Jean-Paul Marchand

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

Mr. Speaker, to use a more stylish expression, let us say that there is a significant gap between reality and what is being proposed. If we put things in perspective, we realize that the federal Liberal government is making fun of people, as did the hon. member for Outremont when he exaggerated with a little smile on his face.

Bill C-65 does provide for the reorganization of certain agencies and commissions. The number of members of some 15 boards is reduced from 12 to nine, while other agencies are dissolved. For example, the Canadian saltfish corporation is abolished, and it is not too soon. After all, it has been a long time since there was any saltfish to sell; yet, that corporation is still in existence. Such a measure is obviously appropriate, as are all the other changes proposed in Bill C-65. These changes obviously make a lot of sense.

I could mention other examples. In the past, there were such excesses that the least we can do is to make these cuts; in fact, we should go even farther. Indeed, this is the problem with this bill: the government barely cuts into the fat because, once again, there is the issue of patronage, of appointments made by the government to reward long time members and friends of the party, as well as those who helped get the Prime Minister elected. All in all, some 125 patronage positions, out of a total of close to 3,000, are being abolished. This is a small step in the right direction, and we are told that it will result in savings of about one million dollars. This is said to be a very important saving for the government.

To put this in perspective, I would like to remind you that while eliminating a few patronage appointments will apparently lead to one million dollars in savings, the government has already taken a few billion dollars from the unemployed in Canada and is constantly finding all kinds of ways to attack the poor. For example, with regard to public housing, 110,000 Quebec households will soon see their rent increased by about 30 per cent. These 110,000 households who live in low cost or co-operative housing are among the poorest in our society. Their average income is about $10,000 a year.

The government drags its heels when it comes to making significant cuts in patronage appointments, and yet it does not hesitate to take $500 more a year from the poor, who earn just $10,000 a year, in order to recover $26 million. This is only in Quebec, but it has already happened in other provinces. The government has already succeeded in increasing the rent in most provinces.

The government is giving the impression that it is cutting the fat, but it is really keeping the patronage system in place and making marginal cuts while increasing the burden that the poorest people in our society must bear.

So I am extremely disappointed when I see Liberal members rise in this House to say that Bill C-65 represents an important shift in the Liberal policy. People should understand that Bill C-65 brings only minor changes.

The elimination of 125 to 150 patronage appointments out of a total of nearly 3,000 is obviously a good thing; I cannot say that it is bad. The government is cutting some fat, but if it could eliminate half of these appointments, it would really show its willingness to reduce patronage, as it promised to do in the red book during the election campaign.

The current prime minister had indeed said that he would change the patronage appointment process and abolish or at least reduce such appointments. Now, with this decision, the government is reducing a number of patronage appointments, without however changing the whole system; the patronage appointment system remains the same. This is only the Liberal version of what went on these last eight or nine years under the Conservatives. The same type of patronage goes on, despite all the promises to get rid of it.

The director of Liberal appointments, Penny Collenette, the spouse of our Minister of National Defence, said in 1993, not long after the election of the Liberal Party, that the selection criteria for these appointments would rather be based on capacity, merit, integrity, honesty, and community service. In fact, Mrs. Collenette was only trying to reiterate to Canadians and convince them that things were about to change.

But of course, her statement was refuted by Liberal Senator Rizzuto, a Quebec Liberal organizer, who promised in October 1993 to find jobs for every defeated Liberal candidate. And indeed, he did it. In fact, a list was published recently in the Globe and Mail , containing around a hundred political appointments to various boards, associations, and commissions.

Under the title "It pays to be a Liberal", the Globe and Mail published a whole page giving a list of people for whom it really paid to be Liberals, people like Richard Croft, director, National Research Council, former Liberal fund-raiser and key leadership organizer for the present Prime Minister; Patrick Lavelle, chairman, Federal Business Development Bank, Ontario chairman of the present Prime Minister's leadership campaigns in 1984 and 1990; Jack Reid, Governor General of Saskatchewan, chairman of the present Prime Minister's leadership campaign; John Cordeau, director, Petro-Canada, Manitoba campaign chairman for the present Prime Minister; David McLain, chairman, CNRail, fund-raiser in the leadership campaign of the present Prime Minister. I could go on.

That is an impressive list. Interestingly enough, the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit indicates that in the 25 most important patronage appointments by the Liberal Party, in that long list, only three go to Quebecers. That does not mean there were no patronage appointments in Quebec. There have been many. The list contains the names of Benoît Choquette, Auguste Choquette, Margo Brousseau, a defeated candidate in Louis-Hébert who was appointed director of the Quebec Port Corporation, and many more.

For the sake of its squeaky clean image, this Liberal government has established new procedures to select political nominees. Some people can be fooled into believing that justice will prevail, and that administrative procedures will secure the appointment of the most qualified candidate, even if he or she has no political affiliation.

A certain Mr. Hall quickly came back to reality, as did many others when they lost potential jobs to the hands of candidates who had chosen the political path and who obtained the positions without even going through an interview.

The Prime Minister, who knows the answers to all questions, says he cannot eliminate the 65 per cent portion of the population who has the good sense to support the Liberals. He will not punish people who vote the right way. According to him, nominations are made on the basis of skills and competence, and that cannot be determined unless he knows the person. What an unshakable logic! According to that way of thinking, no one in the world would ever get a job unless he or she personally knows the boss. Goodbye personnel manager, hello contacts.

How strange that this government can maintain its popularity in spite of its inaction and its outrageous patronage. Just think, more than 100 Liberals profited from political nominations. I even read some editorials that claim that the figure is closer to 400. What is the exact number? In any case, over a period of fifteen months, it represents more than one nomination a week. Why were Canadians and Quebecers so deeply shocked when the Tories practised patronage if they can now accept the Liberal nominations with such lack of concern?

Whatever the reason, this government is well aware of its failsafe popularity and uses it shamelessly to its advantage. Whereas tories would place one friend in a position and everyone would shout murder, nowadays the Liberals make just as many nominations, if not more given the present pace, and all agree wholeheartedly that, after all, the candidate was the most competent one for the job. What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals who, when on this side, denounced all Conservative patronage appointments and called them a form of political corruption, but now that they are in office, they ostentatiously play the same game, saying: See how good our judgment is, see how competent our candidate is. Is it not incredible how transparent we can be in politics?"

The prime minister should read his speeches anew. Here is what he said during the election: "I warn all my colleagues that they get into politics not to help themselves but to serve the Canadian people." They now realize that charity begins at home.

The Ottawa Citizen recently contained the following:

"The Chrétien campaign promise was emphatic and unequivocal. The Liberals would end nine years of Conservative misrule and the squalid patronage that went with it. In the Liberal red book's own words, a Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence. That was the promise and a good one it was. Only a restoration of integrity could dispel public cynicism and replenish the strength of the government itself. But as it turned out, the Liberals have taken up the patronage trade with a Tory like enthusiasm". That is from the Ottawa Citizen .

Also, there was a general outcry concerning the Liberal patronage appointment process. Here is what a well-known individual said: "When appointing faithful slaves to various positions, the Liberal government has its nose in the trough, is bringing the cause of federalism into disrepute and is giving the rest of the world the impression that the Canadian political system is based on stupidity".

I will make no secret of the fact that these comments are from the leader of the Reform Party who is right for once. The government's shameless patronage appointment process undermines the integrity of the Canadian system and the image of federalism and reinforces the people's perception that the system is corrupt.

In fact, when a government is elected by making promises that it will not keep, when a government promises to reduce patronage but does not do it, and when it tries to reduce its debt on the back of the destitute, it is time that such a government be removed by the Quebec people. I think Quebecers now understand they will be better served by a sovereign government in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-65, the purpose of which is to reorganize a number of federal agencies. I must say I was surprised to hear the minister refer to this bill as an example of renewed federalism, as an indication that the government is proceeding in a constructive manner and is adjusting to change.

Earlier, I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Outremont referring to Bill C-65 as though the changes that were taking place were truly impressive. He used any number of adjectives to drive the point home that this bill is a major change for the Liberal Party and a sign of the progressive and dynamic initiatives being taken by the government.

Well, if we take a close look at this bill, if this is supposed to be renewed federalism, it is not moving very fast. As the hon. member for the Reform Party said earlier, it may be the right direction but progress is slow.

The hon. member for Outremont has the audacity to criticize Quebecers with regard to the proposed commission on the future of Quebec and to accuse us of not being democratic in our approach. He prefers the kind of back room democracy that assumes that voters, all these people who are listening, will believe anything.

To claim that Bill C-65 marks an impressive change is to assume that people do not know enough to tell the difference between a thunder clap and a fart.

Because when all is said and done, what the government has produced with Bill C-65 is a mere fart, a fart they are trying to disguise as an impressive roll of thunder, a portent of fundamental changes to the government's apparatus. But under all the rhetoric it is just a fart, and one has to call it that because this lingering odour of-

[Social Housing, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government is contemplating raising to 30 per cent of income the rent geared to income in low cost and co-op housing, in order to save on social housing and apply these savings to reducing the federal deficit.

We recognize in this measure the unimaginative, heartless ways of the Liberals, and particularly their lack of vision. What this raise means, in real terms, is a 20 percent per year rent increase for the 110,000 Quebec families in social housing.

Given an average income of $10,000, these tenants will have to pay $500 more in annual rent, or $40 to $50 more per month.

Instead of going after the undue privileges of the rich-family trusts, tax loopholes and unpaid taxes-the federal government argues: let us make the poor pay.

[Starred Questions, February 6th, 1995]

I have a point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning Question No. 93, which was tabled on October 19, 1994, that is to say 110 days ago. Normally, such questions are to be answered within 45 days. I would like an explanation as to the reasons for this delay, a delay that we consider unreasonable.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Precisely. In Quebec, we want to avoid this at all costs, because clause 16 shows a blatant lack of understanding on the part of this government. It seems that the government does not even understand the strongest tendencies in the economy and in modern politics. The government should not go for concentration and centralization. Centralizing all federal, provincial, municipal and other purchases and sales in the country will not result in savings.

Such a move goes against the most elementary and basic rules of economy. This government proposes a bill, clause 16 in particular, which goes against basic economic rules. This is why the government and the people of Quebec are anxious to leave a regime which is headed the wrong way, as confirmed unequivocally by clause 16.

Despite all the representations made by the private sector and all the issues raised with members and the Minister of Public Works, there seems to have been no realization that perhaps this clause should have been deleted or even the previous legislation reinstated.

The consulting engineering sector suggested it preferred the previous act, because Bill C-52 which we are considering today gives the minister additional powers, powers that did not exist before. It is the only really new element in this bill. The rest is not new, just a bunch of provisions that have been revamped. However, this new element is almost an insult to the intelligence of people who understand the workings of our economy. It is a threat to an industrial sector that is thriving and highly specialized, and it opens the door to unfair competition and, once again, to even more patronage.

Clause 16 certainly does not encourage people who are the slightest bit familiar with the operation of the Department of Public Works to support this provision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, suggestions by the government that perhaps these overtures to the private sector should be made in consultation with the business community would actually make no difference at all.

This clause gives the government complete latitude to operate on the turf of the private sector, where it has no business to be, because, I repeat, this opens the door to patronage and is a threat to industries that, over the years, have developed an expertise that is appreciated and an expertise they want to maintain. The government has no business in this sector. And that is why we in the Bloc are opposed to this clause and to the government's amendment.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, once again, government members confuse and mislead the public with their arguments that do not hold water. For instance, they say that the president of the association of consulting engineers of Canada agrees with this motion. I can tell you that I was on the phone with him this morning, as I have been repeatedly these past few weeks, and he keeps telling me that he is against this motion and this clause in Bill C-52.

I want to tell the government that the association has demonstrated its opposition by issuing countless press releases stating that the government is not listening, that "The government is not listening, it is encroaching on our markets". The association, which is concentrated in Quebec, represents 800 consulting engineering firms whose 35,000 members question this bill.

The government member would have us believe that the government is creating jobs. This is pure nonsense. What this clause does is threaten high-quality jobs that have evolved over several years, perhaps mostly in Quebec, jobs that are not created overnight. What is at stake here is top expertise that our consulting engineering firms have demonstrated around the world. It is mainly this sector which is being targeted.

The government cannot mislead the population by saying, as my colleague did earlier, that it does not intend to compete with the private sector.

The minister himself said in a letter that "in response to your question, the primary purpose of Bill C-52 is"-imagine that-"to authorize Public Works and Government Services Canada to provide common services to the departments, boards and agencies of the Canadian government". Clause 16 increases this power by allowing the minister to provide common services, similar to those offered by federal Crown corporations, to other governments and to the private sector in Canada and abroad.

A few paragraphs further, the minister goes on to say: "Clause 16 is not intended to make the Department of Public Works and Government Services into a fierce competitor of the private sector". Certainly not a fierce competitor, but a competitor nonetheless under the monstrous guise of trying to compete and reduce this government's deficit through economies of scale.

Let me give you an example. What is proposed is that the government would provide all the supplies, as well as all other goods and services, not only to itself but maybe also to the provinces, the territories and the municipalities across the country. This is a concentration of purchases. If we had a warped mind like some government members, we might think that there are economies of scale or savings to be made. But we know very well that this is not the case. This would only create a monster like the former U.S.S.R. That country enjoyed a government

monopoly and had economies of scale in every sector. But look at what happened to the U.S.S.R.: it no longer exists.

The basic problem is that the government does not understand that the public and private sectors each have a specific role to play. When you mix the two together, particularly if the federal government starts to compete with the private sector, the whole system becomes skewed, because the federal government can hide all sorts of costs. It can change numbers to make it look as though a particular item or service costs less or money is saved here or there. In this way, the government can compete with certain companies and put them out of business, while favouring friends of the party. This is wonderful-

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-52 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-52 and to support the Reform Party's motion because it is an improvement on the bill tabled by the government.

Unfortunately, Bill C-52 lacks vision and backbone. This bill in no way improves the government's regulations. It is so bad that some clauses and provisions in this bill are regressive. It is going backwards-the Liberals and this government are going backwards.

This bill makes changes which are bad for private enterprise or do not improve openness or access to information. You know as well as I do that if there is a department where patronage, favoritism and unfairness are rampant, that is wasteful and contributes to the government's deficit, it is Public Works.

I admit, anyone who reviews Bill C-52 will know the impact it can have on the operation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Anyone can see how important it is to improve the operation of this department. It would have been easy for the minister to suggest changes to the acts governing these departments, Public Works and Government Services, for instance, to introduce as a code of ethics to regulate contracting out, which is increasing and almost out of control in the federal government.

The minister could also have given officials the power to disclose information, he could have empowered officials in his department and given them the chance to blow the whistle on mismanagement and government waste. Or the minister could have suggested amendments that would have given the public and members of this House better and easier access to information so that this department and this government avoid waste, thus reducing the deficit.

But no. This is a very lacklustre bill that contains nothing new and was introduced by a minister who seems near-sighted, and that is very worrisome. I wonder if this reflects the spirit of the government. The minister introduced a bill that does not improve in any way an old act containing provisions which hinder its efficiency. It is worrisome to have someone at the helm who is near-sighted.

As the Reform Party member mentioned earlier, the debate in committee on Bill C-52 was illogical, if not insane. We made very good suggestions to improve this legislation, but the Liberal members refused to listen, or else they were unable to grasp the underlying logic. Perhaps they have less brains than their own minister, who is already pretty blind. We got the distinct impression that they were only interested in having this legislation passed as quickly as possible, without any amendment.

They refused to let the committee hear witnesses on amendments to some clauses of the bill which have a very serious impact on the operations of the department, and which involve the right of the government to interfere in the private sector, particularly in the consulting-engineer sector.

This legislation is very poor; it contains nothing new and it reflects a total lack of imagination. This is why we will support the Reform Party motion, not because it is the best possible one. Paragraph ( c ) reads: ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and competently-'', while paragraph ( <em>d</em> ) says:ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority-''. These are pious wishes which carry no legal weight. Nevertheless, we are prepared to support this motion, although it has no real impact on the Department of Public Works.

However, paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) are a definite improvement over the existing bill. In the case of ( b ), the Department of Public Works is encouraged to open the door to information, to reveal more information to the private sector or the general public on the way contracts are awarded, and to improve access to information, which is now extremely difficult to obtain. As I said before, it is an improvement. The department and the Liberal government must provide access to information, especially on the process of awarding contracts.

I think the Reform Party's motion is an improvement, but it is flawed because of the words: "where possible". There is no legal obligation on the government to disclose information if the motion is worded this way. My point is that the words "where possible" open the door to all kinds of abuse and arguments preventing access to information, preventing the government from disclosing information on contracts or even members of Parliament from having access to such information when contracts are awarded in their own riding. This is not satisfactory.

We run into the same problem in paragraph ( a ) of the motion, which deals with a matter that is even more serious, coming from the Department of Public Works. A Reform Party member already mentioned the problem about opening the door to competition between the federal government and the private sector. Paragraph ( a ) of motion No. 1 tries to prevent the government from competing with the private sector. But again, ``where possible''. These words open the door to all kinds of abuse. The fact is that basically, the Department of Public Works should not have the right to compete with the private sector.

We are talking about a substantial part of this bill. This is a new power the Minister of Public Works has acquired. It is very skilfully done, by the way, because clause 5 is already an introduction to this new power and clause 10 as well, and of course clause 16, which we will have a chance to discuss later on.

For the first time in the history of the Government of Canada, we have a proposal that the federal government should compete directly with private businesses, especially engineering firms which, incidentally, are well established in Quebec. Several members in this House, including Liberal members, I am sure, have received representations from SNC Lavalin, HBA, Tecsult, and more than 100 companies altogether that are concerned about the unfair competition in which the federal government is about to engage through Bill C-52. So although this Reform Party motion does not go far enough, we on the Bloc side still think it is a definite improvement over the bill as it stands.

In concluding, the Bloc will try to amend this good motion from the Reform Party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:

That Motion No. 1, in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ), be amended by deleting the words ``, where possible,''

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

It is untrue.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to what I said earlier about the statement made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce because I find it insulting for all members of this House when he says the Quebec referendum was unethical.

How can he, who was a member of the Trudeau cabinet, say that a process such as this one was unethical? In 1980, Mr. Trudeau came to the Paul Sauvé Arena and promised Quebecers he would amend the Constitution. Then he deceived Quebec by limiting its powers and creating the problems we have now.

Not only that, and I will conclude with this, the hon. member was also part of the Trudeau cabinet in 1970 when-