Gilbert Fillion

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lévis. In connection with Bill C-10, I shall be attempting to strike a totally different note from what I have been hearing since this morning. I wish to speak of the government's borrowing authority.

Can we still afford to borrow? When all our credit cards are charged to the hilt, can we still afford to borrow? We should keep in mind how things were years ago in our families, in Quebec and Canada. Very often, Mother controlled the budget. She knew that the family had to live on the money that was available. Money was only borrowed as a last resort, generally to acquire such major items as a home, when there was no other way.

Today this government is borrowing right and left, borrowing to meet day-to-day expenses, borrowing just to buy its groceries, as it were. It is even going so far as to dip into the UI fund, the workers' fund, in order to get billions of dollars to reduce its deficit.

The government certainly does not seem to have the same family tradition as I. Why does it want to borrow so much money? And how, more importantly, can it want to continue to borrow and to put the people of this country further into debt? The budget presented by the Minister of Finance contains all of the answers to these questions, I think.

This government is not tackling the deficit, yet it is shouting from the rooftops that it has solved Canada's financial problems. Untrue. We know very well that, at the end of this year, the debt will have surpassed the $600 billion mark. You may well say "but that is just a drop in the ocean". The problem is, the government seems unaware that the ocean is raging out of control.

What is worse still, I think that it is stirring up the winds of storm even further with this bill. We need only look at what is going on in our own ridings. People are taking to the streets and with reason. Their message to us is clear.

Borrowing, at some point in time, also means having to pay back, and that is what we are doing. We are paying back $49 billion a year in interest and more than half of this goes abroad. It is money we could use, money that could be invested at home to create jobs for young people, money that could be invested in paying jobs and in research and development-all to improve things in our communities. But, no.

Why is this government rejecting the evidence. Why is it not putting its shoulder to the wheel when it is asking the disadvantaged to do so even more? I need only think of those receiving UI, who had been hoping to hear about jobs from the Minister of Finance, but who, once again, can see that those opposite are doing nothing about their problems, except add to them.

Here again, I repeat, he is using the unemployment insurance fund to refloat his deficit. People are not unemployed because they want to be. They are forced into it. It is jobs they want. If the money in the UI fund was used for jobs, the Minister of Finance could settle much of the problems of his deficit and his borrowing power.

Generally, what people want is to survive without government handouts, but the minister has forgotten this. Digging in the pockets of the disadvantaged is something they know how to do. What about asking those who use tax shelters to make an effort-not a chance.

What about setting up mechanisms to plug the loopholes that enable taxpayers to avoid paying income tax-not a chance, either. Instead, a committee of alleged experts is set up and is to report within a few months. Reports like these often end up on the shelf.

Just ask someone who is unemployed if they know about tax havens. Those who come to my riding office do not even know what a tax shelter is. They are looking for a job.

The Liberal government can no longer meet the needs of those of its citizens in greatest difficulty. What is more, it is also passing on to the provinces a shortfall problem. The government is announcing it is cutting dairy subsidies. It keeps on increasing expenditures.

In this year's budget, it will spend an additional $104 million; great management, indeed. Moreover, the government wants to add to the debt with this bill. Enough is enough. It is about time our friends across the way realize that the Canadian people has had it, it is suffocating.

The finance minister should look at what has been happening in Quebec lately. This is a responsible government which consults people and takes their views into account. This is a government which wants a better future for its people.

When can we expect the Liberal government to go through a similar exercise? When can we expect the people opposite to listen to Canadians? Is this government afraid of true consultation? To look at what is happening with its unemployment insurance reform is to know the answer. As I was saying earlier, people have taken to the streets, and they keep on coming. This government is lending a deaf ear. These people are not protesting because they are lazy, this is not true. Nor because they are arrogant. They are protesting because their livelihood is at stake, their family's livelihood is at stake. I cannot help but repeat that the Liberal ship is rudderless in an ocean of troubles.

She is taking with her millions of people who are suffering and have no trust in the government. This government does not deserve their trust, anyway. Why? Because it has betrayed their trust. It is certainly not by putting the country further into debt that it will redeem itself and regain their trust. Therefore, we must fight any further borrowing with all our strength.

The finance minister should go back to the drawing board and make new suggestions. The Bloc Quebecois, in the Standing Committee on Finances, offered solutions; he should try them out. He should try to offer Canadians real solutions such as the one the Bloc Quebecois made.

But since it is not possible to review them all, I will mention only this one. The government could try to collect the $6 billion owed to Revenue Canada. The auditor general has criticized the government on several occasions for failing to do this. What is being done to collect from some 77,000 corporations which pay no federal income tax? I believe we should stop compiling statistics and start trying to get the money where it really is. The Bloc Quebecois made suggestions. Borrowing is not a solution. Therefore, we cannot support any further borrowing.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked my colleague to talk a little more about the 1,400,000 unemployed people in this country. He did not mention them. Of course, he referred to the program designed to provide summer jobs for students, but this program will not save Canada or the unemployed.

I would like to find out from my colleague what measures are favoured by his party to create high paying jobs that would enable people to make ends meet and to put bread on the table.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services concerning the relocation of Revenue Canada offices from Hull to Ottawa.

In her attempt to respond, the minister cast some doubt on the transparency of the process in admitting that every effort was being made by her department to have an open and fair process in the call for tenders.

The minister offers us no guarantee that would allow us to be sure all efforts have been expended to ensure transparency and equity in the process. Moreover, does this not make this government appear to the public to be the one with the least transparency?

Once again, the Liberal government has done nothing to restore public confidence. It is now a known fact that it has not been successful in curbing the lobbyists. Yet, when the Liberals were the opposition, they were tearing their hair out over transparency. The famous red book is getting a paler and paler shade of red as more and more promises are not kept.

This is a striking example of a policy with a double standard. How can the minister state that the processes are open and equitable? Why do Quebec property owners have to get tied up in government red tape, while Ontario landlords do not?

A number of questions come to mind. Could barefaced patronage be involved? Is somebody getting paid back for a favour?

A relocation such as this, involving 800 federal employees, is a luxury we could easily do without at this time. Quebec business owners have the same rights as those in Ontario. In particular, they have the right to receive the same treatment as their neighbours in Ontario.

If the minister says that the process put in place by her government for awarding accommodation is open and transparent and that it is intended to ensure equal access to all regions and to all businesses across the country, then she should suit the action to the word. She should go ahead.

The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to calls for tender. The Bloc Quebecois would like to see a straightforward and transparent process, free of lobbyists, that leaves no discretionary authority to the minister and that will ensure equity and equality for everyone.

The Bloc Quebecois would particularly like access to different government contracts to be based, I repeat, on equity and equality.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again they are skirting the real problems and avoiding the main issues, such as the ever growing debt and the deficit, which is being reduced on the backs of the disadvantaged and the unemployed, with the surplus in the unemployment fund going to reduce the deficit.

They also forget to tell us that the budget contains no provision for trimming government machinery. They neglect to tell us that there is nothing to eliminate overlap or to show us how the government intends to really decentralize. There is no mention either of this government taking steps to recover the $6 billion in taxes owed by various companies and individuals.

They also do not say that what is currently being put into the pot allegedly for job creation is simply money from elsewhere. There is nothing in the budget for research and development or for job creation in this area. Our universities and our researchers are reduced to zero at this point.

Therefore, in actual fact, the problem itself, the real problem, is that this budget contains no provision for job creation.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has given a wonderful speech, but in practical terms I do not see what these national challenges can do for us. It is all very lovely, but, practically speaking, this is not the answer.

Furthermore, since coming to power, this government has focussed almost exclusively on budget expenditures in its fight against the deficit. This leaves the less fortunate, seniors and students footing the bill.

I would ask my hon. colleague two questions. National challenges cost money and in order to have money we must create jobs. Regarding the $5 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, does he think we should use this money purely for the creation of jobs and not to reduce the deficit? That is my first question.

This is the second. Since, at some point, we also have to take another look at the tax system, would it not be wise to ask a parliamentary committee to examine this whole issue? I think that that is where we must begin, by creating jobs first and then looking at the tax system.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the minister's remarks. Naturally, when we hear such remarks, we must focus primarily on the role this minister plays within the Liberal caucus. Of course, the minister sidestepped the main questions. He did not talk about the debt,

which continues to grow, or the deficit, which is slowly shrinking, but only because of the surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund.

He mentioned a few figures, paltry in the context of billion dollar budgets, for job creation. In other words, there is almost nothing. He spoke about students but it was only a diversion.

Coming back to the minister's primary role, he is insinuating in this House that those who oppose the reform come mainly from organized groups, people who earn their living at the expense of the least fortunate making them aware of things.

I would like to draw to his attention something that was sent to me by teachers who do not work on a regular basis, who do not have regular jobs-this is why teaching is called a precarious profession. They sent me a little postcard, just to tell me that this reform is inequitable, unfair and ineffective. Because they can be classified as seasonal workers, they are asking for the pure and simple withdrawal of Bill C-12.

I therefore have a question for the minister. Does he plan to withdraw this bill? Do his plans include Quebec receiving the transfer of powers and money due it so that it can look after its own manpower and unemployment insurance?

[Government Buildings, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again the government is applying double standards. It grants Ontario a contract for armoured personnel carriers, without asking for bids, whereas Quebec firms have to bid on the helicopter contract.

At a time when the government is asking its poorest citizens to make additional sacrifices to help reduce the deficit, how can the minister afford the expensive luxury of moving 800 civil servants, if it were not only because she intends to relocate them in Ontario?

[Government Buildings, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.

Tomorrow a tenders call will be issued to house the offices of Revenue Canada which are presently in Hull, on Sacré-Coeur street. Besides the building located in Quebec, four buildings on the Ontario side could meet the terms of the call for tender.

Could the minister explain why a tender call is being issued with regard to offices located in Hull, when it is usually not the case for offices located in Ottawa, as illustrated by the following examples: 191 Laurier street, where Revenue Canada is housed; 234 Laurier street, where National Defence is housed; and 340 Laurier street, where the office of the solicitor general is housed?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way did not interpret the throne speech the way I did.

I see this as a repetition of promises that have not been kept. There is nothing in his speech on how to make taxes more equitable, help the defence industry convert to civilian applications, for example, and especially there is nothing on how to reduce overlap.

What I remember most clearly from his speech is his statement that the federal government should develop partnerships with the provinces in order to create jobs. Yet, in the throne speech, his government continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction by recycling large portions of a watered down Charlottetown accord.

The throne speech shows the government's tendency to bypass the provinces and yet the hon. member is asking us to develop partnerships with the provinces. How can the provinces do so when the federal government has demonstrated its intention to go over their heads in developing partnerships with municipalities and with various organizations either in mining or in forestry? I do not understand that kind of language.

Sometimes they want to establish a relationship with the provinces but not at other times. What is my colleague's reaction in this matter? Does he think that the federal government should first develop partnerships with the provinces?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I must commend my hon. colleague for the profile he has presented of his region and his riding.

I must say that the picture he has painted is exactly the same wherever you go in Quebec. Our regions are emptying, our ridings are plagued by unemployment. In Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, we have remained unbeaten for years in terms of unemployment in Canada. Our people do not deserve this. Absolutely not. This government-and my hon. colleague alluded to this-is kissing an entire generation of young people goodbye. It is sacrificing that whole generation. They are without jobs.

However much the government boasts about its infrastructure program-government programs are useless anyway-the fact remains that no real job creation has taken place, only very temporary work was created. No progress has been made in bringing the unemployment rate down in even one region of Quebec. One thing is clear to us in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean: we may not get support from the federal government-and we are not talking about billions of dollars here-but we know how to innovate.

Consider the following example. The local ALCAN employees union brought the plants in Jonquière, Laterrière and Alma together through a work sharing arrangement. With no big grants or major outlay of money on the part of our governments, it succeeded in creating 120 direct jobs- you can imagine what this will mean in terms of indirect benefits down the road. It merely cost $10,000 per job created. That is what I call a job well done. That is what innovating is all about.

Compared to the millions of dollars sunk here and there sometimes just to maintain a few jobs, not even creating any-millions, if not billions, are spent here without much success-these workers who assumed responsibility for themselves managed to create jobs for just $10,000 per job. Why could the government not be as innovative as them?

I think that innovation involves job training, and that is what my question to my hon. colleague is about. He did not get a chance to elaborate on the subject of job training, and I am convinced that he was all set to do so, but ran out of time.

I would like him to share his thoughts about job training in Quebec.