Gilbert Fillion

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to thank my colleague for his long preamble, which, in spite of my criticism of his government, seemed to support some of my arguments. I would like to get back to his main point which was farm diversification.

I am all for it, except that under the present system, the federal government is funding diversification in western Canada at the expense of Quebec. Which, to some degree, explains why Quebec has been unable to diversify in that area. I could give you many examples and statistics. But I will only talk about lamb production. Quebec has been unable to emulate the west. The sheep population increased by 9 per cent between 1988 and 1991 in Quebec, whereas it went up by 33 per cent in western Canada. Why? Thanks to programs funded by the government at the expense of Quebec.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Champlain.

It gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on the agricultural sector. However, I cannot agree with the motion presented by the minister of agriculture. The wording of the motion is nothing but self-congratulatory, with praise for a duty that was poorly done.

I represent the constituency of Chicoutimi, and I can tell you that there are roughly 1,700 agricultural producers in the region. The dairy industry is the largest. Many of the farms are owned by individuals. Family farms are still very much a part of our region, but they have undergone numerous changes. With the globalization of markets and its very tangible impact on agriculture, it can be said that this sector is constantly subject to change.

The agricultural sector is active. In February 1991, all players in Quebec with a stake in regional development and the agri-food sector met in Montreal for the États généraux du monde rural , which established a series of benchmarks, including giving the regions control over their future, respecting and promoting local and regional values; having local and regional partners work together, diversifying the regional economic base, protecting and regenerating resources, and restoring a balance in political powers from top to bottom.

At the Trois-Rivières summit, round tables achieved a consensus on the major approaches to be taken to ensure the development of the agri-food sector in Quebec. The Trois-Rivières Summit generated a series of commitments. I will mention a few: first of all, to focus on research and replacing old technologies as part of a strategy to win new markets; to promote and support human resources training; to ensure the continued development and growth of agri-food businesses; to readjust existing income security programs based on production costs; to develop income security programs compatible with the rules of international trade; to promote financing for farm operations and the transfer of same without incurring massive debt; and subsequently, to consider assistance for conversion within the sector of operations that are not viable and help farmers who leave the profession.

The federation of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, in its activity report for 1992-93, has also changed its strategy and talks about winning new markets.

On page 7, the report says that this new theme in the agricultural and agri-food sector will guide our planning for the next decade. Some serious thought has been given to these issues. There is a need to promote the autonomy of farm operations and processing plants by supporting their efforts to adjust to new market demands and win new markets, and also increase their competitiveness by reducing production costs. All this to break the cycle of dependency on government assistance. However, a reasonable time frame is needed to provide for harmonious transition. By signing the GATT agreements, the Canadian government has upset farm programs and practices by making the agri-food sector compete directly with foreign countries.

This is not harmonious transition. We must consider farmers as entrepreneurs and support regional entrepreneurship. They should have access to ongoing professional training and to the financing and technologies they need to make their operation a profitable and competitive business.

Quebec is committed to promoting the development of a competitive agricultural sector that is regionally based. The agri-food industry must adjust to the demands of globalization. It cannot, by itself, guarantee the development of rural areas and maintain the social fabric, although it certainly can play a significant role in regional development.

Nevertheless, non-viable companies will have to be supported by the government until their activities are redirected within the agri-food sector or in other sectors of the economy. We have to make the industry aware of the importance of the environment as a means of promoting agriculture.

Finally, the agri-food sector needs a reasonable time to adjust to international competition. The federal government defended only weakly the interests of Canada and Quebec farm producers.

During the last negotiation sessions of the Uruguay round of GATT, and despite repeated assurances by the Liberal government in December, federal negotiators were unable to gather the support of enough countries to defend and keep article XI which protected egg, poultry and milk production, mostly centered in Quebec.

Even though import quotas will be replaced by tariff barriers which will gradually disappear over time, the abandonment of article XI is disrupting Quebec agriculture. Clearly, the federal government did not come back from Geneva, last December 15, with the best of agreements. We would have wished for a larger reduction in export subsidies and a better access to foreign markets.

For Canada and Quebec farmers the biggest threat, at the present time, is the outcome of the current trade negotiations with the U.S.A. in the agricultural sector.

The federal government is now pressured by American negotiators over the issue of restricted sectors like eggs, poultry and milk. Americans claim that pursuant to the agreement, tariff barriers must be completely abolished between the two countries by 1998.

Decision making processes must be decentralized. Stakeholders in the Quebec farming industry did what they had to do. They do not need for the federal government to impose policies that would be contrary to the priorities and positions they developed. They want to control the decision-making levers in the fields that concern them.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National revenue on her speech. Allow me to make a comment and perhaps ask a few questions that will be included in my comment.

In her introduction, the hon. member explained to us that, in order to achieve a certain level of peace in the world, it was necessary for us to provide underdeveloped countries with products such as agricultural products, agri-food products, et cetera. Then she told us that we should assist our farmers in developing and rationalizing their production precisely to enable Canada to find new markets and develop them and to ensure that our farmers receive adequate income.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, first, where does she see these new markets? Where could Canada direct this agri-food sector? And I would also ask her the following question: Has the party she represents re-examined its position or done a post mortem on the way in which the recent agreements were arrived at, agreements that were achieved with difficulty in the case of the GATT and, of course, the free trade agreement? Will we follow the same model to develop or interest or negotiate with other countries with regard to agri-food?

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 25 last, I put a question to the Minister of Industry asking him to

explain the absence of representatives of the cultural community on the committee in charge of defining the government's strategy for the information highway.

I also conveyed to him my concern over the fact that the provinces were not involved in the process. Today I would like further clarification to be provided with respect to these two questions.

I represent the riding of Chicoutimi. The Saguenay region was the first in Quebec to welcome a multimedia centre, an investment of $80 million which will result in 250 jobs. I feel concerned by the electronic highway.

In the Throne Speech and again in the budget speech, the government announced it had the intention of putting forward a Canadian strategy for developing the information highway.

As we all know, the government has appointed an electronic highway advisory board. This board has 29 members, including one from my riding in the person of Mr. Charles Sirois, and I am very pleased with that.

Among these 29 members are representatives from the cable broadcasting, broadcasting and telecommunications industries, but none from the cultural industry. But there are living strengths, creative forces and expertise only waiting for an invitation to share their vision.

The cultural community is structured. It has its own structures and experienced representatives. Why are they excluded from this process? In the name of what? The artisans of the cultural industry cannot be ignored when dealing with this issue.

Besides the establishment of an infrastructure per se, there is the content of the information travelling on this electronic highway. One of the objectives of the board is to strengthen the French and English cultural identities; yet the board has no representatives from the cultural community. There is a glaring contradiction in there. How can this operation be credible when the committee does not include any representatives of the cultural community, despite the extra dimension and the extremely important expertise they could bring? This is not a whim but a matter of representation. Culture will not be affected only indirectly; it is at the heart of the electronic highway.

Although the committee includes 29 members, the Minister of Industry did not appoint any representative of the cultural community. Industry, however, is well represented. They apparently preferred to leave out players who could have made a necessary, useful contribution.

Under its mandate, the council is being asked to deal with copyright and intellectual property issues and to come up with results. Is this not an admission that workers in cultural industries make a considerable contribution? Why are these players absent from the process defined by the government, then?

The Ostry report recommended creating a ministerial committee and provincial participation as well. The government ignored that. Instead, the electronic highway will be developed behind closed doors, with only one player and in the federal arena. Excluding the provinces and the cultural community is a bad start in designing the electronic highway.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to Bill C-22.

First of all, I would like to briefly review the sequence of events. In 1989, Paxport Inc. spontaneously submitted a proposal for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2. The government of the day nixed the idea. That was in 1989. However, in October of 1990, the government invited the private sector to submit proposals for the redevelopment of Terminals 1 and 2. In 1991, Terminal 3 opened for business under the management of Claridge Holdings Inc. On March 11, 1992, the government formally issued requests for proposals for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. This preceded the decision on the proposed expansion of the runway system at the airport. Only a one-phase process was called for, involving no prequalification, whereas the bidding for the privatization of Terminal 3 involved a two-stage process, initially soliciting interested parties and selecting a short list of bidders, and then encouraging detailed submissions.

As for the competition process itself, the Nixon report states the following on page 2, and I quote: "The Request for Proposals did not set out many of the fundamental aspects of the proposed development, but left these to bidders to define for themselves". Therefore, it was left to bidders to make projections on passenger traffic at the airport. Yet, data on passenger traffic is critical to determining the pace and scope of the redevelopment. With a project of this magnitude, how could it have been left to the bidders to define such crucial parameters?

Moreover, only 90 days were provided for responses. This is an unusually short deadline, considering that we are dealing with a highly complex, long-term contract covering a period of 57 years. What reason could there be for setting such a tight deadline if not to give an advantage to certain companies, such as Paxport which had submitted an earlier privatization plan in 1989, and Claridge which was already managing Terminal 3 at Pearson? In the end, the government received only two bids, one from Claridge and one from Paxport.

On December 7, 1992, the Paxport proposal was selected as the best of the two bids. The company was required to demonstrate by February 15, 1993 that its proposal was financially viable.

As it could not do so nor, according to its president, obtain the necessary capital from other sources, Paxport and Claridge established T1 T2 Limited Partnership less than two months later. In fact, Paxport created a joint venture with its only competitor.

Why did the government then in office award a 57-year contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a financially-troubled company that was also close to the party? All interested parties in the Toronto region knew at the time that Paxport was in financial difficulty. The government cannot claim it acted in good faith.

As you may recall, one of the reasons Paxport was chosen was to encourage healthy competition between the manager of Terminals 1 and 2 and the manager of Terminal 3.

On August 30, 1993, the Minister of Transport announced a general agreement between the two parties. He promised that a final agreement would be signed in the fall.

On September 8, 1993, the Government of Canada called an election. The Nixon report summarizes the events as follows: "Prior to the conclusion of the legal agreement the Leader of the Opposition (now the Prime Minister) indicated clearly that parties proceeding to conclude this transaction did so at their own risk and that a new government"-that is, the people opposite-"would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 if the transaction was not in the public interest". The legal agreement was signed nevertheless.

Under the pressure of public opinion, the government ordered a review of this highly controversial deal and the Nixon report was published on November 29, 1993. On December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the agreement.

The Nixon report outlines the process and argues that it strongly favoured one of the proposals since Paxport had already submitted a privatization proposal.

The report itself describes in plain language the abuses that were committed in this deal: "Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the maneuvering preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted".

Other companies should have been invited to bid and should have been given a reasonable deadline. No prequalification financial analysis was required in this request for proposals.

Finally, the Conservative government signed the contract in the final stretch of an election campaign. Allow me to quote from the report. "It is a well-known and carefully observed tradition that when governments dissolve Parliament they must accept a restricted power of decision during the election period". The report concludes that the privatization process was far from promoting the interest of the public to the fullest.

We demand a royal commission of inquiry. The Nixon investigation was conducted in private. In the red book, the Liberals say that people are irritated because key parts of public business are conducted behind closed door.

The government keeps harping on about transparency. Here is a chance to show us they believe in their principles and can apply them responsibly.

A government that preaches transparency has to shed some light on this whole issue. Taxpayers have the right to know and to be provided with inside information on these transactions. The government cancelled the privatization plan, yet this bill provides for compensation, although the parties were aware of a possible contract cancellation.

The Crown does not have to compensate investors for miscalculations. Clause 10, paragraph 2, reads as follows:

No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to ( a ) any loss of profit, or ( b ) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act , in connection with any agreement.

It has to be stronger than that. Public funds are at stake.

[Electronic Highway, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this did not confirm the exclusion of the cultural community from the strategy.

How can the government think of defining a national strategy for the electronic highway without directly involving the provinces in Access Canada?

[Electronic Highway, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The federal government is getting ready to set up an agency called Access Canada to define a national strategy for the electronic highway. The federal government will control 50 per cent of this agency and the other half will be held by the private sector.

Given the major impact that the electronic highway will have on the whole cultural community, how can the minister justify the lack of representatives from this community on the committee that will define the government's strategy for the electronic highway? Has the government not learned a lesson from the Ginn Publishing affair?

[Petitions, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This concerns the last member who spoke. I have the following question for the Chair: regarding the point of order raised earlier when the petition was tabled, is the Chair prepared to examine the Standing Orders and, for the benefit of members who are new and not fully acquainted with the Standing Orders of this House, possibly take the time to look into this matter and tell us whether the hon. member who tabled the petition acted according to the

Standing Orders or not? I would appreciate the Chair's opinion. Perhaps the Chair could take this under advisement.

[Dictée Des Amériques, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I wish to congratulate Mr. Jacques Sormany, a biology and mathematics teacher at the Chicoutimi CEGEP, who com-

peted in the Dictée des Amériques, on March 26, and came first in the Senior Professional category. Mr. Sormany is one of four champions who successfully avoided the many pitfalls of this dictation given by Antonine Maillet.

The three others are: Daniel Albert, in the Junior category; Ronald Cawthorn, in the Senior category, French as a second language; and Vincent Renaud, of Ottawa, in the Senior Amateur category.

Two hundred candidates, divided into four categories, took part in this event. They came from Quebec, Canada, Latin America and the United States. We are proud of Mr. Sormany's remarkable performance.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank you for doing me the honou of asking me to replace you in the chair for a few moments. This is a true historical event in this House. Imagine, a sovereigntist, a member of the Bloc Quebecois in the chair! Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, will go down in history for that.

I want to discuss here Part V of Bill C-17 amending the unemployment insurance.

Talking about unemployment is talking about employment. Last March, in the Great Chicoutimi-Jonquière area, the seasonally unadjusted unemployment reached 15.5 per cent. These kinds of rates bring us back to the inability of our leaders to manage our primary resource, that is our human resource. Wherever you stand, you have to acknowledge that the situation is tragic.

The mechanism we put in place to counter fluctuations in the economic cycle really comes into play when we go through a period of high unemployment. That is when the Liberal government chose to send a clear signal to Canadians. It makes far-reaching changes to the unemployment insurance plan. Moreover, the government promised jobs. That was the main theme of its election platform, but it seems that the colour of its red book has been fading in the last little while. I see it turning from red to beige a little more every day. What are they telling us now? They are tightening the screws. Following the changes made by the Tories, the Liberal government is continuing to undermine our social safety net.

The logical thing to do would be to create more jobs, not to dismantle the system already in place.

Eligibility for unemployment insurance is reduced, the benefit rate will also be reduced for the great majority of recipients and the benefit period will be shortened.

We are told that the government wants to establish a better balance between the period of employment and the benefit period. It overlooks some countries which do not follow that economic model. One cannot help feeling angry about such disappointing measures which show that the government is unable to create jobs.

According to the budget, there will be a net deficit reduction of $8 billion in 1995-96, but only $4.1 billion of that will result from the new measures announced by the Minister of Finance. The unemployed are the ones who will pay for 60 per cent of the deficit reduction effort, that is, $2.4 billion of a total of $4.1 billion. Even if you deduct the $400 million that the government plans to reinvest in order to help unemployed Canadians get back into the job market, their contribution is still 50 per cent.

How can the government ask the unemployed to make such a large contribution? The government estimates that the repercussions on provincial welfare programs will total $65 million to $135 million. According to three economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal, these changes will cost the provinces at least $1 billion, including $280 million in Quebec's case. Why is there such a big difference between these estimates? Who is telling the truth? The government or the experts? I think that the experts have more credibility because they are impartial.

The government says that it wants to strengthen the relationship between work history and benefit entitlement. But its proposal will only widen the gap between the various regions of our country.

By increasing from 10 to 12 the number of weeks required to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, the government is shutting out a particular category of workers who would barely qualify under the existing system. The increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits essentially affects the Maritime provinces and Quebec.

By restricting accessibility on one hand and by favouring applicants who have accumulated a larger number of work weeks on the other hand, the government is forgetting how shaky the employment situation is in many areas. Moreover, it is not taking into account the structural changes that have occurred in the job market. Instead of adapting the unemployment insurance program to the new realities of the labour force, the present government continues to reduce the protection given to workers.

The government has made up its mind, even though it indicates that these measures can be seen as temporary. They lead us to believe that the choices have already been made and that the broader reform of social programs will only serve as an exercise in justification.

Finally, lessening the importance of the regional rate of unemployment in calculating UI benefits will inevitably penalize the regions with the highest rate of unemployment. The reduction in the number of weeks of benefits will hit hardest the regions with a rate of unemployment over 10 per cent, once again the Maritimes and Quebec.

Indeed, eastern Canada is hit hardest by these measures. This is how an internal document of the Department of Human Resources Development estimates the cuts in benefits: $735 million for Quebec; $630 million for the Atlantic region; $560 million for Ontario and $430 million for Western Canada. Once again Quebec bears the brunt of the cuts. One cannot say that this is fair. Quite the contrary, regional disparities persist and the gap remains. Provinces with a high rate of unemployment will suffer higher cuts.

Finally, the government is increasing benefits for low-income people with dependents. Their benefit rate will be 60 per cent, while it will be 55 per cent for others. According to the Department of Finance, about 15 per cent of UI recipients will belong to that group. That measure will require women to prove that they have the custody of their children and will necessitate the introduction of monitoring measures. Besides, it was reported in broad headlines in La Presse , on Monday April 11, 1994, that the New Brunswick government wanted to require single mothers to identify their children's father; that those who refused would no longer be entitled to social assistance. Is the Liberal government, our government, heading in the same direction?

The government argues that the changes will contribute significantly to job creation when the premium reduction will come into effect on January 1, 1995. The government has postponed until next year a measure it could have applied today. There is no doubt that these changes reflect this government's inability to offer a real recovery plan.

In closing, I will say that the government ought to fight unemployment rather than the unemployed. And one of the ways to offer a real recovery plan that would restore a balance and be equitable to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, is to transfer jurisdiction for labour training to the Government of Quebec, with the related funding, of course. Quebec already has the expertise in this field, being the closest to its constituents. It should have the right to manage labour training programs for its workers.