Pauline Picard

[Government Contracts, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with all the allegations of scandal involving the Liberal government, with all the arrogance being shown by the Prime Minister, public confidence in government is at an all time low.

The public has had enough of hearing day after day that this government is spending and wasting to millions of dollars for the benefit of its cronies. The public are no fools, they realize they are the ones having to bear the brunt of the slashes to social program budgets.

The person who keeps boasting about being the man for the job is more the man at the end of the line, and any means of keeping the power in his hands alone is fine with him. In the meantime, no one within his government will admit one iota of responsibility, and everybody just keeps passing the buck.

As we speak, those managing public funds must be accountable. The only way to do so is for there to be a public inquiry. The public has a right to know and the Prime Minister has a duty to fully inform the public.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is distressing to see the contempt with which the Prime Minister and his government are treating the people of Quebec and Canada, and especially the way in which public money is being squandered.

Senior public servants, who were acting on ministers' orders, have been singled out by the auditor general for their flagrant disregard for the rules governing the management of public funds, as well as for not discharging their duties with appropriate prudence and diligence.

We would certainly like to know who gave the orders to these public servants and who asked them to break the rules. If the government has nothing to hide, it should let the Standing Committee on Public Accounts do its work and, if it has nothing to fear, order that a public inquiry be held.

There are no longer enough days left to show just how big a mess the Liberals have created.

[Financial Information Strategy, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate measures to ensure that the Financial Information Strategy is fully and completely implemented.

I will start by saying that we of the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of this motion. This information strategy has been in the works for some years, and even had a whole chapter devoted to it in the auditor general's report in 2001.

Implementation of an information strategy has been discussed ever since 1989. It was to be fully implemented by April 2002, but we are far from that stage still. That is why the auditor general had a number of recommendations to make.

It is very important that this initiative be put into place so that accountability of the entire public administration will be more easily attainable. As well, this will enhance organizational performance through the strategic use of financial and other data.

As I have said, this modernization of accounting was first raised back in 1989 and again six years later, in 1995, before being addressed in this motion.

We believe that the implementation of the strategy will give government managers a better financial information tool for making decisions, as it will allow them to tie program costs to the results obtained.

There is one question we have on this matter. In the past, the former Minister of Finance missed the mark on more than one occasion with his estimates. He had the bad habit of underestimating the estimates, which resulted, by a principle of accounting, in the surplus being allocated to the debt when the provinces had great needs, particularly in the areas of education and social assistance. During this debate, I would like to hear from the member who moved this motion, to see if he thinks this strategy will help the new Minister of Finance with the estimates any better.

When it comes to how the strategy will work, it is made up of modern financial systems. It will allow for a more accurate snapshot of our financial situation, as soon as one is needed.

Essentially, the financial information strategy will encourage better management by providing managers with access to information not only on the cash flow required to carry out programs, but on all of the costs.

Managers will also have the opportunity to compare program costs with their results.

Another question that is raised is whether or not this strategy will allow for any readjustments or changes if the program does not meet its objectives.

In her 2001 report, the auditor general praised the financial information strategy, but did not mince her words when it came to her criticism of the government for being slow in implementing it.

She strongly recommended that the federal government finish the work that was started to improve the government's financial management and decision making process.

She said, and I quote:

The federal government achieved an important milestone on 1 April when the final 60 of the 95 departmental financial systems went on-line. Now it has to take the final critical step in implementing the strategy—getting the information to managers and motivating them to use it.

So, the strategy is a step in the right direction, but more must be done. The government cannot pat itself on the back until the financial reports of each department have improved and until they comply with the strategy. A lot remains to be done.

Another question that we must ask ourselves is: If the financial information strategy were already in effect, would it have saved us from having to dig up the scandals and the allegations that this government is facing?

How can this government explain the delay in the implementation of the strategy, after deciding itself that it would be implemented in April 2001?

What did the Treasury Board Secretariat do to ensure that the departments have adequate plans to complete the implementation of their system so as to comply with the requirements of the financial information strategy? These are questions that this government absolutely must answer.

The use of the new financial information should also allow managers to do a more effective job. They must have access to it and, more importantly, they must trust its accuracy. This is a major challenge for departments.

We must put an end to the use of black books by managers who cannot use the new financial systems and who continue to manage information by using the old manual methods.

It remains to be seen whether the government will have the courage to make good on its intentions. Considering the magnitude of the task and the rigour required by the strategy, we are concerned that the government may decide to shelf this initiative, as funding measures dry up and project offices reduce their activities.

Parliamentarians and taxpayers hope that all the moneys invested and the efforts made so far regarding this project will bear fruit. If the government wants to ensure transparency, it has a duty to complete this important modernization process of our financial systems.

The motion before us is a reminder to the government that it is too soon to celebrate and that, even though progress has been made, there is still a lot of work to do.

It is necessary that managers use the new financial information available and, more importantly, that they be encouraged to use it in the decision making process. The issue of estimates and supply must be settled once and for all.

This is why we support the motion that:

—the government should take immediate measures to ensure that the Financial Information Statement is fully and completely implemented.

A lot remains to be done before the strategy can be deemed to be completed.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

You are quite right. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. I hope that the new minister will listen to reason and will change the provisions giving him so much power. On what grounds and for what reasons are we suddenly deciding to give one person powers that violate the freedom, the rights and the privacy of the people?

In my comments earlier, I did not mention one aspect of Bill C-42 that I disapproved. It is the new tax that also appears in Bill C-55, the bill on safety. In our view, that new tax is just another tax grab. Maybe our new minister will pay better attention to what was said in the Standing Committee on Finance at the time.

At the time, the minister had turned a deaf ear to this issue. At the finance committee, we were told that there had been no consultation and no impact study on this new tax. We have every right to wonder if this is not just another tax grab, similar to what the government did with the employment insurance fund. We were not the only ones to talk about grabbing. Several organizations have said they think this is unjustified and that this tax will have a major impact, especially in the small regions.

Time goes by so fast and there are so many other topics I would like to address. However, I ask my colleagues on the government side to really pay attention to what the opposition has to say in its criticisms, which have to to with all the problems these provisions will lead to, and I ask them to vote against this bill.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe a number of members have spoken on Bill C-55, which replaces the former Bill C-42, as my colleague was saying.

I would like to remind the House that this bill contains two major problems that trouble me. First, the creation of the controlled access military zones; and also the additional information about airline passengers. In fact, the government is giving itself the power to change, as it sees fit, the nature of the information that can be shared between the different services.

Based on the new provisions, the RCMP and CSIS will now have direct access to information held by air carriers. These provisions open the door to the use of personal information that goes far beyond the fight against terrorism.

Currently, a great many people are speaking out against this; even the privacy commissioner has spoken out against Bill C-55 with regards to the use of information on airline passengers.

This morning, Thursday May 30, a Quebec daily paper headline read “The Right of terror”. I would like to read a few lines from this article, as it makes one think, and I hope that it will get the members opposite thinking. The article says that:

National security and the fight against terrorism are becoming the best excuses to violate fundamental rights around the world.

Amnesty International, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977, is an organization that works for human rights. It recently published a report, which said that:

Governments are using the September 11 attacks and the fight against terrorism to pit security against human rights. They have used the excuse of September 11 to justify arbitrary detention or to deny the right to a fair trial. There is an increase in official hypocrisy. The fight against terrorism has become the excuse for all kinds of abuses.

Regarding Bill C-55 it says:

In Canada too civil liberties are being curtailed by anti-terrorism laws which were never proven to be necessary by the federal government. Again today, Parliament is debating a bill, Bill C-55, that gives government and security forces all kinds of new powers that would have been unacceptable to a majority of people only a few months ago.

It is a new version of Bill C-42, a bill which was withdrawn following a great deal of protest; however, the new version maintains its most controversial elements and, in some cases, it is even worse than the previous one.

The Bloc Quebecois and opposition parties are not the only ones saying this. Amnesty International produced a report to this effect. Several editorial writers, journalists and agencies are condemning this bill.

Another quote:

Amid general indifference, the Parliament of Canada is about to pass an act the severity of which the government was never able to justify, which is rather serious.

But at the same time, it will end up justifying all kinds of abuses against human rights by repressive regimes that would then be able to honestly say they were only imitating a great democratic country such as Canada.

This is what happens when we start making compromises on fundamental rights.

I believe it is clear. It is really unacceptable and this is what we are speaking up against in this clause, which deals with the power of one single person, a minister, who will create security zones, now called controlled access military zones under this clause. As I said earlier, he will be able to come to my riding where there is an armoury.

We have nothing against the fact that we have to protect ourselves and the government must protect its military equipment by designating such zones. However, this is a far cry from deciding at any given time, under circumstances leading the minister to believe that his security is threatened, to commandeer places and lands without ever consulting anybody, without ever consulting the public, elected representatives, and municipal or provincial governments. He will decide to step in, thinking he is entitled to do so.

The minister could use what is called a reasonable moment. We really do not know what the word reasonably means. One single person, the finance minister, will be able to decide, sorry, it is the defence minister. I am confused because the new minister comes from finance and is now replacing the former Minister of National Defence. All this is a bit ambiguous—

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Where do you come from?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55, which replaces Bill C-42, which was withdrawn by the government. Bill C-55 was introduced in the House on April 29, 2002. Bill C-42 was withdrawn by the government because of strong criticism from the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

I would like to summarize the main features of Bill C-55 which are still problematic for the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to talk about certain points, such as controlled access military zones.

In Bill C-55, the government has tightened up the criteria for designating controlled access military zones, having listened to the Bloc Quebecois' arguments. However, our objections to certain points in Bill C-42 have not been reflected in the current bill and this is what bothers us.

It is still the minister alone who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones, the same minister who neglected to inform his government about the prisoners of war. Now he has been replaced by a minister whose experience lies in the banking world. What worries us a bit is that the latter has not yet proven his worth. He is responsible for an entire department. We hope that he will make the right decisions and that he can take a close look at this so that some of the problems in Bill C-55 are ironed out.

With everything that has been going on in the House recently, giving so much power to one minister, who is new to the department, is enough to worry us and the public.

One of our biggest worries is that it is still the minister alone who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones. In addition, the approval of the government of Quebec is still not required to designate a controlled access military zone in its jurisdiction. There is also the criterion of “reasonably necessary”. What does this mean? This criterion for determining the borders of military security zones has not really changed; it is still very discretionary.

The minister could, for reasons known only to him and without consulting anyone, define what is deemed reasonably necessary. In the largest city in my riding, there is an armoury. With this power that is conferred upon the minister alone, if he deemed necessary to protect his establishment or his property and if he deemed necessary to extend this protection to a larger area, he could, without notifying or consulting anyone, create a security zone.

I do not have anything against the fact that it may be necessary to protect a certain area and to ensure adequate security in a potentially dangerous situation, but perhaps it would be appropriate to notify the authorities, the property owners and the people.

In that regard, we think that it is difficult to confer that kind of power upon one single person, without any obligation to consult. That person alone will decide what is or is not good, and this is very dangerous, as the precedents have shown.

There have been cases where the minister alone has made a decision that has caused prejudice to those people affected by it. It is inadmissible that such power be conferred upon one single person in our society. It is like a dictatorship. It is just as if, one morning, someone woke up and said, like the Prime Minister did recently, “One day I am a democrat, and the next day I am a dictator”.

I am sure you agree with me that there is cause for concern when this kind of responsibility is given to one single person who has all the powers, as is the case now under Bill C-55.

As I said, the creation of a controlled access military zone or the making of interim orders would cause prejudice to certain people. These people could not always take legal action for loss, damage or injury.

If a situation like the one I was describing a moment ago arose, those who were wronged would have no legal recourse. It makes no sense. The power that would be given to one single person is immense: he would decide and he would apply his law, it is tantamount to a dictatorship. People would not have any avenue of legal recourse, could not find out how to defend their rights, because the minister alone would have decided everything. This is not what is called a democracy.

The grounds of international relations and the defence of national security, for which controlled access military zones could be created in Bill C-42, were not kept in Bill C-55. We can just imagine that now, any reason is grounds enough, as I described earlier.

There is another problem. It has to do with interim orders. The new bill still contains provisions allowing different ministers, and in one case, public officials, to use interim orders.

With regards to these provisions, there are two minor changes: tabling copies before parliament within 15 days, and the shortening of the period for which the order has effect without approval of the cabinet from 90 to 45 days

It also lacks an advance verification for consistency with the charter and the enabling legislation by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

The means justify the end. It makes no sense. To see what is going on right now, the way powers are being grabbed, someone can say “We will not consult anyone”, and no one can say a word. People may be wronged, but for reasons that the minister or certain officials find reasonably necessary—even though we do not really know what this means—all kinds of rights can be trampled without any consultations.

Based on the definition of the word dictatorship in the dictionary, it appears that this is where this bill is leading us. It is very alarming.

There is also the question of information. Bill C-55 will allow two other persons, the RCMP commissioner and the director of CSIS, to obtain information directly from the air carriers and reservation and passenger information systems operators. This means that privacy will be violated. They will obtain the passenger list.

The list can be distributed to the RCMP commissioner and the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service for any reason, without those involved being informed and in violation of their rights. This is what happened back in Stalin's day.

[Liberal Government, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to convince taxpayers that it was necessary to reduce the deficit and tighten their belts.

But after months of collective effort, we are uncovering the true face of the Liberal government: rich, manipulative, spendthrift, insensitive and contemptuous of the public's real needs.

In 1993, the Prime Minister said “—we are here to serve others, not ourselves”. But scandal after scandal, we cannot help but see that memory is not infallible. Say what they will, the Liberals have shamelessly served themselves.

How can the government then say that it has no money to help the provinces, to restore fiscal balance, to provide adequate funding for health and education, when it is spending millions to increase its visibility, to the benefit of its cronies.

Things have reached quite a state. The smell of corruption is one more reason we must get out of this rut.

[Gala des Mercuriades, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on May 23, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce will host the 22nd gala du concours Les Mercuriades. I am happy to say that three Drummondville businesses have been chosen as finalists in four categories.

Armotech Inc. has garnered two nominations, one in the category for contributing to regional economic development and the other in the foreign markets category.

Fempro Inc. is nominated in the new investment project category.

And ALPHA insurance company is a finalist in the customer service category.

These companies, and all those they are competing against, do work that deserves being recognized. Being nominated for this gala is in and of itself a remarkable accomplishment.

I wish them good luck at the gala, which will take place in Montreal's Palais des Congrès.

[Book Industry, May 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement of the bankruptcy of one of Canada's largest book publishers and distributors has raised concerns within the industry.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree that the time has come for the Liberal government to abolish the GST on books, as the Government of Quebec has, in order to give a hand to Canada's book industry.

What is she waiting for before she acts?