Maurice Godin

[Question On The Order Paper, October 21st, 1994]

To what do the $3.2 million in budget cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs, announced in the 1994-95 Estimates, apply?

[Remembrance Day Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of the Official Opposition in this debate on the bill that would include Remembrance Day as a holiday in public service collective agreements.

This is not the first time that the member for Dartmouth has proposed such a thing. Indeed, he presented a similar bill in the previous Parliament. Unfortunately for him, the Conservative government arranged to defeat his bill when it was considered in committee. That was on February 18, 1993.

That bill, like the one before us, was intended to prevent the government from putting the Remembrance Day holiday on the negotiating table with the unions. It was feared that this holiday would be traded for an extra day after the Boxing Day holiday.

Some guarantee had to be provided to enshrine this sacred holiday in our collective memory. This is the day when we remember the ultimate sacrifice made by those who went to war and enabled us to enjoy again the most precious gift: peace.

This initiative reflects numerous decisions made over the years to that effect. This holiday is already in the official list of holidays included in section 166 of the Canada Labour Code, part III. It is also included in the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations. Every collective agreement signed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada with Treasury Board includes Remembrance Day in the list of holidays.

Already in 1921, a day of commemoration was established in the Armistice Day Act, which said, and I quote: "Throughout Canada in each and every year-the eleventh day of November-being the day in 1918 in which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice Day".

In 1931, another act specified that this legal holiday would be called "Remembrance Day" and would be observed on November 11. In the Holidays Act, chapter H-5, Revised Status of Canada, 1985, Remembrance Day is the second holiday mentioned, right after Canada Day.

One might wonder why have a bill to protect a holiday which already seems to be formally recognized. The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the risk that this holiday might be used as a bargaining tool and be replaced by an additional day elsewhere in the calendar, a measure which would be at odds with the purpose of Remembrance Day, which is meant to be a day of commemoration and respect.

The fact is that such a substitution is a possibility. There is a provision in section 195 of the Canada Labour Code which says that "Any other holiday may be substituted for a general holiday". Consequently, this substitution is a right which can be exercised or claimed. According to section 195, the parties to a collective agreement can notify in writing the Minister of Human Resources Development that a specified day has been designated as a holiday in lieu of a specified general holiday. Under the same section of the Canada Labour Code, where no employees of an employer are represented by a trade union or where a class of employees is not provided for under a collective agreement with regard to general holidays, the Minister may approve the substitution of a designated holiday, at the request of the employer, if satisfied that a majority of the employees or class of employees concur with the application.

This goes to show that such provisions do exist and continue to exist, unaltered, without excluding holidays like Remembrance Day. We therefore take this opportunity to caution the sponsor of this bill. This piece of legislation would give a clear indication to the government. It would send a clear message to labour, but it would not eliminate the present loopholes that allow the substitution of general holidays and are likely to continue to allow it after this bill is passed.

We know how important the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is since 1918. It is important not only for the veterans for whom this day represents the quintessence of their existence, for the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in order to restore the world peace we now know, for the civil servants and the workers, but also for the children, the future generations who need tools to remember all the lessons passed down to them, from the most marvellous to the most tragic. We must protect the Remembrance Day to preserve our collective memories, pay tribute to the past and accept responsibility for the future.

I am convinced that the government as well as the unions and the citizens realize the importance of the Remembrance Day, a day to pay tribute to our veterans, to remember the horrible lessons the war has taught us, and to pass on a message to future generations.

In brief, we support this bill in principle. We hope that the Remembrance Day will never be abolished, moved or replaced and that, in order to achieve this goal, all current federal labour legislation will be modified accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member and tell him not to take it too much to heart. When, in a speech, a member points out a flagrant lack of control, however tactfully, it is never well received. I, too, wish to congratulate you on your speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his questions. I agree that his government is trying to be transparent, but we cannot see any results. It is the results that we would like to see much more quickly.

The hon. member said that there were ways we could use to get the information, but this is not exactly what I want. In fact, what I would like to know is exactly what is happening in my riding, and how to go about finding that information.

The computer system is often mentioned as a possibility. This is a good way to get information while the process is going on, but once it is finished, we cannot confirm anything with this system. It does not work anymore.

On the second question, I would say that yes, the minister is changing these things, but the point of our amendment is to avoid the need to provide for a mechanism that would force us to pay millions when it is not necessary, each time the minister notices-or fails to notice-that something is going wrong. We simply want to ask him to establish a framework that would allow the minister to do his job without having to check to see if there are any problems.

As for the contributions we get, that makes me laugh. Since we raise money two or three dollars or even 25 cents at a time, you can be sure that we would much prefer to get $140,000 or $150,000 all at once. I would like that a lot. It would make me very happy to present you with a list. But unfortunately, such is not the case. For our part, we raise 25 cents or one dollar at a time; and I can tell that, at this rate, the list on your desk would be rather long.

I think that this sums up what the member was saying. I would simply like to point out that on July 5, I wrote the following letter to the Minister of Public Works trying to get some information concerning my riding: "am writing you with a view to obtaining information on the activities of your department in my riding. I would like to have the list of service, procurement and rental contracts issued since October 25. I would also like to have the list of federal properties located in my riding". I did not ask for much. It was not complicated. This was the minister's answer: "I thank you for your letter dated July 5, 1994 requesting information on the activities of my department in your riding from October 25, 1993, to this date. Unfortunately, the information you are seeking cannot be found in one single document. In order to be able to answer your questions, we would have to conduct extensive research in many areas of my department and in the numerous data bases which we have inherited following the amalgamation of the four different agencies which now make up the new Department of Public Works and Government Services.

Moreover, the costs involved in collecting data and preparing reports for MPs could run as high as $168,000. For the most part, this data is not computerized. In short, it would unduly increase the workload of our department. I am sorry to inform you that the department simply does not have the human and financial resources to collect the data you are seeking".

In other words, what the minister is telling me in his letter is that it is not possible for the time being. This is precisely why we would have liked to see the bill amended, so that we could be able to get the information we need, whenever we need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the bill to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services. As you know, this is an incorporating act which, by tradition, is not considered to be very controversial legislation. Not so with this bill. The Bloc Quebecois does not have to follow any such tradition: We are here to question everything, even what appears to be a mere formality.

In fact, the seemingly neutral character of this legislation conceals very important considerations. This tool to restructure the Department of Public Works and Government Services should have been used to develop procedures ensuring true transparency regarding the management of public money. Such transparency is conditional on extending the role of MPs. Let us not forget that this department is among the top solicitors of goods and services.

In the 1994-95 budget, expenditures for this department were expected to reach $2.3 billion, under the program for real property services, supplies and Crown corporations. In 1992-93, through the Quebec procurement directorate alone, a total of 17,400 contracts representing an estimated value of $269.9 million were awarded. Cheques totalling over $34 million were also sent out in the form of benefits, payments and tax refunds.

Stocked items representing $3 billion were sold, as well as $4 million worth of surplus assets, through the Crown Assets Distribution Centre. But are there any monitoring measures involving elected representatives?

In other words, this bill should be based on the fundamentals of government transparency, follow-up and monitoring, in the riding, by the member concerned. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Early last summer, I asked the Minister of Public Works to provide me with information on his department's activities in my riding of Châteauguay. Like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I thought this was a very reasonable request, since one of the major roles of a member of Parliament is to ensure proper management of the taxpayers' money spent on federal government operations.

After a long wait, I was really surprised to get from the minister a rather terse and disappointing answer. He told us, and I quote: "Unfortunately, the information you are requesting cannot be found in a single document only- In short, your request would represent an excessive workload for our department-" This goes to show what the government thinks of follow-ups by members on expenditures made in their ridings. How can a member of Parliament carry out his or her duties and functions when he is unable to get follow-up reports or information on the operations of this department in his or her riding?

This lack of transparency is what people concerned by the integrity of the public system have been decrying for some time now. This lack of transparency can be noticed even in our ridings as it affects civil servants and contractors. Let me give you two examples from my riding of Châteauguay. Early this year, the director of the Canada Employment Centre in Châteauguay called me to ask if I had any objection to the Centre being moved. The offices were getting crowded it seems. Of course, I said I saw no drawbacks, but I would have liked to know the

criteria that were used and be informed before the decision was made.

Some time later, the manager of the building told me that he could have provided more space to the Centre, making the move unnecessary. How much did this move cost? How could I check and interfere in this matter without the proper documentation? At a time when it is no longer possible to waste taxpayers' money, why is the member constantly fighting to obtain information?

I have another example. I have learned recently that the Canada Employment Centre in Châteauguay had asked a non-profit organization, namely the Société de développement économique de Roussillon or SODER, to manage the independent workers assistance program. It did not take long for some people to come to my office complaining about decisions made under the program. When I asked the director of SODER for information regarding the budget, the number of applications turned down, the reason they were turned down, the name of the applicants, etc., he told me that all this information was confidential.

According to him, he was the one who made the decisions. Is it possible that an employee working under contract for a federal government agency can decide what an elected member of Parliament has the right to know? I talked to the director of the Employment Centre. He was supposed to know whether this situation was normal. I have been waiting for his answer for several weeks. I am now convinced that I should go to the minister and ask him again to be more open and to have more respect for the role of the member of Parliament.

Similar examples speak for themselves. It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that about 87 per cent of Canadians no longer believe in politicians. What do we do? What can we do? The bill before us today gives us a golden opportunity to change direction. With this merger which, according to the government, will lead to savings, it would be possible to put in place control mechanisms accessible to members of Parliament in order to make the system more transparent.

The minister was worried about the cost of transparency. He even used this as an excuse to turn down my request. I suggest that transparency, and to me there are no ifs and buts, is a real way to save money. Today, how can we be sure that budget limits are observed? This is not about challenging the way public servants implement policies and regulations. It is about exercising our vigilance as elected representatives.

The government should use this bill to set up the appropriate mechanism for exercising that vigilance. The Auditor General of Canada has already pointed out the department's shortcomings in this respect. In 1991, leased office space represented over 40 per cent of the total and required annual rental expenditures of $379 million. The Government of Canada procured goods and services for a total of $8 billion annually and participated in the administration of major projects valued at $23 billion.

According to the Auditor General, the department awarded $3 billion worth of non-competitive contracts annually-three billion dollars that were not subject to the rules for competitive bidding. Furthermore, there was no corporate system to record and report on supplier and product performance. What action was taken on the comments and recommendations made by the Auditor General?

Whether the project is in its initial stages, during the bidding process, or in its final stages, when the books are closed, access to information is not available as a matter of course. Much depends on the good will of public servants, whose workload was not planned to accommodate this much needed transparency. However, whether we are talking about agencies or individuals, when funds are allocated from the public purse, public funds and the public interest are involved, so we must be able to account for the ways such funds are spent.

This lack of transparency casts some doubts on the integrity of the entire system for awarding contracts. Transparency is essential to prevent any possibility of patronage, conflict of interest or undue privilege. Look at the Pearson Airport case. Look at the bill to control lobbyists, a bill was watered down as a result of very effective representations made by those same lobbyists. Look at the proposal concerning grassroots funding of political parties which was dismissed out of hand by the Liberals.

The management and control of government contracts must be a priority for us, for the sake of both fiscal responsibility and openness. Recently, a Canadian Press dispatch indicated that in 1993, that Coopers & Lybrand, a very prestigious firm, contributed to the then leading federal parties: $107,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, and $150,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party. During the 1992-93 fiscal year, that same firm was awarded government contracts for a total value of $3,771,917. If you are good with arithmetics, you can figure out that Coopers & Lybrand's total contribution of $257,000 is approximately 6.8 per cent of all the contracts awarded. A pretty good return!

I have another similar example. Again according to the Canadian Press, Ernst & Young also participated in the funding of the two major federal political parties in 1993. It gave $64,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party and $44,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada. During the 1992-93 fiscal year, that firm was awarded government contracts worth $272,132. The ratio is much higher in this case since the total of $108,000

contributed is 39.6 per cent of the contracts awarded. I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions.

These two examples stress the need for openness in the government contracting business. As things stand right now, all government contracts over $25,000 for goods purchased or over $60,000 for capital projects are handled through the Open Bidding Service, the OBS, which is an electronic service available only through subscription. If contracts are less than $25,000 or $60,000, invitations to bid are sent to the chosen few who are listed on the suppliers file.

Of course, there are transfer payments published in the Public Accounts, but that is not readily available and is out-of-date when you want answers on what is happening right now, today. I must admit that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is right when he says that these tools are meant to ensure the efficient management of the tendering process, they were not designed to give members of Parliament or the general public access to information on that process.

This is precisely for that reason that the parliamentary wing of the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a monitoring mechanism which would scrutinize the contracts and implement what we are asking for in our amendment: openness. A contracting-out code must be included in the bill. In particular we demand that all members of Parliament, irrespective of their political affiliation, be consulted or at the very least informed, when government contracts are awarded through this process in their ridings. Finally, the Department of Public Works and Government Services must establish a system whereby periodic summaries would be made widely available.

I would like to mention another particularly damning fact about the way the federal government manages public spending, and consequently the questionable administrative practises used in the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

One of these practices, unfortunately not publicized enough, is to accept advance payments by government agencies to allow them to keep their annual budget allocation. In order to do so, they pay in advance for services to be provided in subsequent years and, as a result, they can maintain the integrity of their resource envelope for the fiscal year.

Last month, the President of the Treasury Board wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services indicating that questionable practices, namely advance payments, were going on in his department. In so doing, the President of the Treasury Board was forcing the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to look into this practice involving among others the Canada Communication Group.

In a press release dated September 19, he said the following: "In mid-August, officials from Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) contacted Treasury Board officials with information indicating that an internal audit showed that the Canada Communication Group (CCG) might have accepted irregular advance payments. They asked for advice and direction on this issue. Treasury Board officials responded by explaining that this practice was indeed contrary to government policies, and gave direction on the actions required to rectify the situation".

By emphasizing the seriousness of the situation, the President of the Treasury Board drew attention to a problem inherent to the administrative practices of this government. In a letter to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services accompanying the press release, he even made the following comments: "This situation is, of course, very serious. Of particular concern to me is the question of apparent disregard for existing principles of financial management and control within government and Treasury Board policy. Therefore, I am asking you to look into this matter personnally; have an independent review of the matter undertaken by your internal audit organization and report back to me within a month on your findings".

In summary, we have here a convincing and damning example of shameful waste of public finances. It is really regrettable that the ongoing inquiry was limited to the internal level. I doubt that this inquiry is being done correctly; it is obvious that the procedure used to examine this serious problem of fraud is deficient because it is limited to the internal level. How many such cases never get discussed in public?

A conclusion must be drawn immediately about this major incident. The administrative practices of the government, as they appear in the present case, are in no way transparent. This is why the Bloc Quebecois asks in its amendment that all the expenses of the Department of Public Works and Governmental Services be made known to the public. I find deplorable and charged with consequences the fact that the government has not considered amending Bill C-52 in this way. The same thing could be said of the transparency, so often promised by the Liberal Party of Canada during the last election campaign, but which has gone unheeded since the Liberals took office.

The control of public finances necessitates such mechanisms. Without them, members of Parliament cannot have free access to government contracts that are in effect in their own ridings. Without transparency mechanisms, how can we make officials accountable for their spending?

The amendment of the Bloc Quebecois is therefore the expression of that new philosophy which should inhabit us all: to find a new way of administering public affairs in order to put

aside the old traditional practices that are responsible for our $508 billion deficit.

[The Economy, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should not worry so much about how foreign investors perceive the Quebec sovereignty issue. He told us repeatedly that the sovereignists were responsible for the increase of interests rates in Canada.

Yesterday however, members of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal were told otherwise by two renowned American analysts. Mr. Ravi Bulchandani, vice-president of the New York brokerage firm Morgan Stanley, and Mr. George Russell, editor of Time International , said that the Canadian debt was a greater concern to American investors than the sovereignty of Quebec.

I suggest to you that the Prime Minister should stop blaming the sovereignists for the economic problems of Canada on the erroneous basis of foreign investors' concern and get down to the task of resolving the debt problem.

[Canadian Peacekeepers, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the war in Croatia claimed another victim yesterday. Corporal Mark Robert Isfield was killed when he stepped on a land mine. His senseless death leaves us with even less hope today that the warring factions will finally lay down their arms. Often, the loss

of a loved one brings home the full extent of the horror being experienced by those at war in the former Yugoslavia.

Canadian peacekeepers in this region of the world play a vital role in efforts to have all parties find a peaceful solution to their long-standing differences. It is a paradox that these soldiers should be working tirelessly for peace in the midst of such a bloody conflict. Those who have known war often say that there are no heros, only victims and those who are left behind. Today this soldier is the victim, while we are the ones left behind.

On behalf of all the members of this House, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the victim's family.

[Battle Of Normandy, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on this the 50th anniversary of the Allied landings on the beaches of Normandy, the Bloc Quebecois joins today with the entire international community in commemorating this event.

During World War II, Canada participated in campaigns in the Pacific, the Atlantic, Italy, France and the Netherlands. On June 6, 1944, thousands of people took part in what was to be the pivotal battle to free Europe from Nazi oppression. Veterans remain the faithful witnesses to these trying times and we must never forget, or be indifferent to, their actions.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes the sacrifices made and feats of bravery and courage displayed by all those involved 50 years ago. We salute the people who served on the battle front and on military bases, and especially those who served on the home front, the wives and children who often anxiously awaited word of their loved ones.

[World War Ii, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the Secretary of State for Veterans for taking the trouble to pass on to me, within a reasonable time, the text of his statement.

As the Official Opposition critic, I will be privileged to be part of that pilgrimage which will take us to Italy, in order to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the campaign to free Europe from Nazi control, a campaign in which Canada participated.

Certainly Canada must remember the incalculable price that the world had to pay in order to protect rights and freedoms. It must remember those efforts that were made in that terrible war, even at the cost of our innocent citizens' life. Veterans are still here to remind us of the courage that they showed in those events. So I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important to make sure that those events are never forgotten.

Canada also has other duties toward its veterans. It must never forget the situation that they are living in today. It seems to me that their living conditions should be of prime importance, since that is the best way for us to show our gratitude to those who fought for the preservation of these values and these collective interests. If it is essential to commemorate our veterans' achievements, it is even more essential to guarantee them decent living conditions.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud to salute all these people who made sure, 50 years ago, that Italy found the road to freedom.

[Garda Family, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 6 last, Citizenship and Immigration Canada served the Garda family with a departure notice taking effect in a few days.

Today, I learned from the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the minister will not intervene in favour of the Garda family. This is extremely disappointing. The minister must spare the Garda family the humiliating torments suffered by the Maraloï family. He must defer the notification of deportation as long as it has not been proven that the Garda family does not have to fear for its life, should it return to its country.

Since the beginning of this whole process, several years have gone by and the Garda family is now well integrated in my riding of Châteauguay, and we will do everything we can to keep it.