Jean-Paul Marchand

[Social Housing, February 17th, 1995]

That answer, Mr. Speaker, comes from the mouth of a minister who is well known for his patronage in the maritimes and who shells out almost $400 million a year-

[Social Housing, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the public works minister.

For a few weeks now, the people of Quebec and Canada have been living under the threat of the next budget. People in need fear that it might be worse than the last one in the area of new social and co-op housing.

Given that since 1991, Quebec received only 19 per cent of the total amount earmarked for social housing, when it has a quarter of the population, which translates into a potential loss of $100 million per year, would the Minister of Public works commit himself to correcting this unfair situation for the neediest part of the Quebec population?

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the Reform member, especially when he talked about health care. Obviously the Reform Party wants to privatize health care. It is a party that has not defended social programs. We are the only party that has defended social programs in this House, in spite of the attacks and reductions by the Liberal government.

The Reform Party has not spoken in defence of social programs. It is obviously opening the door to privatization of health care. Our health care system is one of the standards of Canada, one of the hallmarks of Canada, one of the achievements of Canada. This party is talking about privatizing health care and giving us the model, obviously, of the American system where if a person gets sick he or she risks going bankrupt very quickly.

Under the cover of comments of New Zealand's problems and success story, among all the other comments that have been made, which unfortunately Americanize things that have been good for Canada, he is again opening the door to a system that has proven to be costly and wasteful and even dangerous, where people go bankrupt if they become ill.

That is not an avenue which is very constructive. It is probably even worse than what the federal government is now doing. The federal government has not been doing very much in terms of helping people, in terms of the social programs, in terms of health care. The government in trying to reduce its deficit has attacked unemployed people and senior citizens. It has tried to put more debt on students. It is now even increasing the rent of the poorest people in our society. That is what the government is doing now, which is probably the worst thing that I can imagine, and the hon. member is suggesting something which is even worse.

I ask the member how privatizing the health care system in Canada would improve the debt problem?

[Supply, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party member is right when he says that Canada is heading for national bankruptcy. The hon. member is also pretty much on target when he says that the government lacks the will to put some order in its finances.

This lack of political will, as well as the fact that we are obviously heading for bankruptcy, has been quite noticeable since the Liberals took office. Foreign investors are extremely concerned about the state of the federal government's finances. The fact that Canada's economic situation is truly out of control may not be the main reason why Quebec wants to become a sovereign state, but it is certainly one of the reasons. As the Reform member pointed out, this government lacks the will to act.

We can accept the fact that Liberal members rise in this House to say that Canada is the best country in the world. However, with impending bankruptcy looming on the horizon, Canada may not hold that honour for much longer. This reminds me of the captain of the Titanic who, in 1912, said that his ship was the most beautiful in the world and referred to it as ``the unsinkable Titanic ''.

The Titanic sank, but that does not justify the fact that Canada is experiencing very serious problems. The whole world is aware of that, and particularly investors. Yet, this government does not have the political will to correct the situation. This is serious, especially since the government and the minister could take a whole slew of realistic measures to help the economy. However, they simply will not do that. On the contrary, the government is bent on eliminating the debt at the expense of the poor. And that makes this federal regime even more unfair.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Question No. 93, which I tabled in this House on October 19, 1994. Usually, the response period is 45 days, but, in this case, 120 days have gone by since the question was raised.

I would like to know why it is taking three times the usual maximum time allowed. What is the point of having rules, if the government is not going to comply with them? Despite whatever excuses might be made, I would like to know when I will get an answer to Question No. 93.

[Member For Saint-Henri-Westmount, February 14th, 1995]

"What a victory", Mr. Speaker. "What a victory!" These were the words of Lucienne Robillard, a former minister in the Bourassa government, on being elected as member for Saint-Henri-Westmount in a by-election in which only 30 per cent of registered voters turned out. What a victory indeed.

It reflects little glory on Mrs. Robillard, who systematically refused to take part in any debate during the campaign. For her, the by-election was a mere formality, somewhat like being appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister. Let us hope she knows which door is which when she comes to Ottawa.

She will have to explain statements she made earlier as the Quebec minister for health and education, when she fought against federal interference in these sectors. Does she no longer stand by these statements, which are at odds with the present federal government's approach to social program reform?

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the sad part of Bill C-65 is that the government is acting pretty well like the Conservative Party acted in encouraging patronage. The government is not implementing a law that is reducing patronage at all. It is a public relations exercise, as our colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier, scratching the surface.

I wonder whether or not it is confusing a lion's roar with a burp. Yesterday when the government introduced Bill C-65 it mentioned it as being a great improvement in government, a great advancement, aggressive government, progressive government. It is as though we are dealing with Conservatives who are giving us the impression that they are really changing something when in fact they are not. We are living with the same system of patronage, give or take a few things. Certainly it is the case of the mouse that roared or mice that are trying to roar but they are certainly not giving us much to deal with anyway.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as far as Mr. de Belleval is concerned, I cannot speak for him, since this was one of the appointments that were made under Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government.

It all goes to show that following the example of the Conservatives is not necessarily the best way for the Liberals to improve things in this country, and in fact, if we look at what the government is doing now, the Prime Minister is about to go further than the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, ever did. That is the problem. Meanwhile, they are making all these cosmetic changes but people are not easily fooled. They realize that the Liberal government is doing exactly what the Conservative Party used to do.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still does not realize that we are not interested in changing the way the other place operates. We just want to get rid of it. We want to get rid of the other place because it is just a waste of money, like most patronage appointments in the federal system.

If the federal government, if the Liberal Party really wanted to improve the system to reduce the debt, it could have used this bill to reduce the number of agencies without reducing efficiency. It could have used it to really reduce the number of members of boards of directors and committees.

In fact, the government could have introduced all these measures in one fell swoop, if it had been so inclined. Not so. They are doing this piecemeal to give us the impression they are working very hard. There will be subsequent legislation to implement another 125 cuts in a matter of weeks or months. Just to give the impression that, my goodness, this government is really working, although the fact is they are not doing much to reduce patronage. Instead, they are doing everything they can to get money out of the pockets of the needy, those who have no resources at all, like the people in substandard housing and the unemployed. These people are being hit, but careful how you treat the friends of the party. Once again, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that as far as the other place is concerned, we do not want to change it. We just want to get rid of it.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform my hon. colleaque that it was the leader of the Reform Party who spoke of loyal slaves. And he was right, because he was referring to the appointment of the governor general and the appointment of certain Liberals to the upper House, the other place, the Senate, which is perhaps the highest patronage appointment of all in the federal system.

Bill C-65, in essence, may be showing only a small part of the big picture of patronage in the federal system. It does not tell the whole story about the huge amounts wasted on all those appointments that are made-nearly 3,000 patronage positions-not including all the squandering going on regarding the other place. Here we have 102 extremely well paid individuals who may or may not be doing much to further the cause or the well-being of ordinary people. It is the highest body of patronage and it is a part of the federal system.

At present, the federal system is so mismanaged and is plagued with so much patronage and squandering that we are stuck with this incredibly huge debt, a $600 billion debt that is extremely difficult to reduce. Again, I think that the people of Quebec are getting the picture and I am sure that they are looking forward to the referendum to cast aside this system that no longer serves their interests.