Odina Desrochers

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this motion to consider the 2002 reports of the Auditor General.

First, I will say that is goes further back than 2002. The House should be considering reports of the Auditor General going back ten years or so. I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for four years and, on many occasions, I have felt frustrated.

There is frustration because, for the public and the media, when the Auditor General tables reports three or four times a year, these reveal shortcomings and irregularities. The media jump on these reports and splash the results over the front page of newspapers all over the place. There are a few reactions in the House of Commons. Then, all is forgotten.

There is also the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We sit together with representatives of the various parties in the House, including the federal Liberals, set an agenda, summon witnesses and try to identify reasonable solutions to correct the shortcomings. This is when it gets frustrating.

By the end of the day, I will give examples to illustrate how each time we deal directly with ministerial decisions, decisions made by the Liberal government, we see the kind of political manoeuvring we have seen at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

When we are considering issues that matter less to the Liberals, two or three Liberal members show up for our meetings, just enough to have a quorum. It is quite a different story with more sensitive issues, issues directly related to government decisions, such as in the Groupaction affair. There is a sudden change in their attendance habits then; there are nine Liberal members on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. They monitor everything to make sure the truth will not come out. Once again, this is frustrating.

Members of all opposition parties have stood in this House to demand explanations regarding the Groupaction affair. The minister responsible asked the Auditor General to investigate. The Auditor General reported; this report was tabled in April 2002. To this day, February 24, 2003, consideration of the report has not been completed.

The last time I participated in proceedings in connection with the consideration of the report, there was a filibuster. The Liberals wanted to change what the Auditor General had said.

I rose and I said, “We are not going to change the Auditor General's text. There is a problem. If the Auditor General has identified a problem, we must examine it”.

It is clear from this that this House is losing credibility. The Auditor General's report was tabled in April 2002. Today, we are told that perhaps an effort will be made to finish this report on Wednesday. Once again, work on this matter in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was trying. We were forced to meet in camera, to hear certain witnesses and not others. Large excerpts of this report were even published by the media.

Today, even if this report is now public, the Liberals are doing everything to water down the truth. That is why, today, the House is discussing the Auditor General's reports.

I could give another example, relating to foundations. No later than last week, representatives of the Treasury Board could not tell us where the money, the $2.5 billion from taxpayers that had been taken out of the budget and granted to a foundation, had gone. The Treasury Board cannot tell us how this money has been spent.

Since 1993, this government, with agencies, committees and foundations, has increasingly taken responsibility away from Parliament. Furthermore, the former Auditor General, Denis Desautels, was very clear when he took stock of his time in office. He questioned the House of Commons' accountability and the authority continually taken away from it.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, when an Auditor General tables a report, it makes the headlines. However, once it goes to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it is extremely difficult to pass on the recommendations for addressing the shortcomings identified by the Auditor General.

Once again, I am going to talk about social insurance numbers. We are living at a time when increased security is required and efforts are being made to tighten security at our borders. The Auditor General said that so-called “900” numbers had been authorized for temporary residents of Canada. However, their whereabouts was not known.

In a few days, we will hear from certain witnesses, just like when officials from Human Resources Development Canada came to explain themselves. The Auditor General is becoming anxious because the Liberal government is not budging. She has therefore instituted an annual report in which she has clearly indicated that there are still some shortcomings in situations that she has already been critical of.

A week or two ago, an action plan was presented for correcting the situation, but it was not made clear why.

On Friday, I had to laugh when the Minister of Justice announced major changes to the gun registry program, knowing that he is to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts this afternoon at 3:30 p.m.

This is some sort of marketing operation to stretch the truth and show that the Liberal government is taking action. However, the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts consists of asking questions and getting to the bottom of things. This afternoon, I am going to ask the Minister of Justice if he was aware of this mess. When officials are asked to appear before the committee, they are asked the same question.

At the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I would expect there to be measures, deadlines and figures. But often officials respond with philosophy, big words, flowery explanations, and no measure, deadline or figure. They tell us, yes we will improve things, yes we will take steps, we will focus on this or that, but the result is always the same; nothing happens.

The Auditor General meets with us four times a year: three times with new chapters and one other time to tell us that things have not progressed in such and such a case. She does not shy away from issues, and now the general public is starting to take an interest in her work. From this side of the House, this is a slow and lengthy process and often, the truth is stretched and changes are not measurable, and the reports are forgotten.

I will provide one example, social insurance numbers. There were two subsequent reports, which again demonstrates a great action plan. I am anxious to see what the outcome will be in another year or two.

Meanwhile, the situation persists. As for the firearms issue, another $500 million has been announced. We do not know why it is costing $1 billion. The Minister of Justice tells us, “It is no longer my file. I will pass it over to the Solicitor General”. That is acting irresponsibly.

What has happened with that program? We are going to try to get to the bottom of it, but all we will get is one more manoeuvre with the excuse, “Yes, there was a problem; the computer system cost a lot. There have been some registrations and a few squabbles with the provinces”. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada has dropped a billion in funds into a project that was supposed to cost $2 million. Now we are up to $1 billion. These are issues the Auditor General continues to address.

In connection with Downsview Park, for example, she has told the government three times, “You committed $100 million to this without House of Commons authorization”. Those are $100 million non-accountable dollars. And the situation drags on. Three times already she has commented, “I trust that this will not happen again”.

With respect to Groupaction, three different reports said the same thing. The Auditor General denounces the situation. We are still waiting for the first report. And once again, there is much manoeuvring on the part of the Liberals to put the blame on officials. Officials are said to be doing a terrible job on certain issues since Groupaction, say the Liberals. Officials are providing information, as far as I can tell. But on that side of the House, they are continually engaging in political intrusion. That is where the administrative quagmire begins.

I consider that to restore credibility to what the Auditor General is doing, it is incumbent upon the government to take specific, timely action, not to wax philosophical and make statements about doing this, that or the other without taking any action. It is trying to allay the suspicions not only of this House, but also of the public and the media. Meanwhile, the Auditor General is holding her ground. She has received a mandate to provide clarification with respect to how the government operates.

In light of the fact that her predecessor's efforts were often misunderstood, the Auditor General introduced the status report. Once a year, she will come before the House and tell those whom it may concern, “Look, such and such issue has not yet been settled”. I would expect the federal government to quickly pass legislation and settle these issues.

At present, when the Auditor General submits her report, she raises issues like the gun registry. She raised the issue of social insurance numbers. And that of employment insurance as well. Yet, she has to raise the same issues again in her status report, to say that they have not been settled, that there has been no action.

In his recent budget, the current Minister of Finance suggested that measures will be taken to try to determine where the money in connection with the foundations went. We are talking about $7.1 billion that this government is removing from scrutiny by the House of Commons. We do not know where all this money went. The millennium scholarship foundation, for instance, said it could provide us with a list of individuals who were awarded scholarships and benefited from the foundation. But we do not know how much money was spent, if there are interests in this foundation, and how it is all administered. The government is unable to tell.

When these foundations were set up, in the days of the member for LaSalle—Émard, they were not controlled by the House of Commons. The Auditor General even told us last week that she had no idea how to go about checking on these foundations. If the board of directors decided to cooperate, Parliament would be provided with reports, but if it decided to withhold information, the House of Commons had no leverage to obtain it.

I think we need to take a serious look at the impact of the Auditor General's reports. In the House of Commons, we have to act quickly and ensure that issues criticized by the media do not drag on too long.

Two things will happen if we do not act: the media and the public will start to say that the Auditor General can cite cases and denounce them, but that it is becoming nothing more than a news story three times a year. There will be a few reactions in the House of Commons, and then everything will be passed on to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and we are all aware of the intricacies of that committee.

The other risk has to do with the accountability of parliamentarians in this House. If there is no follow up to the Auditor General's reports, then what? If we in this House are no longer accountable for the money spent in Canada, then what are we doing here?

Today, I think that the motion presented by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party on the 2002 reports could go much further than it does. In fact, since I was elected in June 1997, I realize that the last two auditors general have made incredible progress in reporting to this Parliament on deficiencies and situations that are unacceptable, but often, too often, we await the reaction of the Liberal government.

So, if we want to maintain the Auditor General's credibility with the public and the media, if we also want Parliament to remain accountable to the entire administration about all moneys spent on behalf of taxpayers, then a change, a signal from the Canadian Liberal government, is needed to show that something is not right.

In terms of the foundations, $7.1 billion remains unaccounted for. There was the $1 billion spent on the firearms registry. There were the Employment Insurance Fund surpluses. How many times have we risen in this House to condemn this situation? Once again, in her April 2002 report, the Auditor General continued to point her finger at the Ministers of Finance and Human Resource Development for the surpluses. But nothing is happening.

We learned, when the budget was tabled, that possibly, if all went well, there would be a new reform in 2005. But, in the meantime, the meter is still running. The Employment Insurance Fund will continue to accumulate surpluses, to the continued disadvantage of those paying employment insurance.

I could go on at length. I would have liked this to be a votable motion, but we must follow the rules of this House. Once again, I think that the House of Commons is not only not taking into account the Auditor General's 2002 reports, but it is completely ignoring the work of the auditors. It is ignoring the Auditor General's periodic warnings. This House must show signs of change; otherwise we will be waiting for the Liberals during the next election campaign.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in this historic debate. I never thought I would see the day federal Liberal MPs would sing the praises of René Lévesque.

That is why I call this a historic debate, a bit late in coming, but better late than never, as they say. It is all part of the process of cleaning up politics.

What inspired the Prime Minister, at the end of his mandate, to finally decide to remedy the numerous shortcomings that existed in the way Canada's political parties were funded? It is not up to me to answer that question, but I am really glad to see that, at long last, the Canadian Parliament is taking action to make politics more democratic.

There is still much to be done, but at least this is a significant first step. That same step was taken in Quebec back in 1977. From that time on, MNAs had a free hand, because the voters of Quebec are the ones who decide what party they want to support. This is a free choice, with known rules and standards.

For a long time now, the Bloc Quebecois has been rising in this House to speak out against the major shortcomings in political party financing. Today I am delighted to hear the other side referring to René Lévesque as the one who changed the rules of democracy. I am proud to hear that, but I would point out that there a lot of time went by between 1977 and 2003. And we are only at this stage now.

When the whole business of the sponsorship scandal was raised, with all the media coverage it got, and the denunciations in this very chamber, with all the talk of Groupaction, the Prime Minister and all the Liberals knew very well that this situation arose because of the way the legislation stood at that time. But we still had to wait for changes.

Now there are some changes. Why did the federal government wait so long, why did it tolerate such major scandals as we have had here since the 2000 election?

I trust that the changes proposed by the government today are the start of a process of democratization in this House. First comes changes to political party financing. Next there will have to be some work on lessening pressure on parliamentarians, that is trying to democratize life in Parliament. We will have to discuss such things as the matter of voting along party lines, the matter of decisions being made without consulting the elected representatives of the people.

So that is democracy. The current Prime Minister—who will leave God knows when, officially at least in 2004, but in politics anything can happen—should not get to leave saying “I have made the most significant historical contribution in changing the party financing legislation”. There are other things that could be done. He could say, “I have waited so long to amend it; this must not be allowed to go on”. Above all, on the eve of a leadership race, it is important that those who will come after him uphold these changes.

Personally, I get the impression that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard will be very tempted to revert to the old way of doing things. To talk about cleaning up the financing of political parties is one thing, but it is not so easy to address the issue of how candidates go about collecting money to fund their leadership campaigns. Having again benefited greatly from contributions from corporations, companies and friends of the party, they may well be tempted to revert to their old ways to pay them back.

I hope that in our debates in the next few weeks we will hear from these people and that they will make firm commitments to ensure that the historical step taken in this House with Bill C-24 does not disappear with the change in prime ministers.

In addition, all opposition parties, including the Canadian Alliance, should find more convincing alternatives than the one before us. The debate is far from over; it has only just begun.

I think that the people of my riding and all Quebeckers are proud today to see that the government is finally acting, the Bloc Quebecois having raised this critical issue of party financing countless times. Like the other parties of the National Assembly did when the PQ was defeated, the Liberal Party of Quebec respected the major changes made to the system. The people from my riding and from around Quebec expect that the future leader, the man or woman who will lead the Liberal Party of Canada, will uphold these changes. We must not backtrack, we must continue to move forward.

I think that the current debate needs to focus on the changes awaiting the Liberal Party of Canada, because that is the party in power. I invite all federal Liberals, especially those from Quebec, to make a public commitment to the voters, to say that they will uphold these changes. I invite them to promise to avoid going back, regardless of the political pressure that may be brought to bear on them during the leadership campaign.

In Quebec, the political parties remained faithful to what René Lévesque accomplished. I dare to hope that those who continue to make history in this House will remain faithful to these changes and that they will continue to speak highly of René Lévesque.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I never thought that I would rise in the House to thank everyone here for recognizing the work of René Lévesque. Maybe, someday, members will say, “You know, in the end, sovereignty-association for Quebec is a good thing. It would put an end to east-west tensions. Perhaps it is the way of the future to redefine a historic framework agreement”.

I hope that these historic changes being made will be upheld, and that the appreciation for René Lévesque's work will embrace more than simply the issue of party financing. That, too, is part of the evolution. That, too, is part of history.

In closing, once again, I am proud of the changes proposed in Bill C-24, but these changes must remain in place, regardless of who becomes the next Prime Minister.

This historic step must not be undone. We must uphold this change for the sake of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Agriculture, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister be so dogmatic and destroy programs that have proven effective for 30 years, instead of accepting that agriculture, which is different from one province to the next, requires different and appropriate support programs?

[Agriculture, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is using the strategic plan on agriculture to establish national standards for the agricultural support program from coast to coast.

The Prime Minister recently wrote to the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I quote:

The current approach is irreconcilable with the principle by which all Canadians are equal, regardless of where they live in the country.

How can the government justify to Quebec's farmers the fact that it is destroying all of the agricultural programs that have worked for 30 years because the Prime Minister wants to standardize support programs from coast to coast? Everyone is treated the same, is that the price they have to pay to be Canadian?

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are sovereignists, but I would ask the hon. member, “What about Canadian sovereignty?” As a result of the way the government is acting right now, we are losing our Canadian sovereignty, because we are going along with what the Americans want. I want to hear his opinion on this.

[Space Shuttle, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning Americans once again suffered a blow that shook the world.

The space shuttle Columbia , the oldest of all the shuttles, broke up in the sky, taking with it the lives of seven astronauts.

As I watched the terrible images on Saturday, I was remembering that in June 1982, in my work as a journalist, I had the privilege of watching Columbia's fourth launch from Cape Kennedy.

The launch and re-entry of a shuttle are crucial moments in a space mission which often seem to tread a fine line between fiction and reality.

In January 1986, when the Challenger exploded, all the wonder of the launch quickly turned to nightmare.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I offer my sincerest condolences to the families of those who perished and to the American, Israeli and Indian peoples.

The intrepid men and women who explore space have our greatest admiration and respect.

[Agriculture, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a backgrounder prepared by Agriculture Canada.

It says that from the federal government's point of view, it makes sense to stop funding provincial programs because the federal government receives very little, if any, visibility from the provincial programs it supports.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think it is right for a government to hold all of Quebec's agricultural producers hostage because it is not getting enough visibility?

[Agriculture, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal government readily reached agreement on the objectives of Canada's new agricultural policy framework. However, an important obstacle still exists regarding how these objectives will be reached. Despite the unanimous support of the National Assembly, the UPA, and the Quebec government, the federal government stubbornly refuses to make changes to the program, thereby threatening the viability of the Financière agricole du Québec.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs approve of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's refusal to be flexible solely to maximize the Government of Canada's visibility?

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member for LaSalle—Émard's statement that Canadians would not support funding the Bloc Quebecois really conceals his concern about funding for federal political parties drying up.

As Minister of Finance, he was quick to make cuts to the EI program and health and education transfers in order to focus on paying down the debt and easing taxes for the rich. As well, during his tenure, the use of tax havens by Canadians grew fivefold.

In six months of campaigning for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, the member for LaSalle—Émard has already raised more than $2 million. Quebeckers and Canadians are justified in wondering if the member for LaSalle—Émard has not left himself open to influence.

The only way to dispel this situation is to pass legislation providing for public financing of political parties, as was done in Quebec. In 1994, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour moved a motion to that effect in the House of Commons. The member for LaSalle—Émard voted against it.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. colleague opposite took much of his inspiration from the Romanow report. However, I would like to know if, in his opinion and that of his party, and in the spirit of the recommendations in the Romanow report, they will respect jurisdictions.

Does he agree that the provinces are the ones administering health care and that the Government of Canada does not need to impose conditions, with regard to future federal government expenditures, obliging the provinces to spend health care funds in those sectors identified by the federal government? Clearly, the provinces know what the health care needs are. The federal government should restore the transfer payments. It has budgetary surpluses.

I would like to know if, in the spirit of the Romanow report, it will respect areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.