Paul Crête

[Air Transport, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let them compete without interference, and you will see the results.

Does the government realize that because of its favouritism vis-à-vis Canadian, it is actually supporting a quasi-subsidiary of American Airlines at the expense of a Canadian-controlled company?

[Air Transport, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals returned to power, the government has been shameless in its favouritism in dealing with the carrier Canadian. The Minister of Transport, after blocking Air Canada's access to the Asian market, did a repeat this summer by taking away its route to the Czech Republic and giving it to its competitor, Canadian.

Air Canada's traditional market, Europe and the United States, becomes more and more accessible to Canadian, and meanwhile, the Canadian government keeps Air Canada away from the most lucrative routes on the Asian market: the old double standard.

Does the minister realize that favouring Canadian over Air Canada means 7,000 Air Canada jobs in Quebec are in jeopardy?

[Rural Local Development, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the start of a first-ever forum of agents of local development in rural settings at Saint-Germain-de-Kamouraska. Focussing on the theme "Rebuilding the countryside, villages and towns for the 21st Century", this meeting brings a number of rural local development workers and prominent speakers from France, Belgium and Quebec together from September 19 to 22.

This little village of barely 300 people is to be congratulated for its initiative in encouraging reflection on the conditions fostering the development of rural villages and towns.

We are sure that this first forum on rural local development will draw from accumulated knowledge in this field to consolidate the actions needed for a rural renaissance.

Congratulations. We wish you every success in your undertaking.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to most of my colleague's speech. He talked about jobs. I would like him to give us his views about the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund. At the present time, in the financial statements, in the government's allocations, there is a surplus in the unemployment insurance fund that compensates for the deficit, but basically, this fund is 100 per cent financed by employers and employees and they have no control on its use.

I do not know if he is aware that a vast segment of the population is presently without a job and is often composed of people who do not have specialized training, who need jobs that require their skills but that are not necessarily jobs created by the new economy.

It is all fine and well to talk about the new economy. It is true that people who have adequate training get jobs more easily, but there are also all the people who are to some extent the victims of these technological changes. Does the hon. member feel that there is some willingness on the part of the government? Will anything be said somewhere and fast so we can put these people back to work?

I have another question for him. As a member of Parliament from Quebec, as someone who has to travel in his riding in Quebec, does he find that his constituents want the Senate to continue as before, to continue to spend about $40 million year after year, without its members being elected, with them being appointed almost for life, or at least until the age of 75, without being accountable, and being able, for example, to kill bills like the one on Pearson airport-a move that was a slap in the face to the government, because that bill had been passed by the government and was killed by a House that was not elected by the government?

Does he intend to do something so that, in controlling spending, we deal with this symbol, the Senate, and find a way to avoid funding such an outdated organization?

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, but I think he did not spend enough time on a number of important aspects of votes, which are basically unnecessary expenditures.

Last week we read in the newspapers about the pay system at the Department of National Defence, which is after all pretty fundamental and basic and which should work properly. It seems that some $40 million were wasted because of a lack of modernization in a department that has certainly not lacked for funding during the past 20 years. It has always received enough money, in generous and significant amounts. During the last few years there were cutbacks and bases were closed in the regions, but as far as the bureaucracy is concerned, are we not seeing a situation where, when we look at the votes, there is a tendency to slowly but surely starve the regional branches of a department, while those at the decision-making level, in the bureaucracy, at the deputy minister level whom we see around here in Ottawa, have been able to survive quite easily?

I have another question for the hon. member regarding the Senate votes. Does it seem reasonable and normal to you that a non-elected House, after the Standing Committee on Government Operations, whose meetings you attend regularly, adopted a resolution, should say: "Sorry, we will not come and defend our budget, we do not have to, we are above that sort of thing"? Does this position on the part of the senators seem normal to you? Excuse me, I ask this question through you, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments remind me of something that was discussed a few years ago, namely an equitable and equal Senate. One thing is for certain: today's Senate is inequitable and unequal.

Inequitable because senators are appointed for partisan reasons and do not have a mandate from the people. Unequal because representation is totally inconsistent with the role originally intended for the Senate. For these reasons, but especially because of the unnecessary spending, because we saw some senators dozing off on television, I think the Senate should be abolished. This may sound like grandstanding but, as we know, in practice the Senate's role is much more often to represent big business and the banks.

Who are the campaign chairs or co-chairs for the major parties? Senator Hervieux-Payette, and Senator Nolin for the Tories. All the old parties that have appointed senators are using them as political organizers. This makes a mockery of democracy. This is something we should get rid of. That is why there is popular movement to abolish the Senate.

You may tell me that this will not eliminate Canada's deficit, but people expect their members of Parliament to make symbolic gestures to show we are willing to cut at all levels and not always on the backs of the same people.

I expect the third hour of debate on my motion to abolish the Senate to take place in October, probably in the second half. Until then, I would like my campaign to pick up speed and to collect even more signatures for my petition. I hope we can convince a majority of members that most Canadians are clearly in favour of abolishing the Senate in its present form.

We want the public to support us. I will table petitions signed by thousands of people, as will the hon. members for Frontenac and Champlain. Altogether, I think we have collected between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures so far. I think this clearly shows what the people want.

In Quebec, people clearly told us that they want to get rid of this institution; they feel that it is unnecessary, that it costs too much for no good reason. They are tired of having to pay the salaries of people without mandates, whom they are unable to get rid of until they reach the age of 75. To add insult to injury, some of them are even appointed Lieutenant Governor of Canada after having slapped Quebec in the face.

This kind of situation is unacceptable and that is why we must reject the government's estimates, especially the money allocated to the Senate, because it is a blot on Canadian democracy.

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I mentioned that all members of the Bloc Quebecois, including myself, will be sharing their time, each of us therefore speaking for 10 minutes.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to oppose the motion to concur in the main estimates. The Reform Party has argued that, since the Senate refused to defend its budget before the committee on government operations, we should not approve its budget. I think this position is quite defensible. The members of the Senate were not elected but appointed for partisan reasons.

Let us look at the latest appointments to the Senate: a former executive of the Liberal Party of Canada and a former minister of agriculture.

For the past three years, the Liberals have been looking for a way to regain control of the upper House because they were dealt a devastating blow last June, when a bill aimed at preventing the privatization of Pearson airport died in the Senate, voted down by people who were not elected. Now I have seen it all! In this day and age, in a democracy that brags about being one of the most active, the most efficient in the world, the unelected House of Parliament killed a bill in which hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. This will cost money to taxpayers, regardless of the solution. All of us, elected members of this House, could only watch the other place make the decision instead of us. These non-elected people made the decision.

Quebecers and Canadians are tired of this situation. The senators added insult to injury by not appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to justify the need for such funds. This alone is sufficient reason for opposing at least the allocation of these funds.

However, we must go further in our review of the situation. In Quebec, the legislative council was abolished 30 years ago, after it was realized that non-elected houses no longer reflected the current reality.

We went to the public. I personally tabled a motion in the House which is supported by all Bloc members and by other members of the opposition. Our petition on this issue is receiving strong support, certainly in Quebec, whether people are staunch or soft federalists, or whether they are sovereignists or independentists.

Everyone is fed up with the Senate. We get this support because, ultimately, people want two things from us: that we focus on jobs and that we put an end to all this useless spending. The Senate is a political example; it is an important symbol, which we must absolutely target. We must abolish a house that is no longer representative of Canada.

Let us not forget that the Senate was originally established to represent the regions. Senators were appointed to represent regions. I invite you to visit your constituents and systematically ask them this question: Which senator represents you in the Senate? What is his name. I am not asking you to have them tell you that person's responsibilities, just their name. The response rate will be shocking, because the senators have never assumed this responsibility of regional representation. Not at all.

Nowadays, senators are appointed in the following manner: the Prime Minister chooses someone he has decided to reward politically. He calls them up and says: "You should buy yourself a piece of property; you need something worth $4,000 in such and such an area. This is the condition you have to meet to become a senator". Often, the only time people hear about their senator is when he goes to the registry office to check that the property he has just bought has in fact been registered. The rest of the time, he is not often seen.

I also heard this criticism of the Senate from all those I met last year during the protest over employment insurance reform. They said to us: "If it were at least equal, if everyone at least had to contribute equally". But it was during these same months, if you recall, we saw the senators asleep on television. They are paid, just as we are, but they were seen sleeping on television during the throne speech.

If the claim is that their role is one of decorum, let them at least perform this role, but even that is beyond them.

I therefore think it important that the government be given a very clear message, that citizens from throughout Quebec and from Canada, whatever their province or territory, tell their MP that they think the senators have outlived their usefulness, that they are not representative. We think that the Canada of today must look closely at all government programs, as the President of the Treasury Board was saying. And the first target should be the Senate, because its budget, the direct expenditure budget-I am not talking about all the incidental expenditures, for example, the expenses assumed by the House of Commons, which in fact are incurred by the senators, but the direct budget-is around $43 million.

A figure of $43 million a year out of the overall budget does not seem astronomical, but it means that our system can still afford today to pay out expenses amounting to half a million dollars, per riding, per senator, for a useless role.

The other function of a senator was to see to better laws. When the Senate was created it was said that the members of the House of Commons would need people with more education, who would be able to put the finishing touch to pieces of legislation, to finalize them. It might have been true 125 years ago. Today with the kind of members we have, the research departments, the assistants, legislative or otherwise, it is not necessary any more. We have everything we need and, in this respect, the senator no longer has a role.

Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Senate has developed a new role for itself. It has become the representative of all organized lobbies in Canada. In this sense, it is highly detrimental to democracy.

It seems to me that the study of this year's estimates provides the perfect opportunity to give a clear message to the government, to give a clear message to Canadians, to give a clear message to Quebecers, to the effect that yes, indeed, we are really going to deal with useless expenditures, we are committed to tackling useless symbols.

We could also talk about lieutenant governors in Canada. They cost money. They cost eight million dollars a year. People see them about twice a year.

It has been said that in our system, in our beautiful country as the federalists call Canada, there are still many things that are unacceptable. These are only two symbols, but the one I would like to draw your attention to is the whole issue of the Senate.

I find it interesting that so many members want to speak to this motion. All speakers of the official opposition will split their time to make sure as many members as possible have the opportunity to speak and convey the message they received from their constituents. During the summer, a period we consider to be quiet, we have seen people sign thousands of petitions asking for the abolition of the Senate.

I have visited many corner stores and met people sharing my political opinion and some with a different opinion, but they all agreed on this point. Members of senior citizens' clubs, employees in companies, representatives from chambers of commerce and community workers all agreed that we should send a clear message to the government saying that the Senate must be abolished.

In short, we have an institution which is outdated and too expensive, which has an inflated opinion of its lobbying function and which is a patronage haven. For all those reasons, it seems to me we absolutely must oppose this specific item if the Senate's expenditures are included in the government's overall expenditures. It is like a first step, a first signal, but I think that before long, when we reach the point where we have to deal with the substance of this issue and vote on the motion I tabled asking the government to abolish the Senate, then each member of the House will have to see if his constituents think, and if he feels in his heart and soul,

that the Senate is an institution that must go on or if it is one we can no longer afford, one that no longer contributes to democracy.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the President of the Treasury Board. What he said raises many questions.

Apparently the government has established a system to control expenditures and to improve budgetary preparations and consultations, and is well on its way to providing satisfactory program evaluation. The newspapers, however, are still full of examples of poor expenditure control, and I would like to quote a few.

For instance, millions of dollars are lost annually because the system for issuing paycheques at the Department of National Defence does not work properly. Will the situation be remedied this year? Will the controls that have been put in place be able to correct this situation?

The other point I would like to make is that in many departments, especially at the senior executive level, the same structures still exist that were there before the government started reducing subsidies to industry.

The President of the Treasury Board mentioned the fact that these subsidies had been reduced, and industry, provided everyone is treated the same, is all for it. Has the government embarked on the requisite downsizing at the level of deputy ministers, consulting services and the bureaucracy, considering that, although there is no more money for subsidies, people are still being paid to run programs that no longer exist or are no longer operational? Has anything been done about this?

There is one more sector that intrigues me a great deal, and that is tax expenditures. Last year we saw a document that gave an overview of tax expenditures entitled "Tax expenditures 1995". I would like to quote a few examples from this document, where it says there is no information available on the subject. It means the government is unable to indicate the impact of these tax expenditures, which makes it look pretty silly. Here are some examples.

By the way, these are not mere details. These are important issues that are connected with tax fairness. For instance, deferred capital gains or transfers between spouses. They cannot tell us the real impact of this measure.

Non-taxation of certain non-monetary benefits. Here again, they cannot tell us a thing.

Taxation of realized capital gains. Imagine all the capital gains that have been realized, and they are unable to evaluate the impact of such a measure.

I will quote just a few more, before concluding. The non-taxation of incomes of Indians on reserves. Today, they cannot indicate the impact of this situation.

Non-taxation of donations and bequests. I will conclude with an item that will be a contentious issue in future debates, the fact that the Senate refuses to be accountable for its budget to the House of Commons. Some nerve. The members of a non-elected House who are not accountable to the public for the results of their work are actually saying they do not have to account for their budget. Will this $43 million really be used for practical purposes? Is there no duplication of the work done by members of the House of Commons? Have some practices not become obsolete?

These are the kind of questions the government should answer. Especially on this point, I would appreciate the opinion of the President of the Treasury Board who has shown a concern for genuine expenditure control. I think the government should set an example in this respect for the Canadian public.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether we are at questions and comments on the speech of the President of the Treasury Board.

[Nipissing And James Bay Railway Company Act, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on May 29 1996, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding Aéroports de Montréal's responsibility to, and I quote: "co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport".

Following that question, the Minister of Environment wrote in a letter that he was open to impact studies on the issue of transferring international flights from Mirabel to Dorval.

The minister only has to use his power under the act, namely to ask ADM to co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport. Thus the minister has full responsibility. The minister cannot bury his head in the sand. He must obtain from ADM clarifications on the economic and environmental impacts of the present situation.

All stakeholders in the Montreal airport area as well as those of Quebec as a whole want this situation to be clarified because this is a major economic decision.

This is the thrust of representations made by the hon. members for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, Laurentides and Argenteuil-Papineau. Recently, there has been evidence that the inaction of the Department of Transport has contributed to the legal mess we are now in.

Representations made by the Coalition pour le maintien des services à Mirabel were received favourably by the courts. Increasingly in the future, unless the minister takes the political solution, that is to allow hearings on the Aéroports de Montréal decision, we will be bogged down right where we are, because the courts will take a long time to reach a decision. This will have harmful effects on the future of the Montreal airports, both Dorval and Mirabel.

After all these months have passed, will the minister finally get around to implementing the recommendation made by the Minister of the Environment: an impact study, an overall assessment of the situation and public hearings to enable the public to find out what the best solution for international flights will be?

Will the somewhat clandestine decision made by Aéroports de Montréal be maintained, or will we be able to find out exactly what the impacts of that decision will be?