Yvan Bernier

[Fisheries, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the request submitted by Gaspé Cured covers the process and the product.

My second question is for the Secretary of State. If the research done by the department-because I understand that they are doing research on the matter-is positive, and demonstrates that the product from the Gaspé is different from similar products in other areas, will the department give the people of the Gaspé Peninsula the right to a label of origin for their process and product?

[Fisheries, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. For months the Gaspé Cured company has been asking the minister to officially recognize a label of origin, une appellation contrôlée , for the area and the process and product of Gaspé Cured. Yet, the federal minister allows companies in the Atlantic region to export their salt cod under the name Gaspé Cure, which creates some confusion on international markets and leads to losses of as much as $10 million for the Gaspé Peninsula company.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us if he intends to accede to Gaspé Cured's request, and if so, how soon?

[Social Security Program, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions or at least to make a few comments on the hon. member for Dartmouth's speech.

I have worked with the hon. member on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. First of all, I must say that I find most interesting his concern that the paper tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development might possibly create two categories of unemployed, when he says that the chronically unemployed apply for UI benefits two and three times over a five-year period.

Yet, coming from maritime regions, we both know that our constituents are directly involved in, and directly affected by, this. There is even more cause for concern considering that we had an inkling of the Minister of Human Resources Development's reform earlier this year with the UI changes made this spring, for example, when the qualifying period was increased from 10 to 12 weeks.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this, to know if there are lobster fishermen in his region who, since cod fishing is forbidden under the moratorium, have nothing else to fish. To qualify for unemployment insurance, they need 12 weeks of work. Every one knows that in maritime ridings, lobster fishing is subject to a natural constraint, since the season is only 10 weeks long. Now that is very interesting.

The last point I would like the hon. member for Dartmouth to consider is equalization payments, when he says that the federal government has taxing powers to regulate, to administer its so-called national social programs.

The problem, as I see it, is that the minister already has a figure in mind as regards the extent of the cuts. He is trying to say which program or program component he would like to cut. This sounds like a dangerous approach to me because welfare recipient are left out in the cold. Making programs disappear, or reducing the assistance provided under such a program, and I will conclude on this, will not make welfare recipients disappear.

This means that the provinces will have to pay out of their own pockets. Equalization does not work if Quebec or Ontario, for example, see the percentage of welfare recipients they have to provide assistance to on their own increase all of a sudden. Because if there is a freeze in federal spending levels, equalization will not work. These were the comments I wanted to make.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it will be very difficult to be brief, but I will try to respect the wishes of the Chair.

Two questions were raised by the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Oceans. First, what about the future of my son and the future of Quebec? The answer is that my son will be delighted to work as an international consultant, if Quebec is a sovereign, different nation.

Second, before we talk about the future, about what will happen in the months and years to come, what about what is happening today? They tell us: If you agree to stay, you will have access to a huge market worth $5.2 billion in contracts.

I said earlier that Quebec only gets 15 per cent. How much more will we have in the future? The rules of transparency do not seem to apply. What explanation does the parliamentary secretary have for the Outaouais region, which gets only 1 per cent, while 99 per cent goes across the river? This does not bode well for the future.

Perhaps if members opposite and the minister agreed with our suggestions to include transparency in the bill, and if they also agreed that the procedure should be more standardized, then we would have some basis for discussion. Meanwhile, Quebec pays more than $28 billion in taxes, and that is a fact. When those $28 billion stay in Quebec instead of going to Ottawa, it will be easier on the gas to go to Quebec City and find out how we can get contracts. In Quebec, the process is open and transparent. It is administered by a public commission. With the $28 billion in taxes we will keep down there and a well-oiled machine to manage the money, it will be marvellous.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his kind wishes regarding my son.

I think that the presence of Bloc Quebecois members, sovereignists and Quebecers is very healthy for the parties opposite. We are the ones who raised the very costly issue of overlap.

We, the sovereignists, have pointed to that problem for so long that members opposite are now beginning to think that we may be right. They are saying: Let us see what it means for us here in our own little world, in our federal departments. I used the word "little" not to refer to the department itself, which is a large one managing large amounts of money, but to say that it is a small step, considering our objective. To eliminate overlap is a monetary measure, but it also involves respect for a nation, a community and a province.

Canada did not listen when Quebec said: Let us manage the way we want what falls within our jurisdiction. We are now in the third period-as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and the premier of Quebec say in reference to sovereignty. They used to say "the Bloc in Ottawa and the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City". Indeed, we are now in the third period and I am moving along the boards.

We figured out the problem a long time ago, but this government is only beginning to get a grasp of it. But this is not enough. On the top of the savings which it can make in Canada and in Ottawa, how about a little more transparency? When we first

told them to be careful and to eliminate overlap, they said that no such thing existed.

Today, I am giving the government a second piece of advice. I say: Add transparency and it will begin to make more sense. We will continue to give you good ideas and ask you to accept the decision of Quebecers gracefully when they say they are ready to be on their own. I do hope that you will be able to listen to them.

As a Quebecer, I will be happy to visit other provinces and, perhaps, act as a consultant representing Quebec and inform people from other provinces. I see that an hon. member would like to ask me a question. I will be pleased to listen to him.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

The purpose of the bill before the House today is to amalgamate the former departments-that has happened before- of Public Works and Supply and Services. Public Works Canada was in charge of two other branches, while services were something else, and government services is something else again.

This is just to say that when we amalgamate entities that are criticized for their lack of transparency, that does not automatically make them transparent. To me, this is basically a housekeeping bill. However, it is not at all what we expected. In fact, the party in power, the Liberals, missed out on this one. We are sorry but we cannot support this bill for the reasons I will mention.

The government has missed an opportunity to make the process of awarding contracts more transparent. The government has also missed an opportunity to limit the influence of lobbyists. And again, to do some thorough house-cleaning in its contracting out procedures. That is why the Bloc Quebecois presented the following amendment, moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est. I would like to repeat it, since we have a different audience at this time of the day. The motion reads that: "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-52, an Act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and to amend and repeal certain acts, because the principle of the bill does not provide for a specific code of ethics to be put in place aimed at making transparent the contracting process and the acquisition of all goods and services by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada".

When I say there is a lack of transparency and when they tell me that they intend to provide that transparency and make it all nice and consistent, we should remember the principle that one cannot be judge and jury. Bill C-52, as it is now, at page 3 in clause 7, assigns all powers to the minister.

Allow me to read it. Clause 7(1) says:

In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister shall a) investigate and develop services for increasing the efficiency and economy of the public service of Canada;

How can he, in his own bill, creating this department by merging various agencies, be both judge and judged?

What we are asking for, should he intend to do something, is that he does it now, so we can judge what he will be coming up with. I think it is basic. Even my 14-year old son, who has not gone through law school yet, could understand that.

We reject this bill for several reasons. Basically, we want openness. I said it, but I will repeat it again and again. In Quebec, for example, the legislation on political party financing and the very strict rules regarding the awarding of contracts have made us accustomed to a much greater openness than what we can see in the federal government. Even Liberals recognize the shortcomings of the system. I would like to quote from the red book, that I cannot show, page 95, where it says: "We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the political influence of those making the case. We will take an approach of openness in decision-making".

I think they just missed the first opportunity they had to put this into practice. They missed it. If openness had really been their intention, they could have included it in this bill. We play fair, so we will give them another chance, we tell them: "Scene one, take two. Take back your bill, add to it something which will ensure openness and then, we will work with you". That is what we call co-operation, at least in the riding of Gaspé.

Unfortunately, this is not what we hear from members opposite. The government might mean well, but it missed a golden opportunity. It is conceivable that my friends opposite, the Liberal members, are pleased with the system as it is. Maybe the friends of the Liberal Party like it that way. Maybe-

There is another point I would like to make again, even if it was already mentioned by some of my colleagues. I, too, have written to the minister-I worked hard last summer-to try to make him understand that we wanted changes. I tried to understand what was going on within Public Works Canada. I too wrote to the minister to try to find out what were the assets of the federal government in the riding of Gaspé. I also wanted to know about its activities but, just as my colleague from Châteauguay who spoke earlier, I received a letter informing me that it was impossible.

What angered me most was that the letter mentioned the cost of retrieving this information. It was said to be $168,000. However, I was told that this is what it would cost to inform MPs. Am I to understand that informing 295 MPs would cost $168,000? I want to bring to the attention of the members that contracting-out in the federal government is a $5.2 billion industry. And yet, this government refuses to spend $168,000. What percentage is that? I do not have my calculator, but I am

sure that it represents a minute fraction of what it costs to manage a $5.2 billion industry.

And while we are asked to make an act of faith, to write a blank cheque, to give our support, we are denied the very tools we need to do our job.

Is this what you call being transparent? All I can say is that in the riding of Gaspé, this is definitely not transparent.

I would also like to comment on standards governing the awarding of these contracts. As far as I can see, there are no uniform standards. It seems that the only existing rules are internal to each department, but they are easy to get around and, most of all, they are far from being clear. Since there are no uniform rules, no limit on the use of outside resources, contracting-out is taking place in an unhealthy and vague environment.

A modern government should do business the modern way. So far, so good. Contracting-out is one such modern methods. I am not questioning the use of contracting-out, but the fact remains that one has to know how to use this tool and that any new idea can lead to abuse. Hence the need to use contracting-out cautiously so that it will not become an instrument of corruption. I think we should give ourselves the means to oversee contracting-out.

This means that the government must clearly state its policies in that regard and explain how it plans to implement them. To set rules is one thing, but to ensure they are implemented and complied with is another. I see nothing to that effect in here.

This bill clearly missed the point in our view.

There are other inequities. I noted two, the juiciest ones in my opinion, as you can imagine.

For example, I am informed that only 15 per cent of all federal contracts were awarded in Quebec. Fifteen per cent, Mr. Speaker. But there is another figure to which I would like to draw your attention because for us, in Quebec, the Outaouais is a region dear to our hearts. It is an integral part of Quebec but, sadly, according to two thirds of the Quebec electorate, at the federal level, this region is an orphan. I want to tell the people of the Outaouais that only one per cent of all federal contracts awarded in the National Capital Region go to the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley. Unfortunately for them, they do not have a Bloc Quebecois member to stand up for them. Maybe someday!

These two examples speak volumes, but I could go on, There is a long list, but I can see that time is running out. I will therefore move on and make a few constructive suggestions which, I hope, will help the other side improve on their bill. I have not talked about any clauses because we are asking that the bill be totally reworked.

I have three constructive proposals: first, a political review committee on contracting out; second, a contracting-out code; and third, a consultation process for members, who are, after all, accountable to the people for the budget and for management activities. In this regard, it is very important.

You now ask me: What would be the powers and especially the characteristics of this political committee? It could, for instance, be made up of people who can get involved. What does this mean? It could include experts in government administration processes and members from all political parties.

It would have the power to inform and especially to protect the public interest, since we are all working for the people. It would also have the power to issue regular public reports to ensure government openness, without having to wait for someone to go look somewhere for this report, assuming he can find the right subject. There is no openness, at the present time. The report could be indexed by riding. As far as I know, Gaspé people do not live in Ottawa-Carleton. These things should be straightened out. As my grandmother used to say, "The white socks with the white socks, the black socks with the black socks". Things must be straightened out; we should show respect for the people by putting everything in the right place.

Cases for contracting out should be clear and clearly defined in the bill, which could be used as a working tool by the review committee. Members should be consulted because they are the ones who pass the laws and who must face the people. Since they represent different political parties, they should also be consulted on this kind of thing.

In conclusion, we want a little more openness here in Ottawa. Earlier, some members said that, as sovereignists, we play the bad guys from time to time. But we hope that Canada, which will still be our neighbour when Quebec becomes sovereign, as I firmly believe, will be well run, because in business, what is better than dealing with someone who runs a clean business.

I would like to say something else about the credibility of parliamentarians. As MPs, we stand to gain from this exercise of openness. The red book said that, but it is starting to fade. Very few of its promises seem to be kept.

I want to quote what the red book says, on page 91, about the credibility of parliamentarians: "If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored. The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable." Mr. Speaker, let me say that the French version of the Liberal Party's red book contains a mistake when it says: "-tout en étant comptable de ses actions-" I understand that they meant the English word "accountable", which in

French should be "responsable" or "imputable" instead of "comptable".

So we have to restore the integrity of our political institutions. Before October 26, 1993, the people opposite cared and boasted about their red book. Today, I put it back under their nose and I ask them to use this bill to carry out their promises. It will not cost a lot. I am not asking for $1 billion. I am not asking for $5 billion. I am asking for honesty. Where I come from, honesty is not expensive and, what is more, it is rewarded. Those who are not honest will have to pay for it one day.

To continue, some of our fellow members just mentioned the names of some members who are still here. I would just like to say that perhaps we had five minutes of political fantasy just now, when the member for Outremont mentioned the name of a member in the House. Perhaps he was referring to a time after this mandate. If the member for Outremont is back then, perhaps he can say the name of the person he just mentioned but whom you do not want us to name now.

With that-my voice is giving up, but not my interest-I hope that we will have a chance to talk about this bill here again, but that it will contain what it should then.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment by the hon. member for St. Boniface, who said that the hon. member for Gaspé was always very frank and forthright. I certainly intend to live up to that reputation.

Before I start my speech in this debate on Bill C-52, I would like to remind hon. members opposite that Quebecers follow the debates in the House very closely, and there are even children

among our listeners. I imagine that occasionally they must find what is said here in this House rather hard to take.

Speaking of children, if I may be allowed to digress and take advantage of modern technology, today is my son's birthday, and since I have to work here in Ottawa, I would like to take this opportunity, offered by the cameras and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to wish him a very happy fourteenth birthday.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Human Resources Development did not understand the question. Does the minister admit that he acted without taking into account the constraints imposed by his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and will he recognize that the plight of lobster fishermen reflects the spirit of his reform, which is to eliminate the unemployed instead of eliminating unemployment?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. His colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, decided on a ten-week lobster fishing season to protect that resource. Consequently, fishermen have no choice but to comply with the limit imposed by the federal government. However, following changes made to the UI program, lobster fishermen are no longer eligible to benefits and they cannot fish other types of resources, because of the conservation measures imposed by Ottawa.

Indeed, while the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans limits lobster season to 10 weeks, his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, imposes a minimum of 12 weeks of work for lobster fishermen to be eligible to UI benefits. Does the minister admit that his unemployment insurance reform forces lobster fishermen to rely on social assistance?

[Turbot Fishery, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister did not answer the question. Since the minister cannot deny having supported the plan, does he promise today to fully compensate the Gaspé fishermen who spent more than $700,000 and whose only mistake was to take a man at his word?