Gilbert Fillion

[Social Security Programs, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. In other words, this bill directly concerns social programs.

I am puzzled since, throughout the election campaign, the Liberals kept referring to their red book and the creation of jobs and more jobs. However, the reality is that, since they took office, the Liberals are constantly looking at cuts in social program budgets.

The social policy reform provides a good example of the cuts which this government intends to make. Under the circumstances, I feel that the current debate is essential, since it concerns the poor. This bill deals with the benefits of an important group in our society, namely our seniors, our fathers and mothers, to whom we owe so much. These people played an active role in the economic life of our communities, and they still do, often in a volunteer capacity.

Seniors in my riding are of that calibre. However, they are not exempt from the problem of poverty which confronts many elderly persons. In 1992, the average income of seniors living alone was $18,434. Moreover, 21 per cent of seniors belong to the low-income group. It is tragic to see people who helped build this country being faced with the prospect of poverty.

Regardless of what the Liberals in this House may think, the income level of many seniors coincides with the poverty line. These are real figures. Why then is the Liberal government so bent on getting tough and tightening up the social system by saving money at the expense of the poorest of the poor?

Some of the objectives of Bill C-54 are acceptable, namely, improving client services, managing programs more efficiently, and taking the necessary steps to harmonize programs. The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of this bill which is to make the rules more flexible in order to make life easier for senior citizens. It even agrees with some of the amendments, which can only benefit seniors. However, the Bloc cannot condone the fact that savings are being achieved at the expense of already impoverished senior citizens. We must make sure that senior citizens do not lose what they have gained so far.

Despite its Good Samaritan act and all its talk about fairness, the Liberal government does want to standardize the Old Age Security programs by limiting retroactive payments to one year.

When we know that senior citizens can now receive retroactive Old Age benefits for five years, one must question what the government is doing. If it is not making it harder for senior citizens, what is it doing then? I say it is saving money by taking away from senior citizens what they had gained previously.

The Liberal government is waving a carrot, but the Bloc Quebecois knows there is a stick. As to overpayments under the Old Age Security Program, pensioners are protected against any error by officials, that is to say they would not have to repay the sums received in excess of their entitlement. Presently, the legislation has provisions for a maximum two-year retroactivity period. Bill C-54 would abolish this, saving the government between one and two million dollars.

I would like the minister to explain where these savings are coming from, and whether pensioners will be protected the way they were previously.

I would also like the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain to me the provision of the bill granting the minister the right to acquire, use and manage assets. It is quite natural that I should question this provision since the intent of the minister is far from clear in this bill. He certainly lacks openness in this case, contrary to the openness he shows as far as personal information on pensioners is concerned.

The Liberal government, although it denied against all odds that CSIS was spying, wants to increase the number of departments and agencies which will have access to personal information.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that the collection of information is legitimate, but it believes that the access to such information should be limited.

The Liberal government should clarify the rules for access to privileged information and the provisions dealing with sanctions in case of disclosure.

The integrity of this information must be respected. The government should be more specific and should demonstrate the need for a wider distribution of privileged information.

Considering that the bill in its present form fails to reinforce the confidentiality of personal information pertaining to beneficiaries of programs for seniors and that the government is saving money at the expense of the poorest members of society, and that certain measures seem obscure, I will support the amendment presented by my colleague for Argenteuil-Papineauville.

[National Defence, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given that Quebec already receives proportionately less than its fair share in terms of military equipment, can the Minister of Defence dissociate himself from the defence committee today and give this House the assurance that unacceptable decisions such as the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean will not be repeated in the case of Bagotville or Saint-Hubert?

[National Defence, November 2nd, 1994]

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

In a majority report on Canada's defence policy, Liberal and Reform Party members recommended cosmetic changes instead of a real and thorough reorganization of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Committee members from the Bloc Quebecois have dissociated themselves from this report, after the Liberals refused to reconsider Canada's participation in NATO and NORAD and in UN peacekeeping forces.

Considering that only 13 per cent of Canadian defence infrastructure is located in Quebec, while Quebecers meet approximately 25 per cent of Canadian defence expenditures, can the minister undertake to take into account this imbalance that is unfavourable to Quebec before making any cuts whatsoever?

[Social Program Reform, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with dismay that we read Income Security for Children , a document released as part of the reform proposal put forward by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister has the nerve to put the financial burden of these measures aimed at eliminating child poverty on middle-class parents whose deductions will be reduced. The minister's cynicism has reached an all-time high. The minister does not seem to realize that such an unwarranted increase of the middle class's financial burden will inevitably force more children to live in poverty.

How can the minister be so arrogant and paternalistic as to claim that he wants to make conditions better for children, when he is making them worse? The minister has a great responsibility to these children and hundreds of thousands of Canadian children.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher in a Quebec composite high school, I must say that what is being described as a bad education system, is not. The 46 per cent that are being mentioned are students who drop out because they are not offered appropriate courses. The people who decide on the curriculum are being dictated to by Ottawa, and yet, the only one who knows what students need in their schools is the Quebec government. We have to take these statistics with a grain of salt.

If we have a 46 per cent drop-out rate, it is because we do not give these students the means to fulfil themselves; this will only happen when the Quebec government has full authority, when it holds the levers of power. Only then will we be able to take charge and give our students, girls and boys alike, all the options they need to fulfil themselves.

This is sure to have an impact on unemployment rates. In an area like mine, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, what is the use of training welders when, as we are talking, the unemployment rate is 16 per cent, and they are not in demand? We must train people in the branches for which there is a need. Only Quebec can pinpoint these branches.

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that I am shaken and even bewildered by this Liberal document on social programs.

There is nothing in that green book save proposals to reform our system on the backs of the poor. That, in my opinion, is a step backwards. Where are the commitments made by the Liberal government in its red book?

When will the government stop treating people in Canada, in Quebec, and other provinces like gullible fools? The government is hiding behind vague consultations that will drag on for months. Countless organizations will express their disappointment to the committee. They will be listened to politely when in fact the dice are loaded and decisions have already been made. The minister will cut $15 billion in social spending. Those who will be affected are middle and lower class families.

The reform proposal is a shameful attempt to reduce the deficit and the debt on the backs of those people. The Liberal government has a smile on its face while it attacks the poor, not poverty.

Above all, the government is not acting as a good government should. A good government should be more concerned with today's realities, that is excessive government spending for day to day operations and wasteful spending due to the refusal to abolish overlap between different government levels.

The reform has a very negative impact on those citizens who want to work and cannot find jobs and for whom there are no jobs. The government is creating second class unemployment for workers in uncertain jobs. These workers represent 40 per cent of the workforce. Among those uncertain jobs, many are cyclical and seasonal. Ask a lumberman to work when all the felling is done. Ask a construction worker to build when the work site is closed. Ask an independent worker to provide himself with contracts. It is ridiculous.

These people will have to find jobs that do not exist just to show their good will to the Liberal government. It is totally ridiculous and even worse because the government won the election with a platform based on three words: jobs, jobs, jobs. Was that just wishful thinking? There are still no results. The Liberal government has not yet understood that people in precarious jobs are already subject to economic instability. They want to add to their stress, to their feeling of helplessness and to their despair.

Another option is the social label. With this reform, the minister will impose mandatory employability measures, training programs and community work on the unemployed. What a mess! Hon. members opposite do not realize that to deal with structural unemployment, we have to change the structure of employment. The federal government should let the Government of Quebec set up its own manpower training system, and it will save money in the process by reducing duplication in this area.

Let the provinces be responsible for manpower training. Social security reform puts groups that have already been severely hit on the firing line. Young people, single mothers, seasonal workers, workers who are fifty and over, and the middle-class will be hit harder than anyone else. On top of that, they will pay higher premiums and receive lower benefits.

Women will be the first in line. The minister is undermining their financial independence, which they fought for bit by bit, for so many years. And it gets even worse. Is this the Liberal government's vision of the future? When the spouse's income becomes a factor that determines eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits? Does this mean women have the right to work but are not entitled to unemployment insurance if they lose their jobs?

The federal government is not focusing on the real problems. It sharpens the differences between classes in society. The gap between the rich and people on middle- and low-incomes will get wider. Society is becoming polarized. Furthermore, the government is introducing cuts in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, cuts totalling several billion dollars, which represents about $300 million for Quebec.

With cuts like these in post-secondary education programs, CEGEPs and universities will have to raise and even double their tuition fees. It is clear that education will become an impossible dream for students of modest means.

Students from socially disadvantaged families will have a clear choice: either they go deep into debt or they can forget about higher education. Yes, the choice is clear. Only one class in society will be able to afford higher education: students from rich and wealthy families.

To this, the Bloc Quebecois says no. We refuse to set the clock back twenty years. Access to higher education is everyone's right, a the right that students alone should be able to exercise on the basis of personal choice, and not on the basis of whether they can afford it. Students cannot afford to go into debt to get an education, and the minister's answer to that is unrealistic. He talks about using RRSPs. How can a student use an RRSP he does not have? The minister of course, will say he is referring to the parents RRSPs. Yes, but the truth is that middle-class parents need their RRSPs to live on during their retirement. If they were able to contribute to an RRSP, it was because they made certain sacrifices.

The Bloc Quebecois is convinced the social security reform proposals presented by the Liberal government are merely a tool to strengthen Ottawa's centralist tendencies. The federal government is using every means at its disposal to appropriate the jurisdictions of the provinces and has no desire to cut wasteful spending and duplication.

The Chrétien government is cutting social programs instead of providing for consistent and comprehensive job-centred policies. It wants to reform the unemployed instead of dealing with unemployment. It is using this reform to become more and more involved in areas over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction.

Has the minister not considered some legitimate budget cuts? It would make more sense to work on recovery of bad debts totalling around $6 billion. Withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction would save another $3 billion. Tax reform would provide an opportunity to measure and control the deficit. Hundreds of millions could be recovered in the process. Consider family trusts. I am sure that with the approach it has selected to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt and foreign interest payments, the government is on the wrong track.

What we need is genuine reform, genuine tax reform that will give us the resources we need to put the country's finances back on track.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is of course in favour of the bill and is telling us now that he supports it mainly for the sake of social justice. I wonder, Mr. Speaker.

The confidential information that he praised and which would be made available to the RCMP would just be a tool to expose some cheaters of unemployment insurance or in other areas.

The bill as presented does not contain enough measures to limit it to that. Knowing the way RCMP officers work, we noticed in past years that they used these famous lists to do their work, although this information was not available. We need only recall the Parti Quebecois's membership list. The RCMP tried to obtain a copy and then tried to see if members on that list were breaking certain laws.

So I ask the hon. member the following question: Does this bill in its present form guarantee us that the information which will be made available to the RCMP will be used only by that force and not for other unintended purposes?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make a comment on Bill C-53.

With the establishment of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the government only accentuates existing differences. Once again, the federal government ignores the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec by attempting to promote a hypothetical Canadian identity. The minister's mandate is at odds with Quebec's fundamental interests. The Liberal government openly denies the distinct and specific character of Quebec. Moreover, it seeks to reinforce even more the centralizing power of the federal government, at the expense of provincial jurisdiction.

Ottawa will make decisions affecting Quebecers' culture, based on its own priorities. One can imagine what bright future awaits our province. Already, the allocation of smaller budgets is an unfair treatment. Indeed, the discrepancy in the budgets for Radio-Canada and CBC is a blatant example of federal bilingualism. The budget of the English network is more than double that of the French one, this-and make no mistake about that-for an equivalent number of viewers. We are not talking about population but about the number of people who watch television.

For the same public interest program, the English network spends $58,000, compared to $34,000 for the French one, in spite of the fact that the number of viewers is the same. This discrepancy is a blatant example of so-called federal bilingualism. When the Liberal government says white it means black. The Liberals talk about bilingualism but they do not provide the same means to French-speaking and English speaking groups. I could go on and on.

Considering that the cultural future of a nation is based on its language, we can see that the efforts to promote a Canadian identity will ignore Quebec's own cultural identity.

But there is more. This bill does nothing to correct the government's inconsistency regarding the sharing of departmental responsibilities. On the contrary, it accentuates the existing discrepancies. Why is that? Is it to slow down the process? Is it to increase costs? Maybe. It becomes difficult to understand the inconsistencies of the Liberal government. Are

the Liberals creating an administrative monster over which the minister will have no control?

This inconsistency on the part of the Liberal government was also demonstrated with the information highway. Responsibility for policy lies with the Department of Industry, while the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for content-in other words, culture.

Both departments share similar responsibilities but differ in their approach to procedures and content. Actually, one is concerned with the framework, while the other concentrates on content. The future seems pretty clear-cut. The Minister of Industry will approach culture in a way that promotes the interests of large corporations and users, at the expense of the creators. Since the Minister of Industry will be responsible for programs and policies, this does not leave much room to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is to reinforce cultural and social values.

Hon. members must realize that our cultural future is at stake. Both departments will be on a parallel course, without any consultation between the two. To build something you need co-ordination.

The House will recall the lack of consultation when the Advisory council on the Information Highway was established. When appointing the committee, the Minister of Industry failed to include members from the cultural community. The Bloc believes, and we are not alone in this, that culture lies at the very heart of the information highway, and the Bloc Quebecois also believes that jurisdiction over culture and communications is a provincial matter.

Today, Ottawa makes decisions unilaterally. Quebec has been excluded from major decisions, where Canadian cultural interests are crowding out Quebec's distinct identity. Apparently, good government means denying a distinct identity. This has been borne out by the Liberal government. In spite of repeated requests, it has failed to amend its procedures with respect to copyright and intellectual property. The government ignores the major contribution made by authors, creators, performing artists and other parties in Quebec that make this province a living force.

One wonders who, will get his views on copyright across, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will it be the Minister of Industry, who prefers the straight copyright system that benefits large corporations, or will the Minister of Canadian Heritage manage to convince his colleague to opt for a copyright system with neighbouring rights. Under this system, author, creator, performing artists and producers all enjoy rights with respect to the future use to be made of their work.

For once, the Liberals will have to get their act together.

In this connection, it is a serious mistake to give the Minister of Industry ultimate responsibility for copyright policy. This area should be the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who would then have a mandate to propose policies to Cabinet and to table bills accordingly.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says he is powerless to act, have enough political clout this time around to persuade his colleague to avoid total disaster on such an urgent and important matter? Canadian creators have been waiting for a long time.

Last Sunday on TV, the ADISQ Gala was a good example of the work done by Quebec artists to disseminate Quebec culture throughout the province, across Canada, in the United States and Europe. There are no ifs and buts about it: this bill should be revised. In its present form, it contains too many aspects that are inconsistent or poorly defined.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion moved by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who spoke before me. I found his presentation very philosophical. I would like to tell him about a very practical case that I dealt with today in my office, which reflects some of the details of this reform. After hearing about the proposed reforms on television, one of my constituents gave me some historical background. I will read it to you and I will certainly ask questions on this.

To put things in their historical context, if your parents or your grandparents had mentally handicapped relatives, they would have been put to work on the farm. Nowadays, with automation, these people have become vulnerable to unemployment. How many people in Canada are handicapped and cannot work because of a deficiency? Whatever their handicap, many places will not hire them.

Is this new reform penalizing these people who want to work but were abandoned by the industry? Many of them are, through no fault of their own, permanently unemployed. There are many of them, more than we may think. Do you think that this reform will include some mechanism to prevent these vulnerable people from being penalized by the proposed measures? That is the question I want to ask my distinguished colleague.

[Financial Administration Act, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I too welcome this opportunity to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-245. Seeing that my colleague from the Reform Party chose to use his speaking time to talk about this, that and the other, the budget, the deficit, in fact, anything but his bill, I would like to briefly go over the content of this bill. I think it is important for all the hon. members of this House to understand what it is about.

First of all, the existing Auditor General Act states the mandate and lists almost all the duties of the Auditor General. He is the auditor of the accounts of Canada, including those relating to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As such, he makes inquiries and examinations and then reports to the House of Commons as required by the act. He is responsible for auditing the expenditures made by the departments and Crown agencies. He must submit an annual report, naturally, on or before December 31 of each year. In addition, he was recently given the mandate of submitting more than one report. The Bloc Quebecois had asked for this and supported the proposal.

Obviously, the mandate of the Auditor General is commendable. His role consists mainly in checking how public funds are used and I would say that, so far, this neutral authority has carried out his duty.

You will understand that the performance of such duties requires a great deal of precision and accuracy. I realize that everyone is probably familiar with the act and the duties of the Auditor General, but it is useful nonetheless to refresh the memories of some hon. members.

The bill before us is intended to add to the already heavy workload of the Auditor General. In fact, clause 2 of the bill would extend the Auditor General's duties so that he would also become, listen to this, the auditor of the revenue estimates used in preparing the budget speech, for which the Minister of Finance is responsible.

It makes no sense. The Auditor General's role is to audit the public accounts. The member wants to add to this the auditing of the government's future revenues. The Auditor would thus be asked to forecast government revenues, as well as review all its spending. If that were so, the Auditor General would examine revenue projections. He would have to go to the very root of the assumptions made by the government.

The present mandate of analysing the expenditures of departments and agencies is not at all consistent with an additional mandate of estimating revenue.

Experience has shown us that the finance minister's estimates are often unrealistic. The present Minister of Finance is no exception. We cannot ask the Auditor General to assume responsibility for the analyses made by the Department of Finance. Overestimating revenues as a way of reducing the deficit is unacceptable. That is why the Minister of Finance must be satisfied with the quality of the estimates made by his department. The government cannot evade its duties and ask the Auditor General to do the job instead. This is the work of elected officials.

I would like to understand why the member for Fraser Valley West thinks that this task should be performed by the Auditor General, who we must say does not have the resources that the Department of Finance has to carry it out.

This would lead to duplication and overlap and of course additional expense. That is not how one reduces the deficit. Of course, the member for Fraser Valley West might mention clause 3, which says that after the Auditor General reviews the budget, he will report on the reasonableness of the estimated revenues used in preparing the budget speech.

It would not be easy for the Auditor General to determine what a reasonable revenue estimate is. As the Auditor General himself has said, it is hard to know whether the estimates are reasonable or not. Political considerations enter into it, but the Auditor General is supposed to be neutral.

Even if my colleagues in the Liberal Party think that their estimates are reasonable, I am sure that they will again have a strong tendency to overestimate revenues, but they will still have to answer for it to Parliament.

So, again, the Minister of Finance is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented in the budget. I stress that it is up to the Official Opposition, the other opposition parties and financial analysts to criticize the budget, especially its revenue projections.

There are several flaws in the analysis which led to this bill. It would make the Minister of Finance no longer responsible for the validity of his revenue estimates. The critical role of financial analysts and of the Official Opposition would be completely removed.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill.

In closing, we will just say that everyone should do his own job and we will all be better off.