Maud Debien

[Rwanda, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have learned that in connection with the thirtieth summit of the Organization of African Unity in Tunis, an immediate cease-fire agreement was reportedly concluded between the forces of the provisional government in Rwanda and the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

This cease-fire would end the massacres in which more than half a million people may have been killed, including 60 Tutsi children slain yesterday after they were taken from a church where they had sought refuge.

Does the minister confirm that a cease-fire agreement was reached between the belligerents and can he tell us where matters stand on this subject?

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Beaver River for initiating this debate on the recall of members of the House of Commons. We feel it is important, in the present political context, to question whether the behaviour and actions of elected officials are in line with the concerns and expectations of citizens.

It is essential that we consider this issue, because Canadians and Quebecers are losing faith in the ability of politicians to solve current problems. The disillusionment and cynicism of the electorate may be related to the behaviour of some elected officials.

Bill C-210 obliges all parliamentarians to ask themselves what are the great democratic principles to which Quebecers and Canadians subscribe. As the member for Beaver River noted on April 29, citizens "are demanding that political institutions and politicians listen to them, consult with them, and ultimately be accountable to them".

The Bloc Quebecois, itself born of the will of a people marching towards sovereignty, shares this ideal. I want to remind members of this House that we are very attentive to and concerned about the shortcomings in the Canadian representation process. The will of the people is sometimes not reflected in this process. Yet, we are elected by our constituents. They pay for our decisions and consequently we should represent them during our term in office.

I feel that these same observations and legitimate concerns led the Reform Party to adopt what they have termed the "recall" principle and to bring this bill to the attention of the House today. Despite the good intentions behind the Reform Party's demands, I must ask members of this House to oppose Bill C-210.

Once adopted, this kind of legislation might not produce the desired results. The result might be the political instability so dreaded by some federalists. When we realize that many members were elected without obtaining an absolute majority, that is, 50 per cent of the votes, this is indeed a concern.

The political rivals of elected representatives might get together and have a petition signed to recall embers elected with less than 50 per cent of the popular vote. How can we ensure that member recall does not become a partisan tool to get rid of political opponents?

This bill raises more questions than it answers. For instance, in section 10, it says, and I quote: "The Clerk shall not accept an application for the recall of any one member more than once during the duration of a Parliament". Does this mean that a member who wants to make sure he is not recalled by his constituents can set up a bogus petition that would immediately be considered inadmissible?

Another point which the Reform Party did not raise but which we think is essential is the funding of the activities involved in a petition for recall. The serious issue of political party financing and the financing of groups that organize petitions does not appear to interest the federalist parties, but to us it is crucial.

We must not try to usurp the powers of elected representatives and hand them over to interest groups that are prepared to invest enough money and are able to threaten or actually organize petitions for recall.

I would urge hon. members who are concerned about respect for democratic principles to read carefully and support vigorously motion No. 155 tabled in this House by the hon. member for Richelieu.

In any event, I would also urge hon. members to consider what happened to the only bill similar to the one presented today by the Reform Party, which was ever passed in Canada.

In 1936, the Legislative Assembly (Recall) Act was brought in by the Social Credit Premier of Alberta, William Aberhart. The very next year, citizens of Alberta tried to exercise this power of recall against their Premier. Feeling trapped, the Socred government eventually repealed the act and declared void all ongoing recall procedures. This Canadian experience alone clearly shows the vulnerability of such a bill.

This procedure is said to exist in many American States but is so seldom used that one can wonder about its reliability. As for recall being a sword of Damocles dangling over the heads of members of Parliament, I am of the opinion that the respect I owe my constituents should not be a matter of the carrot and the stick. Instead, a relationship based on trust and respect must be established between the voters and their elected representatives.

I will repeat that the reason the Bloc opposes Bill C-210 is because it considers the proposed recall procedure both impractical and impracticable. Other ways must be sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the democratic process. And I would say that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is doing just that; it is examining a number of ways to do so.

Our opposition to recall through petition must not be construed as support for the current system. We are fully aware of the failure of politicians in terms of representativeness at the federal level. We are the first to disparage this failed system.

Until the Bloc Quebecois arrived in this House, Quebecers sent members to defend their interests in the House of Commons year after year. Quebec politicians of great merit and with lofty ideals came to Ottawa to ensure that Quebec finally got its share within this federation. One after the other, they got caught up in a system that made them forget why Quebecers elected them. Our members changed. They came here as Quebecers' representatives to the federal government. After a while, they became the federal government's representatives to the Quebec people. They sometimes reluctantly neglected Quebec's interests in order to please their leaders, their officials, their colleagues from the nine other provinces or their caucus.

Quebecers in the four major national parties could only count on one member out of four to defend their interests. Politicians were destroyed by the vicious circle of the federal system putting Quebec at a disadvantage. However, since the Canadian federal steamroller was stronger, they resigned themselves or went home completely disillusioned.

It took time but Quebecers managed to end this vicious circle. Without having to use petitions for recall, Quebecers in a democratic vote last October 25 decided to send to Ottawa54 elected members fundamentally dedicated to the defence of Quebec's interests. We intend to continue to defend their interests and to be vigilant.

Nevertheless, we do not want a partisan debate on whether or not members should be recalled on the basis of citizens' petitions. I would simply remind my friends in the Reform Party that we share their fears about certain elected members not meeting their basic commitments. However, recalling such members is not a solution; on the contrary, it is likely to make the problems of Canada's political system worse.

[National Action Committee On The Status Of Women, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the National Action Committee on the Status of Women will be holding its convention in Ottawa. Women will gather to discuss issues of critical importance to the harmonious development of our society.

The work of NAC compels governments to find solutions to the many economic, social and political problems that women face. The convention will be an opportunity for NAC to engage the attention of the various political parties and direct their focus toward the challenges associated with women's issues.

NAC is a pioneer in bringing to the forefront political, economic and social issues as they affect women. The committee's work benefits all Quebecers and Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois will be an interested participant in the annual convention.

[Restoration Of Democracy In Haiti, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, despite a total United Nations embargo against the putschist government of Haiti, the military junta continues to defy international pressures. It refuses to hand over power and allow for the return of President Aristide and democracy.

In fact, the situation is worsening. Killers continue to terrorize the population, the Tonton Macoutes have re-established their reign of terror, international aid money is being witheld and a new puppet president has been appointed. In short, nothing has changed. How long does Canada intend to wait for the total embargo to produce the intended results? How many more dead, how much more suffering will we accept?

Canada must stand ready to take part in a more forceful attempt if the situation does not change soon.

[Foreign Affairs, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some consternation that we helplessly stand by and watch the ongoing hostilities in Rwanda. The situation is all the more distressing in that according to some sources, this senseless conflict has already resulted in the loss of over half a million lives.

In the face of genocide on such a massive scale, the Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to follow up as quickly as possible on the Security Council resolution to reinforce the United Nations mission in Rwanda.

In view of its reputation on the international stage, Canada cannot remain indifferent in the face of this slaughter. It must, therefore, intervene without delay.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I speak today on Bill C-22 because I believe in democracy, in the ideal that demands that governments legislate while taking into account the interests of the population and the common good. The decisions taken in this House allow us to reflect and promote the democratic values.

I am among those who believe it is still possible to send people to Parliament so that they can work hard to defend the interests of their fellow citizens. I believe that political representation is based on a confidence relationship between voters and elected representatives.

Democracy is also the process underlying all of our institutions. It is through them that all the great values of transparency, ethics, justice and fairness are conveyed. It is on them that rests the confidence relationship between a government and its citizens. When politicians break that special relationship, the society is faced with individualism, profiteering, cynicism and disillusionment to name but a few.

The Liberal government likes to repeat, in this House, its intentions to make sure that Canadians regain confidence in their political institutions through a better transparency. I do not believe that Bill C-22, as worded, could do it.

All the ploys and the jiggery-pokery surrounding the privatization of Pearson airport under the previous Conservative government are a sad example of incidents which diminish the people's respect and confidence vis-à-vis their government.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House of some elements of this deal we should now call the Pearson saga. The Canadian government announced its political intention to privatize Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in March 1992. Less than three months after this announcement, the Request for Proposals process was over. They had received only two bids from Paxport and Claridge. Given the importance of this transaction, everybody agrees that the time limits were too short.

In December 1992, the Paxport proposal was accepted. Later on, Paxport was unable to respect the government's conditions concerning its financial viability. In February 1993, Paxport merged its activities with those of its competitor, Claridge; that merger put them in a monopoly situation which was contrary to the government's guidelines. But this is not the first incongruity in this deal nor is it the last. Be that as it may, a few months later, in the middle of the election campaign, on October 7, 1993, the government and the corporation resulting from the merger of Paxport and Claridge hurriedly signed a legal agreement for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

When returned to office, the Liberal government ordered an in camera review of the situation. That review was completed by Mr. Robert Nixon, a former Liberal minister at Queen's Park. The conclusion of the Nixon report is, and I quote:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable.

On December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the airport privatization contract and on April 13 last, the Minister of Transport presented Bill C-22 which reflects the government's will.

The secret maneuvering and shameless favouritism surrounding this deal hide a reality which is even less edifying. On the one hand the Liberal government claims to be asking for the cancellation of that contract in the public interest but, on the other, it does not worry about public interest when it gives discretionary powers to the cabinet allowing it to pay compensation according to its own judgment. This may well cancel out the positive effects the government says it wanted in the first place. As a matter of fact, the government is asking us today to sign a blank cheque to compensate the companies involved in this transaction. Quite a few political personalities and lobbyists, of Conservative and Liberal allegiance, are closely connected with this whole sorry affair.

In spite of the fact that the Liberal Party promised to get to the bottom of the Pearson saga and to introduce an in-depth reform to better control lobbyists'actions in the backrooms of Parliament, we are forced to notice that the same old manoeuvring is still taking place.

The people's cynicism for politicians is the fruit of misappropriations similar to the Pearson saga. Let us not forget that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers pay for lobbying expenses and political party contributions through corporate tax deductions. When patronage occurs, they pay again for the cost overruns of lucrative contracts, or the sale of public property to friends of the government at bargain prices. Taxpayers have every right to say enough is enough.

And yet, there are solutions such as those proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to put an end to this cover-up. They go from the public financing of political parties to a stricter control of lobbying activities and the adoption of a code of conduct for elected representatives and high officials. By amending Bill C-22 and by calling for a royal commission of inquiry, as requested by the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal government could show that transparency is more than wishful thinking, more than an abstract idea.

Georges Burdeau said: "The overriding concern of a democracy is to ensure that the power that the people hold is not corrupted by the demands of the masses. What is important is to ensure that freedom is not subjugated by passions, by factional tyranny or by special interest groups".

[South Africa, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian mission to monitor the election in South Africa, I found that the first democratic election was generally free and fair.

It is my pleasure to inform the House that all members of the monitoring mission felt that the results reflected the will of the people of South Africa, and I would like to congratulate South Africans on an extraordinary achievement which they were able to bring to fruition in such a short time. The opening today of the first session of the new multiracial parliament marks the beginning of a long process of rebuilding and national reconciliation.

In spite of the poverty in the black townships and the lack of elementary infrastructures, I remain convinced that South Africans of all races will be able to meet the challenge of rebuilding and giving hope to the people.

[Rwanda, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Official Opposition and of all Quebecers and Canadians, I strongly deplore the massacres in Rwanda. In the capital city of Kigali, thousands of innocent civilians were killed, including several political figures and human rights advocates.

I ask the federal government to express our disapproval to the Rwandan government authorities. The protection of minority and human rights, and of the most fundamental right of all-the right to life-must be an integral part of Canadian foreign policy in Africa as in every other part of the world. We must encourage any attempt at national reconciliation in a spirit of democracy.

Many Quebecers who have contributed to Rwanda's development are personally affected by the events of the past few days. I would like to express our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the victims of these tragic events.

[Social Housing, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the information which the minister wishes to give us, even though we still lack quite a few details on this subject, I would like to know if he could also confirm that he intends to offer shelter assistance, that is, direct aid for tenants, instead of investing in collective housing projects like low-income housing and housing co-ops, in case he should change his mind.

[Social Housing, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. On February 24, the Minister of Public Works said in this House that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation intended to save $120 million over four years and that this amount would be used for social housing.

Since the minister promised to use this $120 million to help the poorly housed, can he tell us how many social, co-operative and non-profit housing units will be built this year with these savings?