Monique Guay

[Purchase Of Flu Vaccine, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister admit that by awarding 100 per cent of the contract to BioVac, the only Canadian maker of flu vaccine, at $1.70 a dose, he would have saved Canadian taxpayers more than $600,000 and preserved high-tech jobs?

[Purchase Of Flu Vaccine, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In response to the questions I asked him yesterday, the Minister of Public Works said that BioVac offered to sell its flu vaccine for $1.85 a dose compared to $1.69 for Connaught. By dividing the contract equally between Connaught and BioVac, the minister claims that the government will pay $1.77 a dose.

Does the Minister of Public Works admit that the figures he advanced yesterday are inaccurate since, in the tendering process, BioVac bid $1.70 a dose compared to $1.46 for Connaught, and that by dividing the contract in two, the government will pay not $1.77 a dose as the minister said yesterday, but $1.85 a dose? Could he admit that his figures are inaccurate?

[Flu Vaccine, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the direct result of his Canadian solution is to export high-tech jobs from Quebec to the United States and that it jeopardizes the development of BioVac on international markets?

[Flu Vaccine, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday, the minister used decisions of previous governments to justify awarding 50 per cent of the flu vaccine contract to Connaught. Need we remind him that in 1991, when Connaught was awarded this contract, the maritimes ran out of vaccine, and that last year, 100 per cent of the contract was awarded to BioVac?

On the substantive issue, does the minister know that Connaught is only a distributor of flu vaccine in Canada and imports this vaccine from the United States, while BioVac, the only manufacturer of this vaccine in Canada, made a bid that would have saved $600,000 of public money if the minister had accepted it?

[Purchases Of Flu Vaccine, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude that the contract splitting was the result of pressure from ministers in Toronto, who prefer an approach that is more expensive and risky in terms of security and supply, to drum up business for a Toronto distributor, as opposed to awarding the whole contract to a Quebec manufacturer?

[Purchases Of Flu Vaccine, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, and it is a real question.

Strange things are happening in the Department of Public Works. In the procurement contract for flu vaccine purchased for the provinces, the minister, acting on his own initiative, split the contract equally between Connaught in Ontario and Bio Vac in Quebec. The minister says he found a Canadian solution to a Canadian problem. However, the contract share awarded to Connaught will be produced in the United States.

Since BioVac is offering these vaccines at $1.70 per unit, why does the government insist on paying more-$1.85 per unit-with its decision to purchase part of these vaccines in the United States, so that Quebec loses 26 high tech jobs and an investment project worth $32 million will be cancelled?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Process, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, previous speeches made in this House pointed out the essentially democratic nature of the Bloc Quebecois and, in this regard, its willingness to respect the integrity and autonomy of the people it represents in every county of Quebec.

One of our party's basic objectives, particularly in anticipation of Quebec's independence, is to exercise the democratic process as widely as possible.

Today we take this opportunity to support government motion M-10 proposing that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts.

Our goal in supporting motion M-10 is, as you know, to respect the regional integrity of these communities without hampering the regional decentralization process currently taking place in Quebec.

However, the Bloc Quebecois will only support this government motion on certain conditions.

First, we must denounce, once again, the arbitrary and inconsistent new boundaries drawn up in recent years and, in this regard, we must also mention the importance of administrative divisions in Quebec.

Not only are these administrative zones strategically important for Quebec but they are based on fundamental geographical, economic, industrial and cultural elements.

As long as Quebec remains, in spite of itself, a member of the Canadian Confederation, the federal commissions responsible for readjusting electoral boundaries will have to consider regional municipalities, counties and administrative regions.

As we said in a previous speech, our second reservation about motion M-10 is that the decentralization of decision-making powers should, in our opinion, be an essential element of regional policy in the year 2000.

The Canadian policy advocated by a Liberal government big on centralization lacks a socio-economic development perspective.

We see the decentralization of political and economic decision-making as essential to creating jobs in RCMs.

In line with Minister Picotte's reform and the consolidation of regional development councils, the Bloc Quebecois has made a commitment to direct political and economic decision-making to the regions.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the State of Quebec no longer act alone in planning coherent economic development. In our view, the general framework for this development must be redefined, starting with the regions. Decentralization of the bureaucratic monster which the central State has become requires Quebec's political sovereignty.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to go beyond changes to the political structure. We recommend regional self-management based on fundamental democracy. We advocate the creation of highly decentralized and antibureaucratic organizations. In short, we reject the authoritarian social and economic management policies which are pursued by the unified political power representing central States and which are ruining the public finances of Canada and Quebec.

A two-year moratorium, during which decentralization of the decision-making process will be stepped up under the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, will allow riding residents to concentrate more on ensuring regional development rather than on building a Canada that can never be.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois recommends that the entire federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be reformulated, and that the process be undertaken as soon as possible within the framework of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We must take advantage of the two-year moratorium on the redistribution of electoral boundaries to weigh carefully all the implications of adjustments of this nature to ridings.

[Co-Operative Housing, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, again today, I have the opportunity to rise to ask the Liberal government to act quickly to respond to the pressing housing needs of 1,200,000 Canadians.

So far, the representations and lobbying by community organizations, by members of the Official Opposition and even by some members across the floor who have shown a little interest and resolve, have yielded nothing. Zero, zilch. Since January of this year, the government has invested nothing at all in social housing programs. Low-cost housing, non-profit organizations, co-operative housing were completely neglected and forgotten by the Liberals. In fact, the members opposite do nothing else but close their eyes and renew the policies of the Conservatives. This attitude on the part of the Liberals is shameful and totally unacceptable. Do they not remember that, not so long ago, when they were the Official Opposition, they spent a lot of time condemning the Conservative government for withdrawing funding for social housing? Do they not remember that?

And that is not all. The Liberals said that they wanted to work together with housing organizations in order to establish a national policy on social housing. They even promised to fully restore all programs. The Minister of Finance even wrote this in a letter to various organizations dated September 22, 1993, and I quote: "There is no doubt that a Liberal government will ensure funding for these sectors. We think that the state must adopt a positive and dynamic national policy in this area. It is incumbent on general management to ensure that over one million Canadian families are provided with decent and affordable housing".

The minister ended that letter by stating, and again I quote: "to that end, we wish to establish new partnerships with your organizations. I believe that over the past three years, our leader, our members of Parliament as well as our official critic for social housing, Joe Fontana, have consistently showed our commitment to social housing. We therefore rely on your co-operation on this socio-economic issue, which is of the highest importance", and I stress "of the highest importance". The letter is signed Paul Martin. Those are the words our dear Minister of Finance wrote on September 22 last.

Where are they today, those members of Parliament, this leader and this official critic, to show their commitment to social housing? They have vanished! Gone too are all those lovely speeches and the will to provide decent housing to needy families.

But what happened since then? Why did the members opposite completely change their mind? It is unacceptable and dishonest for elected and accountable people to alter their course in mid-stream. How can the population now seriously believe the Minister of Finance? How can he live with the words he wrote without feeling shame, without feeling any remorse? The minister looks a bit silly today and his credibility is no better than his social housing programs which deserve a big zero. They call him the sinister Minister of Finance.

And yet, the needs are obviously huge and urgent. The Canada, I repeat, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that 1,200,000 families are in urgent need of housing. How can you ignore this reality? How can you ignore such glaring statistics? The members opposite so free with their promises have no vision. All they are good at is damage control. They are unable to plan for the long term. They do not manage anything, they only hope and wait for things to get better on their own.

They put nothing on the table, no plan, no policy to deal with the housing crisis. In the meantime, people in substandard housing are waiting. They are hoping that the Liberal government will be true to its promises and will immediately provide funds to build low-rent housing, as well as non-profit and co-op housing. Hundreds of thousands of families find this wait increasingly hard to take. Several of them spend more than 50 per cent of their income on rent. Such poverty has devastating effects.

Every month, these poor families living in substandard housing have to make inhuman choices. Every month, in order to pay for their rent, they have to deprive their children of such essentials as food. Children go hungry and live in substandard housing because the government is not acting responsibly. This projects a very bad image in a society as affluent and developed as ours.

The government's lack of action is indecent. The minister in charge of social housing is telling us his cupboard is bare and that we must wait for savings that the CMHC could manage over the next few years. The Liberals keep us waiting and waiting. They are in favour of a wait-and-see policy. They sit back and wait for some heaven-sent manna. We must admire the strength, courage and inventiveness of this new government.

It is not ten years from now that we need social housing, Madam Speaker, it is right now. All the organizations, all the municipalities, all the big cities are asking tthe government to reinstate and increase funding for social housing. The Liberals are deaf and blind. They have been in place for six months now, and they still ask the people to be patient.

We on this side of the House want the government to release public funds immediately so that we can start projects now. You do not have the money? Well, cut the fat, put public finances on a sound footing and get rid of tax shelters for the wealthy. If you had any guts, if you had the political will, you would do your homework and find the money.

In Quebec, the situation is more problematic because more people live in rental accommodation. The problem is more acute, more urgent. The federal government is reneging on its commitments and the provincial Liberals are not putting up much of a fight.

Nevertheless, the federal government still has a role to play in this area. We in Quebec pay federal taxes and we are entitled to our fair share. We want the government to give Quebec its share of those taxes and we will take care of our own social housing. The Société d'habitation du Québec has all the tools and expertise it needs to develop its own programs.

Soon Quebeckers will decide what their future will be. We will then be able to administer our own social and economic development. Meanwhile, give us our share and stop ignoring the demands of the poor and people living in substandard housing across this country. Patience may be a virtue, but enough is enough.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I will try to finish on time.

In Laurentides, the riding I proudly represent, the unemployment rate is 18 per cent, a far cry from the national rate that was leaked last week. As I said a far cry from the rate that hon. members opposite are celebrating. A person would have to be terribly naive to believe that your policies were able to bring down the unemployment rate. All your decisions and initiatives since October 25 have been a mere drop in the bucket.

These self-congratulatory statements are just an attempt to mislead the public. You say your policies are working and producing results, but you are just distributing a few crumbs here and there. Your response is band-aid solutions and very short-term planning.

Where is the real vision? Where are the long-term plans that would help us look forward to a stabler economy that would generate more jobs? Instead of taking a serious approach to the problems and the solutions they require, the ministers opposite go on trips and come back with so-called good news. A trip to Korea, and Hyundai will open its doors again. Good news? News without much substance, which has raised a lot of concerns among the public. This strategy, which I say is pathetic, is not a winner, and no wonder.

The people on the government benches are handling problems on a day-to-day basis. They do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. The unemployed in Laurentides know perfectly well nothing has changed. Since you took over the government benches, there have been no more jobs for them.

They do know that after unemployment insurance comes welfare, and that is what really made the unemployment rate go down. It is true! Look at what is really happening in our ridings. The federal government is passing the buck to the provinces. This transfer of the tax burden, which is a disgrace, is a clear sign of the Liberals' inertia and indifference.

Welfare, cuts in unemployment insurance, jobs without a future, tax increases for the middle class and pretty speeches are the only results produced by the government's red book.

People in Laurentides want work. They are willing to train, be retrained and upgrade their skills to acquire the tools they need to meet labour market requirements. The 18 per cent who are unemployed in my riding-I repeat 30 per cent-want to see some light at the end of the tunnel. They want the government to implement programs that will help them go back to work. They want long-term employment, jobs that will give them some security, not the kind of jobs that last only a few weeks, created under programs that are only intended get people the number of weeks they need to go back on unemployment insurance. Workers are caught up in a vicious circle that the government merely encourages through these programs. We must change our way of doing things, change our approach to get results that are more useful and more attractive in the long run, both for workers and employers.

The economy of Laurentides is based mainly on spin-offs generated by the tourism industry and the goods and services sector. Except for greater Saint-Jérôme where you find well-established small and medium-sized businesses that provide good jobs, our economy depends on tourism. Now, the nearly total dependence of jobs on the presence of tourists in our area means that all workers are considerably exposed to uncontrollable elements. As a matter of fact, poor seasons due to low temperatures or a lack of money on the part of vacationers directly affect employment opportunities in the riding of Laurentides.

There is no doubt that the economy in my region needs to be diversified. A few dozen of strong small and medium-sized businesses would be welcome. They would help reduce our dependence on tourism and protect us against elements over which we have no control.

A business that manufactures high technology products, for instance, could certainly, while diversifying our economy, keep it at an acceptable level, guarantee a certain number of jobs and, indirectly, an adequate overall purchasing power.

Unfortunately, we do not have those small and medium-sized businesses in the Laurentians. Moreover, I invite those of the other side, the ministers, to come to my region and meet the

business people in order to develop the whole small and medium-sized business sector.

We must face the facts. The Laurentians depend on tourism for a living, as I have already said. Ski resorts, beaches, campgrounds, summer theatres, hotels, motels, restaurants and shops are the main source of employment for our workers. The level of activity of those employers depends on tourism, which fluctuates a lot, and on the purchasing power of residents, which is linked to the economy of the region.

The results for workers who are concentrated in great numbers in that sector are seasonal and precarious jobs, unsteady and low paid jobs. Our workers are very much affected by the fluctuations of tourism. That is why they must get unemployment insurance benefits between jobs while they are waiting for good seasons. Some wait for summer jobs while others work in the winter.

At the end of every working season, people come in greater numbers to ask for unemployment insurance because there are no other jobs available to them in the near future.

The recent changes to the unemployment insurance system make benefits even more difficult to obtain. In my riding, these changes will affect a great number of workers who cannot accumulate the required 12 weeks for the reasons I have already stated. For them, it means a direct line to welfare. A nice move on the part of the federal government. The decision-makers on the other side have never realized that, given the economic situation in the regions, some workers have a hard time finding work for 12 weeks.

And the Liberals keep at it. You have to work more, but they give you less. Less benefits and for a shorter period. Less money to spend, less purchasing power; the economy cuts jobs and does not create new ones, and so goes the spiral.

The Liberals reduce UI benefits without offering workers alternatives. Their thinking is topsy-turvy on the other side. The liberal processes follow a logic which is contrary to common sense. It is disquieting and discouraging for my constituents. It shows clearly that the Liberals have more consideration for figures than for persons.

Another provision of this reform also seems to be stress-generating. The benefit rate of 60 per cent for low-income persons with dependent children leads us to believe that there will be investigations made in order to confirm their status. In Quebec, we already know the welfare "boubou-macoutes"; we are aware of all the trouble and tension they caused in our province. I hope the federal government will not copy that kind of action which is most aggravating and infringes on people's privacy.

Finally, the impact of these amendments will be disastrous for the people of Laurentides. They prove that the Liberals are disconnected from the grassroots and from the realities of regional economic situations. Together they can shout "Alleluia for welfare" which is an easy and shameful way for them to shirk their duties and responsibilities.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced I will not have to invite you to come and visit my riding since you must have been there already on skiing vacations. The riding of Laurentides has 43 municipalities and 110,000 voters. It is a huge riding but the new electoral map brings appalling cuts to this area. Without any reason, several municipalities will be taken from my riding and will become part of a neighbouring one.

You must understand that the riding of Laurentides is located along a highway, highway 15 or 117. It is a network, a tourist region and it is therefore very important that the area be maintained as a whole and remain united. If you take municipalities out of a tourist network, it becomes very difficult for those municipalities to make a name for themselves in another riding which may be, for instance, agricultural or something else.

I would like to tell you about municipalities that are very disturbed by the new electoral map and which approached me and explained their problem. You have Mont-Tremblant which is booming and must count on the touristic network of my riding to be able to advertise and attract tourists. If Mont-Tremblant became part of Berthier-Montcalm, which is a totally different kind of riding, the people of Berthier-Montcalm would be hard pressed when it comes to the economic development of Mont-Tremblant. Furthermore, they object to Mont-Tremblant being taken out of my riding.

The town of Saint-Jovite along highway 117 and all those towns to the north, including Labelle, which are part of the tourism network, are being removed and added to Argenteuil-Papineau, which has an entirely different focus. So, of course, the mayors, the councillors and my constituents called and said: What can we do? We do not want to leave the riding of Laurentides. We feel at home here. We do not want to be part of another riding where they may be too busy to look after us, because it takes a long time to cover the whole riding. I have a very big riding with a lot of constituents, and it takes a lot of travelling, but we have a network where everything connects. In fact, we used to have the "petit train du Nord", a train that went through all the municipalities now in my riding. Where the train used to run has now been turned into parkland.

If part of this tourism network is removed and added to another riding which is different again, it will make the park far less attractive because the park needs the Laurentides Tourism Association and the services in my riding to develop as it should.

I am against the amendment, and I think the readjustment process was a hasty affair. They took a map and looked at the number of constituents in a given riding. They decided there should be 75,000 inhabitants per riding, so they take this particular part out and add it on somewhere else. Some ridings have a lot of small municipalities with very few people, but the member may end up with 70 municipalities in the same riding. This does not make sense. A member can never do a good job under those circumstances. To do a good job, the redistribution process must be reasonable. There should also be a good infrastructure.

I know some people in my riding who told me during the election campaign: So I am in Laurentides? I said yes, you belong to the riding of Laurentides. They were not aware of this.

It takes a few years for people to get used to belonging to a riding or to identify with the riding. Shifting people from one riding to the next every eight years does not create a sense of community.

I am also against reducing the number of members, because we already have 110,000 constituents and if we get more, I am going to have trouble looking after everyone. It already takes two and a half hours to drive across the riding. It takes me longer to drive from one end of the riding to the other than it takes to drive to Ottawa. These are huge distances.

The tourism network is in good shape, and people want to stay in that network. I will keep doing my job in my riding. I think it is very important for people to identify with a region. I think it is very important for a region's development. I intend to go on working with my constituents, and if these electoral boundaries have to be changed, the municipalities concerned and I-in fact, I would lose a large number of municipalities which have already been identified-will take steps to prepare a brief and protest against changes that make no sense at all in a region where municipalities need each other to survive.

You know that when people go to Saint-Sauveur, they will also visit another municipality next door. They will see a show in Val-David and have dinner in Sainte-Agathe or go boating there. In this region, we all have to help each other. Otherwise, if you take a few small municipalities and destroy their tourism network or move it somewhere else, you lose the dynamics that tourism needs, because this is not an easy sector.

I will go on doing my job in my beautiful riding of Laurentides, and as far as breaking up the riding is concerned, I will do my utmost to keep that from happening.