Monique Guay

[Biovac, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister justify the use of such a procedure with respect to a supplier to the Government when his responsibility to award government contracts is absolutely incompatible with such behaviour?

[Biovac, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians will receive two million doses of flu vaccine made in the U.S.A. this year. The federal government as broker has so decided. The other vaccines will come from BioVac, which says it is dissatisfied with the agreement because it must lay off 26 people in addition to cancelling a major investment project.

My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Can he tell us whether it is a new provision of his code of ethics that led his Minister of Public Works himself to send a draft letter in which BioVac should express its satisfaction to him with regard to his decision to separate into two parts the contract for supplying vaccines, and does the Solicitor General support such a procedure?

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 proposed by the federal government is flawed since it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.

This bill just cancels one of the most important political scandals concocted by political friends and well-connected lobbyists. The government simply wants to put out the fire without anyone knowing how it was started in the first place.

Moreover, Liberals do not want to lift the veil on the whole issue of lobbying. If they are behaving in such a way, it is because they want to spare the people around them and not smear anyone, since they too are stuck with some powerful friends in the Pearson affair. And yet, the Prime Minister had promised to get right to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and agreement on the airport privatization.

The results coming out of that promise are very small: a mere study done by a former Ontario Liberal minister behind closed doors and explaining to us that the political staff and lobbyists played an uncommon role in that affair. If the government wants to show that it is clean and transparent, it should order a public inquiry in the Pearson matter.

I remind you that several Liberal members of the Toronto caucus were in favour of such an inquiry. But after realizing that the interests of some friends of the party were at stake, and not only of the Conservative Party, the government, or I should say the Prime Minister unenthusiastically fell back on a mere report produced behind closed doors, that is the Nixon report.

When going through the list of people involved, one can easily make a close connection between these friends and lobbyists, and the previous Conservative administration and the present Liberal one.

I would like to name a few actors that took part in the deal: Pat MacAdam, Conservative lobbyist and schoolmate of Brian Mulroney; Bill Fox, a crafty fox of lobbying and a Conservative, ex-media relations officer and personal friend of Brian Mulroney; Harry Near, lobbyist for the Conservatives and an old member of the party. Also, Hugh Riopelle, lobbyist and strong-man of the Mulroney cabinet; Fred Doucet, always closely or remotely tied to that party that was almost wiped out of this House. There is also John Llegate, a good friend of Michael Wilson. And finally Don Matthews who is the king of the ex: ex-president of the nomination campaign of Brian Mulroney in 1983, ex-president of the Conservative Party and ex-president of the fund-raising campaign for the same party.

All those people gave a helping hand to cook the biggest Tory pie in the history of Canada. But with pies, it is the same as with puddings: the proof is in the eating. We did not swallow that. However all those Tory angels, who always considered public interest as a priority, were not alone in the kitchen of the Pearson Airport.

There were also Liberal angels and that is probably where the shoe pinches. It is surely for that reason that the royal commission of inquiry suddenly became the Nixon study. Transparency went out of the door. There were a few actors, namely senator Leo Kolber who is the specialist of private dinners at $1,000 a plate. For that price you can shake hands with the present Prime Minister. There must have been more than bread and butter served to guests on that evening, among whom was Charles Bronfman, also part of the Pearson deal.

Bread, butter, dignity, pride, openness-all words used to excess by the people opposite. Come on! Let us have a bit of decency and respect for the low-income people of our society. Those people have a clear eye and know pretty well what friends discuss about during picnics at $1,000 a plate.

In the Liberal group there was also Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist for Capital Hill, representative of Claridge Properties and former organizer of the present Prime Minister. Ramsay Whitters, a Liberal lobbyist closely related to the Prime Minister. A

pretty nice bunch! A bunch of heavies exerting undue influence on the government decision-makers in an unspeakable manner.

Their domination puts our institutions in danger. It produces harmful effects on decision-makers who see and rub shoulders only with one reality, the reality of rich people and large firms. That is very disturbing for ordinary people because decision-makers get disconnected from real social and economic problems that affect the poorest.

The social and human issues are over-shadowed by financial and economic interest linked to profit. All those ex-friends and lobbyists wandering around government offices are looking for profits and they have exceptional tools and means to reach that goal. They can easily open all the doors that give access to ministers and senior officials, and it is not to discuss the weather. All the pressure and influence peddling often gives good results. Decision-makers yield to the requests of friends and lobbyists who are often working for firms that will not hesitate to contribute to the old parties' election funds.

What becomes of ordinary citizens in that system? What becomes of those thousands of organizations without money that are working to improve the well-being of groups and individuals? Do ordinary citizens and those organizations have the same powers, the same access and the same opportunities as those who use their considerable means to influence decision-makers? I do not think so. Certain results are very revealing. The poor and people living in difficult conditions are increasingly forgotten. There are more unemployed workers and more people on social welfare. There are more people who are hungry, more children living in unacceptable conditions and more elderly living alone and receiving less treatment.

As a matter of fact, there are more poor people. And the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer! Is that the kind of society that we want? Do we want a society increasingly divided into categories? That is what is happening on the field. Figures and statistics are clear. Decision-makers must absolutely come back to reality and try to ensure a better distribution of disposable income between social classes, and they must find a solution to all those excruciating problems. I do not believe that ex-friends and lobbyists can be trusted to see to that. As regards the airport and big profits, I agree they do an excellent job; but when it comes to social problems, we should look elsewhere.

It is urgent that the government establish strict rules for lobbyists. The population has the right, and it is essential, to be informed of all activities pertaining to public administration. The population has that right because at the end of the day it is the one who pays.

Those rules must allow us to know everything about lobbyists. Who are they? Who hires them? Who pays them? What are the goals and results of their activity? Whom do they meet? Actually they should be X-rayed and they should be followed around by a little bird so that we can know everything they do. If the government does not address that problem, the confidence of the population in its elected officials and in our institutions will continue to deteriorate even more rapidly.

I ask the people opposite to wake up because the population is awakening and it is getting fed up with favouritism, bribing on the part of the friends of the party and lobbying of the rich at the expense of the ordinary citizens.

You have denounced for years the absence of openness. I think time has come for you to act.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, last April 26, I questioned the Minister of Public Works and Government Services about the purchase of flu vaccine. His answer reflected his decision on that issue. However, everything was not said about the purchase of that vaccine. There are still some questions left concerning the role of the minister as buy broker for 4 million units of vaccine for the benefit of the provinces and territories. I would like to state a few disturbing and somewhat troubling facts about the process which led to the federal government's decision on that issue.

In 1993, the contract for the supply of the flu vaccine was awarded entirely to Bio Vac. The call for tenders for 1994 was issued on December 8, 1993. The tender closing date was January 7, 1994 at 2 p.m.

Two bids were received; Bio Vac from Laval was offering the vaccine at $1.70 per unit and Connaught from Toronto was offering a made in the U.S.A. vaccine at $1.46 per unit.

Connaught's bid being lower, the federal minister who bought the vaccine seemed to prefer its American vaccine. That is when dumping allegations were made to the effect that Connaught was selling this very vaccine for close to $3 in the United States, but charging us $1.46 for it. Faced with this dumping issue the minister extended the bidding period from January 7 to 18. At that time, we were well aware the government was hesitant and delaying its decision. We knew the situation was rather tricky considering that jobs were at stake, as well as a large investment in biotechnology, proposed by Bio Vac in Laval.

Another extension was announced, from January 18 to February 3. All this time, the Minister was under pressure to rapidly award the contract to BioVac. In a letter dated January 27, the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology asked Minister Dingwall to decide quickly in favour of BioVac.

On March 25, the minister told the House that he was looking for a Canadian solution to a serious Canadian problem. On April 20, the minister announced that he had decided to split the difference and that his Canadian solution was to buy two million American vaccines. The minister, as a Canadian broker, was responsible for the lay-off of 26 employees with his Canadian solution, jeopardising at the same time a $32 million investment in biotechnology in Laval.

This unacceptable decision raises some questions. What explanation can the minister give for the fact that his negotiations increased the average cost of the vaccine from $1.58 to $1.77, causing an additional expense of more than $750,000 to taxpayers?

Second, given that the minister will now pay $1.77 per dose, why did he refuse, on January 7, 1994, at the close of the first call for tenders, to award the full contract to BioVac at $1.70 per dose?

Third, can the minister tell us why, as a Canadian broker, he buys American vaccines at a cost of $1.69 per dose while BioVac's initial bid was $1.70? How can he explain such a cheeseparing saving of 1 cent on two million doses of vaccine, or $20,000, compared to 26 jobs lost? Has the minister analyzed the economic cost of these 26 job losses? Finally, why is he buying vaccines made in the U.S.A. when they could be entirely produced in Canada? The minister's Canadian solution is a bad joke.

To add a final touch to this already gloomy picture, rumour has it that the minister asked BioVac to sign a letter stating its satisfaction with the deal. What unmitigated nerve on the part of the minister!

The federal broker-minister is not transparent in this case. He acted in such a way that he penalized a Canadian firm and disregarded the taxpayers' interests. His decision is senseless and thoughtless. We ask the minister to disclose all the facts and to table, if he has the courage to, all documents pertaining to this case.

[Point Of Order, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That motion M-280, in the name of Mrs. Guay (Laurentides) in the Order of Precedence of Private Members' Business, be withdrawn and replaced by Motion M-294 in the name of Mrs. Guay (Laurentides), which is listed in today's Notice Paper .

[Housing, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this Parliament, no concrete action has been taken regarding social housing. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, by unduly postponing necessary funding to implement this innovative program, her government is avoiding its responsibility to the poor in Montreal?

[Housing, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

On April 10, the City of Montreal and the key players in social and cooperative housing made a plea to the Quebec and federal governments, asking for a non-recurring $40-million program to renovate 1,000 dwellings every year in that city.

Considering that the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs reacted positively to this project called "Resolution Montreal", is the federal government prepared to make a commitment to the Quebec government and to Montrealers, and help meet the urgent needs of the population?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise today on Bill C-22 tabled by the Minister of Transport, a bill that cancels the agreements to privatize Pearson airport. This whole affair can certainly not be

held up as an example to follow. It is to me-and to the majority of Canadians, I am sure-a total mess in all respects. A mess founded on blatant patronage on an unprecedented scale.

It is an enormous cloud behind which the players, who are certainly no angels, worked to reach their goal: get their hands on the No. 1 airport in Canada, a profitable and promotable facility, under certain terms of the agreement.

I think this case could be described as anything but transparent and open. Every step is surrounded by very troubling facts. The way this case was handled is no way to promote the role and image of governments and elected representatives.

The Pearson agreement, signed in the midst of the election campaign and whose cancellation was announced by the Prime Minister on December 3, requires a thorough examination. This whole affair must be cleared up quickly and in broad daylight.

This was not done by the Nixon report, which was conducted in private-again, demonstrating a lack of transparency and openness, and which the Prime Minister commissioned and used as a basis to cancel the agreements. Instead of Nixon's quick and superficial look, people want an in-depth public enquiry to really determine the facts surrounding the negotiations on the agreement, in particular whether the firms involved should be compensated. I remind the government that several members from the Toronto region have demanded such a public enquiry. I hope that the little they got, namely the Nixon report, will lead them to continue to press their case. Let us hope that their party's gag order will not turn them into sheep.

Commissioning the Nixon report shows a real lack of will and courage. They wanted to look at this case and keep it under covers. The Liberals, led by the Prime Minister, preferred not to make waves to avoid splashing anyone. However, many questions remain unanswered. People have a right to know every detail of this case.

In this affair, decision makers were surrounded by many people called lobbyists. As we all know, especially the ministers opposite, various groups call on lobbyists to defend their specific and well defined interests. These lobbyists, that the law divides into two classes: professionals and employees, haunt lobbies, pay visits to decision makers, and communicate with public officials and ministers to influence their decisions.

In the airport case, it is clear that lobbyists played a crucial if not predominant role. At every step of the way, including the Nixon report, the close links between the players produced results. If we look at the parties involved, it is easy to establish close connections between them and the decision maker; we can even picture a big spider web where everyone got caught in the end. Conservatives and Liberals found themselves mixed up in this case. Former ministers, organizers and chiefs of staff, and old friends of the old parties, they all worked together. They used their knowledge of the system, the people and the situation to influence decision makers to their advantage or that of their clients.

One wonders whether these people are not more influential now than when they used to work right in political circles. They have the financial resources they need to achieve well defined objectives.

Faced with all this systematic and well-organized influence, we must question our governments' decision-making process and wonder if our political system and its supporters are preyed on by lobbyists. Are our decision makers independent? Do they make allowances? Are they vulnerable to all this pressure? Do they keep a good measure of realism?

There is no getting around it: the causes worked on and promoted by lobbyists are mainly economic and financial. Lobbyists are paid by big business and, in the end, they exist to make a profit. According to the annual report on the Lobbyists Registration Act, the most popular issues are: international trade, industry, regional economic development, government contracts and, in fifth place, science and technology. All these issues are strictly economic in nature.

The first social issue listed in this report comes in 40th place. Youth issues, 40th place; housing, an issue I deeply care about, 41st place; women's issues, 42nd place; seniors, 43rd place; and in 52nd and last place, human rights.

There is no doubt that lobbyists try to influence decision makers on profit-related economic issues. Social and humanitarian causes lag far behind and stay on the back burner.

The results are obvious and denounced more and more. Everyday reality is the best proof. Poverty which is becoming more entrenched and the unmet basic needs of a growing number of individuals and households clearly show that the decision makers have given up social causes.

Nevertheless, many organizations work in the community and demand thorough changes. Are they heeded? Their power is very small compared to that of big corporations and industries. Nor do they have the same means to exert influence. The big shots have dollars and the little people have cents. The big shots know many friends in high places, and the little people know little people.

For some, it is cocktails, business dinners and fancy meetings. Others have to march in the street, occupy offices and hold hasty meetings with decision makers so that these officials can have a good conscience and get rid of the few reporters who are interested.

The effects are there. The evidence is quite clear. Governments are disconnected from the grass roots and have been for a long time. Considering all the clout wielded by lobbyists and large political contributors, there is very little room left for ordinary people.

Seniors' groups, associations of the unemployed, community groups, housing committees, women's shelters, day care centres-none of these gives thousands of dollars to the old parties.

The Liberals are caught in this system of lobbying and large donors. The Martin budget is a perfect illustration of this. The lower and middle classes are affected and the rich are allowed to breathe easy.

The Pearson issue also shows very clearly all the influence and pressure exerted by the wealthy. We sense that the government is ill at ease and that it is reluctant to get to the bottom of the issue.

The political system and politicians owe it to the people to be open and aboveboard. Secrecy and intrigue are no longer in order. The government absolutely must deal with the present system of influence and also the financing of political parties.

Lobbying must be examined very thoroughly. Who is doing what? Who is working for what? Who is meeting whom? Why? With what results? Voters and taxpayers are entitled to know everything because they are the ones who pay the government. As for the financing of political parties, I call on the old parties to show moderation. I call on them to follow our party and adopt the Quebec formula. Governments must at last be free and independent.

Let us hope that the system will soon be completely open and let us give everyone equal access to decision makers. Democracy can only gain by it.

[Advertising, April 26th, 1994]

Yesterday, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services volunteered the information that Genesis Media Inc. had been given a one-year extension on its lucrative contract to buy federal advertising space. The contract, worth $1.8 million, was extended by the minister at his discretion, without tenders.

Considering the government's new code of ethics so often referred to by the Prime Minister, how does the Minister of Public Works and Government Services justify his decision to give a one-year extension for a contract worth nearly $2 million without tenders and without consulting Cabinet?

[Unemployment Insurance Act, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again today I appreciate the opportunity of commenting, this time on unemployment insurance in support of Bill C-218, introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

The purpose of this bill is to exclude from the definition of excepted employment, employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length. That this bill was tabled shows that we on this side of the House are very much aware of what is happening in our ridings.

Every day, unemployment insurance claimants knock on the doors of our riding offices and ask for our help because they feel they are not being treated fairly by federal unemployment insurance authorities. In fact, these people are fed up with the way they are being treated.

They often feel powerless before the legislation and the almighty bureaucracy. The problems with unemployment insurance are many and complex. Unreasonable delays, erroneous decisions and unwarranted investigations often haunt the lives of claimants and make a mockery of their rights.

I am sure members opposite also see many people in their offices with problems concerning unemployment insurance. If they really want to stand up for the interests of these people, they certainly should support this bill.

Since this government came to power, however, the Liberals have chosen to forget the people at the bottom of the ladder. The break with the grass roots has been very quick and very obvious. The government's decisions and actions are a clear indication of this development.

We should realize that the purpose of the unemployment insurance system is to provide support, during a specific period, for claimants who are out of work. The objective is quite clear but unfortunately, the legislation, the way it is administered and the whole bureaucracy around it often obscure the actual purpose of this program. It is the applicants who suffer the consequences.

Of course, the main problem of all these people is the lack of work. If our economy produced enough long-term jobs, all these problems with unemployment insurance would be less or go away, but such is not the case. In my riding, Laurentides, the unemployment rate is 18 per cent. If we add to this large percentage all those who are no longer looking because they are discouraged by the non-existent job market and all those who must rely on welfare, we come up with a frightful jobless rate of 30 per cent. I am very worried about this.

All these people are also very worried. The unemployed face great tension and uncertainty. Imagine that you are the head of a household with children and suddenly you lose your job. You now receive only 57 per cent of your former income, soon a mere 55 per cent, as the callous Liberals decided, to support your family. It is a great worry and concern for people who unwillingly become unemployed.

Unfortunately, some say that one gets used to unemployment and others will even say that for some it is a way of life. Far be it from me to make such tendentious allegations. No one in our society wants to collect unemployment insurance. No one gets up some fine morning and says, "Well, this morning I want to lose my job and become a paid unemployed person." No one sincerely or voluntarily desires such a situation. On the contrary, people do want to work. They want lasting, well-paid jobs. I do not think that receiving a reduced cheque every week, looking for work day after day and finding none is paradise for the unemployed people in my riding.

The people opposite do not understand what is going on out there and they stupidly bury their heads in the sand, unable to deliver the goods they promised so much during the election campaign. Their promises are turning into crumbs. Crumbs from the infrastructure program that will only create or maintain some 45,000 jobs to meet the needs of 1.5 million unemployed. A real joke, a real farce from the clowns opposite who increasingly arouse laughter and scepticism from everyone.

In my riding, this miraculous Liberal program will solve nothing. It is a drop in the bucket, providing only insecure short-term jobs. That is what we get from the conjurers opposite.

What are you waiting for to come up with a real employment policy? What are you waiting for to create and establish new, intelligent, promising programs? What are you waiting for to give technical and financial aid and support to companies and to individuals who want to create new businesses? What are you waiting for to invest massively in research and development? Nothing, you are waiting, you are in neutral and, I even believe, in reverse in many respects.

But what is even more disappointing and heartbreaking from the Liberals is that not only have they forgotten about jobs, they are cutting unemployment insurance. They are taking from people whom they offer nothing, whom they are not giving a chance. The conjurers opposite reason backwards.

This whole everyday reality of the unemployed creates definite problems for them. One of these problems is related to the Unemployment Insurance Act and Bill C-218 would eliminate it by recognizing a 1989 Supreme Court decision that excluding spouses from unemployment insurance is discriminatory. Unfortunately, the insensitive Conservative government in 1990 made life more difficult for spouses. I can tell you that in my riding, where many people hire their spouses to meet the needs of the tourist season, we have hundreds of these problem cases due to paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Act. These spouses, mostly women, go through a real nightmare when they apply for benefits. To collect benefits, employees related by blood, marriage or adoption must convince the officer that their job is justified and that they are not cheating.

So this employee carries the burden of proof, with all the inquiries that this provision implies. These inquiries have become almost systematic and impose unacceptable delays for people who often badly need these unemployment benefits.

Furthermore, since the burden of proof is theirs, we generally consider these people abusers of the system. Such an attitude is unacceptable in a democracy, a free world where everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Once again the main victims of that provision are women. We women can take a lot. Approximately 650,000 women would be in that category.

I therefore ask the members from the other side to approve this bill, I ask the women of this House to bring these facts to the attention of their male colleagues in order that we may redress this injustice done against women by repealing this provision of the legislation.

We must trust in ourselves, trust in others if we want them to trust us and the system.