Benoît Tremblay

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we continue this morning second reading of this bill to implement the new GATT agreements and to establish the World Trade Organization. I must say this debate was brilliantly launched by the Minister for International Trade and by my colleague for Verchères who is the international issues critic for the Bloc Quebecois.

Second reading provides for a discussion of the principles and general direction of a bill while more technical aspects are closely analyzed in committee and, if necessary, the Bloc Quebecois will table amendments at third reading.

After long negotiations, Canada, like all other GATT members, must pass legislation bringing into force at the target or desired date of January 1st, 1995, the GATT agreements reached last April. These agreements strengthen significantly the legislative framework for international trade and define more clearly the rules of the game. They increase the number of sectors subject to these rules, improve the trade conflicts settlement mechanisms and, finally, establish the World Trade Organization, which we have been waiting for since the second world war.

This is considerable progress towards equal opportunity on the world markets for small and medium-sized countries like Canada and Quebec and, in fact, most countries of the world. Even if great economic powers like the United States, Europe and Japan still largely control the negotiation process, once they agree to new rules, these rules apply automatically to all GATT members, which, then, can benefit from a greater protection for their international trade activities.

Whith a level playing field, performance on the international markets depends less and less on the size of a country and more and more on its ability to design, produce and sell high quality products and services at competitive prices. Under such circumstances, small and medium sized countries can do quite well and even succeed better than large entities, as is proven every day in the world economy.

I understand perfectly well the enthusiasm shown by the Minister for International Trade who said in his opening speech, and I quote: "By creating a more open and stable international trading environment this agreement will generate increased Canadian exports and investment".

The minister is quite right and I can assure him that, on the eve of becoming a sovereign country, Quebec shares his enthusiasm and his understanding of the evolution of international trade rules.

Allow me to read another excerpt from his speech: "Canada's economic strength now and in the future will depend fundamentally on our willingness to stay on the leading edge of freer trade, to continue to take an active and creative role in forging new relationships and in building new structures that over time can extend the reach of a rules based international order.

The multinational system centred on the World Trade Organization will be the foundation of that international order, but it is not the only element of what is and must be a complex and constantly evolving trade order. We must harness for positive ends the profound forces pushing us all toward deeper economic integration. Today it is more accurate to speak not of trade policy as such but of international economic policy". And listen carefully, this is the minister speaking: "Jurisdictions and policy areas that have long been considered to be quintessentially domestic are now increasingly subject to international negotiations and rule making".

The minister is perfectly right. Again, Quebec is in total agreement with the Minister for International Trade, so much so that one might wonder if the minister consulted Mr. Jacques Parizeau or Mr. Bernard Landry before he wrote his speech. That is exactly what we keep saying when we consider the future relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

On the eve of a referendum that will determine the political future of Quebec and of the rest of Canada, I have to admit it is heartening to hear at least one federal minister making the realistic, clear and enthusiastic statement of the rules and policies that will govern economic relations between Canada and Quebec.

That conclusion and the praise I give to the Minister for International Trade may come as a surprise, but it is quite simple and natural. How could the Canadian minister seek economic ties will all sovereign countries of this world and not with Quebec, when we already have significant and productive trade relations with the rest of Canada?

Canadians and Quebecers would have a hard time understanding such an attitude, and the whole world would be taken aback. But since other ministers, the Prime Minister included, do not have that same open and realistic attitude, let us specify what is at stake. While Quebecers wish their Canadian partners will have an open and realistic attitude, the rules governing our future economic relations will not depend on attitudes only, but largely on rules set under the GATT.

It is largely a matter of international law, the broadening and reinforcement of which the minister praised today. Article XXVI(5)(c) of the GATT agreement provides that a new state carved out of a country which is already a member of GATT automatically becomes a member on becoming a sovereign state, provided it accepts conditions and requirements applying to the parent state. It is quite simple and clear. A C. D. Howe Institute study says that most Canadian experts fully recognize that fact.

It is primarily a matter of law. Quebec has already said that it would apply for membership and that it would accept all conditions and requirements that apply now to Canada. The only choice for the international trade minister, then, is to welcome the future relations between Quebec and Canada with the same enthusiasm he demonstrates for other sovereign states. He should so advise the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister just said he likes a good fight, especially with Quebec, he will probably not greet the GATT rules with the same enthusiasm as that shown by his Minister for International Trade.

According to what he said, if Quebec becomes politically independent, the rest of Canada will want to separate economically from Quebec while remaining associated with all other sovereign countries of the world. Well, Mr. Minister, you will have to tell your Prime Minister that Quebec being a de facto member of the GATT, the same rules will apply to Quebec as to all other sovereign countries members of the GATT, and the rest of Canada will have to abide by these rules.

In international trade or GATT terms, this very simple principle is called the most favoured nation treatment. When a country gives a tariff concession to another member, that concession must immediately and unconditionally apply to all similar products coming from all member countries. That is one rule of law that will considerably restrain the Prime Minister's aggressiveness.

But that is not all. GATT goes further. It does not merely prevent discrimination between countries. It also anticipates discrimination once the product is inside the recipient country and therefore prevents discrimination towards other domestic products. That is what we call the "national treatment". It requires that GATT members adopt legislations on sales, transport and usage of foreign products which are identical to those governing similar domestic products coming from national companies so that both foreign and domestic products be treated equally.

The Prime Minister will have to admit that, if he is to abide by the law, his leeway is limited. Naturally, if his aggressive instincts are too vivid, he could break the rules of law and trigger a trade war with Quebec.

If instincts were to prevail over reason, let me repeat word for word what his Minister for International Trade said when he tabled this bill. The agreement excludes the adoption of unilateral measures in response to trade disputes. The new integrated system of dispute settlement which would mean clearer rules, shorter waiting periods and, for the first time, an appeal process with a binding ruling, constitutes a major improvement in the previous GATT system.

Finally, the effectiveness of the rules depends on the means of having them enforced. You will note that we now have an appeal process with a binding ruling, which means the possibility of having them enforced.

Consequently, this comprehensive reform of the multilateral system of trade dispute settlement represents a major advantage, although that is impossible to quantify for commercially less important countries such as Canada, which are fundamentally vulnerable to the unilateral approach of economic giants. That would also apply, of course, to Quebec and Canada, so that there would be no unilateral action in response. That argument applies, of course.

What can we conclude from this short analysis of the GATT rules and the speech of the minister responsible for International Trade when comparing them to what the Prime Minister said about future economic relations between the rest of Canada and a sovereign Quebec?

I think that you will agree with me that the Prime Minister of Canada seems to confuse the preparing of the referendum campaign with the preparing of an Halloween party. Instead of clearly and simply presenting the true face of future economic relations between Quebec and Canada, he is looking for a disguise to make people insecure, to scare them before the referendum, while we all know that, after a winning referendum for Quebec, the rest of Canada would simply not have a choice of rules to apply. It would have to imperatively and minimally follow the GATT rules.

After the fact, the Prime Minister will undoubtedly seek to play down his strong language from the past referendum, the hardly concealed threats made before the referendum. He will probably want to explain to us that they were only minor mistakes which would certainly not force him to resign.

I must admit that, personally, I have a lot of difficulty respecting that kind of politician. A politician who was saying during the last election campaign that he would not sign the North American Free Trade Agreement without major renegotiation, and who rushed enthusiastically to sign it a few weeks after taking office. Today, he is playing exactly the same game with the future economic relations between Quebec and Canada.

During the last election, he did not fool Quebecers and they massively voted for members of the Bloc Quebecois. I dare hope that, today, the rest of Canada agrees more with the realism and enthusiasm of the Minister for International Trade, who is seeking to build open and stable economic relations with sovereign states, than with the narrow minded and obsolete attitude of the Prime Minister, when he talks about the future economic relations of a sovereign Quebec with the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada needs a spokesman like the Minister for International Trade to prepare its future economic relations with Quebec on an open, stable and productive base which

would fit into the irreversible evolution of international economic rules.

I can assure the minister that he will find in Quebec negotiators just as enthusiastic and determined as he is in supporting openness, stability and economic growth, something which would be mutually profitable.

Today, thanks to this bill, we were able to discuss GATT. I can say that we are just as prepared and willing to discuss possible negotiations with regard to free trade, the auto pact and all the other commercial rules that bind Quebec and Canada.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I understand that rules must be followed, but I also understand that considering what is happening here tonight, sovereignty would be a lot easier for Quebecers to support, since this document that was tabled mentions jobs and growth in its title only. There is nothing in all its 102 pages on job creation and as for the rest, I think my colleague have already described it.

It is clear that we in Quebec will soon take charge of our future and say yes to our sovereignty. And the Reform members now present in this House-if we cannot talk about the members who are not here, we can at least talk about those who are in the House. I know that Canada is-

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, tonight, I am convinced that the constituents of Rosemont are sure to have made the good choice when they decided not to put their confidence in the Liberal Party of Canada.

In October 1993, this party formed the new majority government after an election campaign based entirely on the theme of job creation. One year later, the Minister of Human Resources Development finally tables a discussion paper which was supposed to unveil a major aspect of this job creation program. It is not yet an action plan, only a working paper for consultation purposes.

In one year, this government managed to come up with two documents: a budget announcing cuts tabled in February 1994 by the Minister of Finance and, yesterday, a discussion paper on social program reform, which is also a document announcing cuts instead of a proposal for job creation.

At this rate, this government will have produced seven or eight papers during its mandate and will have only succeeded in creating a few jobs for writers and for public consultation facilitators. I am hardly exaggerating. Of course, the government made a few decisions. What kind of decisions, you will ask? Essentially, contract cancellations and closures.

This government cancelled the helicopter contract, but we are still waiting for its defence conversion policy. This government cancelled the privatization of Pearson airport, but we are still waiting for its redevelopment plan for this airport. This government shut down Atlantic coast fisheries, but we are still waiting for an adequate compensation and retraining package for fishermen. This government closed down the military college in Saint-Jean, but we are still waiting for the economic redeployment plan for the region.

The Minister of Transport announced that the federal government was going to withdraw from local and regional airports and that local and regional communities will have to take over, otherwise they will be shut down. The National Transportation Agency is still allowing hundreds of kilometres of rail lines to be dismantled, but we are still waiting for the position of the Liberal government on the HST.

Is the document that was tabled yesterday any different? Not in the least. While we had been promised more jobs and more security, we are getting less security and no jobs. After promising education and training, this document is announcing cuts in post-secondary education, bigger student loans and higher tuition fees in colleges and universities.

Even if, by and large, the document is very vague, it contains two specific proposals. This first is this-imagine: all workers who use unemployment insurance three times in five years will be declared chronically unemployed and practically treated like welfare recipients. That is the new security proposed in the Liberal Party's document.

The second proposal is equally unacceptable. The federal government is proposing to cut its share of funding for universities and to use the money saved to encourage students to borrow more, while forcing colleges and universities to raise their tuition fees dramatically. That is the encouragement for training and education the Liberal government gives us.

But where are the concrete job creation measures that were promised throughout the election campaign? Incredible as it may seem, they are non-existent.

You can read the whole 89-page document. You can read it and reread it; there is no proposal for job creation. How do you explain such an about-face by a political party whose only election slogan was job creation?

If one analyses the document-listen, I can try to provide an explanation, which I think is in two parts. First, they are making a reform because they have to. It is glaringly obvious, how inefficient the federal government is. It is very clear that the action taken by the federal government in occupational training and job development is completely ineffective.

This paper explains how disastrous the federal government's performance has been in terms of vocational training. And listen to this, it says that the federal government's involvement in that area will actually increase. Instead of withdrawing, as requested by all Quebec stakeholders, from vocational training, an area in which it admits having had disastrous results, the federal government comes out and tells us it will cut funding, but continue to impose its views not only on vocational training but also on education in the future. That is completely absurd.

In the face of the failure of existing programs, there is no doubt that reform is required. But the federal government, which is responsible for this failure, decided on its own authority that it will be in charge of the programs in the future. This is as if, one morning, the last in the class decided to impose upon everyone else his or her own training and education programs. You think that is impossible? No, it is perfectly possible. This kind of thing is possible in Canada because Canada is a sovereign state and the Constitution of Canada is interpreted by the Supreme Court, a court that always sways towards the views of the federal government. That is what sovereignty means in the Canadian context.

The federal government can make all the mistakes in the world for decades and the Constitution gives it the right and the power to keep at it in the future. Fortunately, as far as our future is concerned in Quebec, we will soon have the choice of pulling away from the sovereignty of the federal government with respect to decisions that concern us and to affirm the sovereignty of Quebec, so that we can handle our own affairs ourselves.

This decision is urgently needed and you will understand better when you read the second part of the explanation given in this paper. As the old saying goes, it never rains but it pours. The second explanation is just as dramatic.

Behind the grand-sounding headings of unemployment insurance and employment development, you will find on page 23 of this paper most of the second part of the explanation, which relates to Canada's public finances.

After cutting $2.4 billion from unemployment insurance this year, the government confirms that spending on social assistance and post-secondary education in 1996-97 must be reduced to 1993-94 levels and can be no higher in the following years. Expenditures will never be allowed to exceed 1993-94 levels.

Worse yet, the paper confirms that other cuts will be included in the next budget. All those who are familiar with public finance management know that the federal government's budget measures are similar to those imposed by the International Monetary Fund on countries that will soon no longer be able to pay off their debts. To get out of the financial abyss it threw itself into, the federal government is trying to pass the buck to the provinces and to individual Canadians while continuing to impose its own programs and priorities.

The Bloc Quebecois is aware of the disastrous state of federal public finances. That is why, since we were elected to the House, we have been calling for a full, open and public review of all federal government spending. We are demanding a full, open and public review of the federal government's role so that responsibilities and taxes can go to the level of government that can do the best and most efficient job. We are ready to act now. We are ready for a comprehensive overhaul of a federal system that is driving us straight into bankruptcy.

After a year in office, the federal government has given us contract cancellations, closures, cutbacks and discussion papers.

In the weeks to come, Quebecers will be able to compare the federal government's inactivity with the aggressive job creation measures already being taken by Mr. Parizeau's government. I am convinced that the vast majority of them will realize that sovereignty means being served by a government which can get us out of the hole in which the federal government put us, before it is too late. I am convinced that Quebecers-

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert and Official Opposition critic for justice, is to redress a major injustice in the existing Unemployment Insurance Act with regard to spouses, children and relatives employed by small family businesses.

By the initiative she has taken in face of a government with a wait-and-see attitude that multiplies reviews and consultations, and introducing this bill, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has clearly proven that where there is a will to act swiftly, there is a way and you can cut the idle talk and truly promote the development of family business.

Let it be said that paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act that this bill is meant to eliminate puts spouses, children and relatives working for a family business in the position of actually being deemed potential UI abusers.

Tell me one thing: why are spouses, children and relatives denied the presumption of innocence the rest of the workforce enjoys? Their only fault is to support through their work the efforts of an entrepreneur to whom they are related. Why force them to prove their honesty to Revenue officials instead of recognizing them a right every other worker automatically enjoys?

Nearly one million Canadians, of which 650,000 are women, are subjected to this unfair treatment while the Minister of Finance continues to want us to believe he wishes to promote the development of small business. If he is sincere-which he may be-he will unhesitatingly support this bill.

As you know, this government has been saying for months that it is going to reduce the bureaucratic red tape to a minimum for small business. Here is a golden opportunity to prove it means to act by supporting this bill introduced by my colleague. Otherwise, it will be clear that its main motivation is appealing to voters but when the time comes to act, it would rather consult and take orders from big business.

We all know that owners of budding businesses need the support of their families to overcome the enormous difficulties associated with starting up and developing a business. We also know they find absolutely disheartening the slow governmental

process, and particularly the bureaucratic loops they are forced to jump through. I think that the commitment the government has made in that respect meets the wishes of the public, but what the public is expecting now is action. And action is what this bill is about.

The bill provides the government with an opportunity to translate its promises into action and this is a chance I hope it will not miss. But if they do miss it, I can assure you we will be here to remind them over and over.

Some will say that this unfair provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act is meant to curb abuse. Let it be quite clear that we all agree to curb abuse. This is indeed desirable. But, to do so, is it necessary to assume that a whole class of citizens are potential UI abusers? Is abusive use more tolerable on the part of bureaucrats than on the part of the unemployed? Are bureaucrats' abuses less costly than those of the bureaucracy itself? It is far from obvious, as I am about to show you.

Between 80 and 90 per cent of the spouses, children or parents who went through the whole process imposed by this act won their cases, and if the others had appealed, this percentage might be even higher. So can you explain to me why, after realizing that those who followed the process succeeded in having their rights recognized, we continue to put so much red tape in their path when the energy they spend on this could be used to make their businesses more successful?

The Unemployment Insurance Act has become increasingly linked to the whole issue of job training access. It is not only a matter of benefits. We are in the process of turning the unemployment insurance system into a permanent system for training and re-training workers. We are thus depriving these people of the right to benefit from training programs because many of the programs offered require that trainees be entitled to UI. People who set up family businesses often need job training. They often have a basic idea, are determined and have managed to raise enough capital, but often need the training offered by these programs.

By refusing them protection under the Unemployment Insurance Act, we deprive them of the right not only to collect benefits but also to receive job training. And this is an extremely important factor in the success of small businesses.

If my riding for instance, they set up economic and community development corporations specifically aimed at promoting entrepreneurship. So, on the one hand, we put in place programs to promote entrepreneurship while, on the other hand, we let red tape discourage just about everybody.

According to all the surveys, the priority all small businesses agree on, other than the need for capital, is that they must be allowed to work and given access to what they are entitled without having to walk through endless corridors only to find in the end a bureaucrat with the discretionary power to decide whether or not they have that right.

It is an excessive measure. In order to keep abuses in check, we penalize 80 per cent, 90 per cent, even 95 per cent of the people honestly trying to create jobs and develop our economy. I think that if we want to foster the confidence that will enable us to promote entrepreneurship, we must take concrete action. So far we have only heard speeches from the government; I hope that all members and parliamentarians will support my colleague's bill.

I can assure you that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, consider family businesses to be major players in job creation and economic development. We just gave concrete proof that we can take action. We will continue to do so and honestly hope that the government will support this commendable initiative from my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is not very knowledgeable about surgical procedures. We found out not long ago that he is a chartered accountant, and I think he should have stuck to his speciality. If he looked at what is happening in Canada and Quebec from the accountant's point of view, he would realize that Canada has the largest foreign debt of any country today.

Current interest rates are not going down, because 45 per cent of Canada's debt is covered by foreign loans and lenders are starting to have a substantial part of their portfolio invested in Canadian loans. According to the last budget, the government will have a deficit for many years and it will be extremely difficult to control government spending when in addition to being unable to manage areas that are a federal responsibility, the federal government regularly decides to encroach on jurisdictions belonging to the provinces, in the belief it can do better.

This week in Le Devoir , Lise Bissonnette gave the following analysis. The federal government has decided to intervene in literacy programs. Quebec already spends $63 million, and now the federal government is going to add $2.5 million! Two and a half million, with probably one million spent on advertising, with a lengthy press release from the Department of Foreign Affairs-does the federal government already consider Quebec to be a foreign country?-plus the whole federal-provincial bureaucracy, because in the final instance, after a lot of discussion, the federal government acknowledged this came under Quebec's jurisdiction and that it was necessary to co-ordinate approaches and agree on certain criteria. A host of officials met for months to try and agree on these criteria.

And after all that, about $25,000 per school board in Quebec may be spent on literacy training!

My goodness, $25,000! This is less than the annual salary of a teacher, but the federal government will probably spend more than $2.5 million on advertising to give $25,000 per school board. How can someone who is a professional accountant lecture us on surgical procedures? Give us a break! I hope that in his next speech, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard will stick to dollars and cents.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there was at least one contradiction in what was said by the Secretary of State.

He started his speech by commending the Parliament of Canada for enshrining institutional bilingualism in New Brunswick in the Canadian Constitution, as if that were something extraordinary. He went on to say that it was no longer important to talk about the Constitution, that it was just a piece of paper and that we now had to talk about job creation. I wish the Secretary of State would make up his mind. If the Constitution is not important, then please explain why it is so important to have what happens in New Brunswick in the Constitution.

We all know that the Constitution is important as the basic law that determines who can do what in this country, and the many problems we have, including this constant overlapping of two levels of government, because the federal government always thinks it can do a better job than the other governments and encroaches on all jurisdictions of the provinces, can be traced back to this basic law.

But let me at least point out this contradiction: If you commend the Parliament of Canada for adopting a constitutional amendment, how can you say the Constitution is just a piece of paper?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

This was a comment, Madam Speaker.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Maybe. The parliamentary secretary thinks Atlantic Canada is heaven on earth; maybe for her it is, but for the thousands of unemployed, for example those who have to move, it is certainly not a paradise. There is considerable work to be done and we think people can do better locally than whatever the civil servants could do here in Ottawa.

We also think that Fisheries and Oceans officials would be better off in Newfoundland than in Ottawa. Of course the federal government always thinks it can do better.

There is another very important point the parliamentary secretary forgot in her speech and it concerns the regional economy of the Atlantic region and Montreal. What is the government planning to do for the conversion? It certainly has a role to play in this issue since it was the one to give out the contracts. We all know that defence programs will decrease in importance because the government is getting out. Therefore, we must make sure that conversion programs from military to civilian use are implemented. We have been fighting for weeks here in the House for such measures. There even was an opposition day on that issue. The military economy is still important today; companies producing military equipment are very important in the Atlantic region. But the speech says nothing about that.

They refer to successful projects, projects that produced good results during the Tory mandate and they say: "Look at these achievements; that is what the Liberals want to do". Meanwhile, they continue to forget the true role of the federal government in the conversion of military industries into civilian ones. That is the government's responsibility; the American government accomplished that very well by the way.

So if we want regional development in the Atlantic region, we must let the local people decide for themselves. We must stop spending billions of our taxpayers' money on stupid projects like Hibernia and we must immediately implement a conversion program for military industries.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want first to thank the member for Halifax for her efforts to speak French.

[Translation]

I know that the member has a lot of experience in this House. When she was in the opposition, I heard her talking about the Atlantic development agency. Besides, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology when the act on that department was voted on, and I remember there were a lot of criticism of what was done.

The government has now been in power for six months. Today, in order to justify the work done by her government, the parliamentary secretary gives us a list of businesses which received grants, obviously before her government came into office.

However, I am happy to see that she thinks that having a regional development agency for Atlantic Canada is a good decision taken by the Conservatives because Canada is becoming more and more a country of economic regions where the market trends are more and more south-north and north-south than east-west.

However, I have to admit that nothing was said about Hibernia. This is incredible. If we were to put in the bank all the money spent on Hibernia, we would have enough money for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the next 100 years. We would get hundreds of millions each year in interest alone on the money we are going to waste. What is the government doing? Nothing. We are wasting billions of dollars for something which has no viable future. It is unbelievable.

The parliamentary secretary is telling us about duplication and overlapping. She should thank Quebec for putting this on the agenda and making it a major issue. Clearly, in the years to come we will be less and less able to afford duplication and overlapping between the federal and provincial governments.

Those who wish to stay within Canada can try to come to an agreement with the federal government to limit duplication. However, when we talk about harmonizing it means that someone has decided to harmonize as he or she sees fit. That is exactly what the federal government is doing with respect to manpower despite the fact that, in Quebec, all stakeholders have agreed that Quebec should be responsible for manpower training.

However, the federal government has been refusing for years. We are promised agreement after agreement, but nothing ever comes about. What the government is seeking is not harmonization but centralization. Yet, we know that in order to have endogenous development in the regions they need resources. They need to have, locally, the right, the power, and the capacity to undertake projects without the federal big brother who thinks he can always do better than anyone else. This is the problem in this country.

If the Liberal point of view had a purpose, with the huge amount of money invested in the Maritimes, this would be heaven on earth. The role of the federal government in regional development has a purpose.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and I must say that I agree to a great extent with his diagnosis and the values on which his position is based. Having worked with him for several months on the issue of gun control

when he was in opposition, I recognize today both his open-mindedness and his concern.

There is one aspect of his approach however that leaves me wondering about what will happen in the communities in the future. While I agree on the whole with his position on youth in general, we know young repeat offenders present specific problems. I think special attention should be paid to that aspect, particularly to adults using young people to commit crimes.

We have seen it happen in the context of cigarette smuggling. It was obvious in that case, but it also exists elsewhere and there are no provisions on this at present. We should look not only at young offenders but also at the adults who exploit them. Perhaps that aspect of the legislation is the one that needs the most to be changed, to ensure that adults who use young people to commit crimes be given punishments commensurate with their actions. So, the problem is not only with the Young Offenders Act, but also with the law as it applies to the adults who exploit them.

We are well aware, in the present belt-tightening climate, and that is my main concern, that public services for the young people in general will not be expanded. Let us face it, public services are undergoing cuts. But at a time when public services do not expand, a special effort must be made to strengthen the mechanisms and tools of community spirit.

Take the current situation in a riding like mine where we have youth centers and, in neighbourhoods where there is more violence or prostitution, we also have streetworkers from community organizations. Do you know what these organizations live on? They live on temporary job creation programs, commonly called DEPs or section 25s.

Right now in Montreal, do you know what the situation is since April 1? We are told there will be no more regular DEPs, and operating funds for section 25 programs will be cut. We are talking about insignificant amounts in the scheme of things, a few million in a $20 billion budget. Can the parliamentary secretary at least undertake to send a clear message to the Minister of Human Resources Development so that, in an urban area like ours, such inexpensive programs be maintained to support community spirit because these are being chipped away as it is? The very means on which we are supposed to build a better society are being taken away.