Christiane Gagnon

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have to participate in this debate on the Budget Implementation Act, 1994. On April 14, I said no to undue delays in reducing unemployment insurance premiums.

I also questioned statements by the Minister of Finance about potential savings to businesses, savings that could be reinvested to hire workers.

It is in that context that I will address today clause 26 of the bill.

The philosophy behind clause 26 of Bill C-17 is simple. It rests on the principle that, assuming the Minister of Finance's forecasts are realistic, the businesses would actually reinvest in job creation the amounts they have saved as a result of premium reductions. There you go, jobs are automatically created!

If this scenario is likely, and that is what we are given to understand, then the next logical step is to ask ourselves why the same government that has come up with this scenario almost simultaneously increased contributions to the plan. On the one

hand, it tells us that premium reductions will undoubtedly result in job creation and, on the other, it increases contributions. The logic behind this line of action eludes us.

This government expects 40,000 news jobs will be created as a result of its new policy concerning UI premiums. Let us take a closer look, if you will.

Based on the government's own calculations, 9,000 jobs were lost as a direct result of the UI premium rate increase that came into effect on January 1.

In the context of the present scenario, rolling back the UI premium rates starting January 1, 1995, would prevent the loss of another 31,000 jobs slated to disappear like those that were lost last January. If you add these 9,000 jobs to those that will be lost come January 1, 1995, the grand total is indeed 40,000. And that is what they call a "40,000 job job-creation program". In terms of creativity, we have seen better, but not in terms of demagogy.

The main question that comes to mind of course is: Why not have acted earlier? Or to put it another way: Why did the government, knowing that a premium increase would inevitably eliminate jobs, go ahead with this increase?

We do not understand and we are convinced that many Quebecers and Canadians are asking the same questions we are.

Will the 9,000 people who lost their jobs last January because of the premium hike be impressed by the glorified job creation program announcements? Of course not! How will the government explain its inaction to these workers? How will it explain that the jobs they lost will be re-created a year later? How will it explain to these people that it preferred to wait for one year before taking action, when the enormous personal sacrifices made by those who lost their jobs were totally unnecessary and unjustified? Will it blame these injustices on the Official Opposition, the source of all evils? Maybe. We have seen such demagogy before in this chamber.

The Official Opposition has vigorously denounced the February 22 budget since it was tabled in this House. We denounced the inequity of the lower benefits and the longer qualifying periods for the unemployed. We denounced the budget's inequity to some regions, especially Quebec and the Maritime provinces. We denounced the odious impact on women of budget measures that control their private lives. We denounced the disincentive and despair that these measures will create for young unemployed people at the beginning of their working lives.

The Official Opposition denounced the lack of vision of this so-called "new" government. We have noticed and deplored the lack of real job creation policies and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, until the government stops oppressing the poor and protecting the rich. We will continue to press for the creation of real jobs, new jobs, even if we are blamed for all the problems in the world.

I am speaking today in favour of the proposal to amend clause 26 of Bill C-17 put forward by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. The proposed amendment is a very concrete solution aimed at eliminating one of the irritants created by the February 22 budget. This proposal is also designed to facilitate, albeit in a very minor way, job creation. The Official Opposition is thus trying to repair the damage done by the government.

We must support a motion such as the one we are proposing today to ensure that jobs are created as soon as possible. To do so, we must reduce premiums as early as June 1, 1994 while waiting for concrete, real job-creation policies.

[Alimony, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that by appealing this decision, his government perpetuates tax discrimination affecting mainly women, by continuing to consider as taxable alimony paid to them for child support?

[Alimony, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. We learned this morning that the government was considering appealing the Federal Court decision in the Thibodeau case regarding alimony. Apparently, the Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance have already informed the Liberal caucus of the grounds for appeal the federal government will set forth.

My question is as follows: Can the Minister of Justice confirm that his government intends to appeal before the Supreme Court and, if so, what are its grounds for appeal?

[Immigration, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that some immigrant women sponsored by their spouses are extremely vulnerable and does he not believe that they should be better protected than they are now?

[Immigration, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Several immigrant aid organizations deplore the current sponsorship provisions of the Immigration Act that can lead to abuse from the sponsor, usually the spouse. It appears that immigration officers leave women and children at the mercy of violent family members and under the threat of sponsorship withdrawal.

In cases where violence and sponsorship withdrawal threats are involved, what measures does the minister intend to take to give the victim a recourse other than ministerial discretion, if she is not eligible for permanent resident status?

[Canada Petroleum Resources Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of pay equity affects a large number of women in Canada and Quebec. The issue is one of equity and equality between men and women. Through pay equity, an employer, which includes governments, recognizes the equal value of work done by men and women and, in so doing, enables female employees to reach a standing of living comparable to that of male employees.

However, this government apparently does not want to move on this issue. I have risen in my seat several times to condemn the government's failure to act in this respect. Twice, I asked the president of Treasury Board how he intended to correct the pay inequity existing in Canada's public service. I also asked when the government intended to pay its female workforce the amounts it was granted under a judgment by the Human Rights Tribunal. I was given reassurances but no firm commitment.

On January 20, at the beginning of this Parliament, I was told that this government was most committed to the matter of pay equity and had made a formal commitment to public service employees that it would set an example in this respect. I may recall this was back in mid-January.

On March 8, International Women's Day, I twice condemned the government's failure to act on the issue of pay equity. In reply, the Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women said: "Women must have a place in the job world, receive equal pay for work of equal value and contribute their fair share to our collective wealth".

She went on to say: "I feel privileged to be part of a government which is determined to accelerate the advancement of economic opportunities for women".

With all her eloquence, the Secretary of State was carefully avoiding mentioning any concrete projects aimed at achieving this goal.

Finally, on April 19, I again tried to get a real answer from the government. At the time, the media had announced that an agreement had been reached by the Government of Quebec with its employees, under which the employer was committed to pay $115 million in various forms of salary adjustments for certain employment categories. I took this opportunity to encourage the Liberal government to follow Quebec's example but to no avail.

The President of the Treasury Board gave me a very brief answer: he used the fact that legal procedures were in process not to answer.

I rise this evening to remind the government how important pay equity is for women. I want to remind the government of its campaign promises. I want to ask this government why it relentlessly carries on legal proceedings which cost $2 million a year according to the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I want to ask the government when it will stop this shameless squandering of money in the courts and when it will give these amounts to those who need it the most, that is the female employees of the Public Service of Canada.

I want to ask this government when it plans to respect the court orders and to pay back the salaries it owes its employees.

I ask this government to let us know what schedule it has established for honouring its moral and legal obligations towards its employees.

[National Day Care Week, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, National Day Care Week started today. For all members of this House, this week should be the appropriate time to reflect on our daycare system.

We cannot ignore the clearly unacceptable working conditions of daycare educators, whose responsibilities are fundamental to children's motor and intellectual development. When we know that Newfoundland educators earn $12,500 a year while the Canadian yearly average is $18,500, we can wonder about our governments' order of priorities in the social field.

The year 1994 is the International Year of the Family. What are governments waiting for to appreciate the true worth of these people's work, which value is incalculable for parents and for society as a whole?

[Multiculturalism, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Saint-Léonard said that the future government of Quebec will reject multiculturalism and will not uphold its commitments to cultural communities.

The member's statement is a perfect example of the kind of disinformation which is being spread around by advocates of a Trudeau-like multiculturalism, an archaic concept whose noble and bold principles no longer ring true in Quebec.

Quebec sovereignists are resolutely forward-looking. They are actively promoting, both in Quebec and in this House, a free society where social, political and economic policies make room for everybody, no matter their origins.

For us, Bloc members, as for the members of the Parti Quebecois, there can be no doubt: a sovereign Quebec will respect the rights of its communities in a free, democratic and French society. That is the truth.

[South African Elections, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the first free elections in South Africa were held last week, allowing millions of blacks to vote for the first time in their lives. After so many years of apartheid and repression, this striking victory of democracy shows the courage and determination of those who fought for equality for all South Africans.

By clearly rejecting the political parties calling for violence and vengeance, South African voters turned the page on a dark chapter in their history to embrace a democratic and peaceful future. This rejection of violence brings hope to all Africans.

On behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate the newly elected representatives of South Africa on their victory and their determination.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government is blatantly guilty of applying a double standard. This very same government, which not so long ago attacked the least fortunate in our society, is now getting ready to protect and compensate persons with no redeeming value whatsoever, other than the fact that they helped fill the coffers of the two major federal political parties.

This is the same government that, less than one month ago, announced restrictions to unemployment insurance entitlement, thereby propelling more workers into the ranks of social assistance recipients.

Unlike the unemployed, lobbyists and heads of corporations with close ties to political parties need not be concerned about incurring losses. There is certainly no question of them losing their benefits, remuneration or compensation. Their interests are well protected since they are directly tied to party finances.

The dealings surrounding the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport are a striking example of how Canadian governments unfortunately resort all too often to playing politics. Many of those who have already spoken in this debate have recounted in detail the saga of this deal. Therefore I will not go over the same ground again.

My purpose in speaking today is to emphasize the odious nature of this affair and the offensive attitude of the two governments who have been successively involved in it.

Take for instance the way the privatization bids were solicited. A 90-day bidding period is highly unusual for such a major contract. Did anyone in the federal administration protest? Certainly not! It was better kept in the family.

With the result that we know: Paxport and Claridge Corporation were the only bidders. The Nixon report had a great deal to say on the subject. While the quote may be a tad long, it is well worth reading and rereading:

The RFP [request for proposals] having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame, created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2. Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the manoeuvering preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted.

The winner, as we know, was Paxport, in spite of the fact it was grappling with financial difficulties. Which leads to the next question that has to be raised again: How could the government let a contract of that magnitude to a company without checking its financial statements? Can anyone imagine even for a moment that an unemployed citizen would be granted a subsidy, a loan or a contract, to start up a small business without having to prove profitability?

The answer is obvious. Never, ever, could such a thing happen. Principles like the need to manage public funds soundly would be argued. Always the same double standard! If you are rich and close to those in power, the usual conditions just do not apply to you, or barely.

Another unknown in this matter is the role played by lobbyists in obtaining these contracts. We know that the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed by the Conservative government in 1988 and came into effect in September 1989. It is interesting to stop and look briefly at the basic principles underlying this legislation. There were three principles.

First, accessibility, meaning that the public has the right to express its opinion and have unrestricted access to government; second, transparency, that is to say that activities involving governments should be clear and open; and third, simplicity, which means the administration of the registration system must be simple. To that end, lobbyists must register with the registrar

in one of the categories established by law. In theory, nothing could be simpler.

Assuming I am a lobbyist, I register with the registrar and thereafter, anybody refering to the register will know that I am working as a lobbyist. Depending on the category I am registered under, information concerning my activities will be more or less elaborate. Many problems with the application of the law have been identified, but the gist of it remains valid.

Let us move on to the role of lobbyists involved in the Pearson Airport case and the treatment provided for in the act. We will focus on three major players, namely Donald Matthews, Hugh Riopelle and Patrick MacAdam. Mr. Matthews is president of the Matthews group, which has a 40 per cent controlling interest in Paxport. As you know, Mr. Matthews presided over Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign in 1983. In addition, as a former president of the Conservative Party, he ran fund-raising campaigns for that party.

Mr. Riopelle was chief of staff to former Tory Prime Minister Joe Clark and was later to be appointed to lead the transition team of ex-Prime Minister Kim Campbell. Mr. Riopelle was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president at the time, Ray Hession.

The third lobbyist is Mr. MacAdam, a friend of Mr. Mulroney and of the Conservative Party. These three men have one thing in common: they never registered as lobbyists.

Should the law not apply equally to everybody? It does not seem to apply to Tory lobbyists. What about Liberal lobbyists? It is an open question. We think it would be appropriate to look more closely at the lobbying firms involved in the Pearson Airport deal. Here are some of them. Working on behalf of Paxport is the Government Business Consulting Group Inc., whose CEO is J.A. Fred Doucet. Surprise, surprise! Mr. Doucet was Mr. Mulroney's chief of staff and senior adviser on Kim Campbell's campaign. It is a small world.

John Legate is president of J.S.L. Consulting Services Limited. Coincidentally, he was hired as lobbyist by Paxport's president when he had access to the Tory Cabinet through the minister then responsible for Toronto, Michael Wilson. As you recall, the airport is located in that city.

Last but not least, Atlantic Research Canada Inc. whose president at the beginning of the privatization affair was Ray Hession, who was also president of Paxport. Mr. Hession was Deputy Minister at Supply and Services under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Once the contract was awarded to Paxport, he resigned as president to be replaced by Don Matthews' son.

At Claridge Properties, Earnscliffe Strategy Group Inc., one of the lobbyists, is represented by William J. Fox, a former political attaché and personal friend of Brian Mulroney.

At Near Consultants and Associates Limited, we find Harry Near, who is also involved in the Earnscliffe Group. Mr. Near has long been active in the Conservative Party.

There is no need to continue this litany of names and companies, the conclusion is clear and obvious: they were all related to one another and to the two federal parties which have succeeded each other in office.

Other questions arise. Who exactly do these people and these companies represent? Who are the directors of the various companies involved? We must clear that up. These people have had great influence with political decision-makers, so much so that the former government violated an important parliamentary principle according to which a government at the end of its term makes no decision that could endanger the decision-making power of a future government.

They were so influential that on April 13, 1994, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-22 which is being debated today. This legislation would allow the government to pay corporations, especially the T1 T2 Limited Partnership, large amounts for cancelling the contract. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to ratify another transaction from which corporations tied to the two traditional parties will benefit. Their influence is such that this government is asking us to forget all the transactions between the corporations and the Department of Transport were in flagrant violation of the government policies in effect. Their influence is such that the government is asking us to forget these policies intended to encourage marketing the airports and their contribution to economic development and to make them aware of local concerns and interests.

We want to know whose economy was to be developed. We want to know what local concerns and interests were served by these agreements. We want to know who benefited: the taxpayers, local communities or corporations.

These questions indicate how openly the government conducts its affairs and how easily the public can access information on this. Remember that these principles are affected by the law and that lobbyists must respect them.

The picture we have just painted shows us a group of influential people, well connected with ties to the political parties, who can bend government decisions to their financial advantage.

We have many questions and very few answers. We all know that you must first have your questions answered before you can make a decision.

The taxpayers of Canada and Quebec need light to be shed on this issue, an intense, bright light. That is why the Bloc Quebecois demands setting up a royal commission of inquiry on this matter.