Gérard Asselin

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. They are both related to the referendum campaign in Quebec. Is it possible that the real federal budget will be tabled in 1996, after the referendum?

The government's budget increased by $3 billion, in spite of cuts of $5 billion to programs. Moreover, the Minister of Human Resources Development intends to cut some $15 billion, over a five-year period, in social programs, a measure which has yet to be approved by this House. Again, the federal cuts in transfers to the provinces will result in higher provincial deficits.

The provinces will have no choice but to transfer their responsibilities to the municipalities without providing them with the necessary financial support. Consequently, ordinary Canadians will once again have to foot the bill.

Whether it is with the left or the right hand, low and middle income taxpayers end up having to pay. In the context of privatization, the federal government eliminated all subsidies to regional airports and ports or harbours. This has a major impact on every region in Quebec, whether the local economy is based on services, tourism or industrial activities.

I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Is he prepared to admit in this House that the real budget will be tabled after the referendum campaign in Quebec?

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first of all, further to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de la-Madeleine, of course Canadians as well as Quebecers are aware of the fact that the national debt has grown to $600 billion, with debt charges totalling about $115 million per day.

We all know that, just to pay the interest on this debt, the Canadian government now has to borrow money. We are also aware of the need to paid off this debt someday, or at least to reduce the deficit. The last budget the Minister of Finance tabled in this House was passed with a deficit of approximately $52 billion, this being the biggest deficit ever approved by this House.

Naturally, this budget was passed by the Liberal majority who had approved in this House the biggest deficit ever in Canadian history. Today, it is suggested to create a deficit to solve the deficit problem.

The people are prepared to tighten their belts and make sacrifices. What they will not accept is the shameless government overspending. They have a problem with expenditures like the $475,000 spent just recently on the installation of the Governor General. They find it difficult to accept that members of Parliament be entitled to a pension for life after serving for just six years.

And this causes concern and social insecurity from coast to coast. The concern caused by such things as the Minister of Finance contemplating tax hikes, contemplating replacing the GST with a tax hidden in product prices so as to be able to tax everything that is presently tax-free, such as food, prescription drugs and health care, is not making seniors feel any safer, because there is even talk of taxing RRSPs.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Human Resources Development is considering making cuts in education programs, loans and scholarships for students, who represent our future. The minister is considering making cuts in the UI program, which should not be used for government administration purposes since it is an insurance for those who lose their jobs. The minister is also considering making cuts in the government support to seniors and to low income families. When I think of low income families, I am reminded of all the cuts made by the previous Conservative government, including the subsidies to provinces for social housing.

The minister is also considering making cuts in the subsidies to women's organizations which promote employment and equal pay. Then, there is the Minister of Finance who is also considering cuts in airport and airline services, or even privatizing these services. If the equipment is transferred to the provinces, it is like shifting the burden onto their shoulders.

So, I ask the hon. member: Is it possible that, this year, the government will manage to reduce its deficit without targeting the poor and, if so, how will it do that?

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Québec-Est was engaged in a debate. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria rose during the period for questions and comments. The hon. member for Québec-Est should be the one who concludes the debate. This is turning into a debate between two members.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

This is what you call progressive federalism.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you scared me. I was sure you were about to say that one day I, the member for Charlevoix, might occupy the Speaker's chair.

In close co-operation, the member for Québec-Est, the member for Laurentides, when she was parliamentary critic for public works and governmental affairs, and myself have shown that the Bloc Quebecois was very serious when we were hearing testimony. We took the time to listen to the witnesses and asked appropriate questions.

In closing, I hope to be able to speak, if time permits, on clause 16 of this bill, which allows the government to compete with private engineering firms.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 1 moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est, to delete the words "where possible" and here is why.

First, Bill C-52 provides the government with the opportunity to amalgamate Public Works Canada, Supply and Services Canada and the Translation Service. It appears to us that, in the context of a bill, "where possible" is little more than idle talk, as the hon. member for Québec-Est indicated. Such words also leave room for interpretation and favouritism.

At the same time, we could expect -I hope it will not be the case under this government as it was under the previous one- that this will encourage the granting of contracts to friends of the regime and leave the door wide open for lobbyists. It is only natural for lobbyists who attend luncheons at $1,000 a plate organized by the federal government to be tempted to come and knock on the doors of Liberal members to get contracts. It has been done before the Liberals came to power and I would hope that, in a spirit of openness and transparency, the member will not object to seeing things change.

Quoting the red book, the Liberal government talked about transparency during the campaign. There have been several books and papers since, of course. We have gone from red book to green paper, from green to purple, from purple to orange, from orange to grey and we certainly hope that all these will not result in a black paper.

So, in a spirit of transparency and goodwill in administering public assets, you, the Liberal government, hold a majority of seats. If ridicule kills, that is why the Conservative government no longer exists. And if you continue to be wasteful with respect to contracting-out and privatization, your days are numbered, gentlemen.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just referred to the bill on the members' pension fund and mentioned several countries, including the United States. The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are the 205 new members in this House, who have no vested rights in the old plan for MPs, not showing good will by wanting to have a new pension plan for members?

The Canadian government could show Canadians good will in managing public funds by showing its good will, and this is an excellent way to do it, by making us elected members do our fair share by cutting some of our pensions, which are paid for from taxpayers' money. Today the government tends to cut social programs, which affects the most disadvantaged people.

I think that as parliamentarians, with the salary we are paid, of course we work long hours and have many responsibilities, but we are paid for the hours we put in and we must realize what it involves when we decide to run for office.

I think that when we talk about cutting the fat, the operations of this House and its members, this is an excellent way to show good will and show Canadians that we are ready to do our fair share.

When comparing ourselves with the United States, we must consider the ability to pay. Can the United States afford to pay into a pension fund for their elected officials? With the debt we have in Canada, which forces us to make cuts in all programs, it would be rather outrageous if members' pensions were not affected.

I want to ask the hon. member a question. Would he agree that the government should show once and for all that it is ready to make an effort by cutting the pensions of elected members or at least eliminating double dipping? We have a 24-year-old member. It would be a little ridiculous for him to have a pension for life after six years, at age 30. Would you agree with me that members' pensions should be cut to prove to Canadians that we are ready to do our fair share as members of Parliament?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the speech by the member of the government party.

As you may recall, in the last nine years of the Conservative government, on several occasions when reforms were proposed by the former government, the Liberals-then the Official Opposition-did a very good job. They gained the trust of the Canadian people, who brought them to power. Unfortunately, I think that the government misled the population. May I remind you of former Tory minister Valcourt's UI reform, which created a scandal here in this House.

The Conservatives caused a significant rise in the deficit which, of course, the current government promised to reduce. Everyone, I think, agrees that the deficit should be cut. However, reducing the deficit at the expense of the poor is unacceptable. The people do not want the deficit to be reduced at the expense of the poor.

Last week, the Minister of Finance told us that, although the Bloc Quebecois agrees that the deficit should be cut, there is no other way to bring in the new money that would reduce it. I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance and we submitted to the committee chairman and to the Minister of Finance, on several occasions, adequate solutions that would allow the government to find additional funds.

We also asked the government to cut into the fat of public expenditures, in the right place, namely the other house, commonly known as the Senate. It still costs the government $628 million a year, including all staff.

As you may recall, a minister in this government made a return trip in the same day at a cost of $173,000.

As you may recall, the Prime Minister decided-

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's appointment has made him any smarter. His speeches have not changed.

In fact, I did not move this amendment, I merely seconded it, because you will recall, if the hon. member would read the text of the motion, that the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, and seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix.

The bill amalgamates the departments of Public Works, Supply and Services, Procurement and Communications and Translation. We wanted the government to use this bill to provide some transparency in government procedures. People often say it is time the government stopped wasting money.

If we consider contracting out alone, between 1984-85 and 1992-93 there was a 56 per cent increase in this area at Public Works. There was an increase of 114.2 per cent in National Defence. There was an increase of 207 per cent at Health and Welfare. There was an increase of 247 per cent at Supply and Services. There was an increase of 628 per cent at Customs and Excise.

Although the Auditor General does a very good job, in his report he said he had been unable to assess whether the government had received its money's worth for the amounts spent on contracting out. How many people in the Public Service have been put on the shelf, while the government decides to have their work done on contract? What we want is a monitoring committee, consisting of public servants, elected representatives and people working for the Auditor General.

It also says in our amendment that members from each riding should be consulted, and I would like to explain that this was put in because of a statement by a Liberal member on the committee, who I think deserves all the credit. He said that he read a public notice in his riding that the government was preparing to make some changes in the post office there. He saved the government a million dollars. We moved the amendment simply in the interests of transparency.

My question is directed to the Chief Whip. Does he agree that the government should include elements in its bills that would reflect great transparency?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the question is twofold. First, I said that it should be standard procedure for a member to be informed of the goods or services which may be provided under a government contract or by contracting out, in his or her riding.

Members of this House are consulted; they have to vote and participate in the proceedings. When we are working in our ridings it is our duty to make representations. It is not a question of sticking our noses in the government's affairs, but we should at least be made aware of what is going on in our ridings.

Secondly, we discussed the issue of the lowest valid bid. What needed to be included should have been clearly mentioned in the specifications. If that was done in the first place and a bid is found to be valid, it is valid based on those specifications. Then, to accept the lowest valid bid is, in my opinion, to properly manage public money.