Michel Guimond

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

The hon. member from the Toronto area was there. However, as regards the Groupaction reports, the Liberals were just afraid of losing the referendum in 1995. That is why they inundated Quebec with advertising. They did so only in Quebec, and not at all in the rest of Canada. We had Canadian flags all over the place in Quebec.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. member for Bulkley Valley will probably not like my answer. I agree totally, but earlier I ran out of time before I could say that this whole issue of the Groupaction reports was set in the context of collective political psychosis in English Canada.

Perhaps the hon. member remembers the 1995 referendum. I am not sure whether or not he took advantage of the plane tickets graciously provided by Canadian Airlines at $99 for a return trip from Vancouver to attend the love-in held in Montreal, at Canada Place, and tell us, “We love you. The rest of Canada loves you”.

The Groupaction reports fit in this context.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley is right. We can look at the example of the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, during an election campaign, said the GST should be scrapped. She promised if she were elected that the Liberal government would abolish the GST, which was an issue during the election.

She was elected and was confronted about this. Fortunately, she had said on television that she was committed to having the GST abolished. Reporters did their work; they kept after her and showed how she had contradicted herself, using what they had on tape, on video.

She resigned and ran again. By the way, the member for Hamilton East is a candidate to succeed the Prime Minister. She cost Canadian taxpayers, the taxpayers of Hamilton, half a million dollars for a by-election just for kicks. She just should have been honest from the start.

I have another thing to say to my colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley. When he was elected in 1993, the Prime Minister made fun of the Conservative government before him, saying that none of his ministers would ever resign. “There will be no Sinclair Stevens, no Michel Côté, no Bisonette”, he said, naming the Conservative ministers who resigned under Mr. Mulroney's reign.

Let me add it up—off the top of my head there are seven or eight Liberal ministers who have resigned for one reason or another, when the day before they denied there was any problem. When confronted later, they were forced to resign. Is that an honest government?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley with whom I have had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport from 1993 to 1997. I want him to know that I really liked working with him. He is an experienced and serious member of Parliament, as evidenced by his question.

The Liberal government seems to forget that the money it is managing is not its own. We saw it again last week when the budget was brought down. The finance minister allocates funds for various ministers to manage. They should be reminded that the money does not belong to them. It is the taxpayers' money, the money of the constituents we are all here to represent, regardless of the party we are from or the side of the House we sit on. Canadian taxpayers are tired of always paying. They are sick and tired of paying for all this abuse and mismanagement. In focus groups, people often wonder why the public has lost confidence in politics and politicians. We should perhaps ask ourselves that question when faced with such telling examples of mismanagement.

We work hard to show our constituents that we are honest. We work in good faith. We fight hard to effectively represent our constituents in Parliament and to help them in their dealings with the government. But when people watch the news at night and compare all of this with their paycheque, with what is left of their paycheque once all the taxes, royalties and fees have been paid, they say, “It does not make any sense”.

A program which was supposed to cost $2 million will end up costing over $1 billion. Fortunately, the Auditor General agreed with us. We argued that the management of this program made no sense at all.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak during the Progressive Conservative's opposition day. I am following on the heels of the speech made this morning by my hon. colleague from the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, who made a terrific presentation, all the more so since he is the Bloc Quebecois' public accounts critic.

In our parliamentary system, the role of Auditor General is extremely important. In fact, the Auditor General is no more and no less than the watchdog of assets handled by managers, senior officials and therefore, by different departments and indirectly—obviously—by ministers.

The best proof that this watchdog is efficient and credible is that, under our British parliamentary system, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is now, unlike other committees, chaired by a member of the official opposition.

Parliamentarians and the parliaments that are our role models wanted to demonstrate that a government cannot be both judge and jury. You cannot ask the government to be credible when it comes time to reprimand bad behaviour. That is why this committee is chaired by the opposition and that is why I think the role of Auditor General is extremely important.

In 2002, the Auditor General submitted various reports to us, at different stages. The common denominator, or rather the common thread in all these reports, is the sad reality that public funds have been poorly managed by the Liberal government opposite.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time. My Latin professor at the Chicoutimi seminary always said, tempus fugit , times flies, time gets consumed and thus disappears. I could give a 20-minute speech on each of the subjects that I am going to list because they gave rise to very eloquent chapters in the Auditor General's reports.

Among other things, I could mention the fact that the Canadian firearms registry was supposed to cost $119 million in 1995 when it was created. We will soon realize that this program has cost more than $1 billion.

We could also talk about the integrity of the social insurance number program. According to the Auditor General, the Department of Human Resources Development Canada has handed out SINs without properly checking the identity and citizenship of applicants.

When this chapter was written, I remember hearing that several thousand, if not tens of thousands of Canadians, according to the figures, were over 100 years old. I realize that in Canada, the quality of life has improved and there are more and more centenarians, but this was simply an indication that the Department of Human Resources Development Canada was lax and did not adequately fulfill its management role. People were not taken off the list and that is why, years later, we have so many centenarians.

If nothing were done, the first thing we would notice is that there are a million centenarians in Canada, simply because deceased persons are not taken off the lists.

Not to mention the people who have already been arrested with 32 or 34 social insurance cards in their possession. These were not necessarily stolen cards, but cards obtained very legally.

It is my pleasure to say once again that the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada is a bad manager.

The Auditor General also told us that over the past ten years, fiscal arrangements for foreign subsidiaries have cut Canada's tax revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Auditor General also told us that first nations must submit an unbelievable number of reports annually to the government. She mentioned 168, which requires considerable resources on the part of first nations.

These resources could be better used by those who need them, particularly young families and children of first nations. Half the population of some nations, such as the Cree and the Inuit, is under 30. These resources could be given to young families in these communities.

We also know, from what the Auditor General has said, that the federal government has trouble with the quality of the available health statistics. This might give rise to some questions. Judging by the words of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health, their interest in interfering with the management of health is increasing, while their own health statistics are as inaccurate as they are poorly managed. One might well wonder what the objective of this visibility the federal government is seeking in the health field might be.

As well—and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Human Resources Development is in the House to hear this—the Auditor General repeats her criticism of the EI surplus and of the lack of government transparency in this connection.

We know how the member for LaSalle—Émard, the apprentice PM or the PM in waiting, always patted himself on the back during his time as finance minister for having inherited a $42 billion deficit when he was appointed and then waving his magic wand over it to make it disappear.

Those in our audience who have the misfortune to be on employment insurance—although I still think it should be called unemployment insurance, because a person on it has the assurance of remaining unemployed—are aware of the cuts this government has made, and the fact that people can no longer qualify because the number of hours required is too high. People know that their benefit periods are getting shorter and shorter. The duration of benefits has been cut, and the amount people get every two weeks is also getting smaller and smaller.

This means that there are people coming to my office, like certain seasonal workers for the Quebec Department of Transport, who are already experiencing, or soon will be, what is termed the spring gap. This is what happens when they did not accumulate enough weeks to qualify for benefits for the entire time, so they have to get through March and April with no income, until called back in May. That is what the spring gap is all about.

With this example of the Quebec Department of Transport employees, people might ask why they do not keep working through the winter. The answer is that these are seasonal jobs, summer work. The same thing would be true for people who work in ski resorts and have a period of unemployment in summer.

The same would be true for those working for golf clubs. Golf is seldom played during winter in this climate, and these people find themselves without work.

The whole lumber industry comes to mind, and workers in the tourist industry also experience the spring gap. This Liberal government has cut the benefit period.

I indicated earlier that the member for LaSalle—Émard, who boasts about reducing the deficit, did so by dipping into the surplus in the EI account. A $42 billion surplus has accumulated in that account. We told the government, and continue to tell it, “You had no right to take that money”. The federal government is no longer contributing to the employment insurance fund. This money belongs to workers, who pay premiums that are deducted weekly on their pay-cheques. It also belongs to employers, who also pay premiums.

EI premiums have been reduced, but the government could do more. An overall payroll tax reduction would enable small and medium sized businesses to create jobs. They would not be so strapped for cash. Let us not forget that the benefits known as marginal benefits are becoming less and less marginal. These are also referred to as fringe benefits.

If they were given some breathing room, employers could create jobs. If they created jobs, perhaps some people could get off EI or social assistance and contribute to society. They could help us pay for day care, for hospitals or to finance schools.

I have yet to hear anyone on EI or social assistance tell me, “I have managed to set $200,000 aside while on EI or welfare. I am off now and I have decided to use this money to start off my own business”. No, social assistance and employment insurance provide recipients with a minimum level of income to keep their heads above water during the first half of the month. The rest of the month, they have water up to their noses, if not over their heads.

This has been confirmed by the Auditor General. The government has unashamedly dipped into the surpluses in the EI account, in spite of the fact that the money does not belong to it.

Often, the Liberals tell us, in the Bloc Quebecois, “You are only good at blaming and complaining; you are not proposing any solutions”. What we in the Bloc Quebecois are proposing is an independent employment assistance account run by workers and employers who pay premiums. They would be able to manage the premiums. The government has to withdraw from this plan.

As if these blunders mentioned by the Auditor General were not enough, let us also not forget other issues raised by the Auditor General in 2002, such as the use of foundations to remove billions of dollars from the control of Parliament and thus underestimate federal budget surpluses.

The accounting procedure is classic. The government takes x billion dollars and creates a foundation that will be managed or run by members of the private sector, by friends of the Liberals, such as the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, chaired by Jean Monty, the former CEO of Bell Canada Enterprises. We could also mention the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

When we parliamentarians want to fulfill our role, when we want to ask questions to ministers, to those who are sitting on the front benches, and when we say, “It does not make sense to have foundations. The millennium scholarships do not make sense. This is an intrusion”, we are told by the ministers sitting on the front benches, “Put your questions to Mr. Monty”. Mr. Monty is not an elected representative. He is not like each and every one of us here, including you, Mr. Speaker, in that he was not elected. If Mr. Monty wants to manage public funds, he should seek election, he should become a minister and be accountable.

Such is the role of foundations. Indeed, the government takes billions of taxpayers' dollars and gives them away. It so happens that the members of these boards are all good Liberals, good contributors to the election fund. This is not from me, it is from the Auditor General.

She joined those who want changes. We are not in collusion with the Auditor General. Her independence is absolutely not in question. However, she raised issues that we had raised. I remember that the Bloc Quebecois had raised very valid issues following the budget speeches announcing the creation of these foundations.

The Auditor General also mentioned unapproved grants, whereby Treasury Board allows the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without the approval of Parliament. She also told us about the fact that 90% of the departments omitted to conduct internal audits regarding the security of information technologies. We are talking not about 5% or 9%, but 90%. Is this good management?

In 2004, the Liberals will be running in an election. They will say, “Elect a Liberal government for the fourth consecutive mandate. We have shown good management”. This is good management: 90% of all departments neglected to conduct internal audits? In private enterprise, if a company president did that, he would be fired right then and there. The chair of the board of directors would arrive in his private jet from Toronto or New York, and he would be immediately fired.

Internal audits are used to ensure that the rules are followed and that funds are properly spent. That is the purpose of an internal audit, before calling on external auditors. Remember that 90% of all departments neglected to conduct internal audits.

The Auditor General also pointed out that the Department of National Defence bought a communications system for $174 million, without having the funds to use it.

All these examples show that the opposition members are right to stay on top of things and to fight what we consider unjust. The government must prove to us that we are misinformed or wrong when we raise issues found in the Auditor General's reports.

Again, I praise the honesty and the integrity not only of the Auditor General, but of all the members of her team. They are all people whose integrity cannot be questioned.

Even though I know that I still have some time left, I will conclude by saying a few words about the Groupaction case. The Auditor General also agreed with the Bloc Quebecois in this case when she asked the RCMP to launch an investigation into three identical reports produced by Groupaction. These three reports cost half a million dollars each, that is $500,000 apiece for photocopies.

So we are talking here about $1.5 million worth of photocopies. That is what it boils down to. It is $1.5 million of taxpayers' money. When they get their pay cheques on Thursday, people who work from 8 to 4 at the factory will say, “Do we ever pay a lot of taxes; it is ridiculous”.

The Auditor General agreed with us on that; she asked the RCMP to investigate. The position of the Bloc Quebecois on the Groupaction case is clear. We are calling for a public inquiry to clarify this whole issue.

The government refuses to order a public inquiry because it knows full well that the contents of such a report could taint its management record. And if one looks more closely at the background of certain friends of the government, such as Chuck Guité and Pierre Tremblay, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, one can see that these people have always been close to the Liberals.

[Kyoto Protocol, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is secretly negotiating with industries to determine their respective efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, effectively stepping away from the territorial approach recommended by Quebec.

If the minister is serious about wanting to involve the provinces in implementing the Kyoto protocol, when is he going to transfer them their share of the budget and stop negotiating behind their backs?

[Kyoto Protocol, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question on the negotiation of bilateral agreements with the provinces for implementing Kyoto, the Minister of the Environment said that the Deputy Minister of the Environment and the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources were the two federal negotiators on all such matters with the provinces.

If the Minister of the Environment is willing to sign bilateral agreements with the provinces and the negotiators are appointed, what is he waiting for to begin negotiating?

[Business of the House, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like the government House leader to clarify the meaning of the proposal for which he is requesting the unanimous consent of the House.

There are two parts in this proposal. We agree with the one concerning the amendments, but not with the second part.

Would you agree to divide this proposal for the purpose of unanimous consent?

[Beauport Bay, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was extremely pleased recently to hear that the Quebec Port Authority had decided to hand over more than 2 million square feet so that Beauport Bay could be developed.

After several years of stalling, Quebec Port Authority management finally understood that it had to consider local needs and priorities and hand this site over to the community so that it could be developed and permanent facilities put in place. This is an excellent decision and I would like to congratulate the Quebec Port Authority for recognizing the tourism and recreational potential of this site.

I would also like to thank the citizens that have supported my many initiatives since 1995, among other things by signing a petition calling on the federal government to return the Beauport Bay site to the people of the greater Quebec City area.

This victory is the result of a concerted effort by elected representatives at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, from all party lines, and by representatives of the Association nautique de la baie de Beauport.

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Elk Island says that he totally supports our presence in the House of Commons, I would respectfully say to him that he has nothing to do with our presence. He does not have to support it or to oppose it.

We were elected by the people who decided to send us here to represent them. Even if I said that I did not support the presence of any of the members across the way, I am not the one voting in those ridings. Is the member doing us a favour by saying that he supports our presence? He has no say on that.

I would say to my colleague from Elk Island that the Canadian Alliance's position in this matter is rooted in hypocrisy because, under the existing rules, when a corporation or an individual is eligible for a tax credit because of a contribution that was made, that tax credit is funded by taxpayers.

I will conclude by saying to the member for Elk Island that my fellow Quebeckers do not agree with the fact that 24% of their federal taxes are used for Stornoway, among other things. That would be a good example.