Monique Guay

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1994]

With respect to the cellular telephones in use in all government departments and agencies, ( a ) how many are in active use, ( b ) how many are not in active use, ( c ) are they leased or owned outright and in what proportions, ( d ) what are the costs involved in their lease or purchase, and ( e ) what are the total costs of use and communications?

[Point Of Order, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention the words and attitude of the vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations during the June 15 sitting. We parliamentarians find it very disturbing to work with a vice-chairman who is constantly cutting us off and is biased against what we say. I also think it is very disrespectful to talk about absent members and call them by their personal names.

I therefore table the "blues" of this committee and ask you to read them attentively and take the necessary actions.

[Government Expenditures, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is moderately satisfied with the statement by the President of the Treasury Board on the review of the operation of the Canadian government's Challenger air service. The circumstances of this review recall a less than glorious episode in this government's history and the use of government aircraft by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

After the public outrage at the federal government's undue expenditures, the obvious step was to rationalize the expenses of members of cabinet. I want to point out that the government could have avoided taking the blame for this widespread practice of wasting public funds if it had agreed, as the Bloc Quebecois requested and still requests, to set up a public spending review committee that would scrutinize every government expenditure. By refusing to allow this exercise and by resisting change until public opinion forces it to act, the Liberal government has shown that its approach to public administration is largely improvised.

How many mini-scandals will it take for this government to finally decide to change its expensive practices? How many scandalous episodes will it take for this government to stop wasting public funds? Is there any justification for this government's excessive spending, when millions of Canadians and Quebecers are living on welfare because the government lacks the courage and the political will to promote a genuine and pro-active full employment policy?

In an article published on February 1 in La Presse , journalist Claude Picher said we can never criticize enough the kind of mistakes made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if we want the government to manage public funds in a vigilant and responsible way. I agree.

At a time when the number of unemployed is increasing daily, at a time when the national debt puts Canada among the most indebted Western countries when the federal government's spending power flies defies rationalization of government spending, the government must not be allowed to forget these incidents so that government waste in all its forms can be eliminated.

The presentation by the President of the Treasury Board reflects confidence in the government's new system for managing air transportation for its ministers. I wish I could share that confidence, but I must say that it is not easy. This government has so far failed to show the political will to cut unnecessary spending. It continues to encroach on provincial jurisdiction, it continues to make partisan political appointments and to attack social programs while maintaining tax shelters for the wealthiest people in this country. In other words, today's announcement is no guarantee that the government will immediately win the trust of the Official Opposition.

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to participate in the debate on Bill C-217, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act.

Madam Speaker, I am against this bill. As you well know, criminologists have long argued that there is a wide gap between the public's perception of crime rates and the actual levels. Many believe that violent crime is a plague, in particular among young people, when the proportion of crimes committed by youths is very small. In fact, less than 15 per cent of all crimes committed by young people in 1992 involved violence. Despite the increase in the number of violent crimes committed by young people, most of this increase is due to minor assaults between peers, which, according to legal analysts, would not have involved the criminal justice system 10 years ago.

In April 1988, a study was conducted on the rehabilitation and social reintegration of 24 teenage murderers sent to Boscoville between 1968 and 1983. This study supports previous local and North American data on the typology, prospects and reintegration of young murderers.

It reminded decision-makers that, under certain conditions, these teenagers can be helped and become responsible and productive citizens.

Like other studies, the one I mentioned found that these teenagers have good prospects, that they do not commit subsequent offences and that their crime were due to circumstances and neurosis.

Young people charged with crimes have the right to be treated equitably under the law and enjoy special protection in this regard. Given their ages and maturity levels, young offenders have special needs that cannot be met in the adult system.

In fact, the bill attempts to reconcile the need to protect the public against teenage criminals by requiring them to assume responsibility for their actions with the need to protect young offenders' rights and help them become productive and law-abiding adults.

The media are often accused of contributing to the climate of fear. They tend to dwell upon spectacular and sensational crimes and to dramatize the vilest acts of violence reported on television, which apparently distorts reality, creating the impression

that crime has become rampant and exaggerating public fear. Fear is also fostered and intensified by rising crime statistics.

Some analysts are of the opinion that the intensity of the fear presently experienced by Canadians results in part from economic uncertainty. High unemployment has contributed to the climate of insecurity and vulnerability and is causing social and economic problems that reinforce the feeling of social disintegration.

The Liberal Party platform includes proposals to increase the length of maximum sentences imposed by the courts for first and second degree murders committed by young offenders; to relax the requirement to systematically dispose of police files on young offenders after a certain time; to allow the identification of some young offenders who have been convicted of violent crimes; and to create a "dangerous young offender" category for dangerous and habitual young offenders. We, Bloc members, cannot support the bill before us.

It has been established that through positive, early intervention in their lives, young persons struggling with social, psychological and emotional problems can be prevented from straying into crime and becoming dangerous repeat offenders.

There are a number of examples in support of the view held that young people commit offenses because they figure the gains derived from their unlawful activities will outweigh the price they will have to pay if caught. Criminologists and young offenders support workers have observed however that in many cases, young people commit offenses for reasons totally unrelated to the law. In their view, most young offenders commit property offenses which are not particularly clever and are more indicative of their lack of maturity and irresponsibility than of their maliciousness.

The overwhelming majority of young Canadians and Quebecers are ambitious, hard-working and respectful of their peers. Most of them become productive and law-abiding citizens. To put all young people on the same level as the minority who commit crimes is to do them a disservice.

Suing someone who committed a crime may provide some comfort to the victim and reassure the public, but it cannot be as satisfying as preventing the crime as such. It is often harder to implement crime prevention programs than to merely sue an offender after the fact. Preventing crime requires a review of on the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions which generate crime as well as an and it requires effort to change these conditions. The co-operation of many departments from all levels of government, as well as of the private sector and the public in general is needed. Making crime prevention programs effective is a major challenge. However, the results obtained with such programs, namely a reduction in crime, are much more beneficial for young people, and also for Canadians who, otherwise, might have become victims.

In conclusion, as parents, MPs and responsible adults, we simply cannot support this bill. We must take our responsibilities towards our children and teenagers. It is a lot harder to promote prevention, but it is also a lot more effective and rewarding. All those involved, including parents, educators and social workers, must work with young people to prevent crime.

I simply cannot believe that a ten-year-old child is mature enough to realize that he has committed a first or second degree murder. I have a ten-year-old daughter myself and I simply cannot believe that she has that comprehension. These children obviously know what is good and what is bad, but I doubt very much that they would understand that they committed a first or second degree murder. These children need protection. Yes, they must be punished. Yes, we must teach them, but how far must we go?

We must also do more in terms of promoting rehabilitation which, according to statistics, gives very good results.

It goes without saying that this approach will require additional efforts from all those involved in the process, but I am convinced that the results will be much better than if we hastily pass harsher laws.

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-210 providing for the recall of members of the House of Commons can be summed up as follows: "Any elector ordinarily resident in an electoral district who wishes to seek the recall of the member for that district may file with the Clerk an application for the recall of the member in the prescribed form".

This recall procedure exists in 15 American states and makes it possible to dismiss a member of Parliament or a public official. A similar system is in effect in four Swiss cantons. It is important to note that this procedure is allowed only in a very narrow socio-political context. Even then, its actual use is extremely restricted. In the United States, the system only works at the municipal level. At a higher level, only one case is mentioned: that of an Oregon governor who was recalled in 1921.

To better define the Bloc Quebecois's position on this issue and explain to the House the political origin of the recall concept, I think it is important to return to the late 18th century. On the European continent, it is the age of enlightenment, this philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas and gave birth to the great democratic principles that have governed Western societies to this day. In Europe, it is the time when sovereignty was transferred from an all-powerful monarch to the people. The movement had actually started two centuries earlier in England, France and Germany but it was gathering momentum and taking on a more universal dimension.

For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, sovereignty is embodied in the "general will" which is always fair and equitable and therefore most effective at the human level. Thus emerged the very idea of democracy whereby decisions are made by the people as a whole. But is democracy as people power the best form of government? In this regard, is the right of recall resulting from the notion of people power a good way to offset politicians' actions? If people had the right to recall their members, would politicians become more accountable to their constituents for their actions?

As the basis for the legitimacy of state power, once royal power was abolished in the late 18th century, in Rousseau's mind, the ultimate power to make decisions would rest with the people. That is why he refuted the idea of representative democracy whereby the people can only exert their influence at regular intervals. About the English people, he said this: "The people think they are free, they are sorely mistaken; they are only free during elections. As soon as the members of Parliament are elected, the people revert to being slaves, to being nothing". That is why Rousseau wanted to give people the right to recall their representatives on a daily basis.

As we can see, recalling elected representatives is not a new idea. I think the main flaws of representative democracy, in particular the principle that citizens can only exercise their right to vote once every four or five years, deeply troubles all democrats since the beginning of universal suffrage. So, the question raised at the dawn of representative democracy can still be raised today: "How can the sovereign power exercised by a few parliamentary dignitaries result from sovereignty of the people?" The democratic ideal expressed through the sovereignty of the people, through the notion that every citizen of a sovereign state can influence the decision-making process, that everyone wields political power, will quickly take the form of state sovereignty with the application of democracy.

Throughout the 18th century, and especially since the advent of universal suffrage, we see that the will of the people expressed through the election process does not coincide with the general will. As we move away from the great revolutionary movements that swept Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, the

notion of sovereignty of the people gradually gives way to the more absolutist concept of sovereignty of Parliament.

Given what I just said, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill to be fully justified; it is symptomatic both of people's misgivings about their representatives and of the massive failure of the Canadian political system.

Actually, this bill would be impossible to enforce, but it shows a democratic conscience deeply disillusioned by over100 years of a system that simply does not work.

Parliamentary sovereignty has lost all credibility and just making members of Parliament subject to recall will not restore its credibility. Clause 4. (d) of Bill C-210 says that a statement of 200 words or less would be sufficient to trigger the recall process. This provision would necessarily lead to anarchy in many ridings.

That statement of 200 words or less must set out the reasons why the recall of the member is warranted. Reasons? But who will determine the value of those reasons? Which reasons will be good ones and which will be bad ones? I believe this clause sets a dangerous precedent in terms of judging situations and deciding who will make such judgments.

If, for example, the promoters of a recall manage to get the majority of electors to sign their petition and argue that, based on solid economic indicators, the member is incapable of supporting economic recovery in his or her riding, will that be a valid reason or not?

Who will decide? Are MPs responsible for the situation? Do they have real power regarding the economy? If a majority of electors have signed the petition, will they be told that they are right or wrong? This is a very serious issue which leads me to believe that it would not be possible to implement this legislation and, more importantly, that such legislation would not achieve its goal.

I am convinced that such an act would make elected representatives vulnerable to conspiracies, to blackmail and to all kinds of secret dealings. I think that the whole process suggested by the Reform Party member would put undesirable additional pressure which would considerably affect the work of elected representatives, as well as the services they are meant to provide. I do not think that a member who would have to campaign against a recall in his or her riding would, at the same time, be able to adequately serve those who want to kick him out. This would be quite the paradox!

Our whole electoral and democratic process is not structured to serve in a positive way the intent of Bill C-210. Such a procedure would make the democratic process too perilous and costly, as well as totally uncontrollable.

This bill is not practical throughout a country whose population numbers in the millions. It results from a nostalgic feeling about the democratic idealism which arose in the 18th-century Europe. The Bloc Quebecois is totally opposed to this bill.

[Social Housing, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the promises just made by the Minister of Transport are not new, they do no represent any input of new money.

How can he seriously and sincerely make such statements when his government has not spent a penny, since January of this year, on social housing and when CMHC tells us that 1,200,000 families have substandard housing?

[Social Housing, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The day before yesterday the ministers responsible for housing were meeting in Bathurst. The Minister of Public Works may have a miraculous solution to propose to his counterparts, but we heard only empty rhetoric. He said, among other things: "We have made concrete moves to improve the quality of life of low-income Canadians everywhere".

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, now that the housing conference in Bathurst has ended, whether the federal government and the provinces have agreed to implement new social housing initiatives?

[Social Housing, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that the Liberal government is not very kindly disposed towards the people most in need, would the Deputy Prime Minister, at the very least, promise that there will be no rent increase for the thousands of social housing tenants in Quebec and Canada, since these people are already in a very difficult situation?

[Social Housing, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today, the Minister of Public Works is attending a federal-provincial conference of housing ministers in Bathurst, New Brunswick. This conference is particularly important because the federal government totally

withdrew its funding for social housing and is now thinking, it seems, of reducing the $2.1 billion budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Would the government commit itself to using the savings the minister claims to be realizing, exclusively for the construction of social housing, that is to say low-cost rental housing, co-operative housing and non-profit housing?

[Government Contracts, June 2nd, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any related information, in order to ( a ) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed, ( b ) stimulate competitiveness, and ( c ) ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to submit this motion to my colleagues because it concerns a basic right in our society, the right to information. In this case, the information sought from the government concerns all contracts it concludes with the private sector.

The reason I am presenting such a motion is that since I was elected to Parliament, I have found it very difficult and time-consuming to obtain information on all kinds of contracts awarded by the federal government.

If we as members of Parliament can only obtain this type of information with great difficulty, I really wonder how an ordinary citizen goes about obtaining it. I see this as an inappropriate barrier to information.

Indeed, in a democracy, how can one hold back and not make freely available information related to contracts that are fully paid by taxpayers? How can one tell taxpayers that they cannot know what goods and services the government buys with their money?

I think this is undemocratic and violates our great principles about the right to information. I would like to make an aside here about our rights as elected officials in this House, more specifically on one way we have to obtain information, namely a question on the Order Paper.

On February 18, I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to give us complete information on all contracts awarded by his department for the period from December 1, 1992 to December 1, 1993 and from December 2, 1993 to February 18, 1994.

As usual, the minister has 45 days to answer this question. Yesterday, after waiting more than three months, the minister answered this important question. What a surprise! Three little pages of statistics that were already known. However, at one point, the minister telephoned me to say that the answer to this question would require tabling a huge pile of documents, a sea of boxes full of papers. Yesterday I got his answer in three pages! The minister must be a magician. He transformed dozens of boxes into three little pages. What a feat he accomplished.

A letter accompanying these three pages says: "This document is only a summary of the contracts awarded by the former Department of Supply and Services during the five-year period which ended on February 28, 1994. It is only reliable to show the number of contracts awarded, negotiated and signed during a given fiscal year".

The letter goes on to say: "The statistics in this report cannot be used to determine the impact of these contracts on Canadian economic activity".

The minister can keep his useless document. The minister is laughing at taxpayers. He does not give a damn about those who pay for all these contracts. He hides behind unjustified reasons to scorn the taxpayers' right to be informed. The minister is afraid. He is scared to get caught with his pants down. He does not want to provide all the information on contracts awarded because he may have something to hide. Is this why the Liberal government and its minister are so reluctant to provide information? The minister's answer is inadequate and totally unacceptable. His answer to a question on the Order Paper raises doubt in our minds and in the minds of Canadians. It is a legitimate doubt based on the popular belief that government contracts are a form of patronage, and on concrete examples of blatant suspicious dealings which make you sick.

The Conservatives were very good at this. They are not here any more, because the people woke up and told the Tories to stop undermining the voters and supporting the friends of the Conservative Party. Voters send a very clear message that remains the same for the Liberal government. Taxpayers expect openness and honesty from their government and, to date, the Grits have followed in the path of the Tories.

All the rhetoric and the promises of openness by the Liberals were only idle talk, shameful promises that do not meet the expectations of the people.

If members opposite do not agree with me, they should prove me wrong. I challenge them to urge the minister of Public Works and Government Services to answer truthfully and openly to question Q-16 on the Order Paper. I do not think they will be willing to meet this challenge. You are all proud of your policies, but when the time comes to support intelligent and reasonable demands, you all turn up as mild as a lamb, following the orders of the ministers. I am sure that makes you uneasy at times. I am sure that, in your ridings, you feel like bowing your

heads in front of some of your voters who are unhappy with the policies your party has laid down.

Go ahead, ask the minister to table all these contracts and the relevant information. Prove us wrong! Prove to the population that these contracts were awarded according to the rules and from a completely impartial standpoint!

That is a lot to ask. It is especially hard to shed some light on contracts that are potentially embarrassing.

The government is also aware of all the pressure coming from lobbyists, from its friends and from people who make contributions to its war chest. Does the government have anything to hide from the public? Are so-called goodies an obstacle to the disclosure of information on government contracts? Are we still stuck with the old-style system of awarding contracts, where transparency and openness were ignored to serve the interests of certain people?

Members opposite are saying: no, no, no. The Liberal government is not like that or, at least, not any more. All right, I believe you. The public believes you. But give us proof and release the supporting documentation.

Question Q-16 on the Order Paper is no small matter. I would rather not have to go through the whole procedure again, which does not work anyway in this case because the minister can use his magic wand to make any changes he wants.

The motion before the House today is a proposal to set up an information system. We want the government and its agencies to table regularly all the contracts they award, and to do so on a monthly basis.

The Liberals will say this is impossible, the job is too big and too complex and the cost of the operation exorbitant. Come on! What about the electronic highway and sophisticated computer programs? The government spends a fortune on top-of-the-line equipment, so let us use it.

Tabling these contracts on a monthly basis will make it much easier for taxpayers to get the facts and find out which companies are getting their tax money. However, the system must be clear and accurate. We do not want a pile of documents dumped every month. We want information presented in an orderly manner, neatly classified to make it easy to consult but also presented in such a way that we can analyse how the government spends taxpayers' money.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services alone is responsible for awarding 175,000 contracts annually. Last year, the department acquired $13 billion worth of goods and services under 17,000 general categories. It made purchases on behalf of 158 federal departments and agencies. This is the largest share the government purchases. In addition, there are purchases made directly by the departments and agencies themselves.

I would like to know who benefits from all those billions of dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know which companies do business with the government. That is a basic right. The federal government also has a duty to abide by its great principle of equity, a principle the Liberals like to flaunt in this House: regional development, equalization, redistribution of wealth, fiscal fairness. The Liberals keep repeating the same old story every day. Tabling government contracts would give us relevant information on the government's effectiveness in its Robin Hood role.

According to an article that appeared in Le Droit on May 16, Robin Hood does not necessarily do a good job in the case of federal contracts. According to the article, Ottawa-Carleton gets 99 per cent of $2.5 billion worth of federal contracts, while the Outaouais region gets the rest, a meagre 1 per cent. In the National Capital region, 25,000 contracts are awarded annually, and only 250 of those 25,000 are awarded to companies on the other side of the river.

In view of these figures, one is entitled to ask the following question: On one hand, is this problem of concentration happening in other areas in Canada, and on the other hand, is the government trying to dilute, so to speak, this extraordinary concentration? The tabling of all the contracts, every month, would answer our first question. The conclusions would be easy to reach. Well organized information would rapidly show whether there are other areas like Ottawa-Carleton which are reaping the federal manna.

The second question deals directly with the government's will to allocate all its contracts, in a fair and just manner and, in so doing, spreading around all this federal manna which always benefits the same lucky few, in the same area.

Does the federal government make it possible for every contractor to have access to its contracts? Better yet, should it not favour contractors in other areas, even in remote areas? Contractors outside of the larger centres would create jobs and stimulate the regional economy. Of course, goods and services might cost a little more, but in the end, it would have a positive impact on the economy as a whole and on these areas which have been hard-hit by unemployment.

In reality, the truth is very different. Moreover, instead of opening up the whole process, and favouring remote areas, it would appear that the federal government itself is creating obstacles for contractors. One of them is language. Since my election, I have met several contractors who have been complaining, or at least, wondering about their chances to get a contract when they answer in French a call for tender in English.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in his 1992 report, the Auditor General states that 80 per cent of specifications sent to Quebec contractors are written in English. O Canada! Bilingual? Not when it comes to contract specifications or calls for tender, which only appear in French as summaries. Such a situation is unacceptable and contrary to our language legislation.

I wonder about the treatment that the supply service of a department would give to a tender entirely in French from a Quebec company. Would it receive the attention it deserves? Some French- speaking contractors told me they had doubts about that.

This motion, if it is received by the government, will shed light on all these questions pertaining to contracts. We believe that it is high time that the government comes clean in this area, and our demand is backed by the people.

The motion has another objective, and it is to promote competition. Disclosure would certainly pike the interest of a great many companies. They would then seek to offer their products or even to diversify in order to produce the goods required by the government.

It is not everybody who knows that the government buys flour or soybean oil for CIDA, and that it rents aircrafts or buys textiles for National Defence. Disclosure would draw attention to the opportunities offered. With more people interested in tendering, we can expect lower prices and therefore savings for taxpayers. In my opinion, these savings should be reinjected into the system in order to support the companies based in the regions. With a real development policy for local companies, specific measures could guarantee a fair redistribution of the savings. In the long run, such measures would be economically worthwhile.

I am fully aware that, unfortunately, this motion depends entirely on the government's will. I am sure the Liberals, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services being the first, will refuse to even consider my request. It is easier to evade one's responsibilities using false pretences than it is to fulfil the legitimate expectations of the population.

I urge them to seriously think about the ultimate purpose of this motion, that is the right to information. Nobody in this House can object to such a fundamental right. Refusal by the Liberal government to systematically table every month the information required to keep the taxpayers appropriately informed of the spending of their tax money would be perceived as an important breach of proper democracy.

Such a refusal would also clearly prove the lack of courage of the Liberals, stemming no doubt from the fear of disclosing embarrassing information. Transparency and openness were your campaign leitmotiv and are the main themes of your red book. Your leader keeps repeating that you are a good government with nothing to hide. Now is the time to prove it!

The government and the minister have not heard the last about the transparency of government's contracts. We will always be watching because the population has the right to know. The small king of government services can stop ruling over his kingdom because he showed us his colours: red, red, red; a sure sign of lack of transparency. One day soon, he will have to answer to the population and on that day he will find out that acting like a king can be very dangerous.