Gilbert Fillion

[Petitions, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition concerning the closing of the La Baie employment centre.

"Whereas a considerable portion of the population to be served by the Canada Human Resources Centre is located at a distance of over 50 kilometres from the planned point of service;

Whereas it is essential for resources to remain in the community so as to have a proper grasp its specific dynamics and to be in a position to make informed judgments and decisions;

I hereby request-and I support this petition-that the minister take the specific characteristics of the riding of Chicoutimi into consideration and consult local decision makers before reaching a definitive decision".

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my colleague took three-quarters of his time to quote some headlines. Of course, he picked those he found most appropriate, because he knew that if he were to go over everything that has been said or written since the throne speech, he would find that 25 per cent of the headlines are for the government and 75 per cent are against.

I will try to get from him an answer to a question I put to one of his colleagues earlier. It is the same question. Given the contradictory statements by ministers on the issue of partition, could my colleague tell the House if he agrees with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. colleague. I regret to have to tell him that he is merely the mouthpiece of this government, which is quite good at improvising.

It has improvised on job creation. It had said that, yes, it would create jobs, but did not elaborate, did not say how it was going to do that. How is the gouvernment going to remove the barriers to job creation, how is it going to put Canadians and Quebecers back to work? It does not say.

Nor does it say a word about contradictory statements by ions between the words of various ministers regarding Quebec partitioning. I would have liked to hear what my colleague has to say on the subject. Does he share the point of view of the Minister of the Intergovernmental Affairs who, by the way, was contradicted by several members of the Cabinet regarding Quebec partitioning? I would like his opinion on the subject.

[Transfer Payments, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today the federal government monopolized a full page in Quebec's daily newspapers to announce that Quebec receives 31 per cent of federal transfers.

Of course, the federal government has skewed the facts by including transfers of tax points in its calculations. It also overlooks the fact that although Quebec represents 25 per cent of the population of Canada, it receives only 19 per cent of federal spending on goods and services, 18.5 per cent of federal spending on research and development, 17 per cent of federal capital spending, and so forth.

As a result of this shortfall in structural spending by the federal government, Quebec has to do without 55,000 jobs it would otherwise have.

As far as Ottawa is concerned, economic development is for Ontario and unemployment and welfare for Quebec. However, if cutbacks continue at their current rate, four years from now Ottawa will no longer finance Quebec's social programs.

[National Housing Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many petitions have been submitted in the House since this government took office, and several of them, from all over the country, concerned social housing.

I personally submitted a number of such petitions. The former Conservative government gradually withdrew from the social housing sector by adopting various measures.

In 1989, it withdrew from the rental housing rehabilitation program. In 1992, it took another devastating measure in that it

reduced by 21 per cent the number of new housing units. In 1993, it ended the long term financing of new low-cost housing units. As well, the RRAP, which provided assistance to repair social housing units, was abolished. Quebec thus sustained a major shortfall.

This Liberal government made promises during the last election campaign. In October 1993, several Liberal candidates, including the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, attended a meeting with officials from the Confédération des coopératives d'habitation de la grande région de Montréal, and made commitments regarding social housing. Among other measures, they were supposed to unfreeze the CMHC budget, so as to make it possible to build 5,800 new co-op housing units in Canada. They were also supposed to re-examine the percentage of investment required of the municipalities. Hooray for this wonderful platform. But after October 25, 1993, as if by magic, the Liberal government forgot its commitments.

Let us look at what the Liberals have done since they came to power. They have dashed all hopes of new housing units being built. They have required CMHC to turn back to the government close to $270 million saved in current operating expenses which could have been ploughed back into the community.

In 1995, this government pressured the provinces to raise rents in social housing. Six provinces gave in, while Quebec made it clear that it would not. The present government is quite simply continuing along the same political path as the Conservatives before it.

Yet the last time they campaigned, the Liberals condemned the brutal cuts in subsidized housing. Even the Minister of Finance, the same gentleman who predicted that one million jobs would disappear if Quebec voted yes in the referendum, himself committed to ensuring secure, guaranteed funding for social housing. Nothing has come of this. In Quebec, the losses over the past five years are estimated at very close to a billion dollars.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot tolerate such a situation. Social housing is more than a roof over people's heads. It is a vital element of economic and social policy. A good housing program must enable people to acquire a feeling of social identity and must provide them with the opportunity to control one of the factors influencing their lives.

For example, a co-operative housing project allows its members to live within a co-operative framework. Often various recreational activities are organized. Furthermore, members have to get involved in running their co-operative. Without their social housing, many of them would live in isolation. By dropping social housing, the government aggravates housing conditions that in turn substantially increase other problems such as poverty and hunger. Poverty, hunger and housing are closely linked.

Consider the situation in my riding. In Chicoutimi, more than 9,000 households or 44 per cent are tenants. Of that number, 3,000 have to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. This is unacceptable. This percentage is critical. Thirty-five per cent of tenants face this kind of situation. And more than 16 per cent spend half their income on housing.

This is a situation that has dramatic consequences and must be corrected. To pay the rent, an increasing number of tenants are obliged to cut back on essentials like food. In many households, even that is not enough. The statistics of the Régie du logement show that the number of tenants behind in their rent is increasing, not because they are more reluctant to pay but because the proportion of their income they must spend on rent is too high.

In its health and welfare policy, the Quebec government stated in 1992: "The cost of housing is a major item in a family's budget. If the cost of housing constantly causes major cuts in the budget for food, clothing and recreation, the quality of physical and mental health will be affected".

In 1993, the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights published a report on poverty in Canada. The report paints a damning picture of the housing situation. This committee was surprised to learn that social housing expenditures did not exceed 1.3 per cent of public spending.

In this era marked by a lack of permanent jobs and basic social rights, social housing is an important problem and will become increasingly so. The very health of those living in inadequate housing is at stake. We know who these people usually are: women who are the main breadwinners in their families, people who live alone, single parent families.

To tackle the problem, the government must substantially increase investments in housing, which would result in significant savings in health and social services. We must also consider the considerable impact on employment, which would be very beneficial at this time.

The government should develop an ambitious housing policy focused on building new social housing units by the year 2000, with a view to offering quality, environmentally sound housing, with adequate services and facilities for handicapped and mobility impaired people, among others.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the steam roller of cuts imposed by the federal Liberal government, that posed not so long ago as the great defender of culture, is on the move. The first target is unquestionably the CBC and Radio Canada International.

Over the weekend, more than 600 layoffs were confirmed at the CBC. These layoffs are to be distributed equally between the French and the English networks, which is unfair.

Last week, the Prime Minister said that there was no Quebec culture. So why protect it then? That seems to be the reaction of CBC senior management, even though the French network has demonstrated that it is more efficient, popular and costs less than its English sister network.

And what about Radio Canada International, which they are about to wipe off the face of the earth without even waiting for the Juneau report?

These cuts will have a devastating impact on the people and artists of Quebec and Canada.

[Quebec Culture, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebecers from all political affiliations were stunned to hear the Prime Minister, a Quebecer himself, say that there is no such thing as a Quebec culture. Rather, there is a French and an English culture which he calls the Canadian culture.

The Prime Minister's simplistic vision, which denies the very basis of his motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, shows that his roots in the Quebec society and culture do not run very deep. Given the comments made by her leader, it is surprising to see that the current labour minister, a former cultural affairs minister in the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, has nothing to say on the matter.

Her silence must be a heavy burden on her conscience since, as the proverb says: "Silence is a form of consent".

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, we are all taking part in a historical moment in this debate, because this moment marks federalism's inability to renew itself.

I never thought I would rise in this House to speak on anything so empty as this debate on Quebec's recognition as a distinct society. This motion by the government is essentially an exercise in futility. It is a complete and utter void.

Since October 30, improvisation has reigned supreme in this House, so much so that it is giving the Quebec Ligue nationale d'improvisation pretty stiff competition.

Before October 30, constitutional matters were systematically off topic. We kept being told that Canadians wanted to hear about

the economy, work, jobs and job creation. But, surprise, the day after October 30, the sovereignist project was within a hair's breadth of becoming a reality.

A few days later, the federalist camp reacted hastily in the face of a potential victory by the yes side. In Verdun, we had the pleasure of a speech by the Prime Minister, which brought back memories. In 1980, on the eve of another referendum, another Prime Minister came to Quebec to make promises. The current Prime Minister was on the dais with him.

On October 30, the federalist camp heaved a sigh of relief. The reality of the matter is something else, however. With their slim victory, the federalists no doubt consulted each other and decided to act. And what a reaction! I said before that this smacks of improvisation. Two committees were created here. But, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister himself announced the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. To hell with the committees, he sidestepped his own creations and everybody else.

The distinct society motion, as it stands, is nothing more than meaningless words. It is a smoke screen. In fact, it is only a motion of the House of Commons, which could be easily overturned at the whim of any federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. All this motion means is that, in the future, it will be possible to tell Quebecers you are distinct. Are you not happy? You are distinct. But giving Quebecers the means to act distinctly is out of the question. And it is even more unlikely that the Liberal government would try its hardest to have this distinctiveness recognized in the Constitution. Again, this would be too much to ask.

But, to think of it, what else could we expect from a Prime Minister who himself said last September, in this House, that everybody knew that Quebec was distinct and, consequently, that it did not have to be enshrined in the Constitution. If this is how he reads last week's motion, then it is justified. If that is how he understands the motion he tabled last week, this motion is justified.

The Prime Minister would certainly need a history lesson. History shows that every time the federal government wants to do something for Quebecers, it waters down its promises. This is akin to using the same coffee grounds to make five or six pots; what remains at the end of this process is like dishwater. That is what the government is doing with this resolution. First Meech, then Charlottetown, and now the 1995 resolution. There is nothing left. Indeed, there is not much left. This merely encourages the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of the recognition that Quebec is a distinct society.

Unlike some Liberal members, we see the past as important. There is a famous saying that what goes around, comes around. Quebecers know their history. They also know what they want. The Prime Minister's motion will go down in history mostly as another insult to Quebecers' intelligence, as an attempt to convince them that a simple resolution would finally settle the issue.

This government is forgetting something else. Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens". On October 30, some Quebecers decided to give Canada a last chance. It was the last chance. Once again, they thought that Canada would recognize them as a people and give them the powers that go along with being a people. Unfortunately, they were once again in for a disappointment when they saw what was really being proposed: a resolution that sets us back even further.

This resolution was put together in a mad rush because the Prime Minister knows full well that he will be questioned by the official opposition. While, in 1980, Quebecers were represented by 74 Liberal members in the House of Commons, in 1995, it is quite a different story, since 53 Bloc members have been given the mandate by the people of Quebec to look after their interests. The Prime Minister knows full well that if he tries to delude Quebecers into believing that he is delivering the goods, we will be there to condemn him for it. The mandate we have been given by the people of Quebec was clear and it has become even clearer since October 30.

Where I come from, we have a saying that goes: "Rude awakenings are to be expected on the morning after". Never has the saying ever been so true as in the case of the aftermath of the October 30 referendum. At the beginning of my remarks, I indicated that I never expected to have to speak on such a meaningless thing, and I am sure that the people of my region agree.

This is another history lesson that Quebecers are not about to forget. It is also a lesson for those who thought they would give a last chance to Canada. But by dint of remembering, the people of Quebec will take action. I have no doubt about that. One day soon we will start writing the history of the people of Quebec.

The resolution put forward by the Prime Minister is tasteless, colourless and odourless. Anyone who believes that Quebecers are a people must reject it.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on November 7, the Prime Minister announced that a ministerial committee had been set up to review the whole question of constitutional and administrative changes to the Canadian federation. It is strange though to set up such a committee, whose mandate and schedule remains unknown, even as we speak.

It is strange also that this committee is made up only of federal ministers, when everyone knows full well that the real decision makers in that regard are the provincial premiers. I for one believe that this committee was struck just for the Prime Minister's satisfaction, to give him something to say, or else to distract momentarily from the poor performance during the referendum.

How can this committee have any credibility when some of its members have gone out of their way to trample on Quebec. What can be said about the Minister of Justice, who was looking for legal means to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future? And what about the fisheries minister who invited thousands of Canadians to act in violation of the Referendum Act? What about the Minister of Canadian Heritage who will not recognize that Quebecers are a nation? What about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, when he was a member of the opposition in this House, voted against a government proposal which recognized, among other things, the distinct society in the Meech Lake Accord?

And what about the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who, when answering the question I put to him on November 8 about the mandate of the committee, simply said, and I quote: "Our committee will also look at non constitutional measures, so as to not overlook any means to make our federation more effective"?

Yet, by giving such an answer, the minister admits his helplessness. The measures which will be considered are non constitutional measures. How can such measures come up to the expectations of the Quebecers? Again, it is a committee established to do away with the legitimate expectations of the Quebecers.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I think the hon. member should come and visit the region before it closes down. As I said earlier, we have a very high unemployment rate, and when you add all the people who are on welfare, I think the government should go down there and reassure these people. I would appreciate it if he came down for a visit. I would be delighted to have him as a guest.

As for his comments, I must say that when they talk about Canadian content and they tell us that when we had a lot of money, we could afford Canadian content, we could give the people in our regions something to hope for and tell them: "Get into those fields, start factories and small businesses and adjust to what is out

there". Today, now there is nothing left, the government has dropped the whole thing and we let others do the job.

If you consider all the government programs we have in this country, I am sure we would be able to find the money to fund defence conversion. There are so many programs.

In fact, the auditor general himself said today in one of his reports that the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec had spent $4.5 billion without knowing where it all went and what it accomplished. In fact, this kind of money could be used for programs to help develop this defence industry.

My point is, we should look at the various programs that exist today, that are poorly managed and that cost us an awful lot in terms of time, money, energy and interest, especially, and accomplish absolutely nothing. We could give these industries a special boost.

In any case, if these industries are not given financial support, they still remain competitive in terms of the products they manufacture or the services they offer. And that is where the answer lies. Because these businesses are competitive, we can develop expertise, using programs that today are not accomplishing a thing but could be reviewed and redirected to National Defence.