Debates of Sept. 30th, 1994

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the matter raised Tuesday last by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway concerning the speech of the hon. member for Central Nova on September 20, 1994 during the debate on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof.

I have carefully reviewed the representations of these hon. members. I also want to thank the Chief Government Whip and the hon. member for Lethbridge for their contributions.

From the comments that were made Tuesday and from the Hansard of September 20 there can be little doubt that there exists a profound and fundamental difference of opinion among members.

It is evident from having reviewed Hansard that the opinions of the hon. member for Central Nova were stated during the cut and thrust of debate. Further, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway did indeed have the opportunity to challenge, refute and question the hon. member on her speech, as did the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. This is the very reason for debate.

It is not the role of the Chair to be the arbiter of opinion. Rather it is the role of the Chair to ensure that debate on any issue can proceed under the rules which the House has set for itself.

Held against that standard I am satisfied that the words of the hon. member for Central Nova were not directed at any one individual or any member specifically. Rather, they were the hon. member's personal opinions on the matter. .

[Translation]

I would refer hon. members to a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker on November 4, 1987, at page 10741 in the Debates . At that time, he said, in part that if remarks ``were not aimed at a particular member, the remarks are not unparliamentary''.

My colleagues, paramount to our political and parliamentary systems is the principle of freedom of speech, a member's right to stand in this House unhindered to speak his or her mind. However when debate in the House centres on sensitive issues, as it often does, I would expect that members would always bear in mind the possible effects of their statements and hence be prudent in their tone and choice of words.

The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today with respect to the amendments made to Bill C-22 by the Senate.

Bill C-22, respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, proposes, among other things, immunity for the government from any legal action resulting from its disengagement vis-à-vis Pearson Development Corporation, with respect to the project to privatize this airport.

The Bloc Quebecois is entirely in favour of this provision of Bill C-22, and furthermore the position of our party on this issue is unequivocal; we are asking for a royal commission of inquiry to take a thorough look at the role played in this matter by the

Canadian financial establishment and the Conservative and Liberal parties, as well as the lobbyists.

In addition to clauses 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-22, which free the government of all legal responsiblity regarding agreements made by the previous Conservative government with Pearson Development Corporation, subclause 10(1) states that subject to the approval of Cabinet "if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may-enter into" agreements to provide for the payment of damages.

However, subclause 10(2) states, and I quote: "No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to (a) any loss of profit, or (b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-".

The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, opposed to the payment of any amount whatsoever to the Pearson Development Corporation; we are clear on this. We understand that the Liberal government, by opening the door to compensation in the form of agreements wishes in a roundabout way to reassure the friends of the regime, of whatever stripe.

However, the action for damages that Pearson Development Corporation wants to institute is for $200 million in unrealized profits. This is unbelievable.

Bill C-22-as we just saw-rejects this option under the pretext that the bill violates a basic legal principle, "as it deprives the parties of their fundamental right to ask the courts to rule on their disputes with the government". This right is enshrined in the constitution of nearly all civilized countries, but the attitude of Pearson Development Corporation clearly goes against any kind of basic social ethics.

Such an attitude shows capitalistic greed worthy of unrestrained economic liberalism without any kind of protection for ordinary citizens. As far as I know, the right of a corporation to sue the government and the company it represents for unrealized profits is not enshrined in the constitutions of almost all civilized countries. This bill does not deny the right to sue the government; it simply applies to a specific case, a single corporation, a single project in depriving Pearson Development Corporation of the right to extort $200 million from the Canadian people. That is very clear.

So, to use the same words as corporation officials, it is not a government attempt to put itself above the law. The Bloc Quebecois' position goes beyond simply defending Bill C-22. Our party is defending the very principle of democracy, that is, people's right to live in decent conditions, in a society that is well managed politically and economically and protected against any form of exploitation by capitalist or state enterprise.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is rising against Pearson Development Corporation's shameless attempts to dip into the public purse by invoking constitutional law.

As for the Senate, its attitude in this matter is most deplorable and confirms the urgent need for Canadian society to get rid of this archaic institution and for Quebec society to withdraw from the federal system. The Upper House once again shows itself as clearly undemocratic by amending a bill designed to protect, albeit very incompletely, the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.

The amendments proposed by senators support the interests of Pearson Development Corporation, as the Senate proposes to delete clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 giving the government immunity from any legal proceedings under the bill, thus leaving the door open to all financial claims from Pearson Development Corporation.

In endorsing the corporation's position, the Senate places itself squarely on the side of Canada's financial interests and shows its bias in favour of unrestricted capitalist exploitation without any kind of protection for society in general. It promotes the proliferation of lobbyists and infiltration by financial interests, while opening the door to the corruption of politicians in Canada and Quebec. Nothing less. A great majority of Quebecers do not want the Senate and I hope that this House clearly understands this desire.

A major theme of the government's red book, the Liberal Party's veritable manifesto in the last federal election campaign, of which they remind this House, is to question the disproportionate and decisive behind-the-scenes influence of lobbies on government policies. Their goal is to remake this same government's image in order to restore public confidence.

So be it, and democracy will be much better in Canada as a result. Therefore we urge the government to keep its commitment by refusing any compromise with the lobbies, senators and companies and by not bowing to this country's financial establishment.

The Senate is as archaic as it is useless. I think I demonstrated that in this House on June 8, when, on behalf of the Official Opposition party, I opposed the funding for that other House.

I repeat, that other House is nothing but a pretext for the government in power to reward friends of the regime, be they Tories or Grits, who will then do partisan work either for the government or for the interests they represent, and it is important that everyone know this.

The Senate has no democratic legitimacy as an institution. Its members are appointed by the Governor General who, by convention, acts on the initiative and advice of the Prime Minister, who actually makes the appointments. Since the senators are not elected, the Bloc Quebecois considers the second chamber to be a political anachronism, a convincing sign that Canada's federal system is outdated.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I also denounce the unacceptable waste which the budget of that House represents; the Canadian Senate costs some $26.9 million, plus statutory expenditures of $15.7 million, for a total of $42.6 million. Given the current tough economic times, with a debt over $500 billion, and unemployment which is especially high in regions like the one represented by the hon. member who is trying to interrupt, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, this amount could be used for economic recovery and his riding could benefit from it.

Canada's public debt is partly due to outdated political structures, such as obsolete political centralism, a constitutional monarchy that is an unnecessary waste of public funds and an Upper House that is really just a golden retirement for politicians or others who have well served the traditional parties, be they Conservative or Liberal.

The Senate of Canada is modeled on the House of Lords in the British Parliament. It is a chamber of highly distinguished persons. In keeping with the British tradition, great importance is placed in the division of legislative powers between two separate chambers each representing a separate social class: the people and the nobility.

Regarding the Pearson International Airport affair and the Senate amendments to Bill C-22, the action of the Upper House is in keeping with this tradition, nobility having been replaced by the financiers of the Canadian establishment, represented by lobbyists and paid by the people.

On the other hand, the structural illogicality of having such a legislative chamber in a parliamentary system based on the British model must be recognized.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

"Allons, enfants de la Patrie"-

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

You can hide many things from everyone, day after day-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want to remind the hon. member it is not appropriate to sing in this place.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

This is a matter of blackmail. The very existence of a second legislative chamber in a British-type parliamentary system is structurally illogical. Clearly dominated by the executive branch, parliamentary systems give the Upper House an absolutely ridiculous, if not to say insignificant, amount of power and yet it costs us a fortune.

To conclude, we consider the proposed amendments to Bill C-22 inadmissible and undemocratic. The Bloc Quebecois, as the Official Opposition, is against any legislative activity on the part of the Senate, an institution which should plainly and simply be abolished, and asks that a royal commission of inquiry be held to get right to the bottom of the Pearson International Airport privatization issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

While the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe was speaking, the hon. member for Simcoe Centre reminded me that he did not get to complete his speech last time. So, with the hon. members' permission, I suggest that we let him speak five minutes more.

I hear a voice telling me that unanimous consent is required and I think that is probably correct.

On the basis that the member had not completed his time, there was an error on the part of the Table or the Chair and he was not given the floor first. I would ask for unanimous consent that the member might be permitted to complete the five minutes that are still remaining to him.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was developing in the first part of my presentation on Bill C-22 was the fact that what we were doing here actually flies in the face of what we should be doing to help restore the trust and confidence that have been lost between the politician and the voter. I had just completed dealing with the fact that the 30 day review of the Pearson contract was done by a well identified Liberal. Without getting into the question of how competent that individual is, the fact that it was done by somebody so well connected with the party just flew in the face of what needed to be an open and honest evaluation of that contract.

The next step in Bill C-22 was that there was a well identified Liberal appointed to review the compensation package. Again this flies in the face of what the public told us during the election campaign, that it wanted something done differently here and it did not want a continuation of the old politics. This again flew in the face of that.

If it was going to be done it had to be done by a non-partisan, somebody completely removed from the political arena in order to restore the confidence that in fact what was happening here was in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The bill is unprecedented in that it denies the right of companies involved to the due process of law. Again in the minds of the public this raises questions. Why is that in there? Are we trying to hide something? It comes back to the question of trust in the system.

We tried during the committee stage to open up and give these people an opportunity to come in and defend their position, the people whose names and reputations had been called into question, but this was denied.

To my thinking there is no other option available now than to go through the courts in order to clear the air so that taxpayers will indeed know the truth about the original deal but, more important, will know the justification for the spending of any tax dollars.

In all fairness those whose names and reputations have been brought into question must be given their day in court. There is a saying that those who steal my money steal nothing, but those who steal my good name steal all.

Do not let this happen. Put yourself in their position and ask if this is fair. As upset as we all were at the apparent deceit and abuse of the process in the original deal, two wrongs will not make it right. The minister said in introducing this bill that he wanted to be fair and reasonable to all concerned. Let us do that. Let us be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers as well as the accused.

It is ironic that all this debate and delay is holding up an infrastructure project that is a major part of Toronto and Ontario if indeed not Canada. Here we have this major piece of infrastructure continuing to deteriorate while this debate goes on.

This project alone was worth almost a billion dollars, representing about one-half of the total federal commitment to infrastructure with the potential for thousands of jobs immediately and yet to this day it is still not happening.

With so much support on the other side, who is speaking out for Toronto and Ontario? Not only are we talking about jobs now, we are talking about jobs that are indirectly tied to Pearson. The first impression created by a fast, efficient, safe airport plays a major role in decisions affecting where to locate and expand new industry.

Pearson operations generate some $2 billion in personal income, $4 billion in business revenues and $700 million dollars in tax revenues and we are allowing this gem to deteriorate daily. It makes no sense.

There is no reason why negotiations should not proceed as quickly as possible. Pearson Development Corporation has said in writing that it will do nothing to block expansion. Local airport authority discussion need not have been delayed.

We cannot delay any further. Far too much is at stake. If this government is serious about job creation now and in the future, there is no better way to demonstrate that commitment than immediate action on Pearson.

This government's lack of confidence in our courts to be fair and reasonable is as frightening as the cynicism I spoke of earlier between the voters and the politicians.

There will never be a better time for this government to show its commitment to more open and honest government as was promised in the red book than to turn this whole situation over to the courts.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, for Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved that Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

This bill is one of a growing list of initiatives aimed at renewing, restructuring and revitalizing our approach to government. Other legislation now before this House will reorganize and redirect many functions and organizations such as the Department of Natural Resources, industry, consumer affairs, communications, science, to name a few.

Bill C-52 also addresses the functions of what used to be several departments or agencies. These measures are part of a coherent plan to bring order, efficiency and effectiveness to government. By merging the functions of public works, supply and services, the government telecommunications agency and the translation bureau, Bill C-52 is another step in the direction of more streamlined, more responsive services to government operations at less cost.

We can take great satisfaction in the fact that this rationalization of resources will save the government in the order of $180 million by 1998.

In this era of fiscal constraint, effectiveness and efficiency are obviously of extreme importance to all Canadians. Canadians have a right to expect leadership and the example of the government to set that leadership and the direction for all economies.

This means getting our own house in order, getting our expenditures and deficits under control. Nevertheless, we should not think of Bill C-52 as mere housekeeping. To get Canada back on the prosperity path, to create jobs and well-being we need an innovative economic climate. Government must provide the leadership and the focus to create that environment.

In addition to its housekeeping functions Bill C-52 is part of a strategy to do just that. The strategy was first outlined in Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada , the so-called red book which continues to inspire the agenda of this government.

That document describes the innovative economy that we all strive to see to completion. It also describes the proper role of government to create the economic condition to permit entrepreneurs to succeed.

Specifically, the red book defines the crucial role of the government in such an innovative system as working with the private sector to identify strategic opportunities for the future, then redirecting its existing resources toward the fulfilment of those opportunities.

The potential impact of the resources we are talking about is nothing short of tremendous. The department created by this bill manages an annual cash flow of $1.4 trillion. It buys $10 billion worth of products and services a year. It lets out about 175,000 contracts for approximately 17,000 different categories of goods and services every year.

It is the largest property management agency in Canada, providing work space for 170,000 public servants involving ownership of $6.5 billion worth of real estate. In the business world that is called clout. It will be one of the roles of the Department of Public Works and Government Services to use that clout effectively. It will be used not only to effect savings for Canadian taxpayers but also to boost Canadian business. An organization that does business on the scale I just described necessarily deals with both big and small buyers and sellers. It deals with provinces, communities and other federal departments. It deals with foreign governments and foreign firms. Its purchasing power permits the public works and government services to strike alliances with Canadian governments and firms to achieve strategic objectives such as penetrating world markets by small Canadian firms that would otherwise never have this accessibility to them individually.

Bill C-52 in fact encourages strategic use of the vast purchasing power of the government. It encourages the department to adopt an innovative approach to providing goods and services to its clients. Equally it encourages a similar attitude on the part of its customers.

The wording of the legislation makes the bill clear. Where previous legislation stated that the department shall provide certain services, Bill C-52 says it may. There is no coercion here. In essence the bill says to both the department and its clients: "If it is efficient and effective let's make a deal".

Such an arrangement makes for sharp pencils on both sides of the bargain. If the Department of Public Works and Government Services wants to keep its customers it will have to be competitive. Government operations, Canadian businesses and Canadian taxpayers, everyone, will benefit.

Bill C-52 places in one organization all the tools necessary for efficient economical services to the federal government. We have one minister, one deputy minister and one departmental team dedicated to the task. At the same time the bill provides a single forum for expression of the interest of clients as well as suppliers, including businesses and other levels of government.

Flexibility rather than coercion is the spirit of the new department's mandate. Services provided to federal organizations would also be made available to provincial, territorial and local governments but only if they wish to use them.

Similarly the new legislation permits the department to provide service to community colleges, school boards and social service agencies. Federal and provincial governments combined spend some $50 billion annually on goods and services. A mere 1 per cent savings would add up to half a billion dollars a year. In addition to greater and more effective service to other governments and institutions, this flexibility has the potential to provide significant savings to all Canadians.

Yet a remarkable aspect of the legislation is the simplicity. It is based largely on existing legislation. No great new powers have been invented. In sum, it reduces the government machinery, eliminating overlap and duplication. It provides one-stop shopping for suppliers and contractors, making it easier to do business and easier to get information. It permits the Department of Public Works and Government Services to use its purchasing power strategically, not only to reduce costs to taxpayers but to enhance the effectiveness and competitiveness of all Canadian business.

The legislation is good for business in Canada. It is an instrument of responsive efficient government that will assist in creating the economic environment that all Canadian businesses need to get on with the task of creating jobs and economic well-being.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-52, which is at second reading today, is primarily an attempt to group four different services under the same authority.

These services either existed as distinct entities before, such as public works and government services which were formerly two separate departments, or were part of another department, as was the case for telecommunications and translation services. In any case, under the new legislation those four services will

now be part of a single department, the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

The primary objective of this bill is obviously to implement an organizational restructure. It is simply a musical chair exercise to reduce, in the months to come and according to what we were told, the number of civil servants from 18,000 down to 14,000. In other words, the government wants to eliminate some 4,000 jobs in the public service and offer essentially the same services.

From that perspective, the bill is not without merit. If the government can reduce the number of civil servants and still provide the same quality of service, particularly in the current context of excessive government spending, debt and deficit, then it must do it.

The problem is that this legislation does not go far enough. It could go a lot further toward improving the operations of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It is very unfortunate to stop short of doing that, because the hon. member said the following.

"It is another initiative to revitalize. This is not mere housekeeping. This is job creation. This is an incentive approach. This is government in action, with clout, based on simplicity". It is a lot of mere words that we hear from the government. Basically it is housekeeping. These are a lot of empty words because there is no revitalization whatsoever.

As a matter of fact the law that is being proposed is discouraging to some extent because it does not address itself to the real problems that concern the Ministry of Public Works and Government Services. I am not surprised because the government really does not have the backbone to act where action is needed.

The fact is that except for a musical chair exercise, a grouping together of various services, this housekeeping bill does not include anything very exciting for anyone. Even though we are told that this is the first major change since that legislation was drafted in 1867, the bill still does not introduce anything new.

In fact, civil servants to whom we had an opportunity to talk have insisted that they did everything in their power to ensure that no new provisions were included. The various related acts were grouped together and great care was taken to make sure that nothing was changed. The exercise was conducted as though it was important not to affect existing structures.

This is precisely why Bill C-52 is such a disappointment. There is nothing new in this bill to improve the performance of that department, to reduce waste, or to eliminate abuse. Yet, changes or improvements to the Department of Public Works and Government Services are long overdue. We all know that this department is often accused of wasting public money.

Mr. Speaker, you and all the hon. members in this House, not to mention the public watching us on television, are aware of specific instances of waste in government, which can hurt because it is taxpayers' money being wasted. This waste and this abuse are often linked to the Department of Public Works and Government Services or directly or indirectly. The reason is obvious. As my hon. colleague said earlier, the department spends a lot of money in Canada, grants something like 175,000 contracts each year and has hundreds of thousands of civil servants and thousands of construction and service contracts to look after. In the past, the department has wasted a lot of money and significantly contributed to increasing the government debt.

The public also knows full well that this department is the major channel for government into patronage. Without going into too much detail, how else would the government manage to award construction or service contracts to its friends and supporters who poured funds into its war chest? In fact, we saw again this week to what length government members are ready to go to leave the door wide open for unlimited corporate contributions.

We on this side of the House have tried to limit contributions to campaign funds to a minimum and to enforce throughout Canada an act limiting contributions similar to the legislation in force in the province of Quebec, which is quite reasonable and much more democratic and helps to reduce abuses and patronage.

Again this week the government voted in favour of an act which does not limit donations from large corporations in Canada. Once the party these compagnies have financially supported is in office, the companies want their share of the contracts, hence the problem. Such undue influence can be seen particularly in the Department of Public Works and Government Services. What is disappointing unfortunately is that Bill C-52 in no way addresses these issues which are vitally important in Canada, since, as everyone knows, our country is faced with some serious debts.

Nor does the bill contain provisions to curb lobbying, another big concern for Canadians. We know how lobbyists have control over the contracting process when big government contracts are involved. But then, for God's sake, with Bill C-52, why does the government not take the opportunity to deal with some major public concerns, like waste, patronage and lobbying? Nothing in this bill addresses these issues. In fact, this legislation does nothing to improve openness in the allocation of contracts for the Department of Public Works and Government Services, for telecommunications or for translation. That is the main problem

with this legislation. It is also the main problem with the current government. It is the main problem facing Canadian politics.

Basically, the government has a serious credibility problem. Of course, it did not start with the current government. The Conservatives before them had the same problem. This is an image problem. Elected representatives and the government are accused of mismanaging public funds. Canadians accuse them of waste and patronage and they are right, since the national debt is reaching the $600 billion mark and the deficit exceeds $40 billion.

Besides, the government has a serious debt problem, so much so that the International Monetary Fund is about to intervene. From a debt and deficit point of view, Canada is in a critical situation. Bill C-52 gives us a great opportunity to reduce waste in the thousands of contracts that are granted in Canada and, in doing so, to reduce our debt and deficit. But we do not take advantage of it.

As everybody knows, we are faced with a very serious problem, which affects politics in general. Politicians themselves have lost most of their credibility with the public at large, precisely because of this loose management of the public funds, which conjures up stories of patronage, abuse and waste. It is not surprising that Canadians call us hypocrites, crooks and liars and accuse us of not doing our job as their elected representatives.

It is a serious problem because that loss of confidence by the people in their elected representatives challenges the very basis of our democracy. When the uncertainty and the lack of confidence felt by Canadians is such that it weakens our democratic institutions, then it becomes a serious problem.

The government could have seen Bill C-52 as an opportunity to address these concerns, to show Canadians that it is taking action to reduce waste and overspending, but it has not done so.

This bill could have been used to make the government more open, which is essential if we want members of Parliament to regain some credibility. I think that openness was one of the first concerns expressed by the government when it was elected last October. The Liberals promised Canadians that there would be a certain level of ethics within their government, and that is why the Prime Minister appointed a former Liberal minister to see to it that his ministers follow this code of ethics. Openness is mentioned in the red book, although not on the first page. I will read to you an excerpt from page 95 of the red book that most Liberal members are very familiar with. It says: "We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the political influence of those making the case. We will take an approach of openness in decision-making. A Liberal government will not allow the public agenda to be dominated by lobbyists as it has been since the Conservatives took office".

The Conservatives are being accused of patronage and lack of openness, but we see no change. The present government is not doing anything to address the problem and does not even seem willing to do something about it. Bill C-52 is a perfect example of this unwillingness on the part of the government. The Liberals could have given some teeth to this bill to put an end to the waste and misuse of taxpayers' money, but it has not done so.

It is disappointing because today, as I said earlier, the general public has grave doubts about the effectiveness of its elected representatives and the federal system. In fact, that is one of the reasons why Quebec wants sovereignty, and will become sovereign, because it looks like the federal system is unable to adjust.

Government members show no indication that they want to improve the system. Consider lobbying, for instance, where there has been considerable abuse. This week, the government which, as I just mentioned, said in the red book that it wanted to restrict the influence of lobbyists, again gave in to the lobbyists, who scored at least two points on the restrictions the government wanted to impose on them. The lobbyists managed to avoid having to disclose their fees, and corporations may deduct lobbyists' fees from corporate income tax. This is one more example of a government that lacks the political will to deal with the real problems.

We had a whole series of events just this week which clearly reflected the government's lack of concern for the problems of Canadians. Yesterday we found, for instance, that the Prime Minister had purposely withheld information about federal compensation for the cost of the 1992 referendum in Quebec. The government has shown a preference for secrecy and an utter lack of transparency.

Consider the Pearson Airport controversy. Granted, the government cancelled this contract or attempt at privatization because it had to stop this kind of abuse, but it is trying to ensure that the parties concerned receive quite substantial compensation. The government is compensating lobbyists. It is compensating private interests. Even the Senate, in this particular case, suggested paying up to $45 million to the people involved in the privatization of Pearson airport, which is abuse of public funds. The Senate itself is another case of this kind of abuse, of wasting taxpayers money: we have 104 senators sitting around doing nothing, who are paid $70,000 a year, spend $500,000 each and as a result cost the public Treasury a total of $50 million. This is a horrific waste of money in a country that is already carrying an extremely heavy debt load. We know the senators are just

another kind of waste, another form of patronage, because they are all-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Chair that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to speak disrespectfully of the members sitting in the other place or their institution. This is clearly stipulated in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and I wish to remind my colleague opposite of this rule. I believe he should unequivocally withdraw his statement and limit his remarks to the bill before us instead of maligning the senators.

[The Speaker]

I am sorry, I just took the Chair and I did not hear everything. I would hope that we would always carry due respect for ourselves and this Chamber as well as members in the other place. I will of course review what was said. If such a thing was done I will get back to the House.

We only have a couple of minutes left before Question Period. Therefore, I invite the member to resume his comments, keeping in mind what I said earlier regarding our colleagues in the other House.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my remarks were aimed at government expenditures which many believe are out of control. I meant no disrespect to members of the other House.

Another example of government waste or lack of transparency is family trusts. We are having a very difficult time getting information regarding family trusts. The finance minister is keeping it a secret. This is yet another case of a blatant lack of transparency on the part of the government.

As I said earlier, this is a serious problem which affects the government in general and the Department of Public Works and Government Services in particular. It is even more obvious within the Canada Communication Group. This particular group, which is part of PWGSC, was illegally given money by other departments trying to preserve their budget for the following year.

At the end of the fiscal year instead of spending the money they had left they transferred it to Canada Communication Group as payment for services planned for the coming years but not yet rendered. This is totally illegal and we have been told that there are several millions of dollars in this fund. Several departments have been contributing to it. This is what has been going on within this government.

We doubt whether this will be rectified. Faced with such a fraudulent scheme, the President of the Treasury Board has yet to take action that would restore our confidence. As a matter of fact, there is nothing this government is doing to deal with waste, patronage and the lack of transparency that inspires our confidence. Some of the CSIS spirit seems to be floating over this government. It is trying to conceal rather than reveal what is going on within government, and I am convinced that the problem is worse in the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It is mainly in that department that we should have more openness, in order to prevent thousands and thousands of cases of abuse and waste of public funds.

I should say that the problem is compounded by the minister himself, who acts in a way that might not be appropriate. He said he intended to relocate a number of Public Works employees in the maritimes, in his riding.

[The Speaker]

Order. My dear colleague, you will be able to continue after Question Period. It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Public Policy Forum

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, September 11 in my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury 80 residents met for some four hours to discuss the country's current fiscal situation with the intent of advising the Minister of Finance as part of the prebudget consultation process.

I want to thank my colleague from Algoma who is on the finance committee as well as George McAllister, senior economist with the province, and forum co-chairs Len Hoyt and Gustavo Argaez for their support and participation.

A report of the forum is being prepared and will be forwarded to the finance committee and the Minister of Finance for consideration.

I also want to thank the residents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury for their continued support as this was the fifth public policy forum we have hosted in the riding. Finally, I want to thank the Government of Canada and in this instance particularly the Minister of Finance for the refreshing openness in encouraging such initiatives.

Trade

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the trade mission in Asia the Prime Minister will lead next November, we want to condemn the highhandedness, to say the least, of some Foreign Affairs officers and of the Deputy Prime Minister.

The federal ultimatum to the effect that the Quebec premier and nobody else should be part of that trade mission is an expression of contempt. It is not for the Canadian government to decide who should represent the Quebec government. Ottawa should not impose an agenda on the Quebec premier. Mr. Parizeau, who has responsibilities keeping him in Quebec City, is perfectly entitled to send a delegate of his own choice.

That is another example of the lack of flexibility of Canadian federalism and of the lack of respect of Foreign Affairs officers for the democratically elected representatives of Quebec.