Yvan Bernier

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member. What I said was that I felt, upon reading the budget speech, that once the budget would be balanced, the finance minister's objective would be to redistribute wealth and to fight child poverty.

The hon. member pointed out that the minister announced in his budget that $600 million would be allocated to that goal. Again, I tell the hon. member that, this year, there is barely $60 million earmarked for that initiative. And children are hungry now.

Earlier, I mentioned that children's parents were made poorer, to the tune of $17 billion. The provinces were deprived of $4.5 billion through cuts to social transfers, while $12.3 billion was taken from the unemployment insurance fund, after paying off the first accumulated deficit of $6 billion. So, 12.3 plus 6 equals 18; and 18 plus 4 equals 22 or 23 billion dollars. The government is offering $600 million, which is already not much. However, this offer includes an amount of only $60 million for this year. This is where the problem is; this is what is upsetting. It is an insult to the intelligence of Quebecers and Canadians.

The hon. member also pointed out that there is another $800 million for the health sector, through the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Where did the Liberals get that money? They just cut $4.5 billion in transfers to the provinces for the health sector. Now, we are told that the government will allocate $800 million to research. Again, this is an insult to the intelligence of people. And this amount of $800 million will not all be paid this year. The

government is distributing election goodies, but does not want us to unwrap the candy before the election.

I wonder about all this. Will Canadians and Quebecers be fooled by such a budget? Imagine how things will be when the Liberals are re-elected. They will not hesitate and there will be no candy.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Transferring powers back to the provinces, at least those who have asked for it, would be a good way to create employment. The funny thing about it is that agreements were signed, but not with the provinces had made a request.

If agreements were signed regarding manpower training, I would expect the applicable budgets to be transferred back at the same

time. This way, government would really be brought closer to the people, with the provincial government being in charge instead of the federal government. Synergy could be gained from these budgets.

I would like to see these budgets used to bring people together. Projects, not 10 or 20 week projects, would be designed to address a common problem specific to a group of people living in a certain area. With the available budgets, and the help of the private sector maybe, social infrastructure programs could be developed. The participants would be working together for at least three years to give them time to achieve something.

As I said, this is a lazy budget. I wish I had more time to share more constructive ideas. In the election campaign, the Liberals will boast about successfully bringing the deficit down, but they will be very careful not to mention whom they have to thank for that. There are the provinces, whose postsecondary education and social assistance budgets were cut back, and the unemployed, at the expense of whom the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance were able to build up a reserve fund of $12.3 billion.

There is still time, on the eve of the election, for the Liberals to give themselves a chance of winning a few seats in Quebec. Put something on the table, resolve the manpower training issue and give us the necessary budgets for job creation.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.

First of all, I would like to say that I was not thrilled with the finance minister's February budget. Why? Because the budget tabled by the Liberal government is what I would call a lazy budget. Let me explain. It is clear from the figures that the Minister of Finance has much more breathing room than he lets on in his budget.

No one can argue with wanting to balance the budget. I believe, however, that there is a way to go about it and, when targets are met ahead of schedule, one would expect that those who helped create this breathing room for the Minister of Finance would recover part of the costs, get back some of the money they have given the minister. The finance minister should have returned the favour.

The theme of this year's budget was: while balancing the books, we will combat child poverty. This was the theme. But how does this translate into reality? There are a few subsidies, measures that

are supposed to eliminate child poverty. But what does this mean in reality?

Practical measures for implementation this year-because children are hungry this year, right now-amount to approximately $70 million. But-and the Minister of Finance did not talk about it this year-he took close to $4.5 billion from the social transfer payments to the provinces. What is the impact of that? It means that the provinces are also forced to make cuts.

The provinces are forced to cut in the health sector, because there is a shortfall of $4.5 billion. They also have to cut social assistance. All these measures adversely impact on daily necessities, on post-secondary education. It comes as no surprise that things are not going well in the provinces, that provincial governments are forced to cut their payrolls, and that they have to consider increasing tuition fees in the universities-even though they managed to avoid having to do it this year. The fact is that when the federal government makes cuts, someone, somewhere, is adversely affected.

Again, the recurring theme, which may well be an election theme for the Liberals, is that something must be done about child poverty. The Liberal government is trying to show that it is reducing its deficit but, as I said, barely $70 million will be allocated this year, compared to the $4.5 billion cuts to transfers to the provinces. I want to say something about the largest cut ever made. What makes things even worse, and the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, is that they target the poor in our society, namely the victims of this lack of jobs and those who rely on employment insurance benefits.

Everyone on the Hill and in this House knows that before 1993, the cumulative deficit in the unemployment insurance fund was as high as $5 or $6 billion. I realize something had to be done.

However, today, and the President of the Treasury Board has made no secret of it, in fact he even bragged that there was a surplus, today in 1997-this is March 1997-there is a surplus of $12.3 billion in the unemployment insurance fund.

When the Minister of Finance says proudly that he balanced his budget, he got the money somewhere. He took it out of the pockets of the provinces and of those who were hit by the lack of jobs.

What could he have done? I will try to give government members, the Liberals opposite, a few clues. They will not be able to say I do nothing but criticize. Today, I would like to do some constructive criticism. There are people on the Liberal benches who come from rural areas, who at one time were farmers and whose parents were farmers.

Here are some rules every good farmer knows: If you have a good harvest, you put 50 per cent of the year's profits in the bank,

and you reinvest the remaining 50 per cent in the land that helped you make those profits. You seed for the next harvest, to make sure the next harvest will be just as good.

Now the government has just taken $12.3 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund, I would have expected the government to introduce job creation measures for the people who need them. Of course two weeks ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development hastily tried to deal with one of the sticking points of the employment insurance reform by allowing hours to be accumulated for the purpose of calculating benefits.

This measure will cost scarcely $245 million and will expire in the fall of 1998, after the election. Then we will have to start all over again. This is just peanuts, these handouts for people who have been hit by employment insurance.

What does the budget contain regarding job creation? I would remind the House that the Liberals opposite were not elected to cut unemployment insurance. They did not have a slogan saying: If you elect us, we will cut unemployment insurance. They did not. Was they did say was this: "We are going to create jobs, jobs, jobs". That was the slogan they shouted as they waved the red book.

What is the government's record on job creation? The only real jobs that were created under this government were short term jobs, as part of the infrastructure program. There was some highway construction and other construction, but the jobs created were only temporary jobs in 1994. We are in 1997 now. The effects of this job creation program are long gone.

So where are the job creation projects and the famous jobs, jobs, jobs? If only the government would act as a catalyst for job creation. How? I will give them a few more leads.

During the referendum campaign, we, in Quebec, were asking for decentralization. We wanted to see powers transferred back to us. The Prime Minister took us at our word and said: "We are going to decentralize powers, in the area of manpower training in particular, and transfer these powers back to the provinces". The referendum was held in the fall of 1995. We are now in the spring of 1997, on the eve of another election campaign, and nothing has been done.

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, March 17th, 1997]

Give other examples.

[An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions, March 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, once again we are witnessing in this House an attempt on the part of the Liberal federal government to meddle in an area of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies so ably proved. He gave several examples. What is the federal government trying to do?

We have every right to believe that we will have an election in the spring. During the last referendum, the Liberal government promised it would recognize distinct society. It is so distinct that as soon as we turn around, it tries to step into yet another area of provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.

One may well wonder if the Prime Minister gets it. He knows full well though that when it comes to provincial powers, Quebecers are adamant. We would like to repatriate the powers Ottawa took away from us, and now he wants to interfere in areas that come under our jurisdiction. It is very rude on their part. If we are on the eve of an election, why are they doing this? They know full well that Quebecers are going to say: "This time you will not get away with it".

It is supper time, young people at home are watching us; I would like my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies to quickly go over what he explained earlier so that people really understand what is at stake here, the dark side of Bill C-82, and why it is so important for Quebecers to pay attention and remember how the Liberal government is intruding. People must understand this and let the government know what they think come election time.

I would ask my colleague to repeat the examples that clearly show how the Liberal government, the Prime Minister, the member for Shawinigan, are once again trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

[Supply, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I vote as I did earlier.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Seal Hunt, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, since the credibility of the whole industry is at stake, will the minister pledge to order an investigation and to bring those responsible for such cruel and illegal acts before the courts? Fishermen and seal hunters from the Gaspé region also told me this morning that the guilty parties must be found.

[Seal Hunt, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

On the eve of the seal hunting season in eastern Quebec and Canada, many questions are being raised regarding the cruel seal hunting practices shown yesterday on the Téléjournal . The video, which will be shown around the world, could undermine the work and credibility of the Quebec and Canadian fishing industry as a whole.

Last year, when the seal hunting season opened, did the minister have the necessary means to prevent such unacceptable behaviour?

[Ferry Service, February 6th, 1997]

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

The problem of the Magdalen Islands ferry continues. The Lucy Maud Montgomery has seen better days and the people of the Islands are no longer being taken in by Liberal promises. They want a permanent solution and they want it soon.

The Liberal government has already had a $30 million budget available for more than two years. Is it going to let the people of the Magdalen Islands wait much longer, while it insists on dumping its old Princess of Acadia on them, instead of providing them with another ferry, the Island of Inishmore , which is 80 feet shorter, but safer?

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage. My colleague from Frontenac has indicated we have reached the motions in Group No. 5. Curiously, it is a point I like to criticize the government on. The motions in Group No. 5 refer to the way the government can organize the human resources in these agencies, that is, how it appoints people to the agency.

I must say right off that the federal government tried the same thing in another bill, the one on fisheries, because it tried to create the fisheries tribunal and make it quasi legal, a quasi tribunal. In that instance I mentioned government fronts. Once again, it is the same thing: a patronage haven.

When the minister claims the right to appoint people himself and to define, extend and renew mandates, what are we talking about? How does this differ from hiring someone from the public service? At least this person becomes apolitical, he will have to work under all future governments, regardless of their colour. But in this case, they take money and make absolutely sure that this will be a place that provides a job for the friends of the party. My colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead made this point very clearly.

Here we are approaching Christmas, two weeks away from it. The Liberals are trying to ensure a fine Christmas present for their friends by pushing us to debate this bill. They want to be sure that there is something under the tree for their friends, once the bill is passed, like the gift of future jobs. It is time to get real.

My hon. colleague from Frontenac has raised some goods points. We will never say it often enough today: when the Bloc Quebecois sends its soldiers to the front, them come prepared and, as a good

soldier, the hon. member for Frontenac has done an excellent job in this matter. I can see him smile, but he is modest.

I would like to come back to a few points. If the federal government wanted to be consistent and say: "This is not a Christmas present for our friends", would it be prepared to accept that the agency be made up of people, if nothing else, appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture?

Why refer to this committee?-I notice the parliamentary secretary responsible for agriculture is joining us. We have had the opportunity to work with him. He is from Nova Scotia-Someone described it earlier as a patronage haven, but I will address that later. But I want to make sure to catch the attention of the hon. member, because there are still a few good Liberals. We must not lump them all in the same category. Since the good ones are so few, when we catch one, we better make sure they hear what our expectations are.

As I was saying, to prevent the proposed agency from becoming a patronage haven, why would its members not be appointed by the advisory board?

The parliamentary secretary opposite has had to face us in committee. The people opposite know they are in majority any way in the various committees, but at least official opposition members and the other members of this House can have a say. That is what I call transparency; that is what I call having faith.

My second point is the following. Why not ensure that candidates are selected from within the various communities and that the appointments to be considered in committee are made by the community. Let me explain.

If we are looking at an inspection system for fisheries, for instance, the fisheries community would submit to the Standing Committee on Agriculture a list of recommended candidates who have knowledge and expertise in that area. I am sure a joint fisheries-agriculture committee can be struck at that time for the specific purpose of considering who should be appointed to the agency.

Why oppose such an amendment? Perhaps to make sure that the only requirement for getting appointed to the board of this agency is to be a card-carrying member or friend of the Liberal Party.

Let me now move to another point that needs to be addressed. This agency is supposed to be a Canada-wide agency. Since Canada is made up of ten provinces, why not have specified, for each province, in the formula for determining how many administrators or inspectors will be involved, a percentage that would take the relative demographic importance of the province into account. Why not?

In just a few minutes, we were able to make three suggestions to improve the perception, the political philosophy behind all this.

We realize that it may be reasonable to try to ensure that, in Ottawa, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We cannot go against virtue and oppose the idea that the various inspection systems are being consolidated under a single agency, since we currently have a fisheries division, a food division, and a drug division in the health sector. The idea makes sense, but the problem is how these changes will be implemented.

The work done by the hon. member for Frontenac regarding this issue will have to be taken into consideration, if we want to improve the bill to make it good for all Quebecers and Canadians, including those in Nova Scotia, whom the parliamentary secretary, who is listening carefully, represents.

If the government does not support the amendments or motions moved by the hon. member for Frontenac, what will Canadians and Quebecers think of the bill?

They will think: the more things change, the more they stay the same. In Canada, we switched from the Conservatives to the Liberals. But what has changed? What has changed is that the friends of the Conservatives have lost their jobs; they have been replaced by friends of the Liberals.

The bill is a means to appoint Liberal Party friends who are in waiting. Indeed, not all the Liberal friends got jobs, and they are getting impatient.

The government has an opportunity to clean up the situation and to rebuild the credibility of the bureaucratic system. It has an opportunity to restore public confidence through the people who will represent the public and who will work for it.

But if, once again, the government lets go of such an opportunity, what will people think? If they are friends of the Liberal Party they may think they will receive a nice Christmas present, but if they are ordinary citizens they will probably think the government is pulling another fast one on them.

I pointed out earlier that the government is doing the same thing with the Fisheries Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposing this, again thanks to the information provided by the hon. member for Frontenac, who prepared the amendments very well. The Bloc Quebecois will once again oppose the bill.