Gaston Leroux

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree with Mr. Justice Krever that the commission of inquiry also lacks the necessary funds to get to the bottom of this issue of tainted blood?

[Canadian Hemophilia Society, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, La Presse published an article in which Mr. Justice Krever, chairman of the public inquiry on tainted blood, stated that the financial assistance provided to the commission and the Canadian Hemophilia Society was far from adequate.

Now that the Minister of Health had time to think about it, will she reconsider her decision and give the Canadian Hemophilia Society all the money it needs?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the other side is obviously anxious and interested to hear what we have to say; that speeds things up.

It is important to wonder about the basic role of the Canadian parliamentary system. In the House, various procedures allow the Opposition members to enquire about government activities. Among these, the Question Period remains a first-rate mean to discover and recognize the true position of the government on current issues.

Therefore, when the government apparently does not wish to answer, we can eventually resort to what is commonly known as the "late show", as you said it yourself, Mr. Speaker, to force the government to act more responsibly and to answer our questions in the best interest of Canadians. That is where we are at now, and I urge the government to give clear answers to the questions of the opposition.

I asked the Minister of National Defence about an incident involving an helicopter of the Canadian Armed Forces and Mohawks in Kanesatake and I got more comments and questions than answers. Opposition members are entitled to ask about the origin of the distress signal detected by Canadian Armed Forces. That signal caused the incident on January 21 and as long as the public does not know where that signal came from, doubts will continue to linger in the mind of all Canadians and Quebecers.

The matter is not closed simply because this government tried to cover it up through a joint statement of National Defence and the Mohawks. On the contrary, one can speculate about the true reasons why the government tries to downplay and ignore the

incident. Maybe this government needs to be reminded that something did happen on January 21.

Why was a distress signal detected in the Kanesatake reserve? If that signal was not used in a real distress situation, why was it sent? Who sent it and why? What kind of device can send this distress signal? Exactly where dit it come from? Was it an act of provocation, or rather a mistake made by the owner of a state-of-art device who accidently sent such a signal? Why Kanesatake?

Those are the kind of questions for which the government refused to give us the information we are entitled to. This incident sets a precedent that can have serious consequences for the population in general.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues did mention several times during this debate that the special committee would be a committee with accrued powers.

As the Auditor General himself keeps telling the government year after year: "I do not have access to all the information". This is something the government has to understand. This is something the Auditor General himself is saying. In his report,

he did say that the use of government aircraft cost us $50 million, including $25 million to transport ministers, but he also said that he did not have the tools to examine these expenditures. He had the same problems with the information about the expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mountain Police versus transfers to the provinces.

So, more information, that is what we want the committee to have in order to consider the expenditures item by item. Give your committee all the information available about the expenditures.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment and question. We have every confidence that the municipalities in the province of Quebec will administer their share of the third of this program.

If, as the hon. member pointed out, there is so much passion in my speech, it is because we are dealing with initiatives that eat up billions of dollars and must be examined against the background of an enormous deficit and the absence of any real audit and evaluation programs. A mere 25 per cent of expenditures have been submitted to program evaluation in seven years. This is an indication that we must act and set up a special committee which will be able to examine all expenditures.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to this question, considering the long experience of the hon. member, I will say this: we must improve transparency. The Auditor General himself indicated in his report that he had been unable to obtain some information. So, what we are proposing is not "committeeitis" so to speak, but one committee with the power to obtain all the information. That is what our proposal is about. If you want transparency, set up a committee that will have access to all the information.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a political Party, the Bloc Quebecois, has committed itself to defend the interests of Quebec and, as the Official Opposition, it has committed itself to responsibly and effectively assume this role.

In this context, I want you to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to make constant, accurate and regular efforts to see that this government abides by the commitments made in its famous red book.

With regard to this debate on the creation of a special committee with a mandate to evaluate the various programs, I would like to highlight some deficiencies of the Canadian federal system which are at the root of the poor management of this country and of its financial crisis. I refer in particular to the shortcomings of the evaluation process as applied to government programs.

Given the weakness of this mecanism which allows to systematically verify in each department the efficiency and the viability of government programs-the legacy of the Trudeau and the Mulroney eras-the Bloc Quebecois wants to proceed to a detailed evaluation of the government spending programs.

In our view, program evaluation must meet three basic needs of any administration which has self-respect and knows how to efficiently defend itself. First, the information collected through such evaluation measures is used for clarifying the decision making process regarding the allocation of ressources, making it more efficient. Second, these measures help Quebecers and Canadians to decide on the return from tax revenues. Finally, such measures make civil servants responsible not only for the implementation of the procedures, but also for the results achieved.

At present, the Treasury Board policy on evaluation consists of two elements. A self-evaluation made by the departments and a process directed by a central authority which has the mandate to establish priorities, provide technical assistance and monitor the evaluations made by departments. Therefore, evaluations are already being made by some departments but the monitoring part is far from brilliant.

There are two main problems related to program evaluation in Canada. First, the resources allotted to a department to make such evaluations and thus increase the return on public investments are clearly insufficient.

Let me give some examples which speak for themselves. Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the expenditures related to program evaluations went down 28 per cent which, as a result, has led to a reduction in the number of program evaluations since 1987-88. Indeed, 99 program evaluation reports were produced in 1987-88 compared to only 80 in 1991-92. Most importantly, during the latter period, government expenditures for 16 programs totalled $124.5 billion. Only two of those programs were examined thoroughly. By the way, the Trudeau and Mulroney administrations never gave any special attention to major programs. Evaluations do not focus on programs with the greatest expenditures. It is estimated that programs with expenditures of less than $250 million were evaluated twice as much compared to those spending more than that amount.

I must underline that according to 1991-92 figures, evaluations done on a seven-year period focused on 24 per cent of program spending. If we take into account the cost of debt service, evaluations were on only 18 per cent of expenditures over a seven-year period. Also, starting with 1991-92 figures, evaluations done over that period focused on only 24 per cent of program spending.

A second problem with governmental program evaluation has to do with the quality of controls regarding the evolution of those programs. By placing evaluation services within departments, we have given the immediate needs of managers precedence over those of the government and the public. How? They neglect the basic role of program evaluation which is to ascertain program effectiveness and question them if necessary, for the sole purpose of allowing for optimal allocation of resources.

In fact, the evaluations cover operational aspects only and in no way determine the programs' relevance or cost-effectiveness. The Canadian public service, as well as any Western bureaucracy, is rather self-sufficient and very resistant political interference in its methods of operation. There is no systematic evaluation of programs involving more than one department. The House of Commons could establish a system to that effect as a symbol of the involvement of the population in the political

life of the state of Quebec and of Canada, at least if one believes in democratic representation.

With such a huge deficit and a rather anemic economic recovery, it is essential that the existing resources be allocated and used as efficiently as possible. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in such a context, program evaluation becomes essential. Without effective program evaluation, the government is just not able to best allocate its resources. In fact, parliamentarians are asked to work in the dark, and to allocate resources without knowing what the situation really is.

The Auditor General said in his report that "In the 1990s, program evaluation should be seen as crucial to the management of government expenditures, because it can help to arrive at informed decisions aimed at controlling growth of the public debt". Therein lies our problem.

By comparison, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States have adopted an external evaluation system for government programs. For example, in the United States all evaluation reports are made public and they are often presented directly to Congress. In addition, Congress can request evaluation reports on programs that it wishes to review. Which means that the legislature has control over the evaluation process.

Again in the United States the general accounting office handles requests for and submits evaluation reports to Congress.

In the United Kingdom managers are responsible for meeting performance objectives, while in Australia, evaluations are used in the budget-making process.

In 1978 the public accounts committee recommended that evaluation results be tabled in the House within 60 days after the evaluations were completed. In 1983-listen to this, Mr. Speaker-only one single study was tabled.

Is this the mark of a conscientious, efficient government administration? Is it not, rather, the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada? Will the newly announced national infrastructure program, which is being touted as the saviour of the Canadian economy, be subject to an evaluation? Will it be based on effective management criteria? I doubt it. The Auditor General's report has already been forgotten and evaluation criteria will be defined later, or so we are told.

To stop this waste of public funds, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for strong action. It wants the House to press the government to strike a special parliamentary committee made up of all official parties. The committee would have a mandate to review federal government expenditures in light of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, as well as overlap between provincial and federal programs.

The opposition is making this proposal in a spirit of transparency and openness, as it would provide for the public scrutiny of official matters. The committee would have the power to call witnesses if it felt their testimony would be useful.

We are proposing that this committee, which could be called the standing committee on program evaluation, report before June 23, 1994, and that the government undertake to give a formal response to this report by tabling its response to the committee's recommendations on the first sitting day of the 1994 fall session of this House.

The Official Opposition is presenting a constructive proposal aimed at achieving the objectives put forward by the Liberal government in its red book, namely ensuring transparency, restoring the image of politicians and allowing for greater involvement of members of Parliament in the affairs of government and of the House.

This proposal constitutes a formal invitation from the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition, to the Liberal government.

[The Senate, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to all the horrors mentioned in the last report of the Auditor General, we learned last week that the operation of the other House cost Quebecers and Canadian taxpayers more than $43 million last year. Moreover there were only 47 days of proceedings during the session and, of that total, 29 days over a four-month period, from February to May 1993.

This means one million dollars per day of work or $150,000 per federal riding and these already have representatives in the House of Commons.

If we were to ask the constituents of Richmond-Wolfe if such spending of public funds is appropriate, I can say right away what their answer would be. They tell us, their representatives, that those funds should be invested in the economic recovery and in job creation.

It is the duty of all members of this House, and especially those of the Official Opposition, to examine all votes and appropriations of the other House in order to put an end to this shameful waste.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in this debate concerning amendments to the Standing Orders of the House. After listening to the previous speakers, you can tell how everyone is concerned about giving elected representatives more responsibility and more influence on how this House and the whole process work.

As my colleagues have done earlier, I would like to express my point of view and begin by describing some of the fundamentals involved here. The hon. member for Dartmouth talked about progressive elements. Instead of using words like "progressive", he should talk about rules or evolution, as his colleague from Saint-Léonard did.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard reminded us that there are over 200 new members in the House. It is true that those new members have a lot to learn and to take in.

As for the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the House, according to the Constitution, Canada's sovereignty is entrusted to three entities: the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. In reality, however, that is not the case. We have learned from the history of Western parliamentary government that the real power belongs to the inner cabinet of the government party.

However, as we come to the end of the 20th century, the political power in Canada is based on only one legitimate principle, and that is the power given to the House of Commons whose members are elected to represent the will of the people. A minimum balance has to be struck between the sovereignty of the people, expressed by universal suffrage, and the efficiency of the modern state so that the spirit of democracy can survive throughout Canada as well as Quebec.

The primary objective of members of Parliament, who represent the various societies and nations that comprise the Canadian entity, is to control the actions of the parliamentary executive.

With the emergence of the welfare state, the postwar period marked the beginning of an era in which politicians were faced with an ever increasing number of laws that were more and more complex, mounting budgets and a more cumbersome administration. So, we are witnessing the progressive growth of the executive at the expense of the legislature. This is not in itself a serious problem, but it can become extremely dangerous for the democratic future of a geopolitical entity when, for example, the leader of the governing party states repeatedly in the House that no one in Canada or in Quebec wants to reopen the Canadian Constitution, thereby denying the very existence of the official opposition.

As I said, the contemporary role of the House of Commons is to control the government's actions, which implies the right of members to question and criticize freely and publicly the government and its legislative measures. The disappearance of the parliamentary balance and the emergence of a parliamentary oligarchy infringes on this right and reduces the democratic nature of the House of Commons.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition in this House, have a number of reservations about the proposed changes to the Standing Orders of the House put forward by the Liberal government, since the dynamics of the proposals are such that the sacred balance between the legislative and the executive powers would be destroyed.

These proposals call into question the very essence of parliamentary democracy. However, Bloc members did not receive a mandate from Quebec voters to reform federal institutions and, in this particular case, much less a mandate to reform the House of Commons which of all the institutions is the one largely responsible for Quebec's gradual, ongoing loss of political autonomy.

The Bloc's mandate in this House is clear. It is to defend the interests of Quebec, according to parliamentary rules and traditions, while there is still time. The Bloc has a fundamental obligation to oppose any reform which is aimed at limiting the role of opposition members in controlling government activity. This obligation involves protecting the interests of Quebecers.

Since this political party's primary objective is to secure the national independence of the Quebec state, it cannot help but advocate the decentralization of the decision-making process. In short, the Official Opposition acts as a watchdog in ensuring

the transparency and openness of the proceedings of the House of Commons.

It is written in the famous red book, the Liberal Party agenda so often waved about during the election campaign, and I quote: "The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors".

This amendment put forward today by the same Liberal Party would enable a minister to make a motion to refer a bill to a committee immediately after second reading. It makes the Bloc Quebecois wonder what some of the statements contained in the red book are worth.

Also, the throne speech mentioned that the government was "committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament". Basically, to make the House of Commons run more efficiently, the Liberals advocate providing members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of legislation. Again, the Bloc Quebecois questions the value, the usefulness of the government proposals in terms of referring bills to committee immediately after first reading, because that is the intent: to change second reading proceedings to allow the minister to ask for the bill to be referred immediately to committee. This would means that no amendments could be considered in the House. We do not think that abolishing debate in the House at the second reading stage is a measure that will increase transparency or allow members to make a greater contribution. The Official Opposition believes, on the contrary, that it undermines the legislative function of private members. Does this mean that parliamentary democracy is progressively disappearing? Is the member of Parliament not the front-line representative, that is to say the elected representative of the people of his or her riding, the riding being foremost in a system of democracy by representation? Those are the questions that we must ask ourselves.

The reality is the following: the time allocated to the consideration of private members' bills in the House of Commons has shrunk from three to four days a week in 1867 to a mere two to four hours a week in 1968. The exact same thing is happening now with regard to the time allocated to the Official Opposition, for this government proposal basically eliminates any debate in the House on the principle of bills being read for the second time. And that is an important stage! Second reading is the most important stage a bill has to go through. That is when the House gets to vote on the very principle of the legislation.

Again, the Bloc Quebecois has serious reservations concerning this measure put forward by the government to reform the House of Commons. One of the primary immediate objectives of the Bloc Quebecois will be to introduce legislation to increase the capacity to get involved, the legislative responsibility and the input of members of Parliament in the development of a decentralized Parliament. After all, Parliament is a rhetorical instrument in the original meaning of the word, that is to say one that allows public debate on matters of public interest. As I said, it also encourages the expression of dissent in a civilized way. Real political opposition is a necessary attribute of democracy, tolerance and confidence in the people's ability to resolve their differences peacefully. Opposition is essential to the parliamentary political system; otherwise, politics simply becomes administration.

With this in mind, the debate and vote on the principle of a bill at second reading is the most important way that opposition members have to oversee government bills and provides an opportunity to question the advisability of a bill before it is studied and debated clause by clause. By sending a bill to committee right after first reading, the government prevents members from criticizing the principle of a bill before its passage is assured.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree that it is difficult in committee, at report stage, to call into question the principle of a bill while it is being amended clause by clause. Once again, the Bloc Quebecois believes that this infringes the fundamental right of members to control government legislation.

With this reform, the opposition could no longer delay debate; from at least six hours allotted to the official opposition under the present Standing Orders, we would have at most one hour under the government's proposal. It seems that the power of backbenchers is being strangely eroded, as I already said several times, whence the reluctance of Bloc Quebecois members to approve such a measure. Incidentally, this same amendment does not restore Parliament's public credibility.

The government's proposal to amend the Standing Orders of the House concerns the committee charged with tabling a bill. Thus a minister can present a motion delegating to the committee the power to draft a draft bill and table it in the House. In its report, the committee can then recommend the principle, scope and general provisions of the draft bill, which implies a provision for an immediate vote on second reading, without debate or amendment.

The consequences of this proposal on the principle of parliamentary democracy and the importance of the role of the backbencher as a legislator are the same as in the case of the preceding proposal, namely that it prevents MPs from criticizing the principle of government bills. Indeed, nothing in this proposal indicates that a bill tabled by the government, following the report tabled by a committee, complies with that report. The government may well not respect the principle of the bill drafted by the committee when that bill is tabled for first reading.

With this measure, the government is trying to force the hand of the opposition by indirectly implicating it in the decision process, by enabling it, in theory since committees are controlled by the majority, to participate in the drafting of bills. The government is trying to get the opposition to support the bills which are tabled.

Although we do not systematically oppose this proposal, Bloc Quebecois members want to emphasize the importance of having a debate here on the principle underlying any bill, and they want to make this House aware of the fact that this measure does absolutely nothing to ensure transparency and to improve Parliament's credibility, two important election promises contained in the famous red book.

The Official Opposition deplores the fact that the government's proposed reform does not provide for special debates on bills deemed important by MPs. Indeed, emergency debates are rather rare in the House. The rules governing such debates are very strict, thus preventing this type of exercise on issues of concern to the public. The relevance of the proceedings of this House often is not obvious for the public, since in the absence of emergency debates these proceedings are not always related to current issues.

In order to better protect Quebec's interests, the Bloc Quebecois would like to enhance the status of the work done by the House of Commons. We therefore propose that a procedure be established to hold special debates on specific issues, as was recommended in the 81st report of the Standing Committee on House Management.

The Bloc Quebecois also deplores the fact that the government did not make any proposal for a special question and answer period on specific issues, during which some ministers would answer all the questions asked.

The eighty-first report, mentioned earlier, contained a recommendation that a special period for questions and answers be institutionalized on a weekly basis. The Standing Committee on House Management saw this as an effective means of dealing with regional and sectoral problems which, due to lack of time, could not be dealt with by the opposition during Question Period. The committee also saw this as a way to question ministers more systematically.

We therefore notice a lack of political will on the part of the government and an attitude that clearly contradicts the great principle of the election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In this perspective, and to protect the interests of Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois proposes setting aside once a week, outside normal sitting hours, at least one hour for questions and answers on a subject or problem to be dealt with by a single minister. The Official Opposition would determine early in the week which ministers are to be questioned on what subjects, as well as the date and time of the proceedings. During these sessions, the House would sit according to a format similar to that of committees of the whole.

And, as a last point, I would like to draw the attention of the House to several government proposals concerning public spending and pre-budget consultations. The proposed reforms which empower the committee to examine the future year expenditure plans of departments before the last sitting day in June and to table a report advising the government on its future expenditure plans is a positive measure involving backbenchers in the budget planning process.

The item on authorizing consideration of proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government from September to December is also a way of involving backbenchers in the budget process. The opposition sees this as a positive element as well.

Finally, the proposal regarding the possibility to amend the tax system in committee without previous notice before the introduction of a bill seems destined to give committees, with a parliamentary majority, all the flexibility required to impose tax measures. That way, the opposition would not get notices in the House and the government could introduce bills without saying immediately that their application would entail taxes.

Before I conclude, I would like to remind the federalist members of this House who might feel very patriotic that Bloc Quebecois members were not sent to Ottawa to reform parliamentary structures, but to defend the interests of the Quebec state. Need I mention it? We are sovereignist members and as such we denounce the proposed changes to the Standing Orders since they do not improve openness and are not, therefore, in the interest of Quebec.

Let me mention, as an example, the absence of any measure whatsoever which would allow the House to examine order-in-council appointments of officers of Parliament, judges, ambassadors, high commissioners, presidents and administrators of Crown corporations and of various people in regulatory bodies, agencies, and courts. It would have been very much in the public interest if, in the context of this parliamentary reform, a procedure allowing members to examine appointments before they became reality had been proposed to the House. In so doing, the government would have enriched and transformed the members' role and would have given back to Parliament its credibility. That type of proposal is essential to the openness of political decision making and seems to be a fundamental democratic measure if the people are to express their sovereignty since it would protect the country against patronage and political bias.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot help but feel concerned since it is not covered in the proposal for parliamentary reform. The lack of such measure shows how the government are against openness even though last autumn, during the campaign, they prom-

ised they would base appointments on qualifications and put an end to patronage.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the liberal member for Kingston and the Islands who said, on April 9, 1991: "That exposition of the importance of an opposition in Parliament to inform the people and to express their grievances in Parliament is a deep rooted one in the British parliamentary tradition" and "We believe that this country functions best when it has a strong and effective opposition". We of the Bloc Quebecois also believe that our country, that is Quebec, will have the opportunity to assert itself and gain political autonomy thanks to the presence in Ottawa of a strong and efficient Official Opposition. The voice the Bloc Quebecois is raising in protest against the centralizing views of the federal government and the lack of transparency of the parliamentary reform proposed today, is the same voice we hear, coming from the Canadian political scene, in favour of political independance for Quebec.

Therefore, the sovereignist MPs reject the government's proposal to refer bills to committees for review, immediately after first reading, on the grounds that it violates the guarantees granted opposition members, under the Standing Orders, to question and criticize the government.

The Bloc members deplore the lack of political will that would have allowed for real reform and put an end to the general disillusionment felt by Canadians for politicians as a whole. The same members deplore a partial reform which does not provide for this fundamental balance between the role of the government, which is to govern, and that of the opposition, which is to control the government's activities.

To conclude, we also deplore the fact that this reform of parliamentary rules, which challenges some fundamental principles of our parliamentary system, does not address the tarnished image of MPs.

In short, all the Official Opposition is seeking is that the rules of the parliamentary system be respected, and that decisions made by the Canadian political community be transparent, as requested by the Quebec people.

Quebecers have a good memory and they are not ready to forget the many years under the Liberals, when many decisions regarding the political future of Quebec were taken, with total disrespect for openness, and resulted in the Constitutional Act of 1982.

[Armed Forces Bands, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to help his Minister of Finance who is desperately in need of money, is the minister ready to use the same reasoning in the case of the Canadian Forces bands as he did in the case of the RCMP marching band?