in our ridings, and influence the way things are done.

This would greatly enrich the role of elected members-and especially members of the governing party-who would feel that they have real influence on the decision making process in their communities. If the public knew that their local representatives can watch very closely, can monitor, and even influence or neutralize things which are not done efficiently, they would feel a little closer to politics.

What worries me the most is seeing how far they can go. This reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister, a slight lack of respect for democracy as a whole. Whether it be through a desire to influence the rules of democratic consultation, or through processes like the one dealing with the Pearson airport or by an attitude when faced with suggestions like the ones we have made, which would serve to reinforce democracy-because MPs are representatives of their constituents-one wonders to what extent politicians are protecting each other with the backing of the bureaucracy. I am talking about the highest ranks of the bureaucracy, because local civil servants usually act in good faith and are willing to co-operate. There are some departments where things are going very well.

In my riding, for example, in the Department of Human Resources Development it is working very well. In that department, they are in the habit of consulting members of Parliament. However, it is getting less common, because previously the signature of an MP was required, but now it is less often the case, although consultations on a voluntary basis remain, depending on the person in charge, on whether he or she was appointed by the present or the previous government, on the mood of the minister in charge, etc.

I believe this was a very valid component of organizational culture that recognized the role played by the elected reprresentatives. It is very dangerous to get away from that.

Before closing, I would like to give an example of something similar, which is happening with the appointment of people who are going to be in charge of the Statistics Canada census. There was a usual, familiar processus, but it would appear that political interference is on the rise, and this is not necessarily sound and not necessarily desirable.

So, in closing, we have very interesting suggestions which will ensure that the worst that could happen for the government is that it be more efficient. So I wonder why government members are opposed to that. If they are acting in good faith, they will adjust their bill. We are at the third reading stage, there is still time to improve it and then we could considere supporting these government actions, which will ensure that we will become more efficient and above all more responsible.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to comment on a number of statements made by the Reform member. After listening to him for 20 minutes, I feel that he almost deserves a prize for saying so many things that are inaccurate and indicative of a lack of sensitivity and vision. All this from people who claim to form a national party that wants to settle the constitutional crisis in which we find ourselves.

One thing that really stunned me was the reference to loyalty. The member talked about Quebec soldiers currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. He said there are no Quebec soldiers. However, there are Quebecers serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. In my opinion, these people are Quebecers first and then soldiers. The member said that these people's loyalty must be to the Canadian Armed Forces.

This would mean that even democracy would only come second. As everyone knows, if, some day, Quebec achieves sovereignty-and I am convinced that it will-it will have done so through a very democratic and open process, with the support of a majority of the population.

It will be after a democratic yes vote by Quebecers that people will be asked to respect the choice of the majority, and that we will set up the structures that every country has, including a military force that will take part in peacekeeping missions throughout the world.

We need to face up to reality. The Canadian army does not necessarily defend Canada's territorial integrity. It takes part in peacekeeping missions. If there was a problem and Canada's territorial integrity was challenged, I seriously doubt that our army would be up to the challenge, and everybody knows that. Again, the main task of our army is to keep or, as the case may be, make peace in the world.

Let us return to the Reformer member said. He said that these people were soldiers who should be loyal to the Canadian Armed Forces before being democratic. This comment is rather surprising, coming from people who were elected to a Parliament which has been democratic since Confederation. Democracy is one of most cherished values in this country and, to a certain extent, makes us all proud.

By his remarks he calls into question the very principle of democracy. It is very disturbing to see a member who sits in the Parliament of Canada, question, indirectly, the foundations of democracy.

Of course he extensively quoted Dane Francis, his intellectual guru, who prompts him on substance, on political thought. I believe

she alerted the Reform Party to this issue. It should be pointed out, in case Reformers had forgotten, that we are now in mid-March. The communiqué was released in October, a few days before the referendum. All of a sudden, this week, or toward the end of last week, they wake up after reading some articles by Mrs. Francis, who found the whole situation outrageous. They decided to make a big fuss about it.

I find it deplorable that this is going on at a time when we are faced with major problems in terms of employment, when all Canadians ask themselves how we should manage our public finances, which choices we should make, how we should go about it, how to guarantee that everybody, especially the most disadvantaged can pull through this financial crisis. People wonder a lot, and they are very concerned.

My constituents, but maybe not those of my Reform or Liberal colleagues, are more concerned by these issues. I do not know how I will be able to explain to them on the weekend that Parliament spent the whole week debating a motion first from the Reform Party then from the government, discussing charges of sedition against a member from the Bloc Quebecois, when our ridings are faced with a lot of problems that we must deal with.

We have already talked about this matter for two days. That is rather outrageous, not to mention all the energy that all the parties have devoted to this issue. And the government should blame itself because it could have stopped this by defeating the motion from the Reform Party, and that would have been the end of it. But no, the government, perhaps because of a lack of imagination or bills to introduce, decided to move an amendment to refer this matter to a committee, but I will come back to that later.

I want to tell you that I find it totally ridiculous that we have spent so much time on such a trivial matter, because it is just that, even though it has been blown out of proportions. We will get back to the heart of the matter in a few minutes.

I would like to remind people that it might also be an attempt by the Reformers to hide the disarray within their caucus at the present time. We know that some of them are questioning the fact that their colleagues people are taking positions that are far too radical. We have not seen them much in the last few days.

At a time when the Reformers' political positions could be examined in the House, they are trying to draw attention away, toward something else. This is typical, it is nothing new, they did not invent anything. I think this is one reason for their actions, but the other one, which is probably much more important, is that, since October 1993, these people have never accepted, and this brings us back to the issue of democracy, that we have formed the official opposition, that a greater number of us were chosen to sit in this Parliament. According to the rules and traditions of our parliamentary system, it is our privilege to be the official opposition, because voters have made that choice.

So, at every opportunity, by roundabout ways, by direct and indirect means, they try each time to challenge that. That is the objective because, of course, we current have an equal number of members, even though that will change in a few days. If they could get one of our members thrown out, that would certainly be the ideal thing. Perhaps that is the only way for them to become the official opposition, because I am convinced that the byelection results will demonstrate once again that Reformers are part of a way of thinking that does not, certainly not in Quebec, nor I believe in the rest of Canada, represent the views of a majority of Canadians, as people are far more moderate than that.

Yet, their comments are reported by some people in the media, like Ms. Francis, who abuse their power in these cases to provide a forum for this kind of action, which does nothing to improve the current political situation.

Let us go back to the facts themselves. What happened? We must go back to a few days before the referendum, that is to say, during an intense campaign, a vigorous democratic debate, a very tight race, a few days before the results were known. I remember that, during the campaign and even before, people were asking us what we would do after a yes vote. Commissions were also set up to consult the people of Quebec. We took part in these meetings, and the hon. members opposite would have been well-advised to do the same as it would probably have done them some good.

People were asking us about the outcome of a yes vote. So, throughout the campaign, we met with various groups of people to explain to them our vision of Quebec after a yes vote.

A few days before the referendum, my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, released a communiqué, according to which "the MP for Charlesbourg believes that-Quebec will have need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the armed forces". In the first paragraph, he talks about the size of the armed forces and argues that Quebec will not need such a large military. He then talks about international peace missions, how much they cost, how they work, how many soldiers are needed. He goes back to the international missions and calls on Quebec soldiers to respect the democratic decision made by Quebecers, inviting them to join Quebec's future armed forces should Quebecers opt for sovereignty. He adds that they would enjoy the same working conditions and so on.

I think that telling people who had the right to vote in this democratic process to decide the future of the people of Quebec-because this communiqué was released in Quebec-what they could expect the day after a yes vote was a responsible thing to do. That is essentially what my colleague did.

Yet, a few months later, the motive behind this action is being questioned on the grounds that it is an incitement to sedition. Let me give you the exact definition of the term "sedition" according to the French dictionary. The dictionary defines this term as a concerted revolt against public authority. A concerted revolt.

This afternoon, I read the communiqué over twice, to try to see how it could be interpreted as stirring up a rebellion against the government in power, when all we are doing is urging people to respect the democratic decision that will be made and telling them what to expect the day after a yes victory, in the event that this had been the course democratically chosen by the people.

There is absolutely no mention of any potential uprising. If you were planning a rebellion, Mr. Speaker, is the first thing you would do be to inform every media in the country that you are staging an uprising by making a public announcement? This makes no sense. I think this is elementary.

Perhaps the Reformers would chose an approach the same way they develop their political strategy. However, that is certainly not how most people would go about it.

After sitting in this place for two years and a half, one gets used to Reformers struggling with policy analysis, having a hard time maintaining a high standard of responsibility and not always understanding how a democratic system works.

Things get more complicated when, this week, in a fit of panic, the government gives in to their arguments to some extent and, instead of putting an end to this whole thing once and for all, it goes along with this approach-because we must bear in mind the initial motion put forward by the Reformers, who accused my hon. colleague of sedition and so on and wanted to make him pay for it, which was eventually amended by the government to have the matter referred to a committee of the House for consideration.

But there is nothing to consider, absolutely nothing. What is the point? What good would this do? What goal would this serve? It would just support the Reformers' approach, and that is very surprising.

As I recall, during the first two sessions of Parliament, and during the first one in particular, the Prime Minister and his ministers stood up in this House one after the other to praise Canadian democracy, saying that this Parliament was the greatest example of democracy, since sovereignists were allowed to sit in it and that it was a great example of Canadian pride and democratic values.

Today, by their actions, they finally accept us but our presence may not be tolerated if we do not promote ideas or political goals that do not suit them.

In a democracy, there is freedom of speech and the right of dissent. Of course, and we have always made this clear, we stand for a political goal which is for Quebec to become a sovereign country, a partner. We want to be partners, because there are many areas of mutual interest, and we will certainly succeed because good sense will finally prevail. On the other hand, we do not even have a choice. But all this stopped making sense for Liberal members in the past few days, given their major turnaround. If ever there was a turnaround, this is it. They, who used to say they were true democrats, are re-opening the whole issue because they wish to allow this investigation of a sovereignist member's presence in the House.

As a member of the same party and a colleague of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, I feel I am also attacked by this procedure. Indeed, what guarantee do we have that, having expressed an opinion in our own riding, we could not also be accused of sedition?

In fact, we are being accused of being sovereignists, and therefore seditious. That is what it amounts to, because the hon. member for Charlesbourg certainly did not organize an uprising or recruit people who were armed to the teeth and ready to come to Ottawa and topple the government. He provided an analysis of the situation the day after a yes vote. He was expressing himself democratically, with the means provided to us as parliamentarians. This issue is worrying.

I also read the definition of "sedition" in the English dictionary, and I understood why the Reform members exaggerated. In English, it is defined as:

"Conduct or speech inciting to a rebellion or a breach of public order".

Of course, the beginning of the definition says "conduct or speech"-but you have to read the whole sentence-"inciting to a rebellion". Our friends in the Reform Party should have made an extra effort to read as far as the word "rebellion", which can be synonymous with revolt or something else. As far as I know, this is not at all what the hon. member for Charlesbourg was doing. There is a problem, either because Reformers find it hard to do their job properly, or because they have difficulty understanding words. I would say it is a combination of both.

I will get back to it. This really should not come as such a surprise, given how hard it is for them to grasp current reality. However, it is surprising to see Liberal members, including the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is listening assiduously, condone that action. That is surprising. This goes for all Liberal members, because we expect them to be much more serious than that.

I also want to say that we were elected with close to 50 per cent of the votes in Quebec. The Reformer who spoke before me made a very serious statement. First, he alluded to a poll conducted by CTV and said he was convinced that people in every riding in Canada did not accept such an outrageous action. This is not the exact word he used, but it was something to that effect. He said that, in every riding, people did not accept that.

I have to say that, in his speech, the hon. member has already excluded Quebec from Canada.

I invite him to come to my riding this weekend or next weekend and see if the majority of my constituents share his opinion. I invite him to debate that issue in my riding of Témiscamingue. I will send him a map, with the appropriate directions, so that we can have a good discussion and see what the majority of my constituents think about it.

He mentioned that twice in his remarks -I hear him muttering something to the effect that I misunderstood his remarks. He said that twice, using the expression "all Canadians". To say that every Canadian would support him in what he said is going a bit too far. Until proven otherwise, I am still one, and I do not support him. In that sense, my colleague here does not either, nor do my other colleagues, I am sure. Even our constituents and many federalists in Quebec do not accept that interpretation.

To conclude, because I only have a couple of minutes left, I would simply like to say that I am very disappointed with the Liberal Party and the government. They made sure that we would avoid debates on major issues this week, the week following the tabling of the federal budget where the government announced its intentions, where it confirmed its cuts in social transfers to the provinces and its cuts in the unemployment insurance program, two issues of great concern to people in Quebec and in Canada.

We would have had the opportunity to debate those issues more thoroughly in order to improve the reforms the government intends to make, even though, in some cases, we would like it to withdraw them or, at least, pay heed to our arguments so that, while moving forward, they might at least take one fact into account, namely that some people will be hard hit by their reforms.

Instead, the Parliament has wasted two full sitting days, the energy of almost a week, to discuss an issue that should have been dealt with in a matter of minutes. I will have a hard time explaining that to my constituents who are already very cynical about politics and tell us frequently, and I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will agree, that our institutions are a bit obsolete.

We got a good example of that this week. Of course, I will give my opinion and I will use up my 20 minutes in this debate, because we can very well spend a whole day on this. That is why I take the floor, but the whole situation is disappointing, and it can only convince us even more that the only way we can make significant changes in our institutions is for Quebecers to take control of their own destiny and put in place institutions that would be much more modern. That way, Canadians too will have to adjust their institutions to their liking.

In the meantime, I hope everybody will calm down. The debate is not making waves in Quebec. But outside Quebec, and I will conclude with this, there are people who are trying to stir up strong negative reactions. They are trying to score political points at the expense of Quebec, and that is not a healthy attitude. Let me say to all these people that they should be very careful about what they do, because the consequences can be staggering. I am thinking right now of the government, because nothing much can be expected from the Reform Party.