Gilbert Fillion

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this opposition day, the debate is on a subject chosen by the Bloc Quebecois, and I must say I have always had a special interest in national defence.

There are a number of reasons why that is so, the main one being that in my riding, we have an important entity that reports to the Department of National Defence and I am, of course, referring to the Bagotville Base.

The base is a major employer in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. Bagotville provides employment for more than 1,250 military personnel and 280 civilians.

That alone makes it a major economic asset to a region that, need I say it again, has the highest unemployment rate in Canada.

I am sure that the same could be said of other regions in Canada, since there are always substantial economic spinoffs for a region where a base is located. Many small industries gravitate around the base itself and have often developed expertise in the defence industry.

Cutting or downsizing at that level does not only affect National Defence as such, it also affects small businesses in the vicinity. There is cause for alarm when the federal government decides to close part or all of its military infrastructures, since residents then have to adjust their lives accordingly.

On February 22, 1994, the Minister of National Defence in this government sent me the following letter, and I will read two extracts: "I regret to announce that the project to develop an air to ground weapons range for CFB Bagotville in your riding has been cancelled".

The most important part of the letter is this: "Although we considered the importance of maintaining the balance of economic and regional benefits, the decisive factor in making these difficult decisions is as follows: they must be based on military and economic considerations".

The letter says: "National Defence will work closely with other departments and regional development agencies that will help communities plan for the future".

You may recall that subsequently, on July 10, 1995, the Minister of National Defence replied as follows: "There are plans to cut 305 military and 15 civilian positions in the 3rd Squadron at CFB Bagotville. However, this information is only an estimate and further changes may be made subsequently". That probably means additional cuts.

What surprises me is that following these cutbacks, the Department of National Defence says it will work in close co-operation with other government agencies to help these communities plan their future. Well, despite the cuts in my area, we have not seen and I have not sensed any willingness on the part of other departments to get involved to deal with certain situations. Certainly not. And of course a number of bills have been tabled in the House, starting with the bill to establish the Department of Human Resources Development, the department that is closing employment centres. Employment centres are being closed while the unemployment rate goes up.

We also have trouble retraining or providing new kinds of training for people who have been laid off, and I am talking about both the military and civilians.

We must face the federal government's new choices. I think that the government has forgotten that the economic development of many communities is based on defence. When the federal government decides to leave a region or change its equipment, it should act a little more responsibly.

In the area of defence, a so-called responsible government should focus on conversion. As my Bloc colleague said earlier, the aerospace industry is one of the areas best suited for conversion. Yet, it seems that this sector remains one of the most fragile in Canada, at a time when several other countries have opted for conversion.

The governments of all countries with significant aerospace industries actively support this sector. One only has to think of companies like General Dynamics in the U.S., which grew because it received defence contracts from the U.S. government. The governments of all these countries put in place major conversion programs.

We, in Quebec, have expertise allowing us to believe in this reality. We have engineering firms, architectural firms, trained technicians who are ready to face these new challenges. In most cases, the federal government's policy on projects requiring new infrastructures is to go ahead without calling for tenders.

I am going to tell you something. Last week, the commander of CFB Bagotville and I inaugurated a $2.8 million arena in my riding. When this project was on the table, architectural and engineering firms from outside Quebec were invited to prepare plans and specifications, when we, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, have construction firms that can build massive dams like the James Bay project. Yet, they are incapable of building a small arena for some 200 to 300 people, an arena which has, of course, become very important for the military. It is very important.

The question is not whether or not to have an arena, but rather who will be the builders, architects and engineers involved. After running around here, there and everywhere in various departments, I managed to obtain that a firm from our area would at least be allowed to submit a bit. Finally. Many thanks to the government employee who told me: "All right, Mr. Fillion, CEGERGO will be invited to bid for building the arena".

It was not a matter of favouring this particular firm over another, but a matter of placing this firm on an equal footing, to at least give the chance to a firm that is paying taxes to Canada and employing hundreds of people to bid on an arena project.

The defence department, through its construction engineering branch or what not, said the firm would be allowed to bid because it had done some work in James Bay and built a 20-storey building in Montreal. I guess they felt it had some credibility, so they decided to accept it as a contender. Would you believe that the contract, a turnkey contract, was eventually awarded to this very firm, CEGERGO. Turnkey means that everything was run from the office, using expertise from my region.

By going to tender, we give our regions a chance to develop. In contracting however, it is important that everyone be given a chance to compete. I am sure that we end up saving money this way.

In the United States, between $4 billion and $6 billion is allocated to conversion assistance in the Clinton plan. Of course, their population is larger. In Europe also larger sums are invested in this area. When you make an effort to look around and see what is going on outside of Canada, you realize that, more and more, Canada's track record as far as its aerospace industry is concerned is not great.

In Canada, funding for programs designed to help the Canadian defence industry was steadily cut year after year. We are told that a great deal of streamlining is happening in terms of cuts to defence spending, but at the same time people are left jobless. That is not important. It is not important that, at some point, communities find themselves in bad shape. However, they do not realize that, even though cuts are being made in the defence budget, as well as in other departments, Canadians have an increasingly heavier tax burden. Try to make some sense out of that.

In the late 1980's, the budget was somewhere around $300 million. This year, in 1995-96, it is only $102 million and it is constantly diminishing. The government does not care at all about those who relied on the defence industry. As you know, the aerospace industry plays a vital role in Quebec's economy. That is a reality which we repeatedly stressed in this House. That industry is important for many Quebecers, since the salaries paid in that sector are quite good.

In 1993, close to 20,000 Quebecers worked in the aerospace industry. Therefore, the federal government should increase its research assistance in that field. In addition to increasing the budgets allocated for research and development, Canada should change its defence procurement policy regarding goods and services as quickly as possible. This is all the more necessary, given that the new policy no longer includes Canadian content requirements, thereby jeopardizing the development, around each and every base, of companies which have developed such expertise.

Given the federal government's lack of action, these companies are forced to compete with foreign businesses, most of which are heavily subsidized by their respective governments. This creates a double standard. It is very difficult to be competitive when the federal government reduces its subsidies. We are competitive in terms of design and work, but we cannot compete at an economic level since these foreign companies are subsidized by their governments. Yet, we have the expertise. We provide quality products and services.

How, then, can these businesses be competitive when the same types of businesses elsewhere are heavily subsidized?

I can understand the concerns of the people who have built up these businesses with their time and money and the sweat of their brows. We need not be surprised if they also have to relocate outside Canada in order to survive. There is no doubt whatsoever that if Ottawa pulls out of funding research and development a lot of people are going to be worried.

The Government of Quebec will be worried as well. The Quebec minister of industry is committed to looking at ways his government might offset the federal withdrawal. The federal government, via the Department of National Defence, creates a need and then when it finds itself no longer able to foot the bill decides: "Let us shift everything. The provincial government will have to find some solutions".

This is just another way of dumping responsibilities one has assumed off onto the provincial government, withdrawing gradually and leaving them to take up the slack.

In my opinion, this is not a responsible way for the federal government to act. It must change its procurement policy in order to foster the development of leading edge industries. We must take a page from the book of other countries which encourage industrial development.

I trust that this government will, in future, require a minimal Canadian content when purchasing equipment.

[Regional Development, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister of finance is skating around the issue, but the auditor general was very clear. Since the auditor general has pointed out that FORD-Q's methods for evaluating program spinoffs are flawed, does the minister intend to take corrective actions so that taxpayers may have a clear and correct idea of reality?

[Regional Development, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for FORD-Q. In the report he tabled today, the auditor general points at serious flaws in the management of federal regional development programs. He states, among other things, that since 1988, the federal government has

spent $4.5 billion for these programs without knowing if they have really helped create jobs and if they were properly spent.

Does the minister responsible recognize that it is inadmissible to spend $4.5 billion, $1.15 of them in Quebec, without any clear creation of jobs?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-96.

As you probably know, barely one month has gone by since the Quebec referendum and already another federalist mask is dropping. Bill C-96 is one of those masks. This government waited till after the referendum to bring this bill back and try to go ahead with it.

Far from signalling the federal government's withdrawal from manpower training, this bill will allow even greater interference in a provincial area of jurisdiction. This government is going over the heads of the provinces. Quebec has been asking for many years to be given full and complete jurisdiction over manpower training. In December 1990, labour and management partners in Quebec joined in a co-operative effort and unanimously took position in favour of repatriating all federal funding for manpower training. There is a consensus in Quebec, and a rather telling one at that. Even the Liberal Quebec government in office at the time agreed with its partners. So, this is not a separatist initiative but rather an opinion shared by the public at large.

Why then does the federal government not listen? Because this government has only one thing in mind: to gain total, perfect control, up, down and sideways. It wants to have all of the powers, even in an area like this one, in which its poor performance is legendary. This is just one more stepping stone.

This government should know that all its centralizing actions ultimately affect people of course. And it is with people in mind that consistent policies should be developed, and for people that manpower training is offered, so as to increase our manpower's performance.

Here is more good news: last Friday, the Chicoutimi-Jonquière region, in my riding of Chicoutimi, was once again declared the winner because it has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. How nice. How very nice. This shows how incapable this government is when it comes to manpower training.

People in my riding are increasingly tired of winning this dubious award month after month, year in year out. What can the government do to help our economy get out of this mess? It must provide a consistent manpower policy. When faced with unemployment, people must know where to go, and not only to claim UI benefits. I am referring to employment centres, which have now become places where people go to claim UI benefits. People are well aware of that. However, they do not know where, in the future, they will go to find jobs.

The key to the future is a good training program based on the manpower requirements of the region in which they live. It is certainly not here in Ottawa, far from my region and others, that public officials can determine the best training programs for my constituents. They are too far away, and they do not know about our specific needs. Therefore, the decision making process regarding manpower training must be closer to those concerned.

Bill C-96 will certainly not settle this issue once and for all, far from it. Given the way things are going right now, people in my riding will be even more concerned. In addition to giving powers to the minister, this bill bypasses the provinces. It will give Ottawa the required judicial and legal basis to justify interfering in and encroaching upon the area of manpower training.

This is confirmed by clause 20, which provides that the minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions, municipalities and such other persons or bodies as he considers appropriate. Since the minister is in charge, will financial support follow, or is this just a ploy from the federal government to shift its problems?

This bill does not make it compulsory to reach an agreement with the provinces. Again, the number of stakeholders is being increased, at a time when joint action is taking place in that sector. The bill will make things even more complicated for those involved. Dividing budgets among a variety of groups, chosen goodness knows how by the minister, is not the way to establish some degree of cohesion in training programs.

Will these groups have the necessary expertise? And when will the single window approach materialize? This is not the first time the Bloc has brought up one-stop service. As it now stands, Bill C-96 does not guarantee it.

I believe that is what could make the difference. The single window approach is essential. It would ensure that the reform would be focessed on the individual. Making the individual the focal point of the reform cannot help but be beneficial from the job creation point of view.

It is also beneficial for our young people, who do not always know what training would be best for their future. For years Quebec has been demanding full jurisdiction over manpower. There is plenty of proof that the federal government has missed the boat in the way it has managed this.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have only a few seconds left, so I shall close with the following remark. Last October 5, in response to a question on this bill from the leader of the official opposition, the minister stated-and his words are recorded-that we ought to have read the bill.

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have read the bill. And not only Quebecers have read it, moreover. The Minister of Human Resources Development should-and these are my closing words-redraft his bill. I shall vote in favour of my colleague's amendment.

[The Constitution, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that, if the government gave such a wide and vague mandate to its committee, it is because it wants to keep all the doors open? The government obviously does not know how to fulfill the commitments made to Quebecers by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign?

[The Constitution, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Yesterday, when asked about the mandate of the cabinet committee, the minister could only say that the committee was going to look at all the possibilities for constitutional and administrative changes in the Canadian federation.

I put my question to the minister in the hope that he will provide an answer. Can the minister tell us if the proposed resolution to recognize Quebec's distinct character, as well as the bill on regional referendums, are among the options which his committee will look at?

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as luck would have it, this morning I read in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean daily that, last evening, the health action committee of the chamber of commerce of La Baie and the Lower Saguenay asked elected officials to oppose any cut affecting the health sector in my region, so as to preserve what took so long to obtain.

Incidentally, a document clearly shows, and this has been confirmed, that cuts of over $131 million have already been made in my region, concerning that sector. Most of these cuts were, of course, made because of overlapping federal and provincial activities in that sector. It goes without saying that, when the federal government makes cuts affecting transfer payments for the health sector, there is an impact in Quebec.

In this bill, the federal government, claiming to be a good government, gives itself the right to act directly or indirectly in the health sector. It could use its spending power to that end. Indeed, a quick look at a few clauses of the bill will tell you that the federal government wants to get involved in that sector.

Contrary to what one might think, the health department has an enormous budget. According to the 1995-96 Estimates, Health Canada's operating budget is $1.05 billion, that is $347 million for personnel alone and $703 million for goods and services, whereas transfer payments amount to $7.4 billion. These figures immediately tell the story about the costs of overlapping activities.

We must ask ourselves what the federal government does with that $1.05 billion. Under the pretext of developing a strategy, the federal government, to put it bluntly, is once again interfering in a field of provincial jurisdiction.

Let me give you a few examples, starting with the new horizons program. This program used to help our seniors in several ways, for example by allowing them to buy entertainment and recreation equipment and participate in group activities. This program was, at least in my riding, well received by golden age clubs and by associations for the defence of retirees' rights. It gave some clubs and associations the tools to help our seniors, for whom these organizations are often the only resource available. In addition, these tools and activities helped participants stay in good physical and mental health.

After over a year of consultations, of shelving the various demands with respect to the new horizons program, our seniors are being offered a totally new program that is focused on health. The federal government is cutting a service in an area of pressing need and jumping head-first into another area where Quebec was present, where Quebec was already well equipped to deal with the situation. This can only be described as a case of wasteful overlap.

New horizons is but one example among many others. I could also mention programs such as the federal initiative on family violence, the national strategy to reduce tobacco use, and the pregnancy and child development program, which are still in effect in Quebec. Why multiply services? All these contributions show that the federal government has no qualms about going ahead with its own health and welfare initiatives.

They go ahead with these initiatives without considering the fact that, in the past few years, Quebec has focused on areas such as prevention and fitness. Quebec has also shown leadership in occupational health and safety matters.

The federal government is only interested in visibility and is ready to pay the price. One of its latest initiatives is the national forum on health. Again, to achieve visibility, it showed its will to intervene in this area without the consent of provincial authorities. All provinces without exception openly criticized the federal government's attitude in this regard, since it relegated them to a position of secondary importance in matters of health.

Quebec recently spent several months reviewing the measures required to make its system more effective and less costly while keeping medically necessary services free for everyone.

Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to renew its health care system. It took concrete action in this regard. For several months, wide public consultations have been held throughout Quebec so that Quebecers can give their opinions and express their needs. I had the opportunity to attend these proceedings in my riding last weekend. Again, this is a consultation process; this is how we must proceed, instead of creating parallel structures that are a shameful waste of public funds.

Through Bill C-95, the federal government is quietly trying to convince us that this harmless looking bill is the bill of the century. Quebecers, however, are not fooled; we clearly see what the federal government is trying to hide from us.

I fully agree with my colleague from Drummond that this House should refuse to proceed with Bill C-95 and send the government back to the drawing board.

The time has come for Ottawa to withdraw completely from this area and give Quebec the tax points corresponding to its current transfer payments in all fairness.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, by causing the Centre francophone de santé et de services communautaires in southern Ontario to close, the Harris government has just revealed its true intentions with regard to Ontario francophones.

For Franco-Ontarians, the message is clear: if you really want services in French, move to Quebec. This action, which speaks volumes, unfortunately confirms that Quebec's presence in Canada does nothing to prevent decisions that flout the fundamental rights of francophones outside Quebec.

Where is the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the self-styled defender of francophone rights? Why is he hiding when it is time to act? There is no longer any doubt, the future of the french speaking community in North America lies in a sovereign Quebec.

[Roy Romanow, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Roy Romanow, who also took part in the strong-arm tactics against Quebec when the Constitution was patriated unilaterally in 1982, has stated that francophones in Saskatchewan may lose the governance of their schools if the Yes side wins in the referendum in Quebec.

Condescending and irresponsible, that kind of statement is typical of a man who would stop at nothing to impose his views.

In the past, Mr. Romanow has shown that to be the case. He has no respect for francophones or Quebec. The question now is, whether his attitude reflects the views of Canada today.

If it does, if the survival of francophones outside Quebec depends solely on the presence of Quebec within Canada, the Canadian ideal of equality in diversity has ceased to exist. If that is the case, respect for our most fundamental rights no longer exists. Too bad for Canadians who still had a dream.

[Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to rise in the House today, especially since I unconditionally support Motion M-264, which seeks the legal recognition of same sex spouses. Voting for this motion will give nearly 10 per cent of the population the recognition to which it is entitled.

Since the Quebec government launched its prereferendum campaign, the federal government has spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to convince us that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in, a country that is tolerant and especially, a country that accepts diversity.

I therefore ask this government to act accordingly and support the motion standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. In fact, the hon. member for Central Nova told us in her speech on the same topic that Canadians are tolerant and respect and appreciate diversity.

Will the government be as tolerant and show as much respect for diversity as the hon. member? In May 1994, the Minister of Justice also promised to redefine, in fairly broad terms, the ties between people who live together, are interdependent and should therefore have the same social benefits as traditional families, which does not mean-and I can understand that-changing the concept of the family. Let us be clear about this. The motion does not seek to redefine the family but to enhance the rights of certain people and ensure that discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable in Canada.

Last June, the Reform Party member for Elk Island reminded us, and I quote: "As legislators, we have a responsibility, an obligation, a high calling to do what is right for our country and its citizens". He directed this message to all Canadians, without exception. It included all Canadians. Consequently, our role as legislators, in my opinion, is to set an example by being openminded, by our sense of justice and our sense of fairness.

That is why, according to this motion, we have a duty to amend, yes, amend all provisions of Canadian legislation concerning spouses. It is a matter of justice, fairness and equality for all citizens.

Let us recall that, last May, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that sexual orientation should be added to section 15 of the charter, thus prohibiting discrimination against homosexual men and women.

While the cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa-to name but a few-as well as many private and public companies also recognize same sex spouses, we in the Parliament of Canada, a supposedly tolerant country that allows anyone to make racist comments or distribute hate propaganda, deny such a basic right to 10 per cent of our population.

I see this as an injustice. A closer look at the definition of the term "discrimination" shows that it means imposing on an individual or group of individuals certain burdens, obligations or-as in this case-disadvantages that are not imposed on other groups. Discrimination also means denying or restricting access to the opportunities, benefits or advantages offered to other members of society. That is discrimination.

In fact, the Quebec human rights commission has recommended that the government review all its laws and regulations and pass a law that would make all legislation dealing with spousal issues comply with the charter, so that same sex spouses can enjoy the same rights as heterosexual common law couples.

Will allowing same sex spouses to take bereavement leave when their lifelong partners die change anything for heterosexual Canadians? Will allowing same sex spouses to receive benefits from public pension plans after their partners die or to contribute to spousal RRSPs change anything for the remaining 90 per cent of the Canadian population? I do not even want to hear the argument that such a measure would result in higher costs.

According to the studies done by many private and even public companies, it would cost less than 1 per cent to correct this situation. Since this Parliament is supposedly not homophobic-as many members keep bragging about in this House-I see no reason why we should not recognize same sex spouses. This would be quite normal and not a privilege granted to one group of people. On the contrary, it would simply be fair to a segment of our population.

I remind you that this is 1995. Today's reality is completely different from what it was 50, 30 or even 10 years ago. Federalists boast that this institution, the Parliament of Canada, is not out of step, obsolete or ossified. They should just prove it and stop talking about the status quo. The status quo is nothing but a vacuum. Again, voting in favour of this motion does not recognize any special rights except for the right to equality. Quebecers are fed up with the double standard inherent in this government's policies. We already know that a sovereign Quebec will fight such measures. The question is: Will the Canadian government be as courageous as the Quebec government?