Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the government inform us about Wednesday's and Thursday's business, because there had been some talk about Wednesday being perhaps an Opposition Day.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Business Of The House February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the government inform us about Wednesday's and Thursday's business, because there had been some talk about Wednesday being perhaps an Opposition Day.
Business Of The House February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, since we now have this opportunity, I would like my colleague, the leader of the government, to tell us about the business for the balance of this week and next week.
Cigarette Smuggling February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Prime Minister was asking for more information before taking action, while the RCMP is now telling us that it is very well informed, that cigarette smuggling networks are branching out into luxury items such as clothing, jewelry and alcohol. How can the Prime Minister explain that the RCMP is not acting, except for political reasons?
Cigarette Smuggling February 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Solicitor General boasted that, in the last three months, the RCMP had seized some 80,000 cartons of contraband cigarettes.
Had the minister done a simple calculation with the figures quoted by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, he would have realized that in the last three months, while the RCMP seized a truckload and a half of contraband cigarettes, some 360 truckloads were smuggled into Canada. What a sieve!
Can the Solicitor General tell us, given the lack of results achieved by the RCMP, what additional resources he intends to give them to make them more effective?
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments, for this question and for her assessment. Of course, far be it from me, if she ever took it that way, to say that the people opposite were all rich and disconnected from the middle class in this society.
What I said, however, is that I tried to explain in this House that normally, when you want to find out what motivates a particular group, you look at the hand that feeds them. If the hand that feeds them is a certain type of people in society, if those who support their political party, those who get a good hearing from each of the hon. ministers of this government, those who are known to be friends of those in power-I am not at all calling into question the hon. member-I say that the backers of those who are in government and the supporters of the political party from which the government is formed have well-defined and clearly identifiable interests. That is just what I mean, no more and no less.
I would simply say to the hon. member that I do not think that broad based geographical representation is enough to represent adequately the interests of a certain category of people in society. Rather, it is the policies proposed which show who represents whom.
When the hon. member says that there were no cuts and that no decisions have been made, I am sorry, I must tell the hon. member that I disagree. I noticed that our colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, just before the opening of the session, in a speech here in Ottawa, not far from this Parliament, said as seriously as could be that 20 per cent must be cut from the cost of health care in Canada.
I really like the hon. member, I take her word, I wish that she had the same weight in cabinet as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but she does not. He intends to cut 20 per cent from health care. He said so.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, there is another problem which seems to go over the heads of every one on the government side in this House, and that is the issue of overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. If I remember correctly, we have been here for three weeks now, and if we were to study the issues which have been of concern to us, the topics which have been raised the most often for the past three weeks, we would probably come to the conclusion that our overall concern is the overlapping and duplication we have been subjected to by the federal government over the years.
This administrative overlap is not disconnected from reality; everyone recognizes that it does not make sense. In public management, every time we mention government deficit, we are told about private enterprise: "Look at how this or that company is managed". Then they give us examples: "Look at Alcan, at General Motors, at Chrysler, at Bombardier. See how successful they are". What did these companies do when they ran into economic problems? Very simple. First, they streamlined operations.
Every time a responsible businessman wants to take significant administrative measures, the first thing to do is streamline operations. For the benefit of the hon. members opposite, streamlining means eliminating all dual responsibilities, redundant organizations and non-essential services, simplifying administration and lines of communications to become more efficient and cost effective.
If this is good for private enterprise, if everyone sees it as the right approach, why should it not also be good for governments? Should the first step to be taken by a government wanting to turn around a disastrous financial situation not be to eliminate everything that is unnecessary, all overlap and duplication?
Before cutting into services and product quality, Chrysler Canada went through a crucial streamlining process.
The government is doing exactly the opposite. Instead of streamlining, they will cut into product quality, into social services, they will reorganize by saving a few billion here and there at the expense of unfortunate people. I am convinced that no administrative measure will be taken to eliminate this dual administration with provincial and municipal governments.
In the employment sector alone, just to show how political beliefs deeply held by the hon. members opposite prevent them from being efficient and seeing clearly, there is total unanimity in Quebec, except for Liberal members of Parliament who have managed to get elected in Quebec. Everyone else, including Liberal members of Quebec's Legislative Assembly, is convinced that employment responsibilities should come under Quebec's jurisdiction. Even the previous Premier had understood this and taken a step in the right direction.
It is essential to convey our position to the members of this Parliament because it is shared by everyone and publicly defensible.
Do you know how many employment programs there are? Give or take a few, there are about 24 in the Quebec government and 27 or so in the federal government. An unemployed person who wants to get out of unemployment insurance or welfare in Quebec is faced with a total of 51 programs under two or three different administrations and in different buildings. They are not always consistent and he may well lose any hope of ever getting out of this vicious circle.
What are the hon. members opposite doing in this regard? We are looking at $250 million a year. It is an impressive amount: $250 million a year. Have you ever thought of renouncing your crippling brand of Canadian nationalism, with your tentacles reaching into every Canadian province and territory, this kind of new disease that makes Canadian federalists want to keep a finger in every pie, because the truth lies in this Parliament?
Do you realize that, if we did without, we could save-and by acting diligently we could also solve an extremely serious problem-$250 million a year?
Instead of making cuts on the backs of the poor, in benefits to less fortunate Canadians, old age pensions, unemployment insurance or federal transfer payments used to pay for social assistance, we could at least manage to save that much, and this $250 million could stay in the pockets of people who really need that money.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that I am running out of time. I would have liked to take each area of duplication and demonstrate, with figures to back it up-because it can be done-how many millions of dollars could have been saved, how much streamlining of the government system should be done and how much simpler relations between Ottawa and the provinces could be made. By taking these steps, we would have done the very first thing any sensible manager does. Without sacrificing quality, we would have cut the fat and taken a hard look at administration and bad management.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
At a time when we are trying to solve the financial problems of Canada, the members opposite have only one suggestion to make: cut social programs, cut off the unemployed. There is no other way. This is the third federal government to bring us deeper into debt, the third one to add to the debt which has now reached $500 billion. That is quite a debt! And they want to solve the problem at the expense of the have-nots of our society. Do you expect us to accept such unfair proposals without a word?
If they want to know where to save money, let us explore a few avenues before we cut social programs. Let us try to find solutions before we cut off the unemployed, welfare recipients and old age pensioners, let us try to find a way to trim the fat off government institutions. From the beginning of the election campaign, from the instant we set foot in this Parliament, the Leader of the Official Opposition, our leader, has been requesting the creation of a committee where elected members would examine government expenditures. Our role should be enhanced, they say; well, what better task is there for a member than to tell government which useless activities to cut or abolish in order to protect his constituents, especially those in need.
Three consecutive governments have failed in this Parliament; Liberals, Tories and Liberals again can be rightly accused of mismanagement and poor administration. Their inability to make the necessary decisions, their lack of political courage put us in such a difficult situation that today we have to call upon the disadvantaged of our society to make up for their incompetence.
They want to know where to cut? Well then, let the government members tell their Prime Minister that they are dying, as I know they are, to go through the federal government's expenditures, item by item. Let those members in power satisfy their burning urge to go and tell senior civil servants how harmful some of their department's activities are, how useless they are, what a total waste of money overlapping is.
I can see it written on the faces of some of you here, that you have the interests of your constituents at heart and would like to do your job as an MP properly and be able to save money, as any responsible parliamentarian would. Every time we save $100,000, it is $100,000 that will not come out of the have-not's pockets, we can be sure of that. And maybe they will get to keep it. Only then will we feel we are doing our job of representing our constituents.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, truth hurts. See how the members opposite become vocal when we point to the real problems, when we remind them that their Prime Minister, their leader, was Minister of Finance when the financial situation started to deteriorate seriously in Canada. Their leader was the one who, while he was Minister of Finance, never could redress the downward curve the country's economy had hopelessly taken. It hurts!
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
The government takes all these measures under the pretense of being short of money. The federal administration is in a bad financial situation. The government says we must not penalize those who will follow us, namely our children. How touching, Madam Speaker! When will the decision-makers in this government understand that it would be more appropriate to explore new options than to target the poor in our society and reduce the benefits of those who hardly have anything? We agree that the financial situation of Canada is tragic. We agree that the successive governments, starting with the previous Liberal administration in which the current Prime Minister was Minister of Finance, have generated deficits for Canada. Indeed, the Liberal government of the time was followed by a Conservative government which continued to put us in deeper economic trouble.
Social Security System February 2nd, 1994
When a government is motivated by such partisan interests and when the people who support it have a perspective like the one I described earlier, it is a concern for welfare recipients who have no say in the decision-making process and no one in Parliament to inform the ministers of their problems.
When this session got underway a few months after we were elected to come here and work for the well-being of Canadians, our leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, told us and the press that our party would be the protector of social rights in Canada. He added that those who have no access to Cabinet or to the lobbies of powerful people with contacts and connections to influence the government would be able to count on the Official Opposition, that is the 54 Bloc Quebecois members, to represent them.