Pierre Brien

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

And well noted, indeed. Regarding this issue, I would like to quote a few sentences from the red book. During our first months in this House, the first months of the election campaign-our ears were ringing with the contents of the red book, the famous red book. The book talks about the integrity of the government and the trust relationship between it and the population. The book says: "The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view".

I discussed this bill with some of my constituents and certain colleagues, and none of them feel that the bill changes this perception. On the contrary, because in the meanwhile, we noticed-some of us did our homework-that lobbyists had even influenced this bill in order to reduce its impact as much as possible.

And now, if I may, I intend to quote the Canadian Press which said that, according to information obtained under the Access to Information Act, it would show that lobbyists had stepped up the number of meetings during the months preceding the tabling of this bill and that some had vowed to start legal proceedings if the new legislation obliged them to disclose their political connections.

This was information obtained under the Access to Information Act, so it is not pure conjecture. In La Presse , there was a revealing headline: Lobbyists manage to get rid of constraints Ottawa would impose on them. The lobbyists came out as winners in the struggle around a bill that was supposed to regulate their dealings with the government. Now people opposite talk about restoring the people's trust. There is a serious problem.

Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, proposes to have the ethics counsellor appointed by the House and to make him accountable to the House. I think that is perfectly normal. After all, we are elected by the people, who put their trust in institutions, not only in the person of the Prime Minister, and they expect Parliament to have a say in these matters. The government is doing everything it can to avoid this, although the government whip was no doubt entirely sincere in his desire to empower parliamentarians and ensure that everyone feels bound by this bill.

The House has before it a number of proposals to improve a bill that is not bad but could certainly stand some improvements, but the government is reluctant to make genuine improvements. Why? Perhaps we should start wondering whom it may have met in the past few days, weeks and months. There may have been people who convinced it to change its mind and who had every interest in doing so.

Since this government came to power, we have had several cases that remain to be clarified. There is the Pearson airport affair. There was also the case involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and here we had a telling example of the powers of the ethics counsellor. Three weeks after the Prime Minister asked him for an opinion, he very discreetly took steps to cover the minister's tracks.

When all is said and done, the role of the ethics counsellor would appear to be to cover for the government in matters that raise some controversy. The ethics counsellor is used to make the government look good. They say: Look, the ethics counsellor said there was no wrong doing. The fact is, the ethics counsellor is accountable to the Prime Minister and his job depends on the good will of the Prime Minister. There is a serious problem here.

The motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois suggests appointing this person for a period of seven years. As a result, he will not always have connections with the party in power. There will be changes in governments, and that will give him a certain amount of independence. That will mean more power, particularly because he will not be accountable to anyone who could decide from one day to the next to dismiss him on the basis of the opinion.

Some information should be made more public and not simply left as conclusions of a report. He is asked to report on his investigations, but only the conclusions are made public. In some cases, it would very interesting to know more than just the conclusions, to know how they were reached. This is another important step in response to the wishes to the whip and the entire Liberal government, which has been saying since its election that it wants more transparency, that it wants political action to be as transparent as possible. The waters look pretty

cloudy to me, as if an effort is being made to create some confusion and prevent people from seeing the real picture.

I will not get into the whole question of the scandal surrounding the deductibility of lobbying costs. In the end, the public is indirectly paying the lobbyists to influence decisions according to certain specific interests. This warrants serious consideration.

It seems to me it would be in everyone's interest to make Parliament credible. It is also what the Reform Party would like to some extent and I think what the government whip would like, but his hands are tied-I think everyone is basically good, but on this, his hands are tied somewhat. People put their trust in individuals and in political groups and expect Parliament to play a role.

In this regard, I hope with all my heart that the government will support this amendment, which will give us a better bill in the interest of all taxpayers.

It must be remembered that the government spends $160 billion a year. This is a lot of money. We must make sure that this money is not spent in the interests of a few privileged individuals with good connections with previous, present or future governments, or even with corporations the government is closely connected to through their funding of political parties. These are the reasons why we must make sure we succeed.

I would like to quote Mr. Reisman, a committee witness who supports the recommendation made by my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm. He said: "If we get into the business of a code of ethics to govern the behaviour of the members of this industry, it ought to be kept out of partisan politics as far as you possibly can. I think one good way of doing that is to make the appointment an appointment by Parliament, rather than by the government of the day". There it is. The Bloc members are not the only ones to think that way.

This may not be a guarantee in itself, but it certainly helps, as he more or less suggested when he said: "You are more likely to get someone more objective. If he is appointed by Parliament, I think he should report to Parliament-which is the recommendation in any event-and be accountable to Parliament". There are other reasons why he should be accountable to Parliament.

So this seems to be a fundamental point on which everyone, including the government, should agree.

In conclusion, I expect this government will abide by its commitments. I hope they will not bring in a legislation simply to mask their change of heart when moving to the other side of the House. I hope they will meet the initial commitments made at the beginning of the election campaign and written in the red book, bible of the Liberal Party, and that they will support the recommendations of my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm. These give the government an opportunity to respect its own commitments and restore the bond of confidence that existed between the Canadians and their institutions so that the ethics counsellor will not simply be a coverup for the Prime Minister, his ministers or government members when they get into difficult situations.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to briefly comment on the chief government whip's comments before moving on to my comments on certain amendments or certain motions in amendment, in particular Nos. 22, 28 and 29 which were introduced by my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm.

The chief government whip has just talked about the co-operation, openmindedness, and responsibility that parliamentarians have regarding this bill. Let us put this into perspective.

First of all, we are talking about keeping better tabs on lobbyists. Let us not forget that the government manages and spends close to $160 billion annually. I think that it would be worthwhile to tighten the controls on those who influence the government's decisions.

He also told us that this is the responsibility of all parliamentarians and not just government members, the Cabinet and ministers. This is pretty well the spirit of the proposed amendments. The issue is having the House nominate the person who will be ethics counsellor, which is in line with what the whip was saying. In this case, we are told no; let us choose the person who will be answerable to the Prime Minister, not only to the government, but to the Prime Minister. And there, he went against what he was suggesting earlier.

The current debate seems in a way to be an attempt to get out of a commitment that they regret having made now that they are in power. One must understand party funding, for example Liberal Party funding, to understand that, once under the direct influence of lobbyists, it is less desirable to keep better tabs on lobbyists than it was when they were in opposition. A remarkable change in attitude.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister undertake before this House not to take advantage of the probable election of a Liberal government in Ontario to review the GST without Quebec's consent?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the last election campaign, the Prime Minister vowed to abolish the GST before January 1996. He said that they hated this tax and that they would scrap it. Last week, we learned that the government would not review the GST before January 1, 1996.

Are we to understand from this further deferral of GST reform that the Prime Minister has reneged on his election promise to scrap the GST and now intends to maintain the mess and the inequities generated by the GST?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the fiscal coup which is in the making, which could also be called the Stéphane Dion strategy, and which seeks to hurt Quebec after the referendum. We are bracing ourselves for that.

On the other side of this House I see Quebec members who support this legislation, who smile and who do not dare get up to protect Quebec's interests, as they claimed they would do when they were elected. Now that they are here, they are a lot more polite and conciliatory. They are members of a party in office, so they want to protect their personal career. This has priority over the interests of the people, the riding and the Quebec nation which they are here to represent.

I want to say a word about the last federal budget and its major component, which is the new structure of transfer payments. This is an extraordinary camouflage exercise, and I will tell you why. The government is trying to make us believe that it will be more flexible, that things will go better and that the same services will be provided with less money. Less money, more standards and probably more controls.

I participated in an English radio talk show, in Montreal, with the Minister of Human Resources Development. The moderator asked: "Does this new Canada Social Transfer mean that the federal government will no longer have control over transfer payments"? The minister replied: "No, quite the contrary. We will have more control than ever before. We did not have controls in certain areas before, but now we will". All this remains to be defined.

Of course, the federal government will invite the provinces to come and negotiate with a loaded gun to their head: "If you do not want to lose even more federal support, then approve these standards". An internal document circulating among party ranks indicates that this is just the beginning. Other financial objectives will be set.

After these initial cuts of $7 billion to transfer payments, which will primarily affect Quebec, the process will continue since we must solve the federal government's financial problems. This, without any consideration for the problems which will result from this process, particularly for some provinces, including problems related to their credit rating and to the

imbalance which these measures will create in provincial budgets.

Let me put transfer payments in their proper context, because this is a complex issue. I want to point out some specifics for the benefit of those who are listening to us. There are currently three main types of transfer programs. First, there is the Established Programs Financing, second, the equalization program, and third, the Canada Assistance Plan. Let me review them briefly one by one.

First, under Established Programs Financing, taxpayers pay taxes to the federal government who, according to certain criteria, sends part of the money to the provinces for their health and post-secondary education programs.

As for equalization, it is a measure of wealth redistribution or rather a measure of redistribution among the provinces of the capacity to generate income. Seven provinces benefit from the equalization program; the amounts they were entitled to were recently capped. Whenever something is expensive, they put a limit to it so that the costs will not increase too much in the future.

So, one of the first bills that the government tabled before the Parliament was Bill C-3, to limit equalization payments so that they would not increase too much. And yet, the objective of this program is to redistribute wealth. Consequently, that bill meant limiting the ability to redistribute wealth.

Obviously, the Liberals have lost this concept in the last few weeks or months, or even in the last years. They should now be called the old Liberals, since they look more and more like Conservatives. Even if they do not like to hear that, they must be called by their name, they must wear the hat that fits them.

The third type of transfer payment is the Canada Assistance Plan. That is mainly in the welfare sector. The government is funding a part of provincial spending in that sector.

So, there are these three components. Let us take equalization payments from that, because they are not affected by the new Canada social transfer. All there was to say on this is that the government has limited the potential growth of that system.

In the new Canada social transfer, the two other types have been amalgamated: the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs. They become one single program.

Obviously, because this government intended to cutback post-secondary education and attended the demonstrations made by students-I remember well seeing them on the Hill-they said: "It is true. When they are told directly that education or health will be cut, they react. Therefore, we should mix everything together and proceed with cuts thereafter. This way, they will not be able to say that we have made cuts in a specific area, be it education, health or social welfare. Provincial governments will be totally free to choose where to cut. That is flexible federalism". That is what you are told. You are free to choose in what area you will cut: education, health or social welfare. That is what this government is defending, almost with a smile, in joy and almost with conviction. This is veryastonishing.

This new Canada social transfer will reduce the amounts transferred by $2.5 billion, not this year, obviously, because it knows perfectly well that this is a very important year on the Canadian political scene because of what is going on in Quebec. Therefore, it is waiting. Since it does not want to decide now how to define the new Canada that it wants to build, it will reduce the amounts transferred by $2.5 billion next year and by $4.5 billion the following year, without saying who will be affected and to what extent. All that is known is that it will happen in the second year, that $650 million of the $2.5 billion will be cut in Quebec, and that in the following year, as much as $1.9 billion of the $4.5 billion could be cut in Quebec.

Quebec would assume more than its share since the criteria used for allocating funds under the Canadian social transfer are going to be reviewed. Given the lobbying efforts which will be made by the wealthiest provinces, such as Ontario, one can be sure that these provinces are going to try to get a bigger share.

Furthermore, we are all aware of the upcoming election in Ontario and of the possibility that their Liberal colleagues will be elected. They are going to show great compassion for their colleagues and no doubt help make their transfer payments more generous. Again, Quebec would assume more than its share. As I said earlier, these cuts could add up to $1.9 billion.

During the two minutes remaining, I will show how intolerable it is to implement all these cuts while insisting on maintaining the same standards and probably raising them. All the while federal members of Parliament are strolling through their ridings, patting themselves on the back and claiming that we have an extraordinary health care system. They say to their constituents that they will be protected, that they will define standards. They will do it and the bill will be paid not by the federal government, but by provincial governments. They are the ones who will be stuck with the difficult job of deciding how to do it. The federal government will only ask them to adhere to standards-that will probably be raised-with less money. Go figure.

We do not want to allow for flexibility or to leave the governments some room to adjust. We prefer to remain good members of Parliament and, as such, protect the principles and preserve the universal aspect of social programs. So we let them manage the monetary aspect of the matter.

This is basically what this budget does, although it tries to hide it. Here is another point that I was just about to forget. This budget talks about tax points, equalization and cash transfers. What is being cut by the budget are the cash transfers to the provinces. This is the part which is changed and remixed.

The government adds up cash transfer payments, equalization and also tax points, on which it has no control whatsoever, and says: "Look how little we are cutting".

This is a terrible cover up by people who, during the election campaign, were going around with their red book in hand saying that their objective was a more open, a more transparent government, so transparent in fact you could almost see through the front cover of the red book. They were going around everywhere saying: "We are going to have something very understandable, very clear so that people know what the government is doing".

This budget manipulates, messes around with and monkeys with figures to make people believe that they will hardly be affected. This is what we have to expect from a Liberal government which has become more conservative than the Tories and has grown more and more like the Reform Party. This is the kind of Canada this government is shaping. For our part, we are going to have to explain all this to people who will have a choice to make.

We will have the opportunity to conduct the same debate in a few months since the government will only implement its new vision next year, being afraid of doing it before the referendum. We will be there to remind Quebecers, before they make a choice, that they have to find out who these people who govern us are, where they are leading us and what will the consequences be.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's figures are wrong. He is looking at total transfers, and he knows perfectly well he is only cutting cash transfers.

Would the Minister of Finance confirm that the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces he ordered yesterday will result in a shortfall of over $2.5 billion for Quebecers, three years from now?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

The budget tabled yesterday provides for additional cuts of $7 billion in payments to the provinces over the next three years. By transferring an additional $7 billion shortfall to the provinces, Ottawa is again downloading part of its deficit.

Would the Minister of Finance agree that the additional cuts his government has ordered in transfer payments to the provinces will inevitably cause either a reduction in services to the public or an increase in provincial taxes or a combination of both?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the transfers to provinces and said that, in his opinion, provinces would not be really affected, considering the cuts involved. This raises the whole issue of national standards. What will happen to standards?

The budget makes several mentions to such standards, but they are not very clear. I wonder if the hon. member could give us his own view on that issue. In his speech, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote: "Provinces will now be able to design more innovative social programs- programs that respond to the needs of people today rather than to inflexible rules".

Thus, and that is a step in the right direction, the minister does confirm that, in the past, there were some inflexible rules. But the sentence which follows is the one for which I would appreciate an explanation. It reads: "However, flexibility does not mean a free-for-all". That sentence appears in italics in the budget speech. What does the minister mean when he says: "flexibility does not mean free-for-all"?

It means that the federal government will continue to exert some control. Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who was participating in a radio show with me, said that before the government had no control over funds but that would now change because the federal government would define standards, in co-operation with the provinces.

We all know what joint standards mean. Therefore, I wonder if the hon. member could explain the statement to the effect that flexibility does not mean free-for-all.

[Council For Canadian Unity, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to denounce the behaviour of the Council for Canadian Unity, an organization generously funded by the federal government, which is bent on systematically keeping a record of the witnesses who speak before the regional commissions on sovereignty. We do not know what exactly the council hopes this kind of tactic will achieve, but we note that those who defend Canadian unity continue to be obsessed with compiling lists of sovereignists.

This practice is utterly reprehensible in a democratic society and is all the more unsettling, since it is being used when democracy is being expressed at its purest, during prereferendum consultations.

No democratic society can stand for the use of intimidation tactics to erode the right of its citizens to freedom of speech. These tactics are worthy of Big Brother and have no place in Quebec and Canada.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how very generous of them to say that, for $200 million, they will give us the equivalent tax points while at the same time they will cut something like $1 or $1.5 billion in equalization.

To my understanding, this is not about recovering equivalent tax points. So, their whole way of going about reallocating

transfer payments will have a negative impact on Quebec. A two minute analysis of the document makes this patently obvious. In any case, I have no intention of spending the whole day looking at it; I have more important things to do.

The hon. member corrected what was said about seniors by saying that not everyone would face a 15 per cent cut. It is true that that is not the case. They say the focus will be on those most in need, but, here again, it is not defined, just as they do not really define either who will be targeted by the UI cuts. They do not say who is going to be affected by those.

This is how it works. When they do not have enough information to provide more details, they stick to basic principles, which do not take into account the overall impact. It is easy to talk about cutting $1, $2 or $3 billion dollars. When we start looking at the workings or into the details, we see that a lot is missing. Fine principles are easily espoused, but hard to put into practice. The Reform Party cannot get around it. This document is not worth any more than the paper it is printed on.