Pierre De Savoye

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as he presented his motion. I also listened to the remarks made by his colleague opposite, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Let me read the motion over, for the benefit of those who are watching the debate:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support a policy that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and protected.

It is not the first time that this issue is raised in the House of Commons. We will recall that in May 1991, Mr. Fulton, who was a member then, presented a notice of motion asking for a national water council to be established to control, among other things, all freshwater export proposals. He was not the only member involved in this debate.

In another notice of motion, the current Liberal member for Davenport suggested that, in the opinion of the House, the government should strengthen the federal water policy by tabling a bill prohibiting the export of water by tanker, through a channel, a new pipeline or by interbasin transfer.

Clearly, this debate is not new. In fact, it goes back such a long way that I would like to quote what the current Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, said in this House on Friday, May 28, 1993.

At the time, the minister was a member of the opposition. He said: "-we must afford national treatment to all goods and services. Goods are defined as having the definition given under the GATT. Article 2201 of the GATT defines natural water, including ice and snow, as a good".

He also said: "If the United States sometime in the future, next year or the year after, decides it wants to exercise its legal right as contained in the agreements to require Canada to export up to the proportion then it would supersede any policy that is now on the books".

Further on, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre added: "I think the very first item would be that the federal goverment make it very explicit that the present moratorium on water exports that the British Columbia government has introduced is the policy of Canada. The federal government should very clearly take an immediate position on that question".

We are now in a new Parliament. Last year, the governement, with Mexico and the United States, issued a declaration on the interpretation to be given to the terms of NAFTA. In essence, that interpretation is as follows: NAFTA does not establish any rights to the natural water resources of one of the parties. Water, as found naturally in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, hydrographic basins, is not a good or a product, is not for sale, and consequently is not and has never been covered by the terms of any agreement. International rights and obligations concerning natural water are set forth in separate treaties and agreements, negotiated for that very purpose, such as the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the 1944 treaty signed by the United States and Mexico.

However, this joint declaration by the three countries does not mean that Canada has an overall policy regarding sovereignty over water resources.

In short, Canada does not possess any policy on water resource as a commodity.

Mr. Speaker, you know, as we all do, that Canada is the country with the largest fresh water resources in the world. In November 1987, the hon. Tom MacMillan, the then Minister of the Environment, announced a federal policy on water resources, clearly stating that the federal government was opposed to large-scale exports of Canadian water. The minister then introduced Bill C-156 to enact this commitment into law. But since that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on October 1, 1988, we do not have a policy at this time.

According to the Constitution, jurisdiction over water resources is shared between the federal and provincial governments; in general, the provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources, including water, within their borders. However, the provinces' very wide jurisdiction over water resources within their territory is limited by the specific powers granted exclusively to the federal government, including fisheries, shipping, relations with foreign governments, federal lands, Indians, projects likely to benefit Canada in general, as well as peace, order and good government for the country.

I might add for the benefit of my constituents that, unfortunately, the federal government does not always live up to its responsibilities regarding outboard motors on certain lakes, as in the case of the unfortunate lakeside residents in Lac aux Sables. Some problems are also emerging with respect to

seaplane bases; I am, of course, talking about the people who live along the shores of Lac Saint-Augustin.

But let us get back to water as a commodity. Canada currently exports water to the U.S.; a network of canals carries the water to population centres at the Canada-U.S. border and then on to nearby communities in the U.S.

For instance, the water supply system in Coutts, Alberta crosses the border to meet local needs in Sweetgrass, Montana. Under another agreement, Gretna, Manitoba supplies Neche, North Dakota with water. Similar arrangements exist between St. Stephen, New Brunswick and Calais, Maine.

These cross-border water transportation systems are small in scale and do not require inter-basin transfers. They offer a practical way to rationalize local supply, so we are not talking about exports as such. As for exports by water tankers, the volumes contemplated at this time are insignificant.

The North American Water and Power Alliance project, developed by a Californian engineering firm, was among the major projects that attracted a great deal of attention. It would have necessitated the diversion of water from the Mackenzie and Yukon river systems, going south, through a passage in the Rockies, down to the United States, to supply southwestern states with irrigation water and produce hydro-electric power, perhaps also create waterways. But this project, fortunately, was never considered viable by the Canadian government or the American government.

Another project, namely GRAND Canal, was first submitted in 1959 and has been a focus of attention ever since. This project calls for the impounding of James Bay to collect the waters flowing from Ontario and Quebec rivers as well as the reversal of 17 per cent of their flow towards the south. Water from the Great Lakes would then be diverted to the southwestern part of the U.S. and the arid zones of Western Canada.

Simon Reisman, at the time the chief negotiator for Canada in the free trade talks with the United States, and former Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa championed this water diversion project. But opponents of the project argued that its benefits were purely theoretical and that even its economic impact could be negative.

In the 1985 report, the authors of the study on federal water policy pointed out that transfers between basins, like any other major water development project, cause major changes in the environment by interrupting the flow of waterways, flooding regions, transferring forms of life and even modifying conditions in the atmosphere and the oceans. The ultimate consequences of these changes are unpredictable.

We believe that federal criteria should emphasize the federal and national interests to be considered in a framework policy on the water resource. Factors to be considered would include: first, the consequences for the fisheries and navigation in federal waters, international waters and waters under more than one jurisdiction; second, international considerations of an economic, political and strategic nature; third, the possible impact on the capability of our water reserves to meet the long-term needs of Canadians and Quebecers, bearing in mind the lack of certainty about those needs and the cumulative effect of exports at the regional and national level; fourth, the impact on the environment and the economy at the regional level; fifth, the consequences for aboriginal people and other social groups and the size of compensation payments in the event of adverse effects; and finally, the general economic benefits for Canada.

How we should manage our water resources is a very timely question. It was raised this evening, and now we must decide what the answer will be.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about heritage, most people believe that we are dealing with ancient things, old things. However, this afternoon, I would like to show that heritage also means modern things, even highly advanced technology. I would like to do it from a cultural perspective, from the perspective of Canadian and Quebec culture.

At the present time, right above the Equator, there are two American satellites beaming down to South and North America. They were sent into orbit by the Hughes Corporation, a subsidiary of General Motors in the United States. These two satellites have been nicknamed "Death Stars". What does this mean?

These satellites can transmit TV signals nearly to every home from the North Pole to the South Pole. They can broadcast up to 200 channels simultaneously.

I must warn you that this is not science fiction; not only can these satellites do what I have just mentioned, they have been doing it for several weeks already. They now have customers mainly in the U.S., but also in Canada.

These American satellites belong to the Direct TV Corporation and can be used by a Canadian corporation called Power Direct TV, itself a subsidiary of Hughes and Power Corporation.

What does this have to do with culture? Think about it for a moment. These satellites broadcasts are, for the time being, totally foreign to what is happening on the cultural scene in Canada. Programs are produced in the US and the content is American, naturally.

In fact, just about anyone in Canada can obtain the necessary equipment to receive these channels, and I will explain how to illustrate how real a danger it is for Quebec and Canadian culture.

In the United States, right now, you can buy a dish the size of large pizza and a descrambler, and get the signal coming from a satellite on your television set. Now Direct TV is a business concern and the signal is not free; however the company has to know that you are receiving their signal to be able to bill you for it.

How does it work? You go to the United States and you buy the box and the small dish for about C$900. I should add that as soon as the market picks up, the prices will fall to about half that much. You bring all this back to Canada, to Quebec, or any other province or to the Northwest Territories and you install your small dish outside, or even inside if you have a south-facing window. Next you connect your box to the phone line and you dial the 1-800 number.

You automatically reach the U.S. company and register as a new customer willing to use their services. The company then sends a signal to one of their geostationary satellites above the Equator telling it to talk to your box. These satellites always stay above the same spot on the Equator. This is not science fiction, this is happening now. Your box has a number, and when the satellite sends it the right signal, it comes to life. From then on, it gives you access to about 200 channels.

You can now view all the regular programming of the major American television networks and you can order up movies on a pay-per-view basis, which is like going to a video store, except that you do not have to get out of the house. You push a button indicating that you want to watch such and such a movie and, automatically, the box records the films that you ordered and your viewing time. At the end of the month, the parent company in the U.S. phones your box and reads the meter, so to speak. And the box provides the information. The company in the U.S. then issues a bill and sends it to you.

However, since you are in Canada, you will not receive the bill at your home. It will be sent to an American address that you were provided with, and you will get the bill from there. No GST, no provincial sales tax. I think that the Department of Revenue should realize that services are being provided to Canada without any international agreement.

I will quote officials from the American company working on the Canadian side. Mr. Kruyt, who works for Power Direct TV, appeared before the heritage committee on November 16.

What was the question I asked? I had asked him why the company tolerated that Canadian consumers receive the signal, knowing that it was not complying with Canadian consumer law. He answered: "We have no financial incentive to prevent these people from receiving the signals, but do have a financial incentive to charge them for doing so".

I then asked him what made him think that eventually, in providing the service legally to Canadians, signals could be screened to ensure that they receive Canadian rather than American signals. And the answer I got was that the American company would give them control over what they call the on-off switch if they could start business in this country. This is of course a situation where profitability is the only rule.

Culture in Canada and Quebec is now at risk. What can and must be done about it? First, we need our heritage minister to be properly equipped, to have the proper legislative tools to act. Instead, we have the Minister of Industry saying: "Communications. That belongs to me".

At this rate, telephone comes under communications, television comes under communications, banking transactions, specially those made at an automatic banking machine, come under communications. What about education then? Will it also come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, when it is televised?

When the medical profession will make use of telecommunication media, will it become one more thing under industry jurisdiction? Telecommunication can be such an area of responsibility, but only insofar as the equipment is concerned and at the exclusion of content, which much be the responsibility of other appropriate departments. My point it that there is nothing in the legislation before us, absolutely nothing, that gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage authority to act.

I would even go further. With this chunk of the electronic highway -and we know that this highway is coming and that it will take many forms- how can we prevent goods and services from crossing our borders electronically, when we know full well that we have legislation in place to prevent them from entering in material form?

Take hate propaganda, for example. In electronic form, we cannot do a thing about it. Terrorist instructions are already circulating on Internet, here in Canada and Quebec. This would never be allowed if it had to go through a border point. What will we do to stop this? Our heritage department must be able to negotiate GATT-type agreements with our global partners, so that all countries with approved electronic data links will agree to protect their mutual interests. Therefore, the Act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage should enable our heritage minister to tell the countries with which we will have electronic links: "If we receive a signal that should not be received, we expect you to take those responsible to task, and we will do the same for you".

We will thus be able to protect our cultural interests, first by avoiding invasion as we will have control over what is coming in. It is not a matter of hindering the free flow of information, but of seeing that what would not be allowed through a border point cannot get through electronically either. We can also agree to export our own cultural wealth overseas and not let barriers be put in place over there.

In conclusion, the bill as it stands should not be approved by this House nor by the other place, as it does not meet the requirements Canadians and Quebecers are entitled to.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for his concern for making the debate on the CSE more transparent than the answers given during Question Period by the minister responsible, the Minister of National Defence.

Indeed, the member who also chairs the sub-committee on national security, has moved: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE)".

As you can see, this augurs much better than the minister's various statements on the subject. This motion is based on a principle which the Bloc Quebecois has stated many times: the ability to account to our taxpayers for the activities of federal institutions, including the Communications Security Establishment.

If this motion is adopted and implemented by the Liberal government, the Communications Security Establishment will be accountable to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, better known as SIRC. It is estimated that the CSE spends between $200 and $300 million a year without being held accountable for it. It is also estimated that the CSE employs between 800 and 1,000 employees, but other sources put the number as high as 1,850.

However, it is impossible to obtain confirmation of these figures at this time. Furthermore, recent allegations from a former spy who worked in the CSE for several years indicate that agents used electronic eavesdropping to intercept the telephone calls of Quebec politicians. When questioned on this subject, however, the Minister of National Defence hides behind the sacrosanct national interest and refuses to answer.

The motion of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River does not set a world precedent, far from it. The Australian Security Intelligence Organization, MI-6, the Government Communications Headquarters in Great Britain, and the CIA in the United States are already monitored in their respective countries by an outside committee, which operates in a way similar to what is proposed in Motion M-38.

Belgium and some countries which belonged to the former Warsaw Pact are now considering the possibility of doing exactly what the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is proposing for Canada. Unfortunately, our Minister of National Defence tells us that it is not in the national interest to reveal the operational methods or the administrative standards which

apply to the CSE's activities, and I refer to an article in Le Devoir of October 25, 1994.

Where is the respect for democracy when the minister, always in the so-called national interest, refuses to tell us how many people work for the Communications Security Establishment? After all, the Agence France Presse reported, on November 8, 1994, that the British defence minister was downsizing the secret service, and that about 100 of the 6,000 positions related to these operations at the Government Communications Headquarters would be eliminated.

The British can evaluate how their secret service is managed, as well as appreciate the fact that it is affected by the budgetary cuts announced by their government. They also know how many employees work for that service, and they are informed of the cuts affecting this organization responsible for analysis of so-called sensitive information, or intelligence.

This is where democratic transparency starts. By now, you will have guessed that I am in favour of having an external body monitor CSE's operations, as proposed in the motion now before us.

However, I have some reservations regarding the Security Intelligence Review Committee. First, I wish to point out to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River that the current membership of that committee, SIRC, must be reviewed. Indeed, the members of the committee were essentially appointed on the recommendations of the main political parties in the previous Parliament. These appointments were made on the basis of recommendations by the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats.

I agree with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who feel that some SIRC members no longer have a legitimate right to sit on the committee, since their presence does not reflect the will of Canadians, as expressed during the last federal election. Indeed, these members essentially represent political parties which were democratically rejected by voters.

The membership of this committee should take into account the wishes of Canadians, and it should reflect the political reality of this Parliament. It is time members of SIRC did the honourable thing and promptly resigned so that Parliament could then appoint new members to represent them on this committee.

I should add that in the near future we will have to take steps to take politics out of the process of appointing members to this committee. Furthermore, the legislation governing SIRC should concentrate on reviewing certain mechanisms that raise a number of questions. For instance, does the process of reporting to Parliament really give members a chance to establish that the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers have been respected? Should this mechanism be more transparent? Should SIRC be allowed to submit its annual report uncensored to the Speaker of the House?

Under section 54 of the CSIS Act, SIRC is also required to submit to the Solicitor General, on a regular basis, special reports concerning specific events. Should we provide that the nature and subject of these regular reports be routinely communicated to the House?

Section 30 of the CSIS Act defines the functions of an inspector general, which include monitoring compliance with operational policies and reviewing the operational activities of CSIS. Before including the CSE in this legislation, we should consider the relevance and effectiveness of having both an inspector general and the SIRC for monitoring purposes. Is this duplication that could be avoided?

Should the mandate of the director of the CSE be seven years, like his counterpart at CSIS? Or should tenure be during pleasure? Should SIRC have access to cabinet documents which are not legally accessible at the present time? And finally, should a member of the Auditor General's office audit CSE's accounts and report his findings to this House?

Many questions remain to be answered. I think that in the public interest, the government should answer them as soon as possible to prevent further erosion of the public's trust in federal institutions.

In concluding, I seriously hope that the government will react favourably to the motion presented by its member for Scarborough-Rouge River and that it will give careful consideration to my questions and recommendations.

[Employment Equity Act, December 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-64 respecting employment equity. Madam Speaker, I shall, if I may, quote the purpose of this legislation as it appears in the text of the bill.

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability.

The bill consists of four parts. First, it sets out the obligations of an employer and outlines reporting requirements. Part II sets out mechanisms for enforcing employer obligations. Part III deals with the assessment of monetary penalties, and Part IV establishes regulation-making authority and provides for other general matters.

The House will recall that the federal government's first affirmative action programs were set up in 1970, following the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. However, the report of the Commission on Equality in Employment-the Abella Commission's report tabled in 1984-was to form the basis for current policies on employment equity.

Adopted in 1986, the Employment Equity Act currently applies to federally regulated employers and Crown corporations that employ 100 or more employees. These are mainly employers that conduct their operations in the banking, transportation and communications sectors which, as you know, are under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-64 will completely change the 1986 legislation, by making it apply to the federal public service, which was not covered before. Considerations to be included in employment equity plans are now better defined. The President of the Treasury Board is to table an annual report. Finally, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be responsible for the enforcement of the obligations imposed on employers by certain sections.

Of course, this is nothing new.

You will recall that, in a report tabled on May 14 1992, a special committee recommended that the threshold under which the legislation does not apply be lowered from 100 to 75 employees.

The same report recommended as even more important yet that a national employment equity strategy be developed, a strategy that would include a public education program. And this program, in the opinion of the committee and his chairman, was the most important part of all.

This report was accompanied by a minority report from the Liberal Party, presented by the hon. members for York South-Weston and Halifax. This minority report states that: "Maintaining the current threshold of 100 employees, or even reducing the threshold to 75 as recommended by the Special committee, results in legislation that, in effect, imposes a barrier to designated groups members who prefer to be employed in small business settings". As you can see, the minority report even goes further than the special committee report.

Let me quote again from this minority report, where the hon. member for York South-Weston and the hon. member for Halifax tell us the following: "It is our belief that the Federal Contractors Program presents the government with an ideal opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the principle of employment equity. The message should be clear and unequivocal-if you want to do business with the federal government, you must implement employment equity in the work place".

These two examples go to show that in those days-this was 1992-employment equity was taken seriously. In fact, this special committee report and minority report have laid the groundwork, I imagine, for the bill before us today.

In this context, the Bloc Quebecois believes it is essential to ensure equitable job access to the groups affected by the legislation. We therefore endorse the principle of employment equity. The Bloc certainly supports the inclusion of the public service of Canada within the scope of the act. This was long overdue.

However, the Bloc Quebecois questions the helpfulness of a new governmental measure. As I said earlier, the special committee recommended that adequate resources be provided to the Human Rights Commission, so that it could carry out effectively its new functions. Unfortunately, the Minister of Human Resources Development has stated in a press conference that the commission would have to do more with less. This leaves us somewhat sceptical or at least concerned.

Another difficulty we would like to point out is that employment equity policies should have been adopted a long time ago. They were not. However, the federal government is now in a situation where it must reduce its workforce, which makes it much more difficult to reach equity goals and will limit the impact of this bill to a certain extent.

A bill is a statement of good intentions. However, given the current downsizing of the federal public service, it would be not only desirable but essential for the minister to propose a plan to implement this bill within the public service.

We also remember-as I read a few moments ago in its report-that the special committee had recommended a reduction to 75 employees, while the minority report suggested an even greater reduction. The bill, however, does not provide for such a reduction, even though we think it should.

In conclusion, although the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of employment equity, we will introduce major amendments in committee in order to help improve the effectiveness of this bill.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, a glass is either half empty or half full. We prefer to say that the glass is half full. And we will start by filling it. As for instances of overlap, you know as well as I do that sovereignty is the best way to eliminate them all.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member opposite is giving me a chance to set the record straight. First of all, Quebec has 18 per cent of federal civil servants and we pay 25 per cent, so we save 7 per cent there. We must look the figures in the face.

Looking at the balance between what Quebec pays and what it gets, we see that Quebec pays roughly $28 billion to this federal government here in Ottawa and gets about $28 billion back. That seems fair and equitable, but there is a very big difference. While Ontarians get their money back in federal contracts, research and development and other ways, we Quebecers get our money back partly as unemployment insurance and that is unacceptable.

The cost of duplication and overlap may be $3 billion but that is only a small part of it. The real cost is the opportunity cost; while things are happening under our noses, nothing is being done. Opportunities are slipping away from us and they could amount to tens of billions of dollars. With an ability to act responsibly, debt problems would disappear.

I have been told many times that the Government of Quebec will not be a better manager than the federal government. Totally false! For example, it costs the federal government $170 a year to process an employee's pay while it costs the provincial government $70. Here alone, it costs us about 40 per cent of what it costs the federal government. I am not the one saying that; it is the Auditor General. Yes, we are more efficient and I am really eager to be able to prove it to the whole world.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You are quite right and I conclude by saying that I am convinced that after a clear, vigorous debate, Quebecers will make a historic decision with clear minds.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to go back to what my colleague for Longueuil was saying. Along the same line, this morning, I read an article on the cost of sovereignty. The problem is that it did not mention the cost of federalism.

In fact, we are forced to recognize that, for the past 25 years, we have seen the centralizing policies of the federal government turn a thriving country into one which is deeply in debt.

No matter how loudly the Prime Minister claims in this House that we live in the most comfortable country in the world, our credit card bill is up to $550 billion. The end of the month is going to be something else!

I would have liked to have had the time to mention all the disgraceful, useless expenses, all the waste originating on Parliament Hill and in various departments. Unfortunately I have only ten minutes. Therefore, I will focus on overlapping, duplication and the cost of federalism in general.

Let us look at the various programs the federal government implements in Quebec and which compete, in one way or

another, with those Quebec is already offering because they are more in tune with our specific needs. Believe it or not, out of 221 federal programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 either overlap or duplicate another. That means that we could get rid of 197 federal programs and Quebec would be better served for it.

First, we are faced with redundant administrative activities. As part of their mandate, well-meaning federal civil servants are doing exactly the same thing as their provincial counterparts acting in accordance with their mandate specific to Quebec. We pay twice for people who do a good job, but who do it twice. Once would have been enough since the job was well done.

There is worse. There is competition between various programs. Because, of course, the federal government wants to outdo the provincial government, it favours quantity over quality; the quantity of dollars it borrows, spends and, unfortunately too often, wastes. Occasionally, it resorts to conflict. We do not agree on targets. The federal program goes one way, while Quebec-and Quebec knows its constituency well and structures its objectives accordingly-goes another. Therefore, efforts and funds, instead of being pooled, are once again wasted.

At times, the programs are in direct conflict with each other. Instead of one going one way and the other one, the other way, they run counter to one another. How often-and the public is aware of this-do lawyers go to court to make representations on behalf of the federal government and object to representations on behalf of the Government of Quebec, whose lawyers are paid by Quebec taxpayers? It is our money that is financing this legal squabble. Duplication, overlap, waste.

That is not all. Think of the poor citizens. I mentioned the 221 federal programs and the 244 provincial ones. Ordinary people are completely lost. When you make an application to the federal government, you are asked whether you have already applied to the provincial government. If so, you have to wait for an answer from both the federal and the provincial governments. But the provincial government is waiting for the federal government to deal with the issue, with the result that the people are kept waiting and waiting and waiting, while the meter is ticking away on both sides. Such a waste!

Finally, I must say that, on top of all that, is an unquantifiable factor-unquantifiable because this is money that we never see-and that is opportunity cost. While these programs shoot each other down or wander one way or the other, the public waits. And while the public is waiting, we let opportunities go by, right under our very nose. All this to say that there are lengthy delays and some people get so totally discouraged that they give up projects they could have completed otherwise.

A case in point is manpower training. Two years ago, there were 25,000 people on a waiting list for training, but the federal government did not agree with the provincial government on required courses. Even the Quebec Liberals said that Quebec knew what the needs were.

We are still waiting. Do you think that these 25,000 people who were looking for training are still waiting in line? No, they are no longer eligible, because they do not qualify for UI benefits any more. They are now on welfare and programs are shutting them out. It is a disgrace.

The costs of federalism? Let us say quickly that federal institutions definitely lack the flexibility required to compete internationally. In fact, the federal system is inflexible by definition, despite what a certain minister may say, as demonstrated by the many failed attempts to reform it.

Everything has been tried. We are not blaming the federalists. They tried everything. Mr. Lévesque, with the "beau risque", deeply believed in it. Mr. Bourassa tried until the last second to find some accommodation. It did not work. The system is inflexible, cast in concrete. Yet, international competitiveness requires great adaptability.

I will close by addressing remarks made by some of my colleagues opposite, which I found almost insulting. We are talking about democracy, about the democratic process. We are talking about the question. You will agree with me, Madam Speaker, that if the finance minister's next tax increase was the subject of a referendum, you know very well that the people would vote against it and that this tax increase would never ever see the light of day.

That would be democracy. But it will not happen that way. It will happen through phony consultations, through passage of this tax measure here in this House. Canadians will see tax increases of up to $120 billion, $125 billion, $130 billion, who knows?

The Government of Quebec is now following a process whose conclusion will be decided by the people. The people will be able to say yes or no. That is democracy. That is how it should be done and I would urge my colleagues opposite to do the same when dealing with important issues. Our Prime Minister says that the question that should be asked is: Do you want to separate from Canada?

I submit that Mr. Parizeau is asking an identical question and here is why. The Prime Minister's question essentially is this: Do you want to separate from the problem? What Mr. Parizeau says is this: Do you want to adopt the sovereignty solution? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Mr. Chrétien is

entitled to his; he can keep his problem. Yes, Madam Speaker, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However-

[Bankruptcy Act, December 7th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate on Bill C-237 that I have had the pleasure of introducing is drawing to a close. My Liberal and Reform colleagues showed no real willingness to redress the obvious injustice towards unpaid workers who assume part of the burden of their employer's bankruptcy.

Here is what the Liberals and Reformers argued. First, banks would be reluctant to lend money to companies.

Second, these same banks would lose patience more quickly when a company was experiencing difficulties.

Third and final argument, such a super priority for wage claims would be unfair to other creditors, including the Crown.

I will start by disproving the first argument. You know as well as I that generally speaking employees have no say in the way their employer runs his business. An employer can mortgage the company using his employees' salaries and wages as collateral. All creditors give legal consent for the money they loan to a company, but not employees. They have no say in the matter. Yet, their salaries, the fruit of their labour, is put up as collateral for other creditors. This is clearly unfair.

Moreover, the government does not get a penny out of unpaid wages. If salaries were to become a super priority, they would be paid to employees and the Department of Revenue would get its share. This disproves argument number 3.

The second point, that banks would be less patient with businesses in difficulty, is an interesting argument since banks are responsible for ensuring that the business to which they lend money is solvent. Banks are well placed to see if a business is able to pay its employees' salaries. If a bank lends to a business that is not able to pay its employees, it means that this institution agrees to let the workers bear the risk of the loan. Such an attitude would be both unjust and unacceptable.

Bill C-237 would force banks to be more responsible in this regard, which is highly desirable, you will agree.

This brings me to the first point. Is it true that this bill will affect the financing of businesses? I remind you that suppliers retain a right of ownership on unpaid supplies. The granting of that right in the past did not affect companies' access to funds.

We should also note that the industry committee recently tabled a report on the Small Businesses Loans Act. Here we have a good opportunity to illustrate the interdependence and complementarity of two measures: Bill C-237 corrects a problem for workers and the committee report enhances business financing. Consequently, the argument that business credit could be restricted does not hold any more. That did not happen in the case of a similar measure concerning suppliers and besides, the Small Businesses Loans Act could provide for that.

May I remind you that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry said in the second part of the debate on this bill, on October 25, that "until we have the banks acting more progressively and until their attitudes change toward small business, this bill should be defeated".

That is the main repugnant reason why some Liberals objected to this bill. That is also the main reason why all bills advocating the super priority of wage claims have failed for more than 20 years. Not for practical or economic reasons, but simply because we should wait for the banks to change their attitudes.

Well, I say no. Our workers have been subjected for too long already to the financial institution lobby. Over the past 20 years or so, in parliamentary committees, advisory committees and a stunning amount of legislation, banks have been used as an excuse to reject any piece of legislation on the priority status of wage claims, and every government has given in to the powerful banks.

In closing, let me repeat the arguments for this bill. First of all, this measure is intended to protect the driving force behind our economy, the workers. Next, the principle of priority for wage claims is one that makes up for the injustice done to workers by giving them the rank to which their work give them an indisputable right.

Moreover, this proposal will ensure that salaried employees will have better chances to be paid and paid more quickly. Let me add that the superpriority will allow them to be paid without any cost to the taxpayers. In fact, the government will get its share.

Besides, it is obvious that the risk that this superpriority would restrict credit for businesses has been deliberately exaggerated. That will not be the case. Finally, need we point out that it is not up to the workers to guarantee, with their wages, and without their consent, financial decisions made by their employers.

In its red book, the Liberal Party claims that it is committed to the principle of social solidarity, and I quote from page 73. It is stated that many of the laws and policies that previous Liberal governments enacted remain the basis of our system of social support, "through which we pool our resources to create programs that benefit all Canadians and help to sustain people through difficult times".

Therefore I ask the government members to fulfil that commitment in supporting Bill C-237 so that it can be referred to a

committee where it will be improved before coming back to this House, so that the public can be better served.

[Telecommunications, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

To allow enough time to check the cost structure of the telephone companies, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to delay the application of the CRTC's decision to allow an increase in local rates as of January 1?