Jean Landry

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

As far as the opposition is concerned, we must reduce the deficit, but the latest Liberal budget raises some doubts as to the government's intentions. Does it deal with the real problems?

The Liberals ignored the Auditor General's report. During the past three years, the Auditor General has identified waste and unnecessary spending, totalling at least $5 billion annually. I will get back to more obvious cases later on, but I would like to recall the real problems which the party in power was afraid to deal with. Former Quebec Revenue Minister Yves Séguin provided some good examples in an article published in Le Devoir on February 5, 1994.

The way resource profits in the energy sector are interpreted and defined will cost Revenue Canada more than $1.2 billion, although a simple amendment could have prevented this tax loss.

But the worst part is, Madam Speaker, that the minimal deficit reduction planned by the government will put a heavy burden on the provinces. It was criticized recently by Pierre-Yves Crémieux, Pierre Fortin and Marc Van Audenrode, all with the Economics Department at the University of Quebec in Montreal, when they discussed this passing of the federal buck to the provinces. The government reduced its deficit at the expense of the unemployed who, once their benefit periods have been cut, will have no choice but to go on welfare. Just 280 million less for Quebec.

We have to agree with the Reform Party when it condemns the general level of government spending. Our colleagues, however, should also respect the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois. We have already said that we want to reduce government spending and fiscal spending by $10 billion and inject half of this amount into job creation.

Getting rid of waste is not just a buzz word, it is a goal within our reach. Think about it! This government would not have lasted long in Sherwood Forest! When we say waste, we are referring to all the shortcomings mentioned by the Auditor General.

Investment Canada spent $132,000 on a new office with kitchen and bathroom for its new president, although her predecessor's office, located in the same building, had the same amenities. The cost of government travel using the Challenger jet fleet totalled $4 million, with more than half spent on trips by ministers.

According to the Auditor General, these figures represent a total cost per flying hour of $19,650. The federal vehicle fleet is worth more than $500 million, with an additional 4,000 vehicles being purchased each year. We could go on for hours with the list of horror stories, Madam Speaker.

Look at the waste caused by interdepartmental overlap! Staff and equipment assigned to similar activities could be deployed more effectively. The government mentioned setting up one-stop counters in some departments to streamline internal operations, which is all very well, but watch out for undue administrative growth that might reduce an agency's effectiveness.

We all know what happens when bureaucracy gets out of hand. Take this example from the Auditor General's report concerning the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. The CAED Strategy was to invest $1 billion over a period of five years. Three departments were directly involved: the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Industry and the Department of Immigration.

The purpose was to reduce disparities between aboriginal peoples and Canadians. The strategy's objective was to help aboriginal peoples achieve economic self-reliance.

In 1993, $900 million was spent under this strategy. The Auditor General deplored the lack of co-ordination between the three departments. According to the Auditor General, it was not clear who was to provide leadership in implementing the strategy. The departments concerned were supposed to co-ordinate the strategy and provide for an evaluation mechanism.

This mechanism was not put in place until 1993. I agree with the reduction of all government expenses providing, I repeat, that the cuts in government and fiscal spending reach $10 billion and that half the savings are injected in job creation. What I am saying is stop wasting public money.

You want examples? Here are a few. Anyone giving money to a charitable organization wants to know whether the money is used to reach the stated goals. This is only natural, Madam Speaker, and this applies to the government as well. However, in this case, we are not talking dollars, we are talking billions spent without any evaluation of the expected return on the investment in given projects.

I was saying that we are all careful with the way we spend or give away our money, we want to be sure that it will be used properly, but grants are allocated by the government without making sure that the stated objectives are reached. We could at least make sure those grants to companies will create jobs.

Coming back to the example I was mentioning earlier, the government spent $900 million, in 1993, for the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy. The Auditor General is telling us that there are few ways we can measure the efficiency of the strategy. Would I give a lot of money to a friend without knowing what he was going to do with it? Not me, but the government does.

The Auditor General says that it is not possible to determine the impact of the strategy. For example, in 1992, the Department of Indian Affairs gave $20 million to 73 economic development entities in native communities it considers fully developed. Almost $33 million more were spent on 296 less developed community organizations.

The Auditor General is asking that program control and assessment measures be put in place. It is not a mystery, Madam Speaker. The government prefers to attack the unemployed and the old people, which is less complicated. Yet, all they have to do is to better manage public funds so that we can see concrete results in the whole Canadian economy.

In the aforementioned example, we talked about the Department of Indian Affairs, but the same goes for all other areas. We do not know which real benefits came from the strategy activities. We do not know if funds were spent in accordance with aboriginal people's priorities. We do not know if there is a more effective way of getting the same results. Yet, it is possible to reduce operating expenses.

Let us open the Report of the Auditor General at any page. Here, in November 1992, a consulting firm did an operational examination of the Department of Public Works. According to these experts, the Department could save annually $63 million to $68 million by March 31, 1997. These savings would come mainly from business planning and management and support activities.

The government must stop trying to fool people when it speaks of cutting the fat. I think there are still a lot of areas where we could cut spending, and people have had enough of lies. They know that the government will still take the money out of their pockets instead of reducing the big government machine.

In conclusion, I would like to examine the last point of the Reform party's motion. Our colleagues want the government to develop a spending contingency plan. I suggest they adopt the Bloc's position concerning the creation of a parliamentary committee which would examine government expenditures one item at a time. My colleague, the member for Shefford, will present another point of view later on, but we have said time and again that such a committee is absolutely necessary and we will keep on saying so till the situation is corrected.

It is the responsibility of members elected by voters who trusted them to represent them effectively and keep an eye on such brazen squandering of public funds. The members of this House and of some committees are better suited for such a task than the civil servants since they are accountable to those who elected them. They would see to it that the various programs really reach their targets and that the government manages public funds with equity, effectiveness and thrift.

I know the present government has some reservations concerning our proposal for the creation of such a committee which would examine and review government expenditures item by item. The Liberals have suggested we expand the mandate of the Public Accounts Committee. We would agree, but only if the rules governing the committee are modified.

Our party insists on giving the Public Accounts Committee the following terms ef reference: to analyze and examine the whole of government spending, item by item, in order to present to the House a review of various programs, with the power to gather any information or financial data necessary to carry out its mandate. Officials and political staff members of departments and Crown corporations should be obliged to testify in front of the committee if asked to do so and give it all the information requested. I think that would be the fair way to go about it.

A consensus seems to be possible. The Reform Party wants to develop a government spending management plan, and we would accept such a proposal under the conditions I just mentioned. For once, we should set an example and agree about it.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, some of the measures identified by the Reform Party to reduce the deficit and the debt seem quite interesting. As far as the opposition parties are concerned, we must reduce the deficit.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member opposite. In the case of social programs, I think we must bring in a reform when the economy is going strong and not when it is down. Let me also add that in the case of the unemployment insurance reform, that is Bill C-113, the government penalized 99 per cent of the population simply to catch the one per cent of abusers. In a family such as Canada, of which Quebec is a full member, you must not resort to such measures and hurt the vast majority just to get at a very small number of individuals. You make reforms when the economy is strong, not when it is in difficulty. The recession which we have been going through since the early nineties is a good illustration of my point.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my parents, my family, the constituents of my riding of Lotbinière and all those who have worked directly or indirectly to help me get elected. Thank you.

If I may, I would like to start my maiden speech by briefly describing the beautiful riding of Lotbinière that I am proud to represent. Flanked by the St. Lawrence River to the north, it includes more than 50 communities with a total population of 94,315.

The largest community is the recently merged city of Victoriaville-Arthabasca which is home to almost 40,000 people. Victoriaville-Arthabasca is the third most industrialized city, per capita, in Quebec with close to 200 industries. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's house overlooks the city, where the Susor-Côté family, Henri d'Arles and other famous people were born.

The riding I represent offers many tourist attractions such as the Lapierre mill in Norbertville, the Portage mill in Lotbinière, the Bergeron plant in Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, not to mention the region's numerous covered bridges, historic homes and churches.

For a period of about ten years, the riding of Lotbinière was represented in the House of Commons by the late André Fortin. Mr. Fortin had a reputation for working tirelessly and with unsurpassed vigour to defend the interests of his constituents. I humbly hope that I can be worthy of that former member of Parliament who achieved big things in this riding. If serving the population means being a good member of Parliament, this is what I intend to do.

I rise today to urge the Liberal government to think twice before slashing social programs. Despite being optimistic by nature, I must admit that rural regions such as mine are faced with growing poverty.

According to Statistics Canada, 4,680 men and women aged 15 and over collected unemployment insurance in 1991 in the riding of Lotbinière, and this number has not improved with the recession we have been through. Three years ago, unemployment stood at 11 per cent of a labour force of 45,800. Add those on welfare and much of the population will be affected by the measures which the government intends to take.

The reason I refer to my region is that, like other rural regions, it is in danger of suffering unduly from an ill-considered reform of social programs. We are trying to get our head above water and we fear that the Liberal government will put its hand on our head and make us sink further. The regions are already in trouble compared to the major centres. I certainly do not want to sound alarmist, but if we go by the social development report published by Quebec's Conseil des affaires sociales, we must admit that Quebec is split in two. Indeed, in the first report published in January 1989, we see an analysis of 25 regional county municipalities along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River, showing a decrease or no increase in population for 18 of them between 1981 and 1986.

Of course, the exodus of our young people to major centres has a lot to do with it. Why do young people leave their home regions? Employment is their very legitimate reason. It is a vicious circle because the higher the jobless rate in a community, the more young people tend to leave it, as we can read in the report of the Conseil des affaires sociales. For want of economic and social opportunities, our young adults move to the big cities, leaving behind an aging population which for that very reason is more dependent on the state.

There are two Quebecs, one young and prosperous, the other aging and poor. That is the situation in Quebec now, and it is no doubt the same in other provinces of Canada. Even though feelings of attachment remain strong in rural regions like Lotbinière, Charlevoix, Matapédia and Lac-Saint-Jean, the centralization of government services in cities identified as regional capitals obliges the people in the regions to travel to obtain services.

Another example, taken from the report of the Conseil des affaires sociales published in 1990, shows that technical options are not being offered in regional high schools but rather in larger centres. Therefore many fifteen-year-olds go to the city not only to study but also in the hope of finding work. For example, Statistics Canada reported that nearly 35 per cent of the population in my riding was at least 40 years old in 1991.

The Minister of Human Resource Development said this week that he wanted the reform of social programs to create hope and to end dependency, especially by creating jobs. I would love to believe the minister, but nothing in his speech tells us how those jobs will be created. Where is the hope for the people of the rural regions I just mentioned? Their hope now lies in the help they receive from social programs, imperfect as these may be. The government will pay its debt with money taken from social services, forcing the provinces to raise taxes again and putting the federal government in a good light. There is more and more discontent in the regions and I hope that the minister is aware of the situation.

Before concluding, I would like to quote Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir , who wrote these lines in the issue of Tuesday, February 1, 1994:

-the operation also serves as a disguise to a final assault by the federal government, which has been trying since the middle of the century to appropriate provincial fields of jurisdiction enshrined in the Constitution, namely social programs, education, and now labour relations.

It is possible to modify some programs without adversely affecting the have-nots. It is possible to prosper in a regional environment, as is demonstrated by Cascades. But for that to happen, the government must act responsibly. In the past three weeks, I have been receiving phone calls from poor people in my riding. Their first question is invariably: Will the government make cuts in the social programs? I would appreciate it if, one day, the government opposite would tell us precisely and honestly what it will do and where it will make those cuts. Canadians need to be reassured. We must not wait until the poor come and voice their discontentment here, in front of Parliament. We must not wait until then. I will tell you one thing: if it comes to that, I will side with the poor.

[Speech From The Throne, January 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I address this House. I am new, but I too will learn during my mandate, my four years. I wish to congratulate you on your new position.

My question for the member is what exactly will you do to restore permanent jobs and not part-time jobs such as those that come from your program and to restore the confidence of Quebecers and Canadians? Look at aid for small business. They need money, and funds are being cut, so I would like to have an answer, Mr. Speaker.