Debates of June 8th, 2000

Supply

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the member of the government party is doing right now is unacceptable. She is making unfounded accusations against members of the Bloc Quebecois and I just cannot accept that. I would ask her to withdraw her remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

This is debate. Very often positions are taken on either side of the House which other members find offensive but are certainly in keeping with debate.

I invite the hon. member for Jonquière at the time available for questions and comments to put her question directly to the member for Mississauga Centre.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I learned a long time ago in local politics that we have to develop thick skins. If the member does not want to hear our opinions, she should not have suggested this subject as a debate point for the day.

The minister responsible for the CIO recently asked the following question in the House:

How is it that, according to the Bloc, when the Government of Quebec communicates with its citizens it is called information but when the Government of Canada communicates with its citizens, especially those in Quebec, it suddenly becomes propaganda?

For the Bloc to attack the CIO because it feels its media monitoring is an irresponsible expenditure of public money is incredible, coming from an opposition party that uses federal and Commons public funding to promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Every department, every government, federal and provincial, and especially the head office in Quebec City, conducts media monitoring. One must be really trying to create a crisis where there is none if one would have people believe it is incredible and unacceptable for the Government of Canada to adopt and use the enhanced communication media that are a reflection and tools of our times.

The distinctive feature of this media monitoring is that it covers all subjects related to the institutional communications of the Government of Canada. Obviously all departments, whether it be justice, environment, or citizenship and immigration, have their own media monitoring unit.

The added value of the CIO's media room is that it shares with the other departments media coverage of a general nature, which allows those departments to better manage their own mandates while incorporating an overview of the issues. They are relevant to the Government of Canada. It is self-evident that horizontal communication is an asset which helps make the government's message coherent to taxpayers.

I would like to add that I came through a very long career, a very different career path. Each time I ended up in a spot in life, technology was always a half step ahead of me. I find it phenomenal in the House the excellent job done with Quorum and all the information provided by each department on what the public in Canada is thinking.

That is why I believe that the government is very responsive to the Canadian public. We use the tools available. We do not use propaganda. We share information. We correct propaganda. We make sure that every citizen in every community across the country has access to all government services, understands government services, understands their rights and are able to access them.

I am very proud of the CIO. I am very proud of the minister who is in charge of it. He is doing an extremely efficient job. I mildly resent the fact that we wasted a whole day talking about this motion.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member and her arrogance reflects an inferiority complex. That is all there is to it.

She said that members of the Bloc are nervous, but we are not. The hon. member said it about 20 times: we are very calm. Things are going very well for the Bloc, whether the hon. members opposite like it or not.

When a minister comes to my riding of Matapédia—Matane, I am glad if he or she comes to give us information, but the fact is that what they give is not information. As my colleague said, when they do come, ministers meet with mayors and members of the chambers of commerce, who are extraordinary people, I agree. But why do they never meet with seasonal workers?

Why do they not talk about employment insurance, which I call misery insurance? People in my area are almost starving to death. In the Gaspé peninsula, there are 10,000 or 15,000 people who want the minister to visit. But nobody ever comes. The unemployed are not important.

What is important for the Liberals is to misinform the people, not to find solutions. If they were honest, they would have come to announce the cuts in the transfers to provinces. They would have said “We will cut x millions of dollars in health care and so many billion dollars in other areas”. But they did not come to announce it. They should have come to give us the information. Why did they not come at that time to give the information they say they are giving today?

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the first part of the question which was to do with seasonal workers and the EI changes. EI changes came in well before the last election. It is a three or four year review program. I must point out that the member's concerns, as well as the concerns of the Atlantic province MPs on this side of the House, are being very seriously entertained by the department. If modifications are required, I am sure they will be addressed in due time.

As far as making announcements on transfer payments, when we came into power in 1993 after a disastrous Tory government we cut every department. It was very clear in the second budget we brought in that the cuts were being done across the country in every department, including transfers to the provinces.

We made very clear that the reason we needed CIO was that those transfers were interpreted by the people in the member's party to the people in Quebec to be that they were being punished somehow and the Government of Canada was deserting them.

It is necessary and you just illustrated it. We have an appropriate vehicle to give the appropriate information to make sure that people understand it, rather than having it filtered through your interpretation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before tempers get a little too high, I would remind members to address each other through the Chair. It makes quite a difference.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very offended by the way the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services views the attitude of the Bloc Quebecois.

I was democratically elected by the people, and I represent 100 opposite question the competence and the actions of the Bloc Quebecois members. We pay taxes and income tax to the Government of Canada and we have the right to come and sit in this House.

I do not understand how the member, who is a parliamentary secretary, can say such things. I find it disappointing coming from her. I have always held her in high esteem, and I do not understand why she is trying to make Canadians and Quebecers believe that there is nothing to hide. There is, because contracts have be given to buddies without going to tender. I would like her to respond to my comments.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am also offended, as the member for Jonquière is offended at my aspersions on her character. I am offended that her whole party is trying to break up my country. I am offended that they are questioning the integrity of my minister. I am offended that they are questioning the integrity of the information that the CIO puts out. I am also offended that many of them take many of the dollars we allocate to their ridings and they do not even say thank you.

I too am offended, and I am directing my remarks directly at the member.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a very current issue. The Bloc, naturally, in recent days has mentioned a number of disturbing matters, so disturbing that two of us will explain them to you and give you more details. I will share my time with the member for Joliette.

I was saying, therefore, that this is a current matter, which follows more or less in the footsteps of that of the Human Resources Development Canada. There had been criticism of the big brother aspect of this department's megafile. It was apparently dismantled at the request of tens of thousands of people wanting to see their file to find out just what was in it. In order to avoid the issue, the government said “We will dismantle this immense data base and answer all requests on the information the department has on individuals”.

Make no mistake. It was dismantled. So all the information that existed previously will not be available. Only partial information will be available. This is like what is happening with the CIO, a big brother of another sort.

There is a lot more behind the information we have on the contracts given to friends. It will be information especially that the government will be looking for, perhaps not directly from individuals, but from a nation, that is, a complete analysis of all information, values and behaviours to discover how to deliver a message that will slip, often insidiously, into the heads of all Quebecers.

It only made sense that we would present a motion on this opposition day. There are probably thousands of people who just joined us, so I will read the motion again, so that these people can understand clearly. The motions reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens—

Here, of course, we are alluding to the journalists, but earlier I referred to the behaviour of the whole Quebec society. The motion ends with the following:

—and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

The Bloc Quebecois is essentially asking for the closure of the CIO, because that office serves as an agency for the Liberal Party of Canada, because it engages in shameless cronyism and because, four years after being established, the CIO remains a catch-all service that awards all sorts of contracts to help define its mission and its organizational structure.

I want to relate two experiences that happened to me in my last months on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I wrote twice to the auditor general to ask him to evaluate the CIO, to shed light on its activities, to look at its performance and to examine its operations. Had that been done, we would have been in a position to validate all that we are saying today about the awarding of contracts and about all the information that the government is gathering on the Quebec people.

Of course, my request was rejected at the public accounts committee, and we were not able to have the evaluation done before the end of the CIO's mandate, on March 31, 2000. Such an evaluation would have been very interesting and it is likely that we could not decently have renewed the CIO's mandate.

My second experience came on May 4, when the Minister of Public Works came to testify before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. I will quote what he said “The Canada Information Office has a special mandate to communicate from a corporate perspective representing the Government of Canada as a whole”.

This short sentence does have one quality. He probably did not realize this, but he did demonstrate quite a lot of transparency. When he says “to communicate from a corporate perspective”, what does corporate mean? A corporation is free to provide contracts to whomever it wants and whenever it wants. It is for profit. It sells a product. What product does the CIO want to sell Quebecers?

The minister also said to us “I'm pleased to inform you that it has made progress on a number of fronts in helping the Government of Canada communicate more effectively with Canadians”. Communication is a two way street. There is a transmitter and a receiver, but I think the CIO receiver is much more sensitive and voluminous than the transmitter toward the people.

He was also saying “To communicate better with Canadians, federal departments need to know what strategies and activities have worked best”, to be able to use them in the years to come, in future government actions.

The CIO has virtually become a huge communications, marketing and image business. It is an image maker.

That about sums up what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. Naturally, we had an opportunity to ask all sorts of other questions, but as usual we got no answers. Communication presupposes a two-way street but with the government it is all one way.

I would like to know how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker, because there are some important points I do not want to forget. I think that I could have managed it all. As I have two minutes left I will jump almost to the end.

Members on both sides spoke about information and propaganda. They had trouble making a distinction. It is not all that complicated. In response to a question I asked him, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services talked about visibility and publicity. When information becomes publicity involving such large amounts—in the case of the CIO, we are talking about $20 million—what are the publicity budgets for all departments as a whole?

When such substantial sums are involved, tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity all over the place, primarily in Quebec, then it becomes apparent that this is no longer publicity, no longer information or communication, but propaganda, for example, “action exerted on opinion to bring it around to certain political or social ideas, to support a policy, a government, a representative”. Le Petit Robert goes on to say “propaganda from a political party, election propaganda, instrument or means of propaganda”, in other words, everything we saw in the contracts: speeches, newspapers, movies, television.

It is therefore not difficult to make a distinction between information, communication, publicity and propaganda. I think that we have everything here to help us see the difference and say that what this government is engaged in, through the CIO, is nothing other than propaganda.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had no choice but to deny us the opportunity to hear the last part of his remarks for lack of time, but I would be very much interested in hearing the tail end of the remarks he did not finish.

Could the hon. member take a few minutes to convey the message he could not deliver fully?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to what I was saying. I touched on this issue very briefly earlier. When the public works minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, I gave him an example from my riding.

An organization had asked Canada Economic Development for a significant grant in order to hold a special and grandiose event. Following an economic feasibility study and analysis, CED rejected that request. The organization then went to the public works minister, asked for the same amount of money, and automatically got it.

I asked the minister “When you give grants to various organizations, do you take the economic feasibility and viability of the project into consideration?” His answer was “This is not about economy, but about government visibility. This is a publicity contract”. And this contract was awarded without considering the economic viability of the event, which suffered tremendous losses in the first year, was held a second year, and again suffered big losses.

There were flags everywhere and the word Canada could be seen everywhere. For the minister, what matters is visibility and publicity. Why visibility? The opposite word says it all, invisibility. Why does he spend money to be seen? Because he is completely invisible when it comes to helping the unemployed, health and education. Since he has to be visible somehow, this is the way he has chosen.

There were many questions we could have asked the minister on that memorable day but once again it turned out to be a day of unanswered questions.

Why does the CIO give its financial support to the Fédération des femmes du Québec for the walk of 2000? Does Status of Women of Canada not have the financial resources for its women support program? Is that the responsibility of the CIO?

How is it that Createc Plus was awarded a contract for printing anti-smoking material? Is that not the responsibility of the Minister of Health, considering what he is doing right now?

Why did GPC Canada, and Rémi Bujold, receive $46,000 to do economic analysis? Should that not be the role of the Finance Minister? Why is it the CIO?

Why did Productions Les Arts receive $20,000 for an exchange between francophone communities in Alberta and Quebec? Is that not the responsibility of the Council for Canadian Unity?

How is it that another company received $20,000 for planning tours by the Canadian team of gold medallists? Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport not have funding available for that?

Why did Conseils et Vérification Canada receive $55,000 for the seminars of 2000 in Laval and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu? Is that its responsibility?

The CIO interferes in areas that do not come under its responsibility at all. Why? Visibility is used to conceal the government's lack of performance, the invisibility of its performance and its inability to fulfil the needs of Quebecers and of Canadians.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the citizens of my riding who are doing me the honour of being in the public gallery today and whom I am pleased to greet, and for the benefit of the other citizens in my riding and in all other ridings in Quebec and Canada, I would like to explain what we are doing today.

Today is a supply day and on this supply day, the Bloc Quebecois put forward for debate the following motion:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

The Bloc Quebecois is essentially asking that the CIO or the Canada Information Office be closed. Why?

Because the Canada Information Office is being used as an agency of the Liberal Party of Canada. Because the Canada Information Office shamelessly engages in cronyism and because, since its creation four years ago, the CIO has always been a “grab bag” agency and it has signed countless contracts to help it define its role and its mandate.

After four years, the CIO still does not know what it should be doing. And if it does not know what it should be doing, why are we giving it money? Is this wasted money? We are giving $20 million a year to this agency that hired 83 people without complying with the normal hiring rules.

What we want is quite simple, it is transparency. We are telling the government that if it wants a propaganda agency for Canadian federalism, it should create one but it should say so publicly.

This reminds me of certain drivers. Is there anything more frustrating then when the car up ahead signals a right turn, but abruptly makes a left turn? This is most irritating and even dangerous.

This is what the government is doing now. It says that the CIO is an agency that deals with information. If we follow the CIO, we would expect it to turn toward information. But, to our great surprise, the CIO makes a right turn instead of a left turn, as expected. The right side is the propaganda side. This is surprising, irritating and dangerous. It is a very powerful instrument that can be used to manipulate citizens.

If the CIO is transparent and wants to provide information to all citizens, why does it not spend the same kind of money in other Canadian provinces? Why is it concentrating its information and propaganda budgets in Quebec? Is it because the CIO thinks that Quebecers are not very bright, that they are deaf, that one must explain things to them more often, for a longer time so that they can understand the message? Is it because other Canadians are not interested in the country? Is it because the information that the government has to give out is not of general interest? Is it because the people of British Columbia should not receive the same message as Quebecers?

If it is about the provision of information, then the same information should be provided everywhere using the same means. If Quebecers are likely to be interested in what is happening in the Rockies, why would the people from the Rockies not be interested in what is happening in Quebec? Did the CIO think about marking the 20th anniversary of the first referendum in Quebec? No.

Yet, it spent tens of thousands of dollars to celebrate the 50th anniversary of one of the maritime provinces. It informs and brings attention to important events. That was such an event. Strangely, the CIO was established following a referendum that the government almost lost in 1995. The CIO was created in 1996.

In the beginning, that seemed to be normal, as the CIO reported to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We were told “The role of Canadian Heritage is propaganda, informing all citizens”. We found it almost normal. In 1998, however, all of a sudden, the government decided to take the CIO away from Heritage Canada and give it to the Department of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works told us this week that it was reasonable for the CIO to be his responsibility, since served as an instrument to build Canada.

The government was going to use the CIO to build Canada so it moved it. At the same time, however, Public Works Canada hands out contracts for publicity and all sorts of contracts for propaganda. My colleague from Sherbrooke gave a few examples of this earlier, and I want to mention another.

Everest, a company that received a $75,000 contract, had contributed $20,000, a coincidence, to the Liberal Party election campaign in 1997 and 1998, and one of its managers, Claude Lacroix, headed the Liberal Party's communications campaign in 1998.

Another distressing coincidence involves Le Groupe Action, which received a contract for $46,000. Le Groupe Action has its offices at the same premises as Everest. Le Groupe Action contributed $60,000 to the Liberal Party in 1997-98.

In all this transparency, I would like the government to explain how Le Groupe Action, which received a $46,000 contract, was so grateful as to return $60,000 to the coffers of the Liberal Party election fund. It got $46,000 and it gave $60,000. It must have got something somewhere else. I do not know any company that is generous to the point of giving a political party more money than it got. Something is unclear in all this. What other money did the company receive for it to be so generous with the government?

We want transparency. The ministers tour under the auspices of the CIO and visit our ridings. It was mentioned earlier that they had made 122 visits. When they come to our ridings to inform people, I am happy with their coming to inform people, but when one informs people, one informs everyone. They should not target an audience they have a cheque for under a grant program that would have benefited this audience in any case.

The ministers circulate, meet a small group of 10 or 15 persons represented by the chamber of commerce and certain mayors. The mayors are very well informed. The chambers of commerce are the best informed organizations in our communities. They do not have the greatest need for information. The people do.

Let the government come then and tell the people why they cut billions in health care, as my colleague from Matapédia—Matane said. Why did the government, which created surpluses for itself, soon to be worth $25 billion, in the employment insurance fund by dipping into the pockets of the unemployed, not come and tell the people about that? This is interesting and useful information, because it enables taxpayers to judge the actions of the government. This is the role of information.

Mr. Speaker, you seem nervous. Has my time run out?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unfortunately it has.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have some very simple questions for the member for Joliette.

I noticed recently in the newspapers there was a glorious announcement in L'Expression that the member opposite accorded $251,270 for HRDC programs for student jobs in his riding. I am wondering if he takes similar offence to the HRDC money that is going into his riding to create jobs for students as he does to the BIC money that is going to assist events that people would like to conduct in his riding.

Another question I would like to ask, and I do not mind in all the areas if the response is there, but when the funds go in for BIC projects, do they display a Liberal logo on the event, or do they display the Canada word mark? I just wondered if that was different in Quebec.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when subsidies or money are handed out to some of my constituents, I am not shy to say it. I hold a press conference or send a press release, and it is mentioned in all the newspapers.

I tell my constituents “You were right to take advantage of this or that program.” I do not tell them that they owe their funding to the Liberal government or their member of parliament. I say “The money comes from your tax dollars. It is yours. I am only here to serve you, to try to help you apply to the program and get some of the money.” I do not seize the opportunity to engage in propaganda but that is what the Liberals do and that is why we are so hard on them.

If the Liberals wants to use the CIO to engage in propaganda, they should be blunt about it and not hide the fact. That has always been the trademark of the Liberal government: it is so open.

When we told the heritage minister at midday today that the government had agreed to spend $5 million to celebrate Canada Day in the province of Quebec in the year 2000, she did not deny it. But when she was asked how much money the government was spending for those celebrations in the rest of the country, she declined to answer. That is not what openness is all about.

If the CIO is a transparent information tool, do we then need to ask her how many millions of dollars will be spent in the other provinces of Canada? If the minister refuses to reply, there are grounds for suspecting that the $5 million will likely be the largest amount earmarked for celebrating Canada Day, and it will go to Quebec. Do Quebecers have a greater need to celebrate Canada Day than other Canadians?

Are other Canadians not sufficiently proud of their country, “the finest country in the world” as the Prime Minister tells us? Are they not proud enough to benefit from certain amounts the Minister of Canadian Heritage might allocate to them in order to properly celebrate their national holiday, the birthday of their country?

Why this secrecy? It is simple. It is because they want to imply that it is a totally natural thing for Quebecers to wish to celebrate July 1, Canada Day. They want to make a show by using the money to buy banners instead of using it to let people express themselves. They are going to use it on things, things that will provide visibility and speak on behalf of people, trying to pass them off as great Canadian federalists. That is the intention, so let them come out and say so.

We are not hiding the fact that we are sovereignists. We say so to anyone. We have been coming to Ottawa for the past seven years just to say so. It is no secret. We say “Here we are, we are sovereignists”. We will tell it to everyone. We are prepared to go to the other provinces of Canada to explain our position. Unfortunately the CIO does not organize tours for us. The CIO does not give us any budget for that, whereas the ministers have a budget funded by the CIO. We are forced to pay for such things out of our office operating budget.

If the intention is to provide everyone with honest information, then why not use this money to benefit all members of this House, regardless of party affiliation? That would be honesty, that would be transparency. This not being the case, we are calling for this propaganda office to be closed and we will be vociferous in our demands.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, although my tone will be different from that of my colleague, who has an exceptional voice. He must surely be a mighty tenor. Since I do not have a lot of time, I will get on with my remarks.

I am extremely pleased that my party decided to use this opposition day to deal with the CIO. It is strange that this body would be called the Canada Information Office. What drew our attention, even though we are aware of the CIO's existence and we know that it carries on certain activities, is the desire to hide the funding provided to this office. What was behind it all?

The government did not want us to know that the “Heritage Minutes” produced by Robert-Guy Scully were funded by the CIO. This means that the government knew that the role of the Canada Information Office was not to provide information and that if it admitted that a journalist was getting funding from the CIO for its programs, that journalist would not be able to claim to be one for very long.

The fact is that today Robert-Guy Scully said that he was no longer a journalist. He decided to say so today, but some would say that he stopped being one some time ago.

That attempt to hide the use made of funds allocated for propaganda compelled us to search—and we are not done with our research—to find out to what extent the Canada Information Office is an unacceptable institution. I strongly support today's opposition motion, which reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

We think the government must close the CIO.

I would like to add a few more arguments to the strong arguments put forward by my colleagues. I heard the members opposite say “But is it not normal to inform Canadians?” The departments inform Canadians. They all have budgets for that. The Privy Council exists and we know that it is quietly doing studies and surveys of Canadians and that it is keeping the government informed.

A large number of agencies which deal at arm's length with the government are also ways of giving publicity to Canada. I will give an example. The various regional economic development agencies throughout the country, with names like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or the Western Economic Diversification Agency, have continued to keep their names. In Quebec, the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec became—and I want members to listen carefully—Economic Development Canada.

This is rather odd, because the government agency that deals with economic development in Canada—we will get back to this some other time—or comes under the economic development department, instead of retaining a name with a connection with Quebec is now called Economic Development Canada. This is the only agency to do so.

Elsewhere, it is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or the Western Economic Diversification Agency, but in Quebec and only there, it is called Economic Development Canada. How much did it cost to change the letterhead, the publicity, the signs, and so forth?

We could do a study just of the period since this government has been in office, to count the number of “Canada's” written in large letters everywhere, including just across the Portage bridge in Hull. Then there was Via Rail's colour change and the addition of “Canada” and then the flag. I could mention others, because there are many such agencies.

What is the Business Development Bank of Canada doing? It has a publication that it sends out to all businesses in Canada, and there are 700,000 of them. How many copies of this publication are printed? It promotes Canada.

There are countless information and propaganda tools in Canada. There is something a bit special in seeing to what extent they have to put the mention “Canada” and the flag everywhere. The means are huge, nobody can question that. What was that CIO established for, as I have to remind the House, shortly after the 1995 referendum that we came close to win?

It is a tool that, as we found out, was not informing Canadians but informing the government about Canadians and Quebecers in particular. This week, thanks to the co-operation of people who wanted it to be known, we found out there were files on journalists. We were told that that practise had been given up for a year. But go and look for yourself. Files were kept on journalists.

This practise alone shows the true nature of that so-called information office. Some claim that analyzing journalistic practises for government departments is innocent. No, it is not. When we know how much the journalistic profession in Canada has deteriorated, when we know how much journalists are often unprotected where they work, when we know how much that situation can give rise to self-censorship, when we know how much that can influence journalists who want to be hired or have their contract renewed because they are casual employees, that alone is extremely serious. This is serious and clearly this qualifies the kind of information that so-called Canada Information Office wants to do.

Why then create the CIO when we have all those sources of information? There is another explanation besides the type of information they want to do. There is also the fact that they no doubt wanted to appeal more widely and more easily to private firms and thus, as was abundantly shown, to favour friends of the regime. That is how they were described in an editorial from the daily Le Devoir , using an expression that is well known in Quebec. We learned what “friends of the regime” meant under the Duplessis administration. One could say that the Duplessis administration has come back, but in Ottawa. Those who were most scornful about the Duplessis administration should worry about what is going on right now in this country.

The fact that the so-called information is intended for Quebecers should not make them less aware of it. Instead of focussing energies, resources and millions of dollars on trying to understand why, while they are quiet right now, an increasing number of Quebecers are convinced that the only solution for them is to organize themselves in order to control their future, the government should shut down the CIO.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will not proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Treaties Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When debate was interrupted the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean had eight minutes.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my speech on Bill C-214, an act to provide for the participation of the House of Commons when treaties are concluded.

I find it a little strange that my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry had to introduce a bill on this issue. It seems to me that this is so obvious that we should not even need to bring the subject up.

Major social changes are occurring worldwide. With the huge opportunities that are provided by the development of technology and transportation, our planet is getting smaller. Distances are increasingly shorter, so that trade, cultural and political exchanges among countries are increasingly a common occurrence. This phenomenon has social and political impacts.

Most people call this phenomenon the globalization of economies. This globalization necessarily leads to more treaties between countries. The increase in the number of treaties must be further examined at the parliamentary level.

Here, the government can sign treaties without consulting the House. So what are we doing here, as parliamentarians, since international treaties are becoming increasingly important?

The last time I spoke on this bill, I talked about what happened with the multilateral investment agreement, which was being negotiated secretly at the OECD. At some point during negotiations, someone leaked the document on the Internet. When groups of citizens around the world looked at the contents of the negotiations, they quickly opposed this project. Pockets of dissent developed all over the world, aimed at thwarting the agreement.

There is one thing that I wonder about: what would the role of parliamentarians have been in this? Why are members of parliament elected? Is it merely to enact national legislation? In a world that is becoming more and more international, a world where there are increasing numbers of treaties, it has become absolutely essential for the good of my fellow citizens that I be familiar with the contents of such treaties.

Taking the example of one very important treaty of the past decade, it is possible under NAFTA for companies to bring a suit against government. This has happened in connection with an environmental rule, when the government had passed legislation banning MMT, for the protection of the public.

A company that risked losing a market brought a suit against the Canadian government, and thus against the Canadian people, since the elected representatives of the people had passed an environmental regulation.

I believe that the bill we are looking at today lies at the heart of the reflection on democracy that must take place. This is a matter very dear to my heart. Moreover, I have tried to raise it in a highly visible manner, if I may put it that way. All of this issue of political power, the power of elected representatives, and the fact that it seems to be being whittled away at, is dear to my heart.

This week, moreover, in the Hill Times , a government MP spoke of how greatly over-centralized power was within this parliament. Is it the MPs who make the decisions, or is it the PMO? I believe that the 301 members of the House must be consulted. These members represent the interests of their fellow citizens.

The impact of international agreements on our fellow citizens is increasing. As proof of this, in my riding this week I had the case of emu breeders who will not be eligible for a reimbursement program because of an international World Trade Organization agreement. I refer to these cases merely as very concrete examples of the fact that the impact of international agreements on populations is increasing. Who represents that population? In my opinion, the members of parliament. It should not be only the Prime Minister with a few ministers who sign these international treaties without any prior debate.

The legislation presented by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is extremely relevant in these times of globalization. This is only the beginning. There are many other issues that should be debated with regard to the role of members of parliament in a context of globalization.

We will eventually have to hold a debate—which I am in favour of—about the social impacts of globalization and also about who will determine the direction that globalization should take. As we know, more and more people are demonstrating everywhere in the world; they are not necessarily opposed to globalization but to the direction globalization is taking, and I am one of them.

I think a broad debate must be held about that. A major part of that debate relates to the whole issue of world governance or world co-ordination, call it what we may, or reform of current international forums which sorely lack for democratic legitimacy, in my opinion.

It is the same thing for the G-20 group chaired by the Minister of Finance of Canada. What legitimacy does he have in his actions when he goes on the international stage? Not only do they not consult members of parliament, they do not consult the population.

In this regard, where is democracy? Does it boil down to an election every four years to choose a government and a Prime Minister and a few ministers who will go on the international stage? I think there is a lack of democracy here.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I do not think opposition members are the only ones who can consult the people.

As government members, our role when we meet with the people is to remind them that we are the government of the whole country and to express our viewpoint. We also consult the people.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot overlook what my colleague has just said. A year ago, I tabled a petition signed by 50,000 people asking the House to set up a parliamentary committee to elaborate a process whereby the civil society would be consulted on the huge issue of globalization, a matter of real concern in this country and throughout the world.

Now I am told that the government is consulting the people. I have serious doubts about that and I think the government is trying to muddle the issues by making these assertions. Unfortunately, my time has run out. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. I do want to congratulate my hon. colleague, because it is at least a step in the right direction.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville begins his debate, are there other members who wish to enter into the debate? It was brought to my attention that, because this is votable, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry would need the consent of those of us here to have the last five minutes. Is there consent?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing forth this private member's bill for debate, Bill C-214, the Treaties Act.

I want to just briefly outline what we are discussing here today in the context of this debate because members may not have been able to pick it up from some of the commentary that has been made.

This bill provides that all important international treaties must be tabled in the House of Commons for approval by resolution and that no treaty may be ratified unless so approved.

The bill goes on to define an “important treaty” as: any treaty whose implementation requires legislative action by parliament; vests the government with new powers; imposes a new tax; imposes new financial obligations on Canada; affects the boundaries or transfers the territory of any part of Canada; calls for the imposition of economic or military sanctions against another country; affects trade or investment or Canada's place in the world economy; or involves participation in international institutions, including any transfer of jurisdiction to international institutions.

The bill also provides that every international treaty shall be tabled for 21 sitting days prior to ratification, along with an explanatory memorandum, including a summary, implications for Canada, new obligations undertaken, estimated expenditures to be incurred, proposed conditions for denunciation or withdrawal and a record of the consultations undertaken in Canada with non-governmental parties, an indication of any legislation required for implementation, and of existing legislation that requires amendment, and also, the provinces must be consulted in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The bill provides for greater efforts to inform the public about what the treaties contain through publication in the Canadian Gazette and on the Internet.

Let me begin my response to this bill by saying, yes, this is good and it is a step in the right direction.

From what I have witnessed over the last seven years since I was elected a member of parliament, the government's approach to international agreements and conferences has been of major concern to me. The Parliament of Canada has not been consulted. The government does most of these negotiations and conferences behind closed doors with no meaningful public input. This concerns me a great deal because it does in fact affect everyone in this great country.

Parliament, and in fact all Canadians, should be informed of the positions Canada takes at international conferences. The ideas and policies that our delegates promote at international symposia or meetings should be debated in parliament and approved.

United Nations conferences, such as the Beijing conference, the Kyoto conference and the conference we had in Brazil on the environment, are all examples of conferences held where the majority of Canadians did not agree with the policies that were advocated. This is most serious when these policies are approved by the UN and Canada signs on, we are then obligated to comply without these being debated or passed in parliament in a democratic way.

In other words, the democratic process in this country can be circumvented. Certain groups within the country can twist the arm of government, can get on some of these delegations that go there, promote policies that most Canadians would not agree with, get those approved or negotiated internationally, the government signs on and then it comes back and says that we have to put these in force in our country. This is deplorable. This gives democracy a bad name because we are not allowed to properly debate these things.

I am of the opinion that the wording in Bill C-214 does not quite go far enough. I do not think it adequately protects Canadians. For example, the wording is that the provinces should be consulted, but it does not ensure that consultation will be done in a meaningful way, nor does it say that the opinion of the provinces that has been expressed would have any impact on any of the agreements or the position Canada takes.

I have had a lot of experience with Bill C-68 and the gun control issue. The consultation the government claimed it had with the provinces was totally inadequate. We now have six provinces and two territories taking the federal government to court. The case is presently before the supreme court. If this had been an adequate and meaningful consultation process, of course that would not be the case. We probably would not even have the present legislation.

The last time parliament put forward a treaty of an international nature for ratification was the auto pact. Guess when that was. Back in 1966. NAFTA was signed without consulting the provinces in a meaningful way. International affairs have a huge impact on Canadian affairs. Why are we not allowed to debate the issues that come forward?

Since I was elected a member of parliament in October 1993 the government has signed 470 international treaties and has ratified 295 treaties. And they have not come before parliament in any meaningful way; 470 international treaties in the period from 1993 to 1999. Most of us have never seen these treaties and know almost nothing about them. It is difficult to access copies of the text of the agreements. It is difficult for us to even find out what positions the government is advocating at some of these conferences. The essence of democracy is that we have this information.

Our neighbours to the south, the Americans, are not in the same situation. Their international agreements must be ratified by their elected representatives.

Our international agreements are negotiated and signed behind closed doors. We often do not even know who is doing the negotiating. Groups of non-governmental organizations are hand-picked by the government. Groups of bureaucrats and others who make up these agreements are not accountable to the people of Canada through their elected representatives. We sometimes find out about them when they are leaked to reporters. We often never find out what is in these agreements or what has been agreed to.

We presently have a situation in the Sudan where the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintains policies that would not allow most Canadians to sleep at night if they knew about them. Genocide in southern Sudan is a terrible tragedy and the position of our government is not acceptable to most Canadians I am sure.

Canadians have the right to be told what is going on and to be consulted on our positions internationally. What assurance do we have that the positions advocated by our government are the best possible positions? In the last election the MAI agreement was an issue. Most Canadian people did not even know what it was all about.

Democracy is not something to be feared, but it is a protection for our leaders. People would take more of an interest in the affairs of our nation if they were allowed to participate. People often complain about the apathy in Canada. Why is that? It is because we do not have proper democracy. The people of Canada do not feel they have a say in what is going on here in Ottawa.

Time is also important. The Liberals often ram legislation through the House without adequate debate. This leads to cynicism and a lack of interest in democracy. We need to have adequate time to debate things. That is what this bill would address in a meaningful way.

Transparency, democracy and accountability need to be improved in government. This bill is a step in the right direction.

What are some of the things the government could do? One example is parliament must be able to examine the impact these foreign agreements would have on the family. The Canadian Alliance has a policy that it examines all these things to see what impact they will have on the family, the basic building block of society.

Another thing that could happen is that the Senate, which should be elected, could perform a very meaningful role in this area. The provinces could elect the senators. They would represent the interests of those provinces and could spend a lot of time looking at these agreements to see their impact, whether they are good or bad. They could represent the position of Canadians.

I will conclude by reading our policy in regard to treaty negotiations. Our blue book states that parliament should be asked to approve all agreements or declarations before they are ratified as Canadian positions. This was designed to enable parliament to have some role in ensuring that Canadian interests are being properly represented before treaties are signed, and to give MPs a check on unaccountable officials and NGOs at international negotiations. Indeed the blue book demands that the identity of and proposed position to be taken by all officials, NGOs and individuals speaking for Canada at the international or United Nations conferences be fully disclosed.