Louise Thibault

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any alternative. I believe the most transparent way to be accountable to the people is to ensure that the information is available to all those who are interested.

Today, this is done through systems on the Internet. We must absolutely avoid cases of cronyism. The risks are very harmful and the danger is great. As I said earlier, what is important to us is that we have economic benefits in our regions—and I am speaking for members of this House, but especially for people from Quebec—and that we have benefits in the national capital region, on both sides of the Ottawa River. We deserve no less.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague's question, but I will not make any assumptions or impugn the motives of any government.

The Bloc's goal and my goal as a member of a committee and as a parliamentarian is to ensure that situations where disturbing events appear to be developing are condemned. That was the case with the example we are discussing.

Earlier, I asked a question about 800 Place Victoria, where an additional $4.6 million was spent without a public tendering process, using the guideline Public Works Canada has. These are disturbing events that must be condemned. That is why most of the members of the committee supported this motion in committee. We are presenting it today in order to make it a recommendation so that the government will act on it. What we want is that, in future, there is never any risk of a lack of probity or transparency.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Gatineau.

For the benefit of those who are listening to us, I will take a few seconds to read the motion that was adopted in committee and that is the subject of the report now before us:

That the committee reports to the House that it recommends that the acquisition by purchase or lease of any significant property, such as the former JDS Uniphase campus in Ottawa, by the Government of Canada for use by its departments and agencies be the result of a competitive public call for tender process.

I think it is important to take the time to describe the context in which this motion was presented. My Liberal colleague who launched this debate chose to focus on the issue of the JDS Uniphase campus. I will use a different approach even though I will be speaking to this issue later on.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates had the opportunity to invite various witnesses to appear before it at its recent meetings concerning the study, by the committee, of the 2006 report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons.

I should mention that we had the pleasure and the privilege to hear testimony from Mrs. Sheila Fraser on three occasions, as well as testimony from officials from various departments and agencies.

The committee examined chapters 7, 4 and 1 of the report, which cover the acquisition of leased office space, the Canadian Firearms Program and managing government: financial information, respectively.

The study of these three chapters of the 2006 Report of the Auditor General brought to light real problems with the management of the public purse. I just mentioned one such problem when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services a question a few minutes ago.

Another disturbing problem revealed in chapter 7 relates to the fact that the government's funding mechanisms can significantly preclude selection of the most cost-effective option. For the people who are watching, it is amazing to think such a thing. What we are talking about is financial management of public assets.

What can and should the government do to manage taxpayers' money as effectively as possible? I am sure that, as parliamentarians, we are all driven by that desire.

What can and should the government do to make the best possible use of every dollar that comes out of the pockets of the people to whom the government is accountable?

How can and should the government be accountable for this use of public money and for the actions it takes and the choices it makes?

The government is accountable to Parliament, to the members of Parliament, who humbly and collectively represent the people of Canada.

The Auditor General describes this accountability much better than I can, which will surprise no one. On page 3 of her report, she says, and I quote:

As Parliament's auditor, the Office of the Auditor General plays an important role in promoting government accountability and well-managed public administration in Canada. Our performance audits provide parliamentarians with fact-based information they can rely on in their oversight of government spending and performance on behalf of Canadians.

This means that the government must have a method, a system of governance where best practices apply not only to the government's actions, but to its intent as well, the goal being to achieve the utmost transparency and probity. That is what is being referred to here when committee members ask that the acquisition by purchase or lease of property by the government be the result of a competitive public call for tenders process.

First, it is even more crucial because Public Works and Government Services manages over 6 million square metres of space, of which 52% belongs to the government, 41% is rented and 7% is lease-optioned. Second, this same department has fiduciary responsibility for $3 billion a year in real estate, and thirdly, it signs 500 leases a year. I would also point out that Public Works and Government Services manages offices in 1,900 buildings, of which only 250 belong to the government.

This represents a tremendous amount of spending power and, in my opinion, its duty of accountability is equally significant, which is why it is very important to be as transparent as humanly possible. Speaking of transparency, I would like to express regret for the absence of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services during such a debate, since he was not elected as a member of this House. I will say no more on that.

Speaking of responsibilities, the responsibility for ideal governance does not end there. There is also the issue of fairness. The tendering process allows potential bidders to be up to date and aware that the government happens to be looking for space. The process thus ensures that competitive offers are submitted so that, in the end, the best value is obtained—for whom? for taxpayers—in order for this reality to be considered and obtained.

The tendering process must also avoid giving rise to or maintaining the perception of favouritism and privileges, even if unfounded.

Fairness also means that the government must avoid giving the impression that it prefers one developer, one owner or one company over another. In the greater national capital region, fairness also means taking into consideration bids from both sides of the river so that the 25:75 rule—deemed by the secretary general to be accepted by the Conservative government —may be respected and in order to enable Quebec to receive, as does Ontario, its share of direct economic benefits arising from property leased, purchased or obtained through lease options, as well as jobs. My colleague from Gatineau will undoubtedly speak further about this in a few minutes.

Entrepreneurs, developers, owners must be apprised of the government's realty needs. They must have information that is complete, accessible and open in order to bid.

The Conservative government, which tabled Bill C-2, almost boasts about reinventing the concept of responsibility when it declares that accountability is one of its major priorities and, I quote from page 5 of The Budget in Brief:

A core priority of the Government is to improve the accountability and transparency of government operations to Canadians.

If the Conservative government is truly guided by the value of transparency and wishes to convince the public of this, it has a golden opportunity to do so by adopting the report of the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates and implementing it.

In closing I will quote, as I did in my opening remarks, the Auditor General:

[Public Works and Government Services Canada] needs complete, accurate, and timely information to support good decision making, strategic management, and risk management. The Department's commitment to achieve the government's cost-reduction goal makes strong management practices even more vital for the Branch.

One of these strong management practices is the use of the process known as calling for tenders, as recommended by the majority of the committee members.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the parliamentary secretary read the Auditor General’s report. On page 215 in chapter 7 on the acquisition of leased office space, she refers—the parliamentary secretary will surely remember—to the entire question of 800 Place Victoria in Montreal, where Public Works Canada did not issue a call for tenders.

According to its own guidelines, Public Works Canada directly negotiated a lease without a call for tenders. The results of this were bad—I will not go into the details because I think he knows very well, but I do want an answer from him—and cost taxpayers $4.6 million. That is not a detail, it is not trivial. We have this example and we have others. I think that this is one of the things—in a few minutes I will have an opportunity to speak—that leave a bad taste and one of the reasons why parliamentarians, as the citizens’ representatives, want to do introduce a rigorous competitive bidding process.

This is the second part of my question: we agree entirely that the Outaouais is very dear to us. We want it to benefit economically from employment and the occupation of purchased or leased space.

I would like a brief comment from the Secretary of State on the possibility of economic spinoffs for other regions as well and on the possibility of moving programs or offices in the future. I would like to know how he sees this.

[Baha'i Community, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees all people freedom of religious expression.

The people in the Baha'i community in my riding and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada are very concerned about the persecutions of members of the Baha'i faith living in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In addition to being persecuted, they are being deprived of the most basic rights, such as the right to higher education for young people and the right to own property.

Baha'is seek only the unity of humankind, the equality of men and women, the reduction of the gap between rich and poor and the elimination of racial, religious and social conflict. For this they are tortured, raped, killed and stripped of their property.

I ask the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps so that the international community condemns this intolerable situation.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Obviously, we will see that in time. We will see what Quebeckers and Canadians decide in terms of this government's re-election.

In Quebec, we have good reason to be concerned. The rest of the country has good reason to be concerned. We have a government that just reneged on commitments previously made in this country concerning the environment.

The Minister of the Environment regularly tells us that Canada will have a new plan and will find other ways to protect the environment. Once again, we are suggesting one such way.

We will see how seriously the Conservatives intend to consider concrete measures to distribute wealth and to help citizens while respecting the environment.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The member who spoke before me talked about the involvement of the oil industry in the arts and other sectors. I have no doubt that this industry, as any other, plays its corporate role, as it should, if I may say so.

What we are talking about here and what the Bloc Québécois is calling for is a small surtax—because, in the end, the surtax is not substantial—so we can move away from a non-renewable, polluting energy source. My colleagues opposite may very well say that they no longer want to be part of Kyoto, but people know full well what is at stake when we talk about non-renewable, polluting energy sources. The Bloc Québécois wants this surtax to be a useful environmental tool that will benefit all Canadians.

My colleague opposite knows perfectly well that the tax rate for oil companies is lower in Canada than it is in Texas. While some may say that these companies play their role and should not pay more tax, the Bloc Québécois believes in the distribution of wealth so that the entire population can benefit from it.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be splitting the time allotted to me with my colleague from Shefford.

On this Bloc Québécois opposition day on the subject of the price of gas, I wanted to speak on behalf of the people I represent. I know that this subject is of enormous importance to them and a matter of great concern to them, that they are expecting tangible action to be taken to counteract the negative and pernicious effects of repeated increases in the price of gas.

These negative effects are obviously felt by all members of the public. Nonetheless, I want to point out, more particularly, the impact that they have in the regions. As I often say and I will never stop saying, everything that has an impact on the important issue of land occupation is crucial to our regions and the people who live there.

The perverse effects of repeated and often staggering increases in the price of gas are felt by individuals, working people, farmers, people who work in the forestry industry, truck drivers, shipping companies and businesses, and, because we in the regions often depend on the tourism industry, this affects tourism. Let us look at these aspects one by one.

In the regions, individuals feel the effects of the increases directly, because they very often depend on oil as a source of energy and they have no choice but to travel by car, because they do not have access to public transit. They use their cars for all of what we call local travel, essential travel. They have to drive long distances to get to work, to go about their business, to look after their families. It is very important to keep this in mind.

I might even add, as an ironic aside, that they often have to travel 15 or 20 minutes by car, in rural areas, to buy a stamp or mail a letter, now that Canada Post has closed its points of service. I have no desire to be ironic, however; the subject is too serious.

Working men and women who already have more than their share of insecurity are losing a significant percentage of their purchasing power, of their incomes, very often coming from the benefits they receive in lieu of income, because of the costs that they are unable to avoid: the cost of gas and the cost of energy derived from oil.

Farmers, and everyone who works in the forestry industry, depend on gas for their farm machinery and their infrastructure, as well as for their equipment; their expenses are climbing, and so their already slim profits are declining before their eyes.

And what about taxi drivers, truck drivers and shipping companies, who have to either pass the cost on to their customers or watch as their profit margins evaporate into thin air?

When it comes to tourism, we know that a number of regions, including the Lower St. Lawrence and my riding in particular, depend on this economic niche for a substantial segment of their economy. Tourists, whether from Canada, Quebec or the United States, travel mainly by car to get where they are going or to drive across our countryside, as pleasant as it is enormous to discover and rediscover.

What I have described in these few words are common and well-known facts of life. They call on us to give serious consideration to measures that can be taken, to a plan, to a strategy to counteract the negative effects of gas prices and repeated increases in those prices.

With the summer season about to start, some people are rightly concerned and anxious about the next gas price hikes. They know, because they have seen it happen over and over in the past, what the consequences of this scenario are, and they are afraid that the desired and desirable economic benefits will be wiped out.

Now, during the time I have left, let us look at what the Bloc Québécois is asking the Conservative government to do. We are asking for an increase in the current surtax on the corporate tax on major oil company profits only, the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency and the strengthening of the Competition Act.

The surtax on major company profits will generate roughly $500 million in additional revenue for the government, which can be reinvested in programs to help reduce Canadians' dependence on oil.

We do not want to do this for no reason, we want to do it with a vision. That is what we are asking the current government. For example, we want to promote the manufacture and purchase of more energy-efficient vehicles. We must not forget that the five big oil companies in Canada—Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, Husky Energy, Petro-Canada and Suncor Energy—had net profits of $9.65 billion last year. As I mentioned earlier, this represents an increase of $2.45 billion over 2004 and $3.08 billion over 2003. We are talking about a profit 46.9% higher than in 2003. The numbers speak for themselves.

Better still, the current government does not seem to feel that the poor oil companies have enough because it plans to give them other tax gifts. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has projected the value of all these gifts over three years. The result is a 54% tax cut between 2005 and 2008. What could be better?

Another portion of the revenue from this surtax could subsidize renewable energy producers. Think of wind energy, for example. Quebec has huge potential as a producer of wind energy, which is extremely cost-effective and very clean and uses a resource—wind—that is renewable and costs nothing.

Let us be clear: the revenue from increasing the current surtax must be reinvested immediately and not simply added to the current or expected surplus.

With respect to the creation of a real petroleum monitoring agency, this agency would be responsible for overseeing the industry by collecting and disseminating price data on refined petroleum products, among other things, for all relevant North American markets, and reporting on the competitive aspects.

This agency would have the power to summon witnesses, protect their confidentiality, examine every aspect of the oil industry and offer solutions.

In connection with the establishment of that agency, even the president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents 80% of Canada's refining capacity, made the following statement on May 7, 2004:

The members of the petroleum industry support the Committee's assertion that an independent monitoring agency could help resolve public confusion and misconceptions on gasoline pricing issues.

The Bloc's third request concerns the Competition Act. The commissioner still has no power to initiate inquiries into suspicious fluctuations. It should be noted that this shortcoming has already been denounced by a former competition commissioner. This must be corrected immediately, so that the powers of the commissioner are strengthened.

In its report on the Competition Act, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended a reversal of the burden of the proof to deal with agreements among competitors and to determine whether there is a conspiracy.

To conclude, these requests by the Bloc Québécois have the advantage of being as realistic as they are easy to implement quickly. It is a matter of really wanting to act. The Conservatives' motto is change. Here is a change for the Conservative government to implement, if it is serious about wanting to be fair and acting on its so-called concern for the public, because this affects the interest of our fellow citizens. Taking the public interest into consideration means showing genuine concern for the future, which inexorably involves showing concern for the environment.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am dumbfounded, although not surprised, by the comments of my colleague opposite. It seems to me that he has no demonstrable concern for ordinary citizens. I will have the opportunity to speak of this in a few minutes.

The question I would like to ask him concerns a study prepared not by the Bloc Québécois or the government but rather by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The producers estimated the impact, over a three year period, of tax giveaways to petroleum companies. They estimated that federal tax paid by oil and gas companies will fall from $5.148 billion in 2005 to $2.3 billion in 2008.

Does my colleague opposite not think that it is time to act when companies that make such record and astronomical profits are being favoured? They themselves inform us of forecasts that must bring a smile to their faces every day.

[Rwanda, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Rwandan genocide indisputably epitomized the ignorance and lack of understanding in our quest for humanity. The Université du Québec à Rimouski organized a symposium in Kigali, “Discourse on the Rwanda Genocide”, in an effort to understand this tragedy.

This symposium provided an opportunity to reflect on the Rwandan genocide. The discussions focused on understanding conflict and educating for peace in an attempt to make some sense of this sorry chapter in the history of humankind.

Looking back at this terrible event, which took place in 1994, was often difficult and brought back painful memories, but I hope that speaking about the unspeakable triggered an openness that will, in turn, prevent condemnation and promote tolerance and understanding.

Congratulations to Professor Pauline Côté and the entire team for the success of this important symposium.