Gilbert Fillion

[Auditor General Act, June 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I support the amendment of the hon. member for La Prairie to Bill C-207, under which clause 1 of the bill would be amended to enable the Auditor General to make at least three supplementary reports a year.

By allowing the Auditor General to report more than once a year we would be giving him greater latitude, and that is something we heartily support. The wording of the amendment sets a minimum.

It is not restrictive. It says the Auditor General will be able to present at least three supplementary reports. He could present more than that, but there will be a floor. I do not think it would be wise to introduce this kind of change and set a limit on the number of supplementary reports.

The Auditor General's strength is his credibility. Giving him latitude is also giving him the room to carry out his mandate fully.

Changing from one report a year to several is a response to a long felt need. The proposed amendment to section 7 of the Auditor General Act has been recommended four times by the public accounts committee and once by the Senate finance committee. The Auditor General would like to see this change.

With reports at regular intervals, information will be split up and will reach us in a shorter time, which will obviously result in savings.

The Auditor General will be able to report to the House of Commons as soon as he has finished an in-depth audit of a department or a federal body, instead of waiting until he tables his annual report. Parliamentarians will thus be able to have access to information faster, and act more promptly.

The amendment gives plenty of leeway, and the necessary flexibility, to the Auditor General. Why opt for a ceiling? Where does this distrust come from? Why give with the right hand and take away with the left?

If it is felt that the Auditor General needs to produce more than one annual report a year, which seems to be an accepted fact, why restrict him to producing no more than three additional reports?

Moreover, the idea of regular reports reflects a trend that we can see in other countries: Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand. They have all adopted the idea. We are not abandoning a sacrosanct standard and striking out on our own.

The Auditor General's 1993 annual report has over 700 pages. If he reported at regular intervals all the information would be brought out over the course of a year and not just at the end of the year. That would be more efficient, more effective and more transparent. His auditing activities show how public money is being used, which meets a vital need. There can be no half measures in transparency.

Everyone is in favour of virtue, but when the time comes to act they get lukewarm and propose to limit the number of supplementary reports. This is backing and filling. Since 1980 there have been many attempts to amend the Auditor General Act but none of them has succeeded.

It seems to be difficult to go from words to action and give the Auditor General the latitude he needs. We are clearly running into resistance here. Apparent supporters of the idea say one thing but make a point of setting limits to what they call transparency. There is no room here for petty politicking. The Auditor General is the government's watchdog, and he must not be muzzled.

The Bloc Québécois defines the Auditor General's role positively. There is no question of imposing limits on him: we want to give him the manoeuvring room he needs to carry on his activities.

The bill tabled by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier originally provided in its clause 1 that the Auditor General could table at least one report, whereas the text we now have before us stipulates that he can prepare not more than three supplementary reports a year. Limits are being introduced, things are being restricted. After they make their resounding statements of principle, put the Grits through the mangle and their real intentions gush out.

The Auditor General ensures probity in the management of public moneys. He is apolitical. In today's context, participating in the passage of measures that might make it possible to save money is not something to dismiss lightly.

The Office of the Auditor General does audits, and we would benefit from having the findings in a shorter time. The wording of the amendment is designed to achieve this by providing for additional reports. The Auditor General already has the power to make special reports to the House.

Section 8(1) reads as follows:

The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be deferred until the presentation of his annual report.

However, since 1977, he has never invoked that section. The member for Ottawa-Vanier wanted to soften the original rule. In its place, he proposes the present wording which sets requirements too high, so high in fact that one wonders if they will ever be satisfied since the auditor has never used this prerogative in 17 years.

We submit that the requirements of managing a modern state call for a new way of doing things which allows for greater visibility. The auditor needs more leeway in the performance of his duties. For one or two weeks after he reports to Parliament, everyone focuses on the complexity of the task, on the visibility of his work. Then, it is back to oblivion for another year.

He must-and arguments favour more frequent reporting-be given the opportunity to make more than one yearly report. To achieve this, we will have to use general wording.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

The Senate only sat 47 days last year but it employs stenographers. Even when it is not sitting-and I will let you draw your own conclusions-these stenographers still get paid. They do not even have to show up at work. Some of them even fill their free time by offering their services to other firms, thus receiving two salaries. The total bill for taxpayers comes to $1.6 million.

The senators also have their own $29,000 fitness centre when there are schools indire need of such facilities. Yet only one senator uses the centre on a regular basis.

Between February and May 1993, the Upper House met for six days in February, 10 days in March, five days in April and eight days in May for a total of 29 days in four months. At least one day out of two, 17 senators or more were absent. They can miss 21 days a year without penalty. After that, they must pay $60 for every day they miss. It is totally ridiculous.

They also have their own furniture store. Eleven people-carpenters, cabinetmakers and even a professional framer-work there. As far as communications are concerned, each senator claims on average $10,000 per year in telephone charges. All these examples show how public funds are spent.

We are not talking about individuals democratically elected by the population. No, senators enjoy privileges without being accountable.

The existence of the Senate generates costs which Canadian and Quebec taxpayers can question in this difficult economic period, a period during which the government is targeting social programs. In that context costs related to the Senate have very little to do with the daily reality of Canadians and Quebecers.

People take an interest in the Senate because it generates costs, not because it plays a proactive role. It is the elected members who have democratic legitimacy. The public would not tolerate that a non-elected House, with members appointed by the central government, playing an interventionist role. Senators represent neither the population, nor the provincial

public authorities; yet, every year, taxpayers have to pay for that institution.

Those taxpayers have the right to ask themselves questions. However, it was not until 1991 that an audit was conducted for the first time. The Auditor General tabled a report on the administration of the Senate and made 27 recommendations. He said that the Senate is a unique institution operating in a rapidly changing framework. Senate management is different from that of a department, a public organization or a private business. Being a legislative body, the Senate can define and adopt most of the rules which have a bearing on its activity.

Consequently, the usual accountability rules do not apply. Even if you argue that the budget has been decreasing in recent years, it is not enough. Only minor cuts were made to the 1994-95 budget. For example, no Senate employee will be laid off, while thousands of positions are being abolished in the public service. There were 450 person-years in 1992-93, and there will be 447 in 1994-95. The numbers change only because of attrition, retirements and resignations. Six senators will retire this year. Unlike federal public servants, they will be replaced very quickly by friends of the people sitting on the other side.

Quebec and Canadian taxpayers must pay for the Senate. Yet, more than ever before, public money should be spent in a useful way. We must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to maintain the Upper House, considering all the costs involved. Why is a non-elected House allocated public funds which could be better used? Why, in the present context, should we continue to pay for an institution which has no fundamental reason to exist?

We live with a constitutional status quo. The situation is that the Senate continues to exist. How can we tolerate such a situation?

This status quo results in the continued existence of the Upper House, as well as the continued existence of major costs. This is what is happening. The Senate is the best example of the apathy of our federalism. That federalism is removed from the reality. In fact, discussions on a reform of the Senate began soon after Confederation, and, in the last 20 years or so, the number of studies, reports and proposals has increased significantly. The situation which persists is also the result of unacceptable federal proposals and is unaceeptable for Quebec.

Therefore, I firmly support the motion tabled by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, opposing the vote of $26 million under the heading Parliament-The Senate-Program expenditures.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think today's debate is most important since we are addressing the issue of the other place.

Today's economic environment does not allow us to take for granted the amounts allocated to the Upper House, especially since we in the Bloc Quebecois have been defending, since the beginning of the session the entitlements of the most disadvantaged in our society. Given the difficult situation now faced by the people, that is, the insecurity and unemployment-there is 14 per cent unemployment in my riding-how can one support allocating money to the Senate, when all sectors are facing cutbacks? How can one justify the money spent on the other place with its 104 members?

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few examples. Last year, the Senate paid a total of $125,000 for a new hall with mahogany and granite panels.

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage think it is acceptable and fair for the CRTC to have granted eight licences out of ten, all to English-language channels, which means that once again, Francophones will have to pay for channels whose programming does not reflect their cultural interests?

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, June 8th, 1994]

Of course, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister have to ask cabinet to change this decision, as provided under Section 18(1) of the Broadcasting Act?

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Yesterday in the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Culture asked the federal government to review the CRTC's decision on pay-per-view television, in French of course, and I quote: "I would ask my colleague Michel Dupuy to submit to his cabinet a memorandum aimed at persuading the CRTC to review its decision. Pay-per-view is the way of the future-"

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to act on this urgent request from his Quebec counterpart and will he personally intervene in cabinet, which can instruct the CRTC, as provided under Section 18(1) of the Act-

[Regional Development, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to condemn the federal government's ineptitude in the matter of regional development.

All regions in Quebec have been facing major problems for a number of years. Despite the fact that we have a federalist government in Quebec as well, quarrelling on regional development has merely increased political tension, while the economy of the regions suffers. This is reflected in the youth unemployment rate in my region, which was 24 per cent last year and led to migration to the larger urban centres.

I wish the Liberal government would stop telling us that all is well and that federalism is the answer to all our problems. Federalism has had plenty of time to prove itself, and it has proved to be a failure.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17 and especially to the UI provisions on which my party has put forward a few amendments that are, I think, in the interest of Canadians.

I do not want to repeat the arguments made since this debate started but I would still like to express my opinion on the use of public funds to create jobs. Of course, whenever we talk about unemployment, we also talk about job creation.

Every member of this House can now find out in his or her riding the true extent of the infrastructure program announced by this government, which will turn into a disaster in coming days when municipalities will have to present their ratepayers with borrowing by-laws in order to have access to the infrastructure program. Let us look at what is now happening in our ridings. Many of these projects will not be accepted because municipalities are already deeply in debt.

We said at the time that it was another way for the Liberal government to offload money it does not have onto provincial, then municipal governments. In recent weeks, I also analyzed what was being said and mostly listened to groups of young people between 18 and 30 years of age that I would divide into three categories: those who have jobs, young poorly-paid workers without contracts but who still manage to get by on their salaries for one, two or three years.

These workers still manage to get by. However, when their contracts expire, they will fall into another category, that of workers whose status is precarious and that is where it starts.

That is where it starts and when unemployment insurance comes into play. For workers whose status is insecure, there are only projects, jobs created under DEP or the Challenge program or something like that, which under this bill would give these workers lower benefits, because the rate is lower, after they had accumulated a certain number of weeks of unemployment insurance credits.

If you are lucky in that game and are back on UI, perhaps you will be lucky again and find another project, but there will be no third project. At that point, the insecure worker falls into the unemployed category and that is my main point.

We have nothing to offer our jobless young people who are 18 to 30 years old; we are losing that whole generation because we have nothing for them. We are taking away their dignity and forcing them for a few hundred dollars a month to take compulsory courses in school again, which will be no use in the end, since the training they will be given does not prepare them for the jobs now vacant.

You can be sure that young people in that situation-because I know, I worked with them for over thirty years-develop a certain fatalistic attitude which often makes them drink more alcohol and also take more drugs; not having anything to do, they find something to occupy their time.

The suicide rate is very high. Not a day goes by that we do not see lack of work as the main cause of suicide among young people aged 18 to 30. Of course they cannot afford to borrow, but sometimes they have to and the interest rates they pay are abnormally high. So they are caught in a trap from which they will have difficulty escaping.

We devalue them. These people are socially devalued. We are creating instability for a whole generation. If they are lucky, they move in coop or low-cost housing units which, when not supervised or when provincial governments make budget cuts, often look like poverty ghettos. This is where our 18 to 30-year- olds live.

They also share dwellings, which is not a healthy solution. If they are lucky and do not belong to a single parent family, they will go back to their parents' home, which is often the only solution for many of them. This what you are creating by not being able to come up with projects which will put people to work and give them back their dignity. The stress and anxiety related to the fear of not being able to find a job is very real for these young people.

I also want to discuss the third amendment proposed by my colleague regarding the approval of the House of Commons given by resolution of that House, instead of the approval of the Governor in Council. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to pilot projects. This is important and I think it gives satisfaction to the hon. member for St. Boniface. Again, we are not opposed to pilot projects. In fact, we supported the one related to Operation Dignity II.

We cannot oppose, and that is showing a constructive approach, the implementation of new ideas. However, we want the ministers, even though they are subjected to ministerial accountability, to allow this House to review, examine, evaluate and monitor each pilot project, since Parliament is the centre of democracy and since elected representatives are accountable.

They must ensure government transparency, so that they are not stuck with a fait accompli, as in the case of Pearson Airport and all the dealings that went on with lobbyists. Once a debate has taken place on a pilot project, the ministers are in a position to evaluate the pros and cons. This enables them, and us as well, to make better decisions. Then, the same information can be transmitted to every Canadian.

It is in this spirit that I will support the three proposed amendments.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this House for the second time on Bill C-22. The privatization of Pearson Airport has one important element that I think has not yet been addressed in this House, namely pilot training.

I have the honour to have in my riding Chicoutimi CEGEP, which trains pilots. The original idea of establishing a French-language public school to train aircraft pilots comes from Canon Jean-Paul Laliberté, then director of Chicoutimi College, Germain Hallé, then director of educational services, and Pierre Rivest, then aviation inspector for the federal Department of Transport. The first 36 student pilots registered in the fall of 1968. The goal was to give francophones a place in the aeronautical community.

Some 400 to 450 airline pilots have graduated from the school since it was founded. Fifty per cent of students choose this career option while the others become bush or helicopter pilots. A quarter century later, Chicoutimi CEGEP still offers this training through the Quebec aeronautical training centre. This centre is the only public school in Quebec that trains pilots. It is the only institution in North America that gives this training in French. Among its exclusive characteristics is the fact that the courses are free.

So, we have developed in Quebec a public education centre which provides adequate training for francophones.

The training of a pilot requires about 260 hours of flying and 900 hours of theory. It costs Quebec taxpayers some $80,000 to train a pilot. The school has an annual budget of $3.5 million. So, this Quebec centre built a solid reputation for itself. It has expertise in a high tech field and it has made a name for itself.

We have shown that we can train pilots in French, away from major centres and still be successful. We have proven that we can do it. We have been able to provide specialized training for these students. We have established our structure and we provide skilled pilots to the industry. It is only normal to have a return on our investment.

Let us not forget that Montreal has played a predominant role in the development of the air carrier industry. Indeed, in the early seventies, Montreal was the hub of air transportation in Canada. Today, it comes in third place, behind Toronto and Vancouver.

The globalization of aeronautics has triggered a streamlining exercise, as well as a transfer of operations from Montreal to Toronto. Between 1976 and 1984, increases in passenger traffic occurred mostly in Toronto, which registered gains of close to 45 per cent, compared to a mere two per cent for Montreal over the last nine years.

In 1981, 7.5 million passengers were processed at Dorval and Mirabel airports, compared to 14.5 million in Toronto. In 1991, passenger traffic at Dorval and Mirabel airports was 8 million, whereas it was 18.5 million in Toronto. This results in a loss of jobs for Quebec, while elsewhere in Canada there was growth until 1989.

A study by the École des hautes études commerciales in Montreal, done in the late 1980s, estimates the contribution of the Montreal airports to the gross domestic product in terms of value added for the year 1992 at $1.3 billion, taking only the direct impact into account, and at $2.2 billion, if indirect effects are taken into account. According to the same study, the contribution of the Montreal airports to the employment sector is also very significant. In 1992, 24,000 jobs are related to the total direct production of the Montreal airports. Adding indirect and induced jobs results in a total of 48,500 jobs. This indicates the economic importance of airport activity.

In Toronto, the addition of a runway would increase the region's income over the next 15 years by $3.5 billion and would enrich the province by over $9 billion. The impact on employment would also be very large. Locally, adding runways would create 3,300 jobs annually, and 3,700 additional jobs elsewhere in Ontario. This would mean, for the entire province, an increase of more than 7,000 jobs. For comparison purposes, in 1969, Air Canada had 461 pilots in Montreal and 451 in Toronto. In 1992, there were 301 pilots in Montreal and 781 in Toronto, a negative balance of 480 pilots for Quebec. This is not a narrow gap, but rather an abyss.

In 1988, Air Canada transferred all its pilot training operations from Montreal to Toronto, which was extremely significant. As of April 1, 1993, the status of the pilot training graduates from the 1992 program was as follows: 62.5 per cent of the graduates had jobs in their field, whereas 18 per cent did not. Their annual salary was only $24,600.

Young pilots who enter the workforce start in small regional companies known as third-level carriers and build up their flying time. We are therefore training in Quebec, and especially in my constituency, workers whom we would like to see advance

here, since they have the opportunity to pursue their careers with all types of carriers. The concentration of operations at Pearson to the detriment of the airports in Montreal results in pilots leaving. After investing in training, our pilots will go elsewhere and pay taxes.

In conclusion, we want Quebec pilots to have a future. The airports in Montreal, as we have seen, are regressing compared to Toronto. We have invested collectively in the training of our pilots, and we have fashioned a development tool. We should also invest in Montreal.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the presentation we have just heard is evidence of how dedicated my colleague opposite is to the environment, co-operation, recycling and the harmony of nature.

I am confident that these sentiments are shared by all parliamentarians. It is critically important that all of these factors be present if we are to have sustainable agriculture.

I would, nevertheless, like him to explain to us how opportunities can be seized on world markets. That is the real issue, because if we want to seize these opportunities, the wealthier countries will have to stop subsidizing agriculture indirectly.

Financial assistance, particularly if it also entails standards specific to certain countries, impedes the movement of our goods and prevents them from being exported.

I want to give you one example and then I would like to hear your view on the subsidies that wealthy countries award to agriculture and find out if there is any way to change this situation.

In the Lac Saint-Jean area, we produce an aperitif made from a fruit characteristic of our region, namely the blueberry. Vast quantities of this product were exported to Japan because Japanese consumers had created a great demand for it. Japan did everything it could to block the sale of the product on its markets. It proceeded to indirectly subsidize national companies so that they could compete with our products.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on this aspect of the question which, in my view, is a logical follow up to what he was saying earlier.