André Harvey

[International Cooperation, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her interest in the Iraqi people.

Canada was one of the first countries to signal a major commitment to helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives. Some $300 million was allocated for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. This morning, the minister, who is representing us in Madrid, announced a $100 million contribution to a multilateral fund for reconstruction and $10 million to train Iraqi police officers.

Canada is increasingly committed to multilateral interventions throughout the world. I thank the hon. member once again for her interest.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just said that he is prepared to go to the polls the day after the leader of our party is chosen. I think that he cannot seriously mean that.

Polls show that Quebeckers are disappointed by the Bloc Quebecois in the House of Commons. They went from 54 members in the House to 35 members. This number will fall to 10 or 15 after the next election. I think he cannot seriously mean what he said.

I think he cannot mean that because, when a $2 billion strategic infrastructure program was adopted to repair the highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi and repair highway 30 to Montreal, they voted against it. There is no better example of inconsistency.

They are talking about rapid rail. Mr. Pelletier, the President of Via Rail, and the Minister of Transport have met and have reached an agreement. This type of deal does not happen overnight. It is important to put the issues on the table, declare firm intentions and say that you will move forward in certain areas. That is how things get done, whether it be for infrastructure, research and development, or the environment. The government had good policies with the budget, as a result of the decisions we made.

Therefore, I think the member cannot mean what he said. I think it is a pity for my colleague, whom I got to know very well on the Standing Committee on Transport.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy. It is a huge challenge. It will show that their reputation is well deserved. They make statements that have nothing to do with reality. They compare people who were quarantined because of the SARS outbreak in Toronto with unemployed people who have access to the normal benefits available through the plan.

Do you see that? Bloc members are here to exaggerate instead of analyzing the facts objectively.

With regard to Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries readjustment bill, I too complained. I attended, with my colleagues, the meetings of the subcommittee that studied this issue. Beyond that, I even wrote a letter to the subcommittee asking that the legislation be amended, next time it is reviewed, so that factors other than numbers can be taken into account in defining new ridings. That was in the legislation.

The commissioners work at arm's length from politicians. However, I told myself that we could ask the government, particularly the subcommittee, to change certain aspects of the current legislation so that the commissioners would have to take into account other parameters, not just numbers.

Regarding tourism in my region, my reputation is made. With all the work that I have done to put the Saguenay Fjord in the spotlight and in all the other files on which I have had the opportunity to work with my constituents, I trust them for the next election campaign. I too am anxious to face my colleagues from the Bloc—

[Supply, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Quebecois colleagues are nervous. In my opinion, they fear that their holidays in the Canadian Parliament are coming to an end.

I only have to hear my colleague from Jonquière to know she is nervous. They fear the next election although it is not for tomorrow. Luckily for them, we do not support their motion, otherwise they might have to face an election very soon.

I am convinced that no other party has more to lose if an election campaign took place in the near future than the Bloc Quebecois.

I only want to say that, fortunately, being inconsistent does not make one sick, otherwise my Bloc Quebecois friends would be quite ill. The PQ government always applied a double standard with regard to the federal government.

The federal government is always to blame for everything. The motion concerns a democratic imbalance. The Bloc members are talking about democracy and imbalance. And yet their founding father, Lucien Bouchard, was Quebec premier designate for a long time. There was no motion then mentioning a democratic imbalance and demanding that an election be urgently called to change the government.

The former Quebec premier, Bernard Landry, was premier designate for many months, and yet there were no demonstration asking for a quick election. I believe, and it is quite understandable, that they are in a slight panic. Our Bloc Quebecois colleagues are nervous. I listened to my colleague, the member for Roberval, who keeps wringing his hands. I can understand his nervousness.

They are all the more nervous as they really love being federal members of Parliament and sitting in this great Parliament, the symbol of western democracy. They are quite concerned, and understandably so, about losing their seat. That is why I will vote against the motion, because it would result in an early election and I want to make sure they stay here a bit longer, to benefit from their ideas and have the opportunity to debate with them.

I will add that the Prime Minister of Canada, who is like everyone of us—we all have our shortcomings and our qualities—is doing a more than commendable job. The government track record shows that it has focused its action on areas that are of the utmost importance for the future of Canadians, including young people across the country.

I am used to hearing this type of demagogy from my Bloc Quebecois colleagues. They are nearby in my region. I have grown accustomed to them. The idea is that, since here in the Parliament of Canada we deal mostly with regional matters, the Bloc members have decided they would take national issues, try to turn them into endless fights, and constantly bring up senseless figures.

Here is a good example of that. A few weeks ago, the Canadian Labour Congress published a report. Bloc Quebecois members and the central labour bodies in my riding held press conferences to say that the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region had been shortchanged by $157 million. I told myself that, instead of reacting too swiftly, I should sit down and go over the figures. That is what I did and then I reacted very objectively.

You know that the Bloc Quebecois loves to harp on employment insurance. They keep bringing up unemployment again and again. They are not interested in jobs and successes. They want to capitalize on disappointments.

In 2002, the employment insurance program paid $239 million to people in my region. The figures provided by some residents, particularly Bloc Quebecois members and the central labour bodies, were not accurate.

Often, general themes are applied to specific regions, but they have nothing to do with the reality of life in those regions.

They also speak a lot about the fiscal imbalance; it is a buzzword these days. I said to myself that I should do some research and find out if there were such a major fiscal imbalance between Quebec and the rest of the Canadian federation. They always end up convincing the social and community stakeholders in Quebec that they are right.

Concerning the fiscal imbalance, each year, Quebec gets several billion dollars more out of the federation than it puts in.

Canada's is a country of growing prosperity. At present, it ranks first among G-8 countries. Obviously, all Canadians can benefit from equalization, a program from which the Government of Quebec greatly benefits, as the recipient of 50% of all equalization payments made. Under this program, the provinces can invest in whatever area they please without any federal restriction.

That is quite apart from all the social transfers. This is very important to governments. The central government has trade relations, with the American people, that generate a trade surplus of $90 billion a year. There are obviously spinoffs for all the regions, and Quebec in particular. All the better if they benefit from this.

One must be careful not to fabricate, to take general notions and say they are doing us harm. That is not true. As far as the government's record is concerned, the Prime Minister has played a lead role in research and development. I notice colleagues from my region, the hon. members for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and for Jonquière. Our region has benefited in terms of R and D. In a few weeks, we will be opening a Canadian aluminum technologies centre. This represents an investment of more than $60 million by our government.

It is easy to understand, because our region produces aluminum ingots, but producing ingots no longer creates jobs. We have lost in excess of 6,000 jobs in our region.

I have convinced my government of the importance of processing. We will be processing aluminum. National programs were developed in cooperation with the National Research Council and Canada Economic Development for that purpose. All these areas of research are important for the future of our country, and the future of my region in particular. I fight first and foremost for the future of my region.

I am trying to target sectors where our government has proven a major player. Genetics is one. I could talk about infrastructure programs. We created a special infrastructure program for the highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi. This is a $2 billion program. The Bloc members voted against it, and then they try to make people believe that they deserve all the credit.

We have to be realistic. The Bloc's motion is totally unacceptable. This motion refers to a democratic imbalance, but given how the Bloc interprets democracy, we have absolutely nothing to learn from it. In my riding in 2000, I witnessed the democratic process according to the Bloc. It rejected young people without member cards. It refused to let one young person run in a convention in 2000. It decided, arbitrarily, to have the reeve run against me in the 2000 election. I was quite happy when, despite all odds, I still managed to win hands down.

In short, the Bloc motions are always vague and meaningless. Upon closer examination, this motion does not hold water. I am convinced that the Bloc members did not even read their own motion. I know perfectly well that they do not want an election to be called right away. They are well aware of the polls. They know all too well that Quebeckers want more for their money from the Canadian federation. That is what members try to do, as I am trying to do to the best of my knowledge and abilities.

It is a pleasure for me to share these comments with the House. It will always be a pleasure to talk about our government's record and our efforts to improve all our programs.

The Bloc's favourite topic is employment insurance. It will never mention that premiums have been lowered by 30%. It will never mention that parental leave has increased from six to twelve months. It will never talk about the elimination of the intensity rule. In short, it is not interested in solutions. It is only interested in problems. The Bloc is not interested in talking about jobs, it prefers to talk about unemployment.

The best thing we could do is vote against this motion and think about what is in the Bloc's best interests, because it is in its best interests that this motion be defeated.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

And the Bloc leader would agree with that.

[International Aid, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is currently one of the experts in international aid. He knows very well that the United Nations consider poverty as one of the priorities of their program. Pockets of poverty affect hundreds of millions of people, and by going through the international organizations, we are assured of not making errors in any action we take.

[International Aid, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in international development.

I would like to make it clear that no funds have been transferred directly to the Chinese or Indian governments. We are working to fight poverty. There are international organizations under the guidance of the United Nations, such as the World Food Program and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are very proud of the work we are doing to help the 250 million Chinese people living in poverty.

[International Cooperation, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his interest in the Afghan people, who are of major concern to the Canadian government.

I can assure him that in 2003-04, $250 million will be invested in priorities identified by the Afghan government in sectors such as agriculture, humanitarian aid and security.

In closing, I want to pay tribute to the Afghan and multilateral NGOs helping the people of Afghanistan build a better future.

[User Fees Act, September 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the exceptional work of my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke North, particularly this afternoon, when he had the opportunity to comment on the Bloc Quebecois's proposal.

I greatly appreciated his most rational remarks on tax issues. It was very interesting. As for the proposal that was moved and that was debated all day, he even proved to us that the Bloc got the wrong country. In other words, this proposal was developed and prepared on the corner of a table. I thank him for his remarks this afternoon.

The government shares his desire to improve the fee setting process. It is with this in mind that the President of the Treasury Board announced the implementation of a new policy on external user fees in August. This policy is now in effect. I think that the new policy solves many of the problems raised by the member for Etobicoke North. In fact, I am convinced that, in this case, it is preferable to have a policy than to pass the bill before us.

Since it is based on consultation, the policy provides a balance between two sound management practices. While ensuring government wide consistency, it provides individual programs with the flexibility that is needed to satisfy the numerous demands and interests of stakeholders.

The government then decided to consult the businesses and industry associations, those who pay the user fees. It also consulted the members of Parliament, including members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The review showed that the principles of equity and justice underlying that policy have strong support. However, the review also showed that the stakeholders shared some major concerns which the policy had to take into account, and it did just that in my humble view.

It started from the already existing strong foundation and designed a new policy which would solve the problems uncovered during the review and reflected in the key elements of the bill being proposed by our colleague.

The new policy considerably strengthens the links between user fees and the level of services. The departments must now establish standards of service in consultation with those concerned and determine what measures will be taken if the standards are not met.

However, the policy states that service commitments must also take into account the program's priorities as established in the acts or regulations. Services are provided in the interest of the public, and the policy recognizes that the standards must equitably take into account the needs of all Canadians.

By allowing the departments and stakeholders to explore a broad range of options, the policy reflects the message sent by a majority of external stakeholders, which is that the main goal is to improve services.

Many paying users and their associations said they were willing to pay higher fees if the money was invested in service delivery. Therefore, any effort made to reduce the user fees may not meet the expectations of paying users, especially in terms of service delivery.

The review showed that departments usually handle complaints properly, but that communications might be improved. Therefore, under the revised policy, the dispute resolution mechanism has to be formally structured and clearly explained during the consultations. The policy also recognizes that departments may ask totally independent advisory committees to make recommendations.

During the review, parliamentarians asked for more detailed reports of external charging. Their message was heard loud and clear. The policy takes their concerns into account. Under the new policy, departments will now have to report to Parliament and the public on a yearly basis. This will be done through public accounts, departmental performance reports and reports on plans and priorities. Departments will also have to ensure that more detailed information on costs, revenues and performance is included in these reports.

The government did not wait until the report was completed. It is already honouring its commitment, as the 2002-03 Departmental Performance Report to be released this fall will show.

The over-all purpose of this policy is to provide departments with better guidelines and directives, and to provide more transparency and stability to the users who pay, parliamentarians, and other, external stakeholders, with the ultimate objective of strengthening transparency and accountability.

I would also like to point out that the fundamental objectives of the policy and of Bill C-212 are similar in many aspects: both seek to improve accountability, transparency and service delivery, but there are important differences between them in functional and operational terms.

The policy is more compatible with the existing authorities, since it respects both the principle of ministerial accountability, by which ministers are responsible for user fees charged by their departments, and the role of existing cabinet committees. It provides for more accountability to Parliament, but does so by means of existing mechanisms, particularly Public Accounts, departmental performance reports and planning and priority reports.

These reports also reinforce the role of Parliament and its committees, which should not hesitate to question senior public servants and ministers on their deparments' user fees, since this is one of their duties.

The policy makes more sense that the bill. The approach taken in Bill C-212 seems to have been chosen on the basis of problems related to a relatively small number of regulatory programs. The provisions of the bill would deprive the programs of their flexibility and increase the costs and the workload for all those who charge fees, not only those that have been a cause for concern.

For example, all departments would be encouraged to create an independent dispute settlement mechanism. However, the study carried out before the new policy was drafted has shown that, in most cases, the clients were in fact satisfied with the existing mechanisms.

Bill C-212 also outlines specific severe “consequences” for the departments that do not meet their service standards. It forces departments to consult stakeholders on the alternatives when it is impossible to follow standards, recognizing that a single consequence, such as the fee rebate proposed in the bill, will not always be appropriate.

Passing the bill would implicitly allow the courts, rather than Parliament, to provide detailled monitoring of the management of practices used for the external user fees. Indeed, dissatisfied stakeholders would, as a last resort, be allowed to take their case to court.

The revised policy allows us to avoid being unnecessarily exposed to such risks, since we already have the tools to ensure the improved setting of external user fees.

Bill C-212 would completely change current responsibilities and powers, as Parliament understands them. The consequences of such changes are difficult to assess and could well prove disastrous.

In closing, let me once again congratulate my colleague for the constructive work he has done in this House.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to say a few words to Bill C-24, particularly on Motion No. 11 of Group No. 2, which helps to alleviate recent concerns about this bill. Of course, it will always be possible, even considering the financial implications of the bill, to have a review which might be very constructive.

I am all the more happy as some members, although a minority, and in particular one of our Canadian Alliance colleagues, consider this exercise a waste of time. As if we could not deal with the Canadian beef issue and the problems it creates, the SARS outbreak and, at the same time, the government's credibility.

This is an extremely serious matter. This is why I was somewhat saddened to hear my colleague from the Alliance say that it was a waste of time to try to improve the perception our fellow citizens have of politicians. I deliberately use the word perception, because I have the opportunity, every day, to live in the real world and it is not true that our colleagues, from whatever party, are not doing their work effectively and honestly.

This is why I was happy to hear my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, with whom I have the opportunity to work as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, pay tribute to the Prime Minister who said that the cleaning up of politics had been enhanced in Quebec by the action of former premier René Lévesque.

The Prime Minister truly deserved that tribute and still does, because it would have been very easy for him to give up. This bill still is not an easy one. It went through an extremely difficult infancy. Yet, we needed someone who could stay the course. We needed someone who was able to step back and tell us all, members of the government as well as members of other political parties, “It appears essential to me, with this bill, to take a major step towards the cleaning up of political party funding all across the country”. However, this does not preclude us from doing other things.

However, it is effectively a bill that has emerged following the political experience of all members of this Parliament, including ourselves. It is obvious that, with this bill, things that we have experienced and that we are experiencing now will not be experienced in the future, because of the constraints of the bill.

Personally, I feel that it is really something that the Prime Minister has stayed the course and has kept it on the government's agenda, despite universal protest. I repeat that it would have been very easy for the Prime Minister, who no longer has electoral ambitions, to say, “We will put this aside; there is too much criticism internally and externally”. Despite it all, he has stayed the course and kept it on the agenda, and we will reach a compromise that will reassure all our fellow citizens.

There is something wrong when, with respect to a profession that I consider very noble, serving as a member of the House of Commons, the reputation of all of my colleagues, as well as my own—we must include ourselves in this—ranks lowest in surveys. There is something wrong when all those who work in politics are despised and considered dishonest.

This is why Bill C-24 will send a crystal clear message, with major constraints imposed on corporations and unions. This will affect all political parties. It is not a waste of money to include public financing; it is an investment in the credibility of all politicians. This will put all future parliaments and governments in a better position, I dare say, to get involved even more effectively in issues that are extremely important in the environmental or health sectors than we do now.

In every respect, this bill will give credibility to all Canadian politicians and that makes me extremely proud. That is democracy, but democracy has a cost. It is much more costly for a government to lose its credibility or for politicians not to have any credibility than to receive $20 to $25 million annually. In any event, such an investment is largely shouldered by our fellow citizens when contributions come from corporations. At the end of the day, it is always our fellow citizens who pay.

I think that Bill C-24 is a major step forward. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, look at what is happening with political financing in the United States. Look at the lobbies in the United States who, with their the financial clout, have direct access to all the political parties. We see this daily in all the difficulties in our trade relations with the United States in several key sectors. We realize that it is not always political objectivity that predominates, but the power of lobbyists.

That is why I am convinced that Canada, which is a model throughout the world in several areas including our political democracy, will continue to play an even greater role by cleaning up political financing. I am convinced that the Canadian example will have an even greater impact with our American neighbours and our fellow citizens of the world because there will be legislation governing political financing. I think this is extremely important.

That is why I thought it was deplorable of one of our Canadian Alliance colleagues to say it was a waste of time to legislate political financing. In a democratic country there is nothing more important than a government with full credibility to take action in key sectors for our future.

That is why the Prime Minister felt this bill was important from the beginning. He could not have been elected for 40 years if he did not have certain qualities or judgment. We have to applaud him for that as my Bloc Quebecois colleague pointed out earlier. It took a lot of perseverance and judgment to be able to bring this bill forward near the end of his term.

I am convinced that all political parties and all politicians in this country will benefit from it because it will give us more credibility with the people whom we represent. I sincerely believe that the great majority of my colleagues in this House do extraordinary work for their constituents, regardless of political stripe. However, unfortunately, in politics as is often the case in other areas, perception is a vehicle that can be very harmful. This is why it was important for us to debate this issue in the House.

I hope that this bill, which will considerably increase our personal credibility as politicians and also that of all political parties, will be passed almost unanimously. The perception that Canadians will have is that we are financing, in part, our democracy. Increasing our credibility has no price since it will enable us to manage, to administer and to take action on issues where a government really needs to have the confidence of the people.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue, which I find most important. I am convinced that Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2 will help reassure those who had concerns. In the very short term, after the first election that will be conducted under the new legislation, we, as parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to make further changes to the legislation if necessary.

What is interesting is that the government is not being pretentious. I think that it is showing objectivity and understanding. I believe that passing this motion will enable us to say so. As parliamentarians, we have not often see flawless bills. This bill will not be flawless, but we will have the opportunity to improve it as we go along.