Maurice Bernier

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, to start with, I will remind the member for Don Valley North that Quebec recognized the Armenian genocide in 1980, that my colleague for Ahuntsic met, I believe, the expectations of the member for Don Valley North since the municipal government in Montreal, headed by its mayor, had planned to erect a monument to commemorate the Armenian genocide, but that, during the election campaign, yielding to pressures from the Minister of

International Trade, the City of Montreal changed its mind. The mayor of Montreal has yet to deny that his project was put on the back burner following pressures from a member of the government.

If I understand what the member for Don Valley North said, and if he is talking on behalf of his caucus and his government, I am convinced that the City of Montreal-and I do not see why the Quebec government would object to being associated with this initiative-would be quite willing to commemorate the Armenian genocide, and to remind our fellow citizens and the world at large of it by erecting a monument. I cannot see any inconsistency in what we are saying, since we are in favour of recognizing it. Not only are we in favour of doing it, but we do recognize the Armenian genocide. For our part, we do not want to reduce these unfortunate events to one human tragedy among many others, rather we want to stress that it is unacceptable for any government to intentionally and systematically try to eliminate a whole people.

In his speech, not in his questions, the member for Don Valley North mentioned the holocaust on several occasions. The word holocaust is associated with the extermination of Jews during the second world war. We are talking about the extermination of a people. The official opposition is not being inconsistent, we recognize the Armenian genocide, this is the subject of the motion. We condemn this kind of crime against humanity and, of course, I believe the official opposition, and the Quebec government, would not object in any way to this being commemorated in a special way by erecting a monument.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the opposition motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Ahuntsic.

Today's motion is exactly the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North moved in 1994. I was somewhat surprised to hear our colleague from Don Valley North and the hon. member for Saint-Denis accuse the opposition of narrow partisanship because we put this motion before the House today.

As I said earlier, the text of the resolution moved by the Bloc member for Ahuntsic is, for the most part, the same as the motion the hon. member for Don Valley North put forward last year. Following pressure exerted by his own party, the motion was not voted on in the House. It was announced that the motion could not be voted on in 1994.

The official opposition wanted to revisit this issue in the House because of its significance, and also because of the lack of attention the government pays to human rights when it deals with international trade. As the official opposition critic on human rights, I wanted to take part in this debate precisely to address this issue.

Of course, we have to go beyond narrow partisanship-and I mention it mostly for our Liberal colleagues-and decry these actions which are still occurring too often nowadays, actions aimed at completely wiping out a people. That is why I am a bit surprised by the reaction of the hon. member for Don Valley North. It seems to me that no one can deny the serious harm done to certain peoples, among others the Armenian people. Therefore, we have to denounce such actions without any reservation and with no hesitation whatsoever so that, hopefully, they do not reoccur.

As an example of partisanship, let me remind the House of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, to replace the word "genocide" by "tragedy". As we have noticed in the speeches made by the Liberal members and as we will see, I guess, throughout the day, where Armenia is concerned, Liberal members prefer to talk about a tragedy instead of a genocide.

I do not think these two words are interchangeable. The newspaper I was reading this morning, and almost all the daily papers in Quebec, reported many car accidents, as they do unfortunately every day or at least every week. I read this morning in the paper about an automobile accident that happened in the region next to mine, the Montérégie, where three young people died. The report spoke of a tragedy for the families, relatives and friends.

Last week, on April 18, we were reminded the world over of the Oklahoma City tragedy where almost 200 persons died last year in an explosion due to a truly insane action. This was called a tragedy.

In spite of their seriousness or their enormity, can events like automobile accidents and the terrible Oklahoma City bombing really be compared with not only the intent but also the actions taken to eliminate a people, a whole community? Is it really possible?

According to the Larousse Dictionary, a tragedy can mean two things. I think words must have a meaning. It is said that the legislator never talks for the sake of talking. Thus, since the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women moved in this House on behalf of the government an amendment to replace the term genocide'' by the termtragedy'', there must be a reason. This was not done merely to stretch out the opposition's motion. There was an intention.

What exactly does "tragedy" mean? What is the meaning of "tragedy" in the Larousse dictionary? The meaning given in the Petit Robert is almost the same. In the literary sense it means a play, the subject of which is generally drawn from legend or history, which takes well known figures and has them act out events designed to evoke fear or pity-

Is that the intention of the government, which is accusing the official opposition of partisan politics, of wanting to raise this question without giving the government sufficient warning, according to the member for Don Valley North?

I think that by using the word "tragedy", they are specifically seeking to mask the real situation, whereas "genocide" refers to the extermination of a people. It is not the same thing. I repeat, the words must have a meaning.

In his motion, which he repeated this morning, the member for Don Valley North used the term or expression "crime against humanity". A crime against humanity is always a tragedy, but it is different. It is different when that term, which is similar to genocide, is used, it is different than the use of the term "tragedy", which, in its literary sense, refers to theatre intended to move audiences, but which also refers to an unfortunate event or events.

We have to know why. All we can do is interpret-I do not know if I can speak about interpretation-conclude that the intention of the government is to qualify, to reduce the scope of what happened to the Armenians early in this century.

Can one compare-I return to my example-the extermination of a million and a half people, the deportation of 500,000 others, the fact that in Armenia over 2,000 churches and 200 convents were destroyed, that people were targeted specifically because of their race or religious beliefs, is this House, the Parliament of Canada, which is a world leader in respecting human rights and democracy, being asked simply to consider these events a tragedy? This makes no sense.

We have a duty, and I must conclude that the government's intention in introducing this amendment is to water down the interpretation of history as it relates to the Armenian genocide, and also to other similar situations.

My colleagues raised the problem, and we will have to come back to it during the day, of how the Canadian government had no problem talking about the genocide in Rwanda and how it is so difficult to recognize the genocide of the Armenians.

The member's motion also raises the matter of the government's attitude, which will be the focus of my remarks: the government's attitude toward human rights, which are a bargaining point, if I can put it that way, in trade matters between Canada and other countries.

As my colleague for Ahuntsic pointed out, the fact that the Government of Canada has been negotiating various levels of trade with the Government of Turkey for a number of years already, including the potential sale of a Candu reactor, there may in fact be a certain amount of interest in pushing the Armenian issue under the carpet. I hope I am wrong in making this suggestion.

After this government's election, we concluded from a number of decisions made that trade was more important than human rights. I would remind this House about the trip by Team Canada, in fact the two trips by Team Canada, especially to Asia where the Prime Minister stressed the enormous advantages offered by Canada and worked to improve trade with Asian countries.

Everyone in Canada-the official opposition along with the rest of the parties-is agreed on the importance of improving our record in terms of developing the economy. Everyone agrees that Canada should be competitive, that our products should be promoted-but at any price? Should we do so at the expense of our most basic principles, particularly in the area of human rights? The answer, obviously, is no, and this is the answer the official opposition wants to hear from the government. We want a categoric and strong no, not only in this House, but outside it as well.

When government officials, with the Prime Minister at the helm, travel the world, they should carry a clear message. Yes, Canada is open to international trade, yes, Canada wants to reduce, indeed eliminate as much as possible barriers to international trade. However, at the same time, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all government members have the responsibility and the duty to make it clear that human rights are not negotiable.

In conclusion, I want to remind my colleagues in this House, in particular government members, that a 13-year old boy, the young Kielburger, from the Toronto area, had to confront the Prime Minister on this issue for it to be given attention all of a sudden.

This young boy had to denounce child labour, especially in Asian countries, in order for the government to, all of a sudden, pay attention to the issue of human rights.

I know my time is up. However, I want to say in conclusion that as parliamentarians, we do not have the right to use terms such as tragedy to minimize the importance of events that occurred throughout the world, especially in Armenia. When we talk about genocide, genocide it is. When we talk about child labour, that is what me must call it. Words must have a meaning. This is what I want and this is what the official opposition wants by having this motion passed.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment further to the remarks made by my colleague, but, particularly, I would like to ask her a question. I am going to speak in a few minutes on the same subject and I will have an opportunity to explain my viewpoint.

I do in fact believe that the official opposition is playing its role properly in submitting to the House this type of motion, which, and I will explain this point further in a few minutes, affords us a look at the rather questionable side of government management in terms of its attitude toward international trade.

It is on this remark that I would like my colleague to expound her viewpoint. Now that international trade and international agreements have come into their own, should we promote trade to the detriment of human rights? I know her point of view, but I would like her to elaborate a bit on it.

If this is not the case, how do we reconcile international trade and human rights?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very brief.

In making these comments, it was indeed my intention to help Reform Party members realize the importance of this debate and take part in it. However, their interest is limited to say the least, since we have heard very few of them.

As for us, our intention is not to unduly prolong this debate, but to make people aware of the importance of this bill and particularly of its dreadful consequences.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier who, as everyone knows, is an expert in this field and who always brings us down to earth.

I do not want to talk about agriculture, even though this would make the hon. member for Beauséjour happy. Some of the bills passed by this House may be a little "far out", if I may use this term, or have little impact on people's everyday lives. However, on reading Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, for the first time, members may wonder what impact this bill could have on their fellow citizens' daily lives.

The hon. member for Mercier has just reminded us that the perverse effects of this bill, and to an even larger extent those of the decisions made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, can be seen every day. In fact, in my riding, as in all ridings in Quebec, how many times have we heard unemployed people and owners of small, medium size and large businesses complain about the time-in business time is money-needed to deal with bureaucrats, to meet the requirements of officials from all departments? They also have to deal with other bureaucrats asking the same questions in the same area. There is one official from the Quebec government and one from the federal government.

That is why, as my hon. colleague indicated, the Department of Human Resources Development interferes in a multitude of aspects relating to manpower development, and the same could be said about other areas over which the department has authority. Over time, this has created such confusion that we do not know if we are coming or going. It is a well-known fact that has been stated and demonstrated time and time again. That is the explanation, and it has nothing to do with their generosity of spirit or with the various organizations losing sight of their mandate or clientele. I am thinking of the Conseil du patronat negotiating with the CSN or the FTQ. They do not do so for the fun of it, to take advantage of the CSN, but rather because they believe it is in everyone's best interest to reach a consensus.

The same goes for the unions. I do not think Gérald Larose is crazy about sitting at the same table as Ghislain Dufour, from the Conseil du patronat. But dealing with manpower training and making sure Quebecers receive appropriate training to become not only competitive on the work market but also more efficient in their jobs, which in turn ensures that we produce higher quality products, is good for everybody. That is what the consensus in Quebec is all about.

It is quite simple. We must achieve tangible results. Labour, management, governments, we all have to work together to ensure that our workers are well trained and our plants operating to the satisfaction of the consumers, so that everybody is happy. We must revisit various programs to avoid duplication, implement programs in line with reality, so that where cooks are needed, we train cooks, not engineers.

As my colleague from Mercier mentioned, this affects people in their daily lives. Finally, it is important that the Liberal members who are listening to the debate talk to their colleague and try to convince him, if possible. I wish them good luck, because we are having a hard time trying to convince the Minister of Human Resources Development that he should improve his bill and announce he will not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-11. As my colleague from Lévis mentioned a few minutes ago, it is amazing to see how government members and even members of the third party in this House, the Reform Party, are silent on this subject.

This has to be noted since, as mentioned by the member for Lévis, this is the most important department in terms of its budget and even, I would say, in terms of its repercussions on the lives of Canadians. Forty per cent of the federal budget is allocated to that department.

So we have to wonder why government members are silent on this subject. How is it that only the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, wants to take part in this debate to inform the people, to tell them how dangerous this bill is and what could happen if we give so much power to the Minister of Labour. In the few minutes I have, I will do my best to explain what powers the minister is getting in this bill.

To do so I will refer to the legislation itself. Clauses 6 and 7 of Bill C-11 talk about the powers, duties and functions of the minister.

Clause 6 says:

1. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.

Everybody should agree with that since clause 6 says that, in creating this department, the federal government wants to enhance employment, encourage equality and promote social security. This is really apple pie; of course everybody wants to attain such goals.

Moreover, it says in this clause that the minister recognizes that he will have to exercise these powers, duties and functions in his own areas of jurisdiction. It is said specifically that his department cannot infringe upon the powers of other federal departments or agencies. Consequently, we could say: "At last, the federal government intends to mind its own business, to play in its own backyard, and, therefore, to respect the powers of the provinces".

In order to understand if such is the government's intent, we must also read clause 7 as well as clause 20, which go together.

Clause 7 reads as follows:

1. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may

That is the Minister of Human Resources Development. a ) subject to the Statistics Act, collect, analyse, interpret-

And so on. These are all formalities. Paragraph ( b ) reads as follows: b ) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources development.

It is there in black and white, if words mean anything, even in the House: "The Minister may cooperate"; it is not written that the minister must cooperate, but that he "may" cooperate with provincial authorities. Therefore, the minister has all the leeway he needs to accept or refuse to cooperate with a provincial government.

In clause 6, it is said that the minister cannot exercise powers assigned to other federal departments, boards or agencies, but in paragraph 7( b ), it is said he ``may'' cooperate with the provinces. We know that, since its inception, the federal government has used all acceptable and unacceptable means available to it to invade provincial fields of jurisdiction.

We have seen it time and time again in the past, such as in the case of old age security, family allowances and unemployment insurance, which were all provincial fields of jurisdiction. And, over the years, for all manner of reasons, including the depression in the 1920s and then later on the war, the federal government has laid its hands on powers, supposedly temporarily, but the situation then became permanent. Over time, some have been entrenched in the Constitution, as is the case with unemployment insurance.

So there is nothing reassuring about clause 6, when read in conjunction with clause 7.

If I may, let us jump ahead a bit to examine clause 20. What does clause 20 of Bill C-11 say? Since we are still looking at the same bill, it is appropriate to link them up. Clause 20 states:

1. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may

-repeating the wording of clause 7-

enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

So, as the saying goes, the thing has come full circle; we have just grasped that the minister can decide to co-operate with a province, as it says in paragraph 7( b ). So,if by chance the minister does not feel like co-operating with a province, he can pass on it. But what will he do then, according to clause 20? He will go over the heads of the provinces, and negotiate directly or conclude agreements with bodies in each of the provinces.

Clause 20 does not say so because, naturally, the federal government wants to deceive, to hide the truth. Clause 20 does not say that the federal government or one of its agencies will be able to deal directly with a municipality, but it must be understood that provincial public agencies are just like municipalities. Municipalities are agencies, creatures of provincial governments. Therefore, as I understand it, under this clause the federal government is giving itself the necessary leeway to bypass provincial governments and deal directly with municipalities and agencies at the provincial level.

This is the government's, the minister's intention and we know that this minister more than anyone else will not hesitate to push provinces aside, especially Quebec, and to try to enter into agreements which will go against the wishes, goals and policies of the Government of Quebec.

During the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about the common will and consensus regarding professional training policies. This is not the only area where Quebec will stand alone, where it will be a distinct homeland-the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may wish to use another expression since "distinct society" and "principal homeland" seem to have disappeared; we could perhaps use "distinct homeland" for a few weeks. In Quebec there has been for many years, I repeat, for many years a consensus between all stakeholders, all interested parties. This includes the Government of Quebec, labour confederations and employers. For the first time in the history of Quebec, I would say, a consensus was reached to ask the federal government to withdraw from manpower training, to take its paws off this provincial jurisdiction and to put a stop to the duplication and endless meddling in this sensitive area, not only in economic terms, but in the day-to-day existence of our fellow citizens. We are talking about real people, who work or who need retraining or additional training because of the closure of their place of work.

As my colleagues have pointed out here and elsewhere, how many times do we have to reiterate the need for a clean-up in manpower training? In Quebec, management, unions and government have all said the same thing. When I speak of government, I do not mean the separatist government of Mr. Bouchard currently in power, but the federalist government before it, the governments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bourassa, and no one can accuseMr. Bourassa of even the slightest hint of a separatist tendency.

If there was ever someone ready to compromise, I would say to make every concession, in order to keep Quebec within the Canadian Federation, it was the former premier of Quebec,Mr. Bourassa. Yet, even he and his government joined in the consensus, in QUebec, that manpower training should be under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as already provided for in the Constitution, and that the federal government should be asked to withdraw from this area.

However, when reading clauses 6, 7(b) and 20 of the bill before us, we see that the federal government does not intend to abide by this consensus, but intends on the contrary to continue to do what it has been doing for years, that is to interfere in any way, at any time and with anyone it wants to.

Question period after question period, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Human Resources Development and the present minister of this portfolio, have all stood in this House one after the other to state their intention, their firm resolve to decentralize, to withdraw from this area of provincial jurisdiction in order to abide by the Constitution.

That is what they are saying day after day, question period after question period, election campaign after election campaign but, in reality, when the time comes to make a decision, the first thing they do is to write, in black and white, that they intend to do just the opposite.

After that, one hardly wonders at the cynicism-not to call it something worse-of the population with respect to politics and politicians. This is called double talk. One cannot say one thing, then say the opposite, and claim there is no inconsistency.

The federal government says over and over that it is ready to withdraw from manpower training. Why did not they write in their bill that they are leaving this responsibility to the provinces and that they recognize once and for all the consensus arrived at in Quebec? It would have been simple and easy. I am convinced that, for once, the House would have been unanimous on a bill, since that is what all stakeholders in Quebec are demanding.

I think the minister can still act before the bill is passed. Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources Development and his Prime Minister to have a serious discussion as soon as possible and for them agree that this bill is flawed-that is the least we can say. In fact, the bill does not follow through on the federal government's intentions to withdraw from manpower training. The Minister could see to it that the necessary changes are made.

Nothing would do more to prove the government's good will than if it announced during this debate that it is once and for all withdrawing from manpower training. If it did so, it would gain the full support of stakeholders in Quebec and of the official opposition. I think there would be no better way to conclude this debate.

[Quebec Referendum Act, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Referendum Act is one of the most forward-looking public consultation legislation in the democratic world, and there is no equivalent legislation at the federal level.

Several Liberal members knew full well that, when federalist forces from outside Quebec showed up for their illegal rally in Montreal on October 27, they were breaking the law. Instead of condemning this legislation, the government whip should use it as a model to enhance the democratic process at the federal level.

Liberal members seem to think they can do anything they please in the name of national unity. They break the law, act like martyrs, play holier than thou or complain of harassment when Quebec's director general of elections calls them to account for their rally activities in Montreal.

The whip and his accomplices should be reminded that, on October 27, their illegal tactics gave millions of Quebecers the feeling of being besieged.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I had indeed the opportunity in the past to visit the riding of my colleague from Kootenay East at his invitation. It was a very rewarding experience for me, and it was greatly appreciated. I met

some very nice people, and I would like to publicly thank my colleague for his invitation.

That said, when he accuses me of being ignorant or of misinterpreting the facts by suggesting that the federal government is discriminating against Quebec compared to western Canada, I simply want to remind him that, in my remarks regarding agriculture, I insisted that this would affect milk producers in both Quebec and Ontario, where this industry is concentrated. I never said that Quebec was being singled out.

I said and I continue to say-my colleague can interpret this as an argument in favour of our sovereignty objective, but the facts are there-that the federal government's decisions concerning Quebec's economic development have had a disastrous impact in several sectors, including oil refining. This is a fact, and I invite my colleague to come and visit Montreal's east end. Some of my colleagues will be pleased to show him the disastrous impact of these policies. He will see that this is not an opinion, but a very concrete reality.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part to this debate, following the speech on the budget. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the comments made by the member for Dauphin-Swan River and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. As a matter of fact, the speech she has just given was somewhat out of touch with reality, to say the least, in terms of the repercussions that the budget already has and will continue to have on Canadians.

She talked in particular about agriculture. As my colleague from Longueuil has so well explained, Quebec farmers will lose a good part of the advantages that federal subsidies gave them. In order to show how reality is completely different-otherwise the hon. member must be living a an environment totally different from ours-she said that the budgetary decisions made by the Liberal government have made farmers in her area very happy indeed, that everyone is happy, that every farmer she meets is smiling since the government decided to do away with the grain transportation subsidies.

I can understand why farmers in the West are smiling. If I were one of them I would be grinning from ear to ear. Over two billion dollars in subsidies were given last year, in the 1995-96 budget, to compensate for the reduction of grain transportation subsidies.

The non taxable part of the support was assessed. Western farmers received cash outs to compensate for the decrease in the value of their properties and they were given direct subsidies to facilitate the transition to other types of agriculture. The subsidies given to western farmers to compensate, as I said, for the loss of wheat transportation subsidies, are estimated at $3 billion.

Meanwhile, what is happening in the east? As my hon. colleague indicated, our farmers are required to pay more for their grain but when the time comes to apply similar measures to them-I am referring to milk subsidies cuts-there is a double standard.

Last year, the government reduced milk subsidies paid to producers by 15 per cent. This year, producers are told that the subsidies will be completely eliminated over a five-year period, without any form of compensation. And the hon. member is telling us that all is well and everyone is happy with the decisions made by the federal government?

Our colleague, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food and for Fisheries and Oceans, and member for Beauséjour also stated, in response to a question from our critic for agriculture, and repeated in this House that, following the decision made last year to cut the subsidies paid to producers, consultations-to which both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture participated-would be carried out to sound out the opinion of the industry. Now the Secretary of State rises in his place and formally declares in this House: "We have the support of milk producer associations to use this approach". He said so and repeated it with a straight face, without flinching.

As the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food and for Fisheries and Oceans, and member for Beauséjour was making this statement about milk producer representatives being in agreement, I was reading, in my hometown newspaper, La Tribune , what the president of the milk producers association had said. This is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. Perhaps he is a separatist at heart, but it is not obvious from the article.

What does he have to say this dairy producer representing his union in our region, in the Eastern Townships? "Ottawa is on the backs of the farmers". He criticizes the elimination of the subsidy over a five-year period. He proves beyond a doubt that the federal government acted unilaterally. So if the minister and the Secretary of State did in fact consult anyone, it certainly was not these

people. Representatives of the UPA in the Eastern Townships and throughout Quebec never at any time agreed to such a measure.

The head of the UPA in the Eastern Townships, Jacques Dion, added that other demonstrations will be needed. It is time to bring out the tractors. This is the only way, it appears, the government understands.

I do not think my colleague for Dauphin-Swan River met with the same representations, needless to say, and I understand. I have just explained that the decisions affecting the west do not have the same scope as those affecting the east-and it is not just Quebec, we are talking about Ontario too. So, to say that the agricultural measures in the government's budget were positive is, to say the least, going too far.

I would also like to talk about cuts in the area of unemployment insurance. In fact, the main measures, the primary effects of the budget we are seeing this year are not to be found in the 1996-97 budget, but in the 1995-96 one, since the cuts to transfers to the provinces announced last year took effect last year and this year. As far as unemployment insurance is concerned, it is the same thing. The Minister of Finance added to his revenues to reduce the federal government's deficit. He dipped into the unemployment insurance fund and took nearly $5 billion.

The cuts that will result from the changes made to the UI legislation will make the surplus in the UI fund grow bigger, which means that the government will be able to draw even more money from the fund to reduce its deficit at the expense of the unemployed. Everyone in Canada knows that, because of federal government policies, the unemployment rate in Quebec is much higher than the Canadian average.

In that sense, Quebec can be said to be principal homeland of unemployment in Canada. The motion passed by the Liberal Party on the weekend could have said, in addition, that Quebec is not only predominantly French speaking, but also one of the places where the unemployment rate is the highest. As I said, we have the federal government's long-standing policies to thank for that.

Let me give you just one example. The oil refining industry in Montreal has completely disappeared as a result of decisions made by the federal government. There is a long list of this kind of decisions.

I will conclude on this because you are signalling that I have only one minute left. We have the feeling of living in two completely different worlds when we meet in this House. When I hear government members praise this budget, I catch myself thinking about the poor, the unemployed and the people on welfare who are listening to such remarks. They must be telling themselves: "What country is this? Is this the right place? Perhaps I should have my head examined. My perception of reality must we skewed, because that sure is not how things are for me. I keep growing poorer and poorer, while being given less and less opportunities to break out of poverty".

That is the reality. That is the kind of effect the budget before us is having on people.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier-Moncalm on his speech. As I said at the beginning of my own speech, there was an opportunity to review a bill such as this one, which, at first sight, may seem technical or insignificant to most of our fellow citizens. When we study the bill more closely, however, when we take a closer look at it, when we analyze it like the official opposition did, we see right away the effects this bill or these bills will have on our fellow citizens, and the example given by the member for Berthier-Moncalm is eloquent proof of that. I hope the minister is listening carefully to my colleague's words, not only in this particular case, but also to realize that she has to consult all members of the House, whatever their political stripes.

I believe that if we were elected by the people, if we ran a campaign, it proves that we have been involved in our communities for some time. We cannot learn everything overnight, it takes years. Generally speaking, members of Parliament are knowledgeable people; they know what is going on in their riding. Consequently, they should be consulted.

Earlier, I described the suggestions the Bloc made to improve this process also. When we are speaking of the monitoring of government contracts, of departments' financial administration, which could be done by the committees, it would also be appropriate at the same time to ask questions to departmental officials, the minister and senior civil servants about situations like those that the member mentioned.

Finally, I would like to say to the minister and the government in general that it is in their interest to change their practices in this regard. Our fellow citizens are less and less willing to accept to be kept in the dark about government decisions, at all levels.

For example, right now in Quebec there is a group called Mouvement pour le redressement économique du Québec, whose aim is to question governments on the way they spend the money they have to provide services to the population. We see more and more of that kind of spontaneous grassroots organizations.

What message are they sending to our political leaders? They are telling them: "We will no longer accept that you make decisions on our behalf without consulting and informing us in advance".

It seems to me that the very least a government could do is to consult the men and women that were elected by the population. If the government is really serious when it says that it wants to improve the efficiency of its administrative structure, particularly with regard to contracts, then it should say so right now, during our present debate. It should say in a clear and open way that it intends to consult the elected members of Parliament on the contracts it is giving out.