Maurice Godin

[Petitions, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition which has been certified correct according to our Standing Orders. It is signed by over 1,130 people in support of the request of the Garda family, of Châteauguay, for political refugee status.

These two people belong to the Hungarian minority in Rumania where, as such, they would be threatened and persecuted.

People in the Châteauguay riding do not want another Maraloï case. They want the minister to really meet the needs, within a reasonable timeframe, of all refugees, especially political refugees, who seek to be integrated into our North American society.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate challenges all our political morals, our habits, our customs out of this Chamber, our relations behind the political scene and the influence peddling that usually remain hidden from the public. The study of Bill C-22 provides a unique opportunity to ask ourselves about the interaction that may exist between the political authority of a government and the economic power of large corporations.

We have before us a holding which resorted to the most extreme schemes to acquire terminals 1 and 2 of Pearson Airport in Toronto. The report by Robert Nixon, who was responsible for examining the deal, is very critical in that regard. Corporate transactions, transfers of senior departmental officers, exceptional tendering procedures, no requirement for a prior financial analysis, clauses benefitting the airport at the expense of others, everything led the investigator to believe that such an inadequate contract signed in such an irregular way was unacceptable.

One can understand Airport Development Corporation, Claridge Holdings Inc., Paxport Inc. and their consortium T1 T2 Limited Partnership. Pearson Airport was a jewel for developers in the air transport industry. With 20 million passengers each year, an area covering 1 792 hectares, three terminals, 15 000 employees, and 800 airplanes landing or taking off every day for

300 destinations in 60 countries, Pearson airport is the hub of air transport in Canada.

According to a Transport Canada study dating from 1987, Pearson airport has direct economic spin-offs amounting to $4 billion for the Ontario economy and it employs 56 000 people. Yet, not long ago, it was Montreal that was the hub of air traffic.

The federal government is responsible for major changes that have affected the location of the poles of economic activity. Quebec has long been suffering from federal interventionism within its economy. Pearson airport is benefitting from the side effects of one of these federal interventions, namely the building of Mirabel International Airport.

The Mirabel decision had horrible consequences for Quebec in several regards. Initially, the idea was to meet a demand that Dorval airport could no longer satisfy. Why not stick to consolidating Dorval infrastructures into one modern efficient airport that would have confirmed Montreal as the hub for the next 50 years? No. Politicians at the time agreed to build a second airport in Mirabel, 40 kilometres from Montreal and about a hundred kilometres from Ottawa, at a spot Highway 13 has not even reached yet.

Meanwhile, Quebec representatives were thinking about locating that airport in the Montreal-Sherbrooke-Quebec triangle in order to serve adequately the metropolitan area, as well as the old capital, while opening up, through Sherbrooke, to the big market of the East coast, with several million people. The federal government refused to listen and, while Quebec was pursuing its actions and its consultations, the federal government made a unilateral decision on March 27, 1969. Its airport would be located in Mirabel to serve, it was claimed, both the federal capital, Ottawa, and the Montreal metropolis.

The federal government, with our money, was making a poisoned gift to Quebec. What a gift. It was depriving us of 95,856 acres of one of the best farming land. But most of all, Mirabel airport would gradually cause the Montreal area to lose its status as the hub of international air traffic in favour of Pearson airport in Toronto. While Mirabel was being built, the federal government was giving permission to all international airline companies to use the airport in Toronto, which could then provide all these services and keep expanding in one single airport.

A plot to move this economic activity 500 kilometres to the West could not have been more successful. This federal intervention resulted in a significant loss of jobs for Quebec. And who paid the bill? Quebecers themselves, with the taxes they are sending to Ottawa.

This kind of deplorable intervention by the federal against Quebec's interests is not the first and will not be the last, as long as Quebec remains in this federation. Interventionism has also affected all our oil and petro-chemical industry. In 1957, the Diefenbaker government established a Royal Commission on Energy chaired by Henry Borden. Of the six commissioners, Jean-Louis Lévesque, from Montreal, was the only one representing Quebec. The mandate of the Borden Commission was to examine all issues relating to energy, such as size of the domestic market, security of oil supply, the export volume and price.

The commission was anxious to develop this sector of the economy to become less dependent on other countries and at the same time reach the U.S. market. There was more to it, however. A jealous eye was cast on the oil refineries in Montreal, which some people wanted to see transferred to Ontario. The commission heard representations from independent producers who were in favour of building a pipeline from Edmonton to Montreal, so that Alberta crude would displace imported Venezuelan crude being refined in Montreal. However, Ontario was not really interested in this pipeline or western natural gas but in Montreal's major refineries.

Once again, as in so many other cases, the influence of the lobbyists was decisive. The project was opposed by the major oil multinationals. Finally, the commission recommended drawing a demarcation line along the Ottawa Valley. It recommended securing all markets to the west of this line for producers in Alberta. The federal government implemented this recommendation in 1961. Since the pipeline went to Toronto, Sarnia was born. The next step was to extend the pipeline to Montreal, and after taking away our refineries, English Canada was to take over the Montreal market.

We owe the disappearance of an entire petrochemical industry in East Montreal to Canada's national policy initiatives. Richard Séguin, one of our great singers from Quebec-the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry referred to him on February 9 as a great artist-tells us in one of his songs about the incredible human cost of the disappearance of East Montreal's refineries. At the end of his song he says to his father: "J'vais prier pour toi".

Another example, equally important, is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We all know that this access way to the Great Lakes, built with our taxes, sounded the death knell of the Port of Montreal. It contributed substantially towards shifting certain activities towards the West, while destroying Montreal's position as a transit zone for goods, services and people. We could have made Montreal the biggest interior port in the world, a real international hub.

Today, a special committee is considering the future of the Seaway, but we are stuck with it, and it will probably cost too much to undo.

As an economic activity, transportation is central to many other activities. This is why maritime, rail, pipeline and air transportation play a role in the development capabilities of other economic activities. You can sense the appeal of that. This is clearly the reason why big investors, lobbyists and friends of the government are doing their utmost to lay their hands on this sector. Wolves follow their prey, and if we are not vigilant, private interest will prevail over public interest.

I will conclude by saying that for too long our taxes have been used against us in this federation. We no longer want our taxes to be used to enrich the friends of the government, we want them to be used to reduce the debt. The financing of our party, the Bloc Quebecois, is a model to follow. Money comes from individuals, not from large companies or interest groups seeking favours by giving money to the main parties, irrespective of their leanings. We do not owe anyone anything, our hands are not tied.

We are here to defend Quebec's interests, and they include a sound management of public funds. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a royal commission of inquiry. While waiting for Quebec sovereignty, we will try to improve Canada. Be assured that we are going to try to clean up its act.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak in the debate on second reading of the bill tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the purpose of which is to approve, give effect and declare valid the agreement signed on September 6, 1993, with the Dene and the Metis. This agreement was concluded following land claims made by these peoples, which must be considered by this House in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I am the elected representative for the riding of Châteauguay and, as such, I am particularly aware of and concerned by all matters connected with aboriginal affairs. The riding provides a good example of the Amerindian problem or, should I say, the problem of co-habitation between our peoples. The facts are clear: sharing the lands of this continent first meant living with them, then it meant hostility, then pushing some into the back country and then creating reserves after a conquest in which they lost everything. We cannot deny and we cannot get around this historical truth, since we are faced with it every day. The proud descendants of these peoples are only too willing to remind us, each in their own way, of the cost of being neighbours on such a fragile basis.

The most troubling challenge to us today is to find the right way to deal with the problems we have created. There is the silence of the young suicide victims in Davis Inlet. This is our own third world, within our borders, the result of wanting to share this land without respecting the aboriginal culture and way of life.

The most troubling image is that of this anonymous Algonquin in the subway, crowded all sides by the ultimate cultural mosaic, and no one else realizes that his ancestors were there first. Another troubling image: two faces staring impassively at each other, their silence an eloquent metaphor. With the reserve of Khanawake within its boundaries, Châteauguay knows all about that, and that is why it placed its trust in the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct nations, as it recognizes the two founding peoples of this Canadian federation. Mutual understanding will depend on our ability to share the same sphere of economic, political, legal and commercial activities, as opposed to the present situation, where we live in parallel worlds.

This partnership must succeed and, with them like with the people of Quebec, the best way to achieve mutual co-operation is by recognizing first of all their existence as partners, as neighbours, in their integrity, with all their rights and obligations. The days when one nation exercised trusteeship over another should be over.

In that context, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes Bill C-16 as a form of recognition of the Sahtu Dene and Metis as nations. Major exclusive territorial rights are being recognized to a group of 2,000 people living on 41,437 squre kilometres in the Mackenzie Valley, in the Northwest Territories, including subsurface rights on an area covering 1,813 square kilometres, some $75 million over 15 years and an annual share of the royalties on the valley's natural resources.

Sahtu lands will be neither public property nor reserves. Trough this agreement, the Dene and the Metis are guaranteed private lands, which will enable them to be involved in land use planning, protect their exclusive hunting rights, and determine their economic development prospects as well as their future.

This is one more step toward self-government. That is exactly what we are wishing for all peoples: the capacity to take in their hands and have a say with regard to the management of their natural resources, heritage conservation and regulations concerning their lands and waters.

One point of particular interest to me is the impact of this agreement on the land holding system. Since the Colonial era, we had known two main types of property: private property and public property. The former was a vested right of lords, settlers and inhabitants, and today, it is a privilege enjoyed by citizens, corporations and speculators alike. The latter was a prerogative of the Crown, the clergy, the Colonial administration, and today, the state, our governments.

The mid-19th century saw another type of property be established, namely Indian reserves. It was then, and still is, a special status granted to lands, a status nonetheless ambiguous. We are dealing here with collectively owned lands which are neither public, since they are not accessible to everyone, nor private, since they are not controlled by individuals, but rather by a tribal council which is responsible for administering the reserve.

I have some difficulty understanding why, in 1994, we have yet to clear up this ambiguity. I think back to a time full of promise when, in 1969, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau promised action to bring about the full participation of native communities. Even then, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, today the honourable the Prime Minister, said that the legislative and constitutional basis of discrimination must be removed. The government of the day was adamant that services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians. The lawful obligations of natives must be recognized and, to this end, responsibility for administering native lands must be transferred to native communities.

Despite the Trudeau era and his minister, 25 years later, the problem of native self-government has yet to be resolved. Why is this? Because the promised action was never taken, despite the fact that, on June 25, 1969, the Minister of Indian Affairs made a commitment to this House to act so as to give natives control over and title to their lands. Listen to what was said at the time. The minister promised to transfer to the provinces federal funds normally provided for native programs so that the provinces could take over the same responsibilities for natives that they had for other citizens in their provinces. He was committed to dismantling the department of Indian affairs and giving its mandate to other federal departments.

What was this minister talking about? He was talking of transferring jurisdictions to the provinces, according to the Trudeau government; of eliminating costly and unproductive duplication and overlap. What did he actually do? The department is still in place. It will spend over $5 billion. As for transferring jurisdictions, in today's federal arena, only the Bloc Quebecois maintains that it is necessary.

The Sahtu agreement paves the way to something other than reserves for Natives. The Sahtu lands will fall under two categories: those covered by the regulations and municipal lands.

In the case of regulated lands, certain special conditions will ensure the Dene and Metis' title to the lands. These lands cannot be sold, mortgaged, seized or expropriated without being replaced. Municipal lands, on the other hand, can be sold or ceded, but if it is to an individual, they will no longer belong to the Sahtu. The Sahtu's improved municipal lands will be taxable, but those that are not improved will be tax-exempt.

This issue of ownership raises several questions, especially since the Native crisis of the summer of 1990. This crisis arose from claims for territorial autonomy and self-government. The claims made at that time almost amounted to an offense affecting

urban areas inhabited by thousands of people with deep roots in their community.

In my mind, the Bloc Quebecois' support of the agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis does not mean opening the door to all land claims from a distant past. Neither the Bloc Quebecois nor any other political party can recognize the rights of one people at the expense of another. That is why negotiations on self-government are so sensitive. We must consider these negotiations in the light of today's realities, without forgetting the past, of course, but by acknowledging that lasting relations are based on mutual respect.

As the member for Châteauguay where the Kahnawake reserve is located, I know that this agreement is good. I salute the Mackenzie Valley agreement; I hope that it is only recognizing today's reality, above all, and that it does not discriminate against anyone.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the economic region of the Montérégie is plagued with an unemployment rate that reached 11 per cent during the first quarter of this year, according to Statistics Canada. What would be the impact of Bill C-17 on the unemployment rate? That is what we have to ask ourselves to understand fully why the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is an insult to all citizens.

The Martin budget is based on bad logic. For example, it establishes a link between the problems related to economic recovery and the labour market, employers and businesspeople, and the contributions which help fund the unemployment insurance system. Furthermore, since the beginning of the 1990s, unemployment insurance has become a program which is supposed to be self-financing. With Bill C-17, the government concludes that we have to bring back the rate of unemployment insurance premiums to 3 per cent. By doing so, they think that it will contribute 125 million dollars towards economic growth and job creation-as shown in Table II of the Budget Speech-and save 725 million dollars just in 1994-95-as it has been written in the backgrounder on the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program.

Did the government ask itself what contribution it might have done if it had reconsidered other measures? We still do not know why the GST applies to essential commodities and not to stock exchange transactions. What we do know however is that the financing of unemployment insurance has been turned back

twenty years. This program is more and more restrictive and out of reach.

The government is again making the mistake of going after the unemployed instead of unemployment, as if those people had chosen to be without a job. The benefit period for new claimants will be reduced. There is another measure which will transfer to the provinces the cost of the government's inability to strengthen the economy. Where do the unemployed go when they have used up all their benefits and still have no job? They join the ranks of those who are forced to live on welfare. And do not think that these people do not want to work because they do!

The Chrétien government was happy with the last Statistics Canada unemployment figures. However, it overlooked the number of people who have lost hope and have stopped looking for jobs. It also overlooked the figures showing an increase in the number of welfare applications.

Another measure of retaliation against the unemployed is the minimum requirements for benefit entitlement which have been increased from 10 to 12 weeks of insurable employment. The government is really striving to reduce the total number of claimants on the books. Can such a measure help solve the employment problem? Certainly not. The resulting savings will cost a fortune. The Liberal government is only giving us the impression it did something; in reality, it has done nothing at all.

The government said that it wanted to encourage small business by increasing consumer demand. Do you think that the unemployed will be able to contribute to this economic recovery effort when their payments are being reduced to 55 per cent of their average insurable earnings? Even at 60 per cent, for low income earners with children or other dependants such as an elderly parent, people are still below the subsistence level.

The government has made commitments that it is not keeping. Yet, it would be possible to straighten up public finances and the deficit, but it would take a major shake up with a view to establishing a really equitable fiscal policy. According to some experts, it would be possible to find $46.1 billion in additional revenues for the Treasury through fiscal restructuring only, without touching social programs, without attacking the poor who try desperately to make ends meet.

Seventeen separate measures have been identified by economist Léo-Paul Lauzon, from sources as diverse as the Auditor General of Canada, Yves Séguin, Ernst Young, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Department of Finance. Among them, the two most important are the closing of fiscal loopholes which would bring $10 billion to the treasury, and the creation of a new tax on securities which would bring in another $10 billion.

But the government did not dare touch anything which could have displeased its rich friends. However, it did not hesitate to do so when it came to the unemployed. That is the main reproach we can direct to the government, and Bill C-17 proves once again the public was misled by enticing election promises.

In the economic region of the Montérégie, an unemployed person coming to an employment centre with 15 weeks of work to his or her credit would currently be entitled to UI benefits for 30 weeks. After Bill C-17 is passed, the same person will be eligible for only 21 weeks of benefits. That is what the Chrétien government just offered. That is their initiative for economic growth and job creation. The government just cut nine weeks of benefits for this unemployed worker.

Do the government realize what they are doing? What they are saying by this is that their management of social problems is a complete failure. They are saying to Canadians that they would be better off if this responsibility was transferred to their provinces. It is proving the Quebec sovereignists right. Should we go as far as to thank the government for doing us this favor?

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, some 3,000 people gathered to ask that the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean remain open. This demonstration was truly a show of solidarity, with residents from Saint-Jean, Montérégie, the greater Montreal and my own riding participating. Politicians representing all political affiliations joined in a common front to convey the message that the French-speaking military college in Saint-Jean must remain open.

The federal government must not make the mistake of closing this unique institution in North America, which serves to train military officers in their own language and milieu. The government must reconsider its decision and have the courage to recognize its mistake, to clearly show that French-language institutions have their place in the federal system.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his question. No, I do not believe that additional closures of federal installations in Quebec would be detrimental to Quebec. One has to understand that any federal investment in Quebec is tied to taxation. Whether we take our tax dollars and send them to Ottawa only to have them reinvested in the province, or whether we spend them ourselves, it is really all one and the same thing.

However, I would point out to him that there is quite a difference between receiving one million for research and development, and receiving one million for unemployment insurance. If we were the masters of our own destiny, we could take the one million and invest it in research and development, rather than spend it on unemployment insurance. Then, we would be able to put everyone to work.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from Longueuil. As far as I am concerned, a country's revenues and production capability are not merely a function of its size or the extent of its borders, but rather a function of the way in which that country is run.

I think that is the problem with Canada today. We have a government machine that could in all likelihood adequately serve 260 million people, the population of the United States, whereas we have a population of barely 26 or 27 million. And that is the crux of the problem. There is considerable duplication at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. If we cannot change or amend this system, then the only option for Quebec, the only way for it to achieve a healthy system of government, is to become sovereign.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is the failure of a newly-elected government, a government with a list of promises as long as your arm.

Sadly, we are faced with a double failure. First, this government has failed to start off its mandate by taking the drastic actions required to put our public finances in order. Second, it also failed to find ways to promote economic recovery. It has managed to take yet more from the have-nots of our society, while sparing the wealthy. It has even managed to cause controversy with unfortunate decisions like the closure of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

However much the Minister of Finance tried to prove, with all kinds of figures and calculations, that efforts had been made to cut expenditures, few people believed him-not the media, and certainly not ordinary people-because the figures are there, implacable and merciless.

Those figures tell us that the budget will again show a deficit of disposable revenue over uncontrolled expenditures. This government will keep feeding an accumulated deficit by nearly $40 billion, an amount that the government is spending on top of what the people are able to pay. So, it should not boast about cuts and efforts to that effect. Its failure is visible, undeniable, because total spending continues to increase.

The level of indebtedness of this country is getting ridiculous. While this government will be adding some $40 billion to the accumulated debt, it will spend about as much just to service the debt. In other words, we are getting dangerously close to the point where our annual deficit will be equal to the cost of

servicing the public debt. Will we soon be forced to cut government spending just to cover debt charges? The Minister of Finance himself admitted that he will not be able to pay off Canada's public debt. What about the annual deficit? Could he pay it off? Not likely! If only the government could invest as much in job creation as it is paying just for debt maintenance.

Furthermore, the government could not resist picking up the bad habit of hitting on low-income people. We thought we had seen everything with the actions the former minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Program had recently announced. He had even tried to fool people by renaming his department, using the euphemism of Human Resources Development. Can you imagine? But people were not fooled; we know what they did with this kind of human resources development. In the last election, the Canadian people as a whole fired all those who did not understand the difference between tackling unemployment and attacking the unemployed.

The new government, far from distinguishing itself from the old Tory government, followed in their footsteps. Ordinary people have trouble understanding how the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program are likely to improve the employment picture. I, too, have trouble understanding the increase in the number of weeks of work needed to qualify, when jobs are increasingly precarious and job security seems to have become an obsolete concept.

The cumulative deficit of some $6 billion in the unemployment insurance account at the end of 1993 is not a result of the system as such but of the failure of governments to support employment and the economy. It is not the unemployment insurance program that creates unemployment. The Liberals are confusing the disease with the cure. This remedy is not curative but palliative. The Liberals are on the same wrong path as the Conservatives; they have the same policies, the same lobbyists, the same kind of election fund, the same friends, the same protectors.

Observers quickly noted how fast the government acted to introduce in its current budget measures hitting the middle class. Yet, despite all the proposed measures regarding capital gains and tax loopholes, the Minister of Finance merely announced public consultations and hearings. Not only is there no equity in this budget but there is no appearance of equity.

While cutting transfer payments to the provinces by $2 billion over two years, it does not have the courage to close the real tax loopholes available to the rich. We in the Bloc Quebecois are always identifying tax trusts or invoking the Auditor General's recommendations, for example. If cuts to operating expenditures for 1994-95 only amount to $413 million, it is because the government did not take immediate action to eliminate waste and duplication.

It refuses to cut in the right places but does it in the wrong places. In his speech, the Minister of Finance called for renewal and accountability in social programs. To move in that direction, the government could have restored the non-profit housing program, for instance. That program provided needy households with housing of reasonable size and quality at affordable prices. It helped eligible sponsoring organizations to build, acquire, renovate and run subsidized rental housing projects. But the government did not restore the program, and thus missed a good opportunity to show its know-how.

Short of a similar program, it seems that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which was responsible for such applications under the National Housing Act, is now essentially a mortgage insurer and has given up its role of partner in social programs.

The office of the president and chief executive officer of the Société d'habitation du Québec told us that, in 1993, 782 new low-cost housing units had been built across the province, thanks to the financial involvement of the federal government. Thirty-five of these units are located at 41 Saint-Hubert Street, in Châteauguay, thanks to the initiative and efforts of all those involved within the community. Do you know how many new units are expected to be added in 1994, after this budget? None, Mr. Speaker. None at all! Maybe this is the government's message! Maybe this is the solution found by the government to free itself from its obligations towards the poor.

I say to the government that better management is not synonymous with reneging on commitments. The necessary streamlining of expenditures and operations did not take place. It is more than urgent that the government use common sense. The Liberals had their red book, but their budget does not show that they have the know-how. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has every reason to be here in this House. It must make representations on behalf of all those who are forgotten and neglected by the government, and it must inform this same government of the opportunities which exist but that it refuses to recognize.

As the Official Opposition critic for Veterans Affairs, I was surprised to read that the secretary of state was satisfied because no programs were affected by any cuts, and that he was confident that no service would be adversely affected. These comments were reported in the February 24, 1994, issue of the Charlottetown Guardian . How can the minister make such claims when cuts affecting the department are somewhere around $3.2 million? How can these cuts, which will impact on the 1994-95 department's operating expenditures, have no effect whatsoever? Is the department so badly managed that cuts of that magnitude will not be felt at all? I certainly intend to ensure that the statement made by the secretary of state is not merely exaggerated optimism.

This budget clearly illustrates the failure of the Canadian federal regime. The wheel of the regime is turning with such inertia and is under the influence of such external force that it does not seem controllable. The result is that the Liberals have drafted a budget identical to the one which the Conservatives might have tabled, had they been re-elected. It is the exact same thing! If the elected government does not seem able to control the federal regime, how can Canadians have the impression that they can make a difference and change things in that regime?

We believe that the real solution lies in a major redefinition of the controls of public authority. Quebec's sovereignty is not an end in itself. It does not automatically mean the end of Canada or the will to come to that. Rather, Quebec's sovereignty represents the beginning of a new relationship in which solutions simply not possible in the present constitutional structure could be used to resolve common problems. Canada's structural crisis can only be solved if Quebec becomes a sovereign nation. This is the option I favour for the benefit of our future generations.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and, at a time when the deficit and the debt are so much talked about, I am shocked and puzzled that all they are talking about is consultation. At various times, we were told that Canadians would be consulted on this or that.

As far as I am concerned, and especially with regard to the budget and its preparation, there was too much consultation; and yet, unions, senior citizens, the unemployed complained that indeed they were consulted but that the Liberals only took what they liked.

My question to my colleague has to do with the fact that every year the Auditor General makes a series of recommendations and as he said himself, as a general conclusion to his report, that there are no controls and that his recommendations are not followed. Would it not be better to stop travelling from coast to coast, given the cost of such an exercise, and instead focus on implementing the Auditor General's recommendations?

[Indian Affairs, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, I would like to know exactly what corrective action the minister intends to take to ensure that the Indians' estates are managed properly by his department.