Ghislain Lebel

[Customs Brokers, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could I also ask the minister to check why the maximum bond was set at $10 million when some importers pay the government monthly instalments of $250 million?

Is the minister aware that this policy may drive some smaller customs brokers into bankruptcy?

[Customs Brokers, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Effective January 16, a new guideline issued by Revenue Canada will require customs brokers to post bonds equal to 100 per cent of their monthly instalments to the government, whereas before the requirement was 35 per cent of the first $200,000 and 17.5 per cent of the next $1,800,000 up to a maximum bond of $2 million.

Can the Minister of National Revenue explain why he increased the bond required of customs brokers from 35 per cent to 100 per cent of their monthly instalments?

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec government indicated that the social program reform is totally unacceptable. Quebec's position is clear: Ottawa still insists on controlling the economic, social and cultural development of the provinces.

This reform is a centralizing effort irreconcilable with the prevailing consensus in Quebec for taking the authority over manpower training. What is even worse is that Ottawa is ten years behind the existing programs in Quebec. The terrible cuts proposed in this reform only reflect the federal government's inability to balance its own budget. As was noted by the Quebec Minister of Employment, Ottawa used the public finance crisis as an excuse for getting involved in every aspect of social security.

The Bloc Quebecois joins with the Quebec government to oppose this reform which affects the most destitute in our society.

[Interest Act, September 22nd, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an Act to amend the Interest Act.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to introduce a private members' bill whose purpose is to reduce the fees or penalties for renegotiating a mortgage for a period of less than five years. There was considerable debate on the subject in 1983, just after the recession in the early eighties. I therefore table this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 comes within the comprehensive plan unveiled yesterday morning to restore the trust of the public in their institutions.

The bill focuses on lobbyists and thus, does not address issues pertaining to the code of conduct governing ministers and senior officials as well as parliamentarians. In that regard however, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in his presentation that these issues will be dealt with in a subsequent bill.

The main elements of the bill are the following: first, lobbyists are required to disclose the specific subject-matter of their activities, the name of the government departments or institutions they will be lobbying, the communication techniques that will be used and, in certain cases, information about the true beneficiary of the lobbying.

Second, consultant lobbyists, that is to say those who work for lobbying firms, commonly referred to as professional lobbyists, are required to report this information for each new undertaking or contract, while in-house corporate and organizational lobbyists, those who work for large companies or interest groups, are required to report annually. Both tiers of lobbyists are required to report changes in this information within thirty days.

Third, the enactment allows lobbyists to file their returns electronically, sets the limitation period for enforcement proceedings at two years and provides for a Parliamentary review of the act in four years. The prescription period was extended to two years-from six months-with respect to proceedings before the counsellor, but this will be discussed later.

Finally, the enactment provides for the designation of an ethics counsellor who establishes a lobbyists' code of conduct and investigates alleged breaches of it.

The Bloc supports the establishment of an ethics counsellor position and is satisfied with the powers of investigation vested in the counsellor. Although the Bloc agrees with the appointment of Howard Wilson, who is now Assistant Deputy Registrar General, it had hoped that future ethics counsellors would be appointed by the House of Commons.

The Bloc is therefore disappointed to see that the Liberals will make the appointment through an order of the Governor-in-Council. The counsellor is supposed to be a kind of guardian of integrity. Why would he not be accountable to Parliament for his actions?

On the contrary, Bill C-43 sort of makes him accountable to the Prime Minister who, as we know, has partisan interests, unlike Parliament. The other guardian of public integrity, the Chief Electoral Officer, is appointed through a resolution of the House of Commons. The Bloc thinks that the guardian of this institution's integrity should be chosen on the same basis.

Finally, in response to the argument that the leaders of the opposition parties were consulted before Mr. Wilson was appointed, yes, it is true that a letter sent by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Official Opposition and to the leader of the Reform Party mentions Mr. Wilson's appointment, but it was not the main purpose of the letter.

The Bloc agrees that Mr. Wilson's first mandate should be to develop a conflict-of-interest code for lobbyists. It is, however, disappointed that the Liberal government refuses to give regulatory status to the yet-to-be-developed code, which would have made it more legally binding. In my opinion, since the ethics code is neither a statutory instrument nor an act of Parliament, it has the substance and consistency of a prayer, which I think will make lobbyists, who are not in the habit of worrying about minor considerations, feel morally entitled to circumvent prayers.

Unfortunately, the Bloc would have liked the government to announce the end of tax deductions for lobbyists' fees, as the Minister of Transport suggested. This deduction means that taxpayers are indirectly financing the efforts of those trying to influence authorities.

Nowhere does the bill say that lobbying expenses or contracts will be made public. For the sake of openness, the public should have access to this information because it is very relevant for assessing what lobbyists do. At the very least, the bill could have provided that if there is an investigation, the counsellor should be required to make this amount public.

The bill has an attractive feature: disclosure of the means of communication used by the lobbyist. However, it is difficult for us to assess its significance at this stage. The regulations will surely make the scope of this provision clear. The bill also mentions electronic communication; it will favour communication by fax and other modern media. Regulations on these matters will follow.

To ensure greater transparency, as the Minister of Industry just said, the Liberal Party's position on the Lobbyists Registration Act, as stated on page 95 of the red book, is as follows: "To increase the transparency of the government's relations with lobbyists. . . a Liberal government will implement the. . . June 1993 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the Lobbyists Registration Act", known as the Holtmann report.

Among the main commitments of the Holtmann report, it said in Recommendation No. 1 that the distinction between Tier I lobbyists, who work for lobbying companies and are called consultant lobbyists in the new law, and Tier II lobbyists, who are paid employees of a corporation, for example, the vice-president of public relations at Bell Canada or another big corporation, should be eliminated.

In another recommendation, it said that the disclosure requirements should be the same for all lobbyists, in whatever category. Unfortunately, these recommendations were not followed and the dual system persists. These are major dilutions of the Holtmann report. How can you justify giving lobbyists for big corporations two months to file a return when consultant lobbyists must do so in 10 days? What is the rationale for such a distinction?

The Holtmann report also recommended that the Lobbyists Registration Act and the Lobbyists Registration Regulations be amended to force lobbyists to provide more details on the purpose of their efforts. More specifically, lobbyists should say whether their representations concern bills, amendments to acts, subsidies, contributions, regulations, policies, programs, contracts or legislative proposals. They should also mention who they are trying to influence and name the department responsible for the service concerned, as well as the office of the parliamentarian or organization contacted. That recommendation was also significantly watered down.

From now on, lobbyists, regardless of their category, will have to specify the purpose of their representations to the government. They will have to name which bill, proposal, legislation, resolution, regulations, program or subsidy is the object of their efforts. We notice that the government has listened to lobbyists representing major corporations and interest groups which can afford full-time lobbyists, and has maintained two tiers of lobbyists.

The Bloc Quebecois nevertheless congratulates the government for having gone a little farther. However, we are under the impression that the Liberals are like fishermen who do not enjoy fishing. They go fishing but they do so reluctantly. If they make a good catch, it does not necessarily make them happy. It is unfortunate that we do not see any real political will and drive to put the emphasis on the activities performed by lobbyists. This may be the biggest reproach that we can level at the Liberals, who nevertheless deserve some praise for having gone a little

farther, as I just said. By taking small steps from Parliament to Parliament, we may eventually reach our goal.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Scratch my back and I will scratch yours. That is about the extent of what is currently happening between the Liberals and the Conservatives who once occupied these very same seats.

Along with my whip, I attended the committee meeting at which time the question of potential witnesses was discussed. When the Pearson Airport bill was debated on second reading, the Liberals opposite told us: "A royal commission of inquiry is unnecessary. You will have every opportunity to hear all the witnesses you want in committee".

When we got to committee stage, quite a squabble broke out. It was worse than selecting jurors for a trial. As soon as we mentioned the name of someone with ties, however remote, to the Liberal Party of Canada, our choice was rejected. At most, they agreed to let us hear from a few witnesses who were particularly well connected with the Conservatives. Even then, they could not provide us with a great deal of evidence. Therefore, when the members across the way claim that they agreed to all the witnesses we suggested, that is false.

Now they are saying that we will have the opportunity to discuss the deal next year when the Auditor General of Canada releases his report.

This calls to mind an infamous statement which the Prime Minister made during the Oka crisis. He said: "So let the Indians escape. We will catch them later". The Liberals appear to be using somewhat the same tactics in this case. They seem intent on playing the role of the blushing, innocent bride.

And yet, in this morning's Globe and Mail , not the Journal de Montréal , Terence Corcoran reports the following: ``Not a shred of evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the Pearson contracts are anything but honest, legal, sound and desirable agreements to redevelop the airport''. This is not me talking, or the separatist Journal de Montréal , but a Toronto newspaper.

This reporter also mentions that Torontonians are beginning to get fed up with the attitude of the Liberals. Furthermore, he states clearly that during the election campaign, the Liberals lied to the public. And they act like prima donnas. How sad, a contract that should not have been signed in the first place is going to be cancelled! Did they include a compensation clause when they cancelled the helicopter contract in Montreal? Did they include a little clause to make sure their friends were taken care of? No, there was none. These people are acting in bad faith.

I call the people of Canada to witness and I tell them this: "See, people of Canada-and of Toronto in particular-how easily you are done out of $250 million, with a stroke of the pen in a transaction that will make the national deficit grow. You are being taken for a ride". These people have been taking us for a ride for over 25 years, and now on the pretence of remedying, resolving a problem, they cancel a small contract which may not have been desirable, a contract we probably would not have signed. Now that their friends have been caught red-handed, they are trying to backtrack, they are putting on the brakes, so to speak. They are trying to spare as much as possible those of their buddies who meddled in this business. That is a disgrace!

It is too bad that certain people, in Toronto in particular, may decide not to listen to what is being said on this side because it is coming from Bloc members, those mean separatists. Torontonians might then realize that we would rather get out of this confederation before the members opposite sink us and, by favouring their buddies, leave this country in such a sorry state that it will never be able to recover and that dismantling Canada will make sense after all, financially speaking. The bottom line is these people are not acting in good faith.

When I first spoke on this bill, I asked what had led the government to introduce such a bill when we are dealing with a valid contract-I did not say legitimate, but valid as in legally

signed- one which normally, based on rulings regularly made by the Supreme Court of Canada, was binding on the government that was in office at the time and had the power to enter into contracts.

In this morning's paper, Terence Corcoran also tells us: "Any reading of Bill C-22 makes it amply clear the special law was crafted to avoid a legal expropriation process-and to avoid embarrassing the Liberals rather than Mr. Matthews". He is one of the Tories involved. "If there are any smoking guns at Pearson, they're in Liberal hands".

That is how highly the Liberal Party is regarded by the people in Toronto. I always knew when the leader of the party currently in power spoke of a chair, that the chair he had in mind was not of the kind that generally comes to mind. In the Prime Minister's mind, a chair can have two horizontal legs, a tilted seat, a horizontal back- That is the Prime Minister's idea of a chair. His perception must be contagious because I think the members of his Cabinet and his ministers' parliamentary secretaries, some of whom are sitting across from us, have had their minds warped by all kinds of inconsistencies or by the tendency to mislead everyone.

The Pearson contract is a disgusting scheme-I hope the term is strong enough-and they are taking at least $250 million out of the pockets of Canadians who have trouble making ends meet, in an effort to put out the fire.

The smoking guns referred to in this morning's press review are what they are attempting to hide. Try to make our friends happy? Always. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours, and the Liberals are the best at this kind of scheme.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to go looking for the truth, we would not find it in the mouths of the members across the way who last spoke.

Along with my whip, I sat on the committee responsible-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We would like to listen to the remarks of the hon. member, but it is difficult because some members are talking in front of us. Could all members be more cooperative?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the much too lengthy comments of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who talked about almost everything, except regional development.

I want to point out to the hon. member that although it is true that the federal government is about to transfer $70 billion to Quebec in the next five years within the equalization program, this money comes for the most part from the pockets of Quebecers. The only pennies which are paid to Quebec but do not come from the pockets of Quebecers are those which are borrowed in their names. The government should know it and stop acting as if it was always playing Santa Claus because it is not true. The government is acting in bad faith.

Canada's accumulated deficit of some $500 billion is nothing to be proud of, even in Broadview-Greenwood. Our economy is in such a mess because of the accumulated debt that they should not dare play Santa Claus.

Members of the Bloc have been rightfully and legally elected to this House and they have a right to speak and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is not the one who will silence us. If this does not please him, he can always go behind the curtain. This is maybe where he will do his best work.

Moreover, we are here to talk about regional development. Did the hon. member tell us about regional development infrastructures? We would have expected him to talk about that. Did he say anything, for example, about regional airport infrastructures? This is an important issue. My riding of Chambly is located in the Richelieu valley and includes some large municipalities. We have a road system. We have provincial road infrastructures that were not given to us by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. They were paid for by the province of Quebec.

We have a nice road system that, unfortunately, is deteriorating rapidly because the Liberals have cut rail transport, because they have abandoned rail lines everywhere. That forces us to overutilize our roads, which are paid for with provincial funds.

The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood tells us that the federal government helped make Hydro-Québec what it is today. If the federal government ever gave a penny to Hydro-Québec, Madam Speaker, I would like the member to compare that with the amount of money that the federal government gave to Atomic Energy of Canada, in Ontario, over the same period. There is absolutely no comparison possible. They are federalists. The hon. member for Madawaska said that some people in this House have a selective memory. I think that applies very

much to members of the present federal government. Talk about selective memory! The federal government never gave a penny to Hydro-Québec, as opposed to billions of dollars that were given to Atomic Energy of Canada.

The member did not talk much about Hibernia. Regional development is important. We need the infrastructures and we have to spend money for that. Let us take regional airports, for example. I said a few minutes ago that the town of Richelieu, in my riding, and all the surrounding towns, including Marieville-almost all of which have a small industrial park and a good road system connecting with the Montreal-Sherbrooke freeway, Highway 10, Highway 30 and roads to the United States, and are not far from railway lines which have not yet been abandoned-adopted resolutions asking for a regional airport.

Many people, including those from Sivaco, a fair-sized factory in Marieville, talked of closing their doors because the senior executives who come from God knows where in the United States find that there is an access problem because they have to land in Montreal and then travel the rest of the way by car in winter. They would prefer to have a small airport close by.

So the towns adopted resolutions to that effect and we are trying to wake the federal government up because it has the bad habit of investing only when it can see the picture of the minister responsible for the area in local papers; otherwise regional development does not interest it. They did that to me last week in Saint-Bruno, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage came to announce a contribution of $11 million from the infrastructure program and tried to convince the people there that that money was a gift from heaven, from a place not far from Toronto, probably Broadview-Greenwood.

I conclude by saying that instead of moaning as they have all day about the presence here of the Bloc Quebecois, they should shoulder their responsibilities and do some regional development. That is what we need and that is the subject of today's debate, whatever the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood may think.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am to understand from what the hon. member who just spoke said that the bill before us this morning is meant as some kind of compensation or at least something to remedy the federal government's inability to create jobs? In other words, are they saying: "Seeing that we are unable to create jobs, let us keep students in school longer and let them get deeper and deeper into debt just so that they do not make statistics worse"? Is that what this bill is about? That is what I gathered from the hon. member's remarks.

Regarding national standards, I think that English Canada can develop its own, and it is not my place to intervene in that. In the case of Quebec however, it is a different story. I am an elected representative of Quebec and the standards this gentleman imposes on the rest of Canada leave me rather cold, but when he wants to impose standards upon Quebec in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, no way!

So, this was my question: Does the bill before us confirm that the government, being unable or incapable of creating jobs at the present time, will cause students to stay in school indeterminately, perhaps causing further indebtedness, just to defer the problem a few years? Also, in view of the present lack of skilled labour in various trades in Canada, does this bill on student loans apply to these trades as well? I would like a brief comment on that.