Gilbert Fillion

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was just telling this House that we should at least confirm that Quebec must be represented by 25 per cent of the members of the House. I was also wondering why the rest of Canada was so afraid, why some people are trying to deprive us of the perfectly legitimate right to equitable representation. Furthermore, on April 4, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly of Quebec, the kid brother of the federal Liberals, presented exactly the same motion as my colleague from Bellechasse.

I repeat that Quebec has a legitimate and, above all, an historic right to a minimum of political power in the Canadian federation. As things stand right now, we do not get our fair share of federal transfer payments and defence spending and we have showed this on a number of occasions in this House. Just this morning, one of my colleagues pointed out that we do not get our fair share in R&D, nor do we get it in job creation, and that is hardly all.

Besides this reduction in its representation, Quebec will be facing other similar inequities in the next few months. I was wondering: What does the Prime Minister think of that? What do the hon. members for Gatineau and Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine think of that?

In the last vote on this issue, on March 28, I did not sense much support on the other side of the House. I can hardly understand what is going on. Is it not true that, in the political history of Canada and Quebec, the legislator has often expressed the will to assure regions, especially remote and rural regions, of a fair representation in the House of Commons? As long as the current formula for seat distribution between the territories and the provinces set out in the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended in 1915 and in 1976, is not changed and that this Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act remains relatively unchanged, is it not obvious that the same principles of representation for remote and rural regions should apply, especially to Quebec?

All members know that until Quebecers make a decision in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, it is very important that this province maintain a minimum representation of 25 per cent in all federal institutions.

As surprising as it may seem and in spite of all the constitutional mechanisms aimed at protecting provinces that are experiencing a relative population decline, one province has always had fewer seats than its share of the population ever since Canada was born 128 years ago. And, of course, some people will say that the fact that it happens to be Quebec is just a coincidence.

Even the most densely populated province, Ontario, was given several extra members at the beginning of the century and eight extra members after the 1941 census because it was considered to be experiencing a relative population decline due to the rapid growth in the western provinces. I will say however-and this should not come as a surprise to anyone-that Quebec which, at that time, accounted for 33 per cent of Canada's total population did not hold 33 per cent of the seats in this House. And, today, we have trouble holding on to 25 per cent. From 1867 to 1995, we never had extra seats, even when we could have demanded it. Is this double standard really acceptable? I submit that it is not and that it should not be.

I strongly believe that the constitution and the elections acts must reflect the Canadian duality and thus guarantee that Quebec retain a quarter of the members in the House of Commons until the people of Quebec decide otherwise. Beyond party or partisan considerations, this proposal, once again, is true to the traditional demands of Quebec. I remind you that this proposal got the support of the Liberal Party of Canada in the last round of constitutional negotiations. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel surely recalls it unless he has a very short memory.

It would be a lot wiser for the government to wait a few months before putting this legislation forward or, better still, put it off indefinitely. Let the government deal with this country's real problems. Does it not know that Bill C-69 is going to cost taxpayers an awful lot with its commissions that will have to

travel across Canada? Would that money not be put to a better use or spent more wisely if it were to go for job creation, for example, or for a family policy?

As for the Reform Party, it would like to see a decrease in the number of seats in the House of Commons. The day after the referendum, their wish will be fulfilled. The Liberal government claims that this country needs a readjustment of electoral boundaries. The day after the referendum, their wish will be fulfilled too. In a few months from now, both the Reformers and the Liberals will get satisfaction. After the referendum that we are going to win, do not forget.

As a result, there will be fewer members sitting in this House and Canada will really need a readjustment of electoral boundaries, since Quebec will be sovereign and will no longer be part of a country that, historically-and I dealt with the historical background before question period-has not wanted it. I stated the relevant facts earlier.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must denounce Bill C-69, which, in my view, is a farce.

The only purpose of this bill is to take away from Quebec its vested rights as a founding nation. Allow me to explain.

It is essential that the historical number of members representing Quebec be maintained. Needless to say that, in a few months, after Quebec has become sovereign, the Government of Canada will be free to do as it pleases. But for the time being, we are still here and our job is to look after the interests of the people of Quebec.

Obviously, the members opposite, the Liberal government, have a short memory. I will try to connect them to reality by stating a few historical facts.

Representation and the description of the electoral boundaries are both calculated according to the rules provided in sections 51 and 51( a ) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and sections 14 and 15 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

The federal legislation on the readjustment of electoral boundaries established an electoral boundaries commission for each province. These commissions are responsible for drawing a new electoral map, in which the population of each electoral district will correspond to the electoral quota for the province. This quota is obtained by dividing the population of the province by the number of members of the House of commons assigned to the province.

There is a section of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that I find fascinating, namely section 15, which states: "Community of interest, or the specificity of an electoral district in the province or the historical development thereof, and a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province".

Last year, when this commission came to Chicoutimi, changes were proposed. Five of the seven municipalities in the riding of Chicoutimi were to be assigned to the riding of Jonquière. The problem with this change is well defined in the section I just read.

First, there is the community of interests. The municipalities of the Lower Saguenay which would find themselves separated have always had economic and social ties with La Baie, which is another major centre of the riding of Chicoutimi. Indeed, several services located in La Baie are provided to Lower Saguenay residents, including the Canada employment centre and the small business development centre.

Second, the area covered by a riding must be taken into consideration. In order to have access to services in the riding of Jonquière, residents of Ferland-Boileau-the municipality closest to the one which was going to be included in the riding of Jonquière-would have had to travel 45 kilometres. This is a good example of what the Liberal government planned to do in my riding last year.

I am convinced that this kind of nonsense would also have occurred elsewhere than in the Saguenay region. It would be interesting to check this out for the province as a whole. However, given the decisions taken every day by this government, there is no point in doing that. Indeed, the daily actions of the Liberals speak for themselves, which is more than enough.

A few days ago, the hon. member for Bellechasse pointed out that the 1985 legislation on electoral representation was very clear as regards the number of seats to be allocated to Quebec, since it stated that, before any new distribution, the chief returning officer had to ensure that Quebec would get 25 per cent of the seats.

This is not the first time that Quebec gets taken. This unfortunate reality is prevalent throughout the history of our province, which is one of the two founding provinces of Canada. I could mention the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which imposed laws written in English, and which prescribed for public office holders an oath administered under the Test Act, whereby they gave up their Catholic faith and pledged loyalty to the British Crown.

I can also think of the Quebec Act of 1774 and the Constitutional Act of 1791. In a newspaper of the time, it was said that Lower Canada was much too French to be anglicized by English-speaking settlers. Referring to Lower Canada, it said: "This colony is much too French. It must be degallicised. Since Quebec has fallen, it is time for this province to become English." We simply do not forget episodes like that.

Then came Confederation, which finalized a process which had started with the Union Act of 1840. After Confederation, French-Canadians thought they had a treaty between two peoples, between two distinct societies, between the two founding nations, but English-Canadians considered the treaty mostly as a piece of legislation giving the English majority the right to dominate the minority made up of French-Canadians. And why not try to make them suffer, to use a fashionable expression these days. With this bill, the government is trying to remove our vested right, which is the right for Quebec to elect 25 per cent of the hon. members in this House.

As I said earlier, as a matter of good conscience if not of respect, this bill should not be used to penalize Quebec once more. Have Quebec and Quebecers not suffered enough from this domination? As far as I know, Quebecers still account for more than 25 per cent of the Canadian population. So, do you not think it is normal that at least 25 per cent of the members in this House represent Quebec? What is the rest of Canada so afraid of that it feels it has to try so hard to remove our most legitimate right to fair representation?

As I said, Quebec has the legitimate and historical right to preserve a minimal political weight within the Canadian federation, even more so since we are not getting our fair share of federal transfers to provinces, whether it is for defence, for research and development or especially, as everyone knows, for job creation. Now Quebec could have its representation in the Canadian Parliament reduced.

Where was the Prime Minister, where was the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, where was the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, three outstanding Quebec citizens, when on a vote on March 28 the House rejected a motion put forward by my colleague from Bellechasse, which would have protected, once and for all, Quebec's political weight within this federation? They were away from the House at a time when they should have been here to vote with us on this issue.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. We are currently debating the motion that Quebec should keep at least 25 per cent of the seats in this House.

I listened carefully to my colleague. After going over 200 to 300 years of history, she said we should forget all that. But she did not mention the events that have occurred in the last 20 years.

I would like to remind her of the reasons why Quebec is so distrustful and why it is asking for this protection. As recently as 1980, the federal government defeated the Yes side in the Quebec referendum after spending hundreds of millions of dollars. In 1971, for instance-why was it not mentioned?-Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, which since then has become the perfect instrument of assimilation.

In 1970, the Canadian government invoked the War Measures Act in the middle of the night in order to send in the army and stifle the separatist, the sovereignist movement. They arrested 500 people without warrants. Do you think we will forget this overnight? No way. One cannot forget those events.

More recently, there was Meech Lake. I will not spend too much time on this, since a member of this House sitting across the way, who was then a member of the Manitoba legislature, prevented debate on this matter, thus killing the accord. No one seemed to be sorry about the Meech Lake failure, except Quebecers of course.

Today, the hon. member, who claims to be a good teacher, would like to wipe the slate clean and forget about those events.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Do you think Quebecers can trust this government to set the record straight regarding those events?

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the members opposite, Bill C-76 leaves me with a bitter taste. I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Finance does not realize the impact, for the country as a whole, of this bill designed to implement major changes, particularly as regards those transfers to the provinces which relate to social, health and post-secondary programs, and also to the Canada Assistance Plan. The mere mention of these programs makes you realize that the government means business.

Over the next three years, the Liberal government will cut $7 billion in the transfers to the provinces. What should Quebec expect? In 1995, the reductions in transfers to Quebec will be minimal, for the obvious reason that a referendum is expected this year. The government does not want to make waves in Quebec with this budget. However, when you see how generous the federal government is with Quebec, you realize that, day after day, it is implementing several strategies, instead of governing and creating jobs, as it promised to do. In fact, the Liberals were elected precisely because they promised to create jobs. But, right now, they are only interested in implementing their strategy. In 1996-97, however, things will change drastically; they will get much tougher for Quebec, which will have to make do with a $650 million shortfall.

It was recently said in Toronto that Canada had to make Quebecers suffer. That process has started. The government is starting to make Quebecers suffer with cuts in the transfers, and the process will continue until 1997-98. Quebecers are told that they will have to negotiate. How? Time will tell. Quebec has been trying to negotiate with this Parliament for decades, but we have never managed to agree.

Consequently, I fail to see why the federal government would want to renegotiate the issue of transfers to the provinces. The government willingly complies with the demands of the rich provinces, particularly Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Is the government considering splitting the resource envelope for the main transfers by using as a criterion the provinces' respective populations? If so, Quebec would have to absorb 41.7 per cent of the cuts to transfers. This would mean a shortfall of close to $2 billion for Quebec, between 1997 and 1998. The federal government is indeed deliberately trying to make Quebec suffer. What really hurts though is that it is Quebecers who do most of the damage, and I am thinking in particular of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Labour.

Transfer payments to the provinces are not a bonus. These are transfers of tax revenues paid for by the workers in each province.

When Quebec finally patriates the $30 billion in taxes that the people of Quebec pay the federal government every year, then we will have all the resources we need to govern ourselves.

As a result of the federal government's cuts in transfer payments to the provinces between 1982 and 1993, taxes paid by Quebecers to the federal government increased 143 per cent. Meanwhile, federal transfer payments increased only 50 per cent.

As usual, these cuts will come down hardest on the most vulnerable members of our society. They will cut the federal government's share of financing for social programs, from 37.8 per cent to 28.5 per cent within four years. Is this just another way to hit Quebec? Cuts and more cuts, but they never refer to putting people back to work in this country. And working at well paid jobs, so they can work with dignity.

As a result of this budget, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area lost 285 jobs at the Canadian Forces base in Bagotville, although Quebec has only 13 per cent of Canada's defence infrastructure and staff. And it seems that an experimental farm in Normandin is either going to be closed down or lose a number of jobs. There is still a great deal of uncertainty among employees at Radio-Canada in Chicoutimi and at the National Film Board. However, it is common knowledge that this area was hit hard by the recession and unemployment. For several years, it has had the highest unemployment rate. I do not think my region and my riding will be able to overcome these problems if we stay within this system.

Do hon. members not realize that by putting the unemployed and welfare recipients back to work, we will increase tax revenues, and that these tax revenues will in the end help Canada out of its precarious financial position?

And by the way, as we put people back to work, there is another way to save a lot of money: eliminate duplication and overlap of services in many departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Human Resources Development, since the provinces already have similar departments.

I would say that 90 per cent of the people who come to see me at my riding office are at their wits' end. They are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, so they are on welfare. We have no way of helping them to get out of this morass. And I do not think that the bill before the House today is the answer to all these problems.

I think we should take the surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, give it to the provinces and let them select and conduct the courses and provide training that would be appropriate for these people. I am sure that everyone would benefit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Where?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your splendid work in the chair. I listened attentively to my colleague and was surprised by his statement that Canadians across the country expressed confidence in this budget.

I am sure my colleague has not visited Quebec in a very long time, because he would have heard for himself what Quebecers think of the budget. It is easy, of course, to say that we will all have to make small sacrifices, but, it will be those already most disadvantaged, such as the seniors, who will be making most of them.

You know, in a region such as mine, the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region, where unemployment is very high, young people are forced to go elsewhere just to try to find work-unsuccessfully. When we see this happening in pretty well all the regions of Canada and cuts being made to transfers to the provinces, we have to assume that the government does not care about educating young people.

My question concerns these transfers. Does my colleague realize that most of the budget cuts to transfer payments for health care and post-secondary education will be made in 1996, 1997 and 1998? This year's cuts, even though they will hurt, will be smaller than the ones in the years to come.

What is the government's strategy here? Instead of creating jobs, it is pursuing a strategy of showing Quebecers that federalism is effective, which is not true. It is trying to delay the effects of the budget until as long as possible after the referendum.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. He started off by saying that one of the objectives of this budget was to put the government's fiscal house in order, in a way that is fair and equitable.

I wonder what he means by fair. Does he realize who is going to bear the brunt of all these budget cuts? The provinces, which will be stuck with billions of dollars they will have to raise themselves.

Young people will be affected by cuts in a number of employment programs and in the money required for post-secondary education. Cuts will also affect the public service, but only the base, not the higher-ups in their ivory towers, with the biggest paychecks and the biggest expense accounts. This morning we heard about the trips these officials make. Not the people who work at the bottom but those who are up there in their ivory towers in each department, the generals who are chauffeured around in their limos. They are not affected by the budget.

I am also thinking of farmers. The hon. member said a few words about them in his speech. Yes, farmers will be affected by cuts to employment and other programs.

I am also thinking of the unemployed. This has almost become a dirty word to members opposite, because to them, the unemployed are just a lazy bunch of beer drinkers. Since last week, they are cheaters as well, and an army of public servants has been recruited to try and recover negligible amounts, while we do not even bother to recover $6.6 billion in taxes outstanding. Most of this amount is owed by large corporations.

When the hon. member talks about everything being fair and equitable, I wonder at whose expense. What is so equitable about it, if everybody can use family trusts and tax loopholes to shelter their money?

Not once did the hon. member mention job creation. What job creation programs has this budget proposed, especially for young people?

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence thereof, deals with exempted crown corporations, and is, in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, entirely useless, and we will

therefore vote against this bill. Let me take a few minutes to explain.

There are nearly 50 crown corporations in Canada in various economic sectors across the country. These crown corporations employ around 115,000 people. In 1992-93, the government spent a little over $4.5 billion through parliamentary votes on these corporations. Their impact on the country's economy is therefore very substantial.

The Financial Administration Act, Part X, sets the management framework for crown corporations. These corporations are responsible for producing certain documents, since they are accountable to Parliament through their minister. Every crown corporation must submit a corporate plan annually to the department and every corporation must also submit an operating budget for approval by Treasury Board.

Every corporation must also produce an annual report containing financial statements as well as accounting data. They must also proceed with internal audits to ensure that assets are protected and that operations conform to the regulations. In addition to the obligation to produce documents, a special audit must be conducted at least every five years by an in-house auditor, to determine whether the corporations develop and implement sound management practices.

Consequently, crown corporations are subject to very strict and very specific rules. However, not all corporations are subject to Part X. In fact, the Act contains a number of exemptions, including the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, to which the hon. member referred earlier, and the International Development Research Centre, but he forgot to say that votes had been cut in this sector. The same applies to the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the Canadian Film Development Corporation-here again, the government has slashed the budgets-and of course the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which we discussed last week.

These corporations were exempted because in 1984, it was felt that it was necessary to protect their arm's length relationship with the government. The bill before the House today wants to do the opposite, except in the case of two corporations, and I am referring to the CBC and the Bank of Canada. I will get back to this later on. These corporations are under no obligation to produce a corporate plan or to be accountable for their results, and they are under no obligation to carry out internal or special audits. Bill C-263 is intended to eliminate exemptions from the application of divisions I to IV, and thus from the obligations I mentioned earlier.

This bill does not, however, affect the Bank of Canada or the CBC. In fact, the CBC is already subject to accountability. Why should we impose additional rules on the CBC or other corporations, through further legislation? And of course that is why the Bank of Canada and the CBC are not part of the group. As far as the Bank of Canada is concerned, the position seems to be that the arm's length relationship of the Bank of Canada to the government could be affected, and that is the reason for excluding them.

This position, in other words, the arm's length relationship to the government, is not as strong in other cases where political interference would not have the same impact. So there is an attempt to open the door to patronage. This bill goes too far in terms of controlling the administration of these corporations. It would subject the five crown corporations to close supervision involving both their accountability and control over their management. Instead, why not make them more accountable?

Since 1985, the Financial Administration Act has been amended 58, yes 58 times, which means an average of once every two months. I understand very well that the aim of the changes over the years was to keep in tune with and to adjust to the so-called changing environment. But 58 times? Think of all the time wasted.

People then wonder why Quebec wants to become sovereign. What choice is there when Quebecers see their federal government being inconsistent to the point of wanting to amend legislation every two months.

Would it not be smarter to take the more flexible approach, proposed in 1991 by the auditor general in his annual report, of incorporating into the legislation the legislator's undertakings? It would also be a good idea to see, after analysis, how best to provide for accountability and a level of control in each corporation, in keeping with its particular mandate and mission.

It would be much wiser, indeed, to make these corporations accountable by giving them more responsibility instead, I repeat, instead of controlling them as the bill proposes.

It is important to give officials in crown corporations more responsibility in all areas. Why? To make them accountable to Parliament and thus enable us to more fairly and better evaluate their individual performances.

This bill accords the same status to all crown corporations, which should not be the case. This bill also gives the minister the power to meddle in the policies of crown corporations that have a cultural mandate, when they should have more discretionary authority in their respective areas.

The comments of the auditor general can help us significantly on this. I therefore say simply that, with regard to staffing, these crown corporations will no longer be able, once the bill is adopted, to recruit employees with training in the disciplines they require. I do not understand why the government, which cut 45,000 jobs in the public service in its latest budget, is trying to

prevent crown corporations from obtaining qualified people from outside the public service.

I repeat; this bill is not needed, and we will of course be voting against it.

[Unemployment Insurance, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after cutting $5.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed in 1994-95, and at least $700 million in the latest budget, the government continues to hound the unemployed by hiring 600 new UI investigators.

From the government's cuts to unemployment insurance, we learned that the Liberals' new job creation credo was to consider the unemployed lazy. Now the government considers them cheats as well.

In the meantime, the government's measures to recover $6.6 billion in unpaid income taxes are not enough to remedy the situation. With the banks reaping profits of over $5 billion, the government is asking them supposedly to do their share by paying temporary income taxes of $100 million. The government's priorities are more than questionable, to say the least.

[Quebec Sovereignty, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that a French speaking group in Ontario, concerned about social justice, denounced the position taken by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne on the sovereignty of Quebec. The federation urged Quebecers to vote no in the referendum, something that this Franco-Ontarian group strongly regrets.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois reaffirm, like this group, that Quebecers have a sacred right to choose freely their own future. Members of the Bloc Quebecois also believe that links between francophones outside Quebec and within Quebec should be maintained despite differences we may have occasionally.

We cannot deny that francophones outside Quebec have had to fight long and hard for their rights, their existence and their development. The fight of Quebecers to assume full responsibility for their future is just as important.