Nic Leblanc

[Space Agency, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, why is it then that all other employees are required to live in Montreal, save one, a former advisor to the Minister of Industry, namely Mr. Evans, who receives special compensation? This is outrageous, especially since Mr. Evans earns between $117,000 and $142,000 a year.

[Space Agency, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

We have just learned that the space agency chairman, Mr. Evans, is claiming monthly rental fees of $1,300 for a luxurious apartment in Montreal. In addition, Mr. Evans has the use of an official car to travel between Saint-Hubert and Montreal on a regular basis.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, while all employees of the space agency are required to live in Montreal, the agency chairman does not, although he is provided with a $1,300 a month apartment at taxpayers' expense?

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this shows that the Liberals do not want to know the reality and the truth. It is that simple. In any case, this has already been made public, but I still wanted to table this document and ask the government if it could enlighten me about the direction of the changes reflected in this document-for the Liberals' information, I will get back to this document later-and whether these changes were going in the right or the wrong direction.

In 1989, I commissioned and participated in a study on science and technology. Including the national capital region in the statistics is no simple matter. There are some 75 research and development programs in science and technology, and about 20 departments are involved. So for each department and program, we had to calculate what the federal government spent in the national capital region. This is important. It had been done before, but I had never seen the figures, and I wanted to find out for myself. This exercise showed us there is no equity.

In 1989, Ontario, including the national capital region, received $1.9 billion for science and technology, compared to $724 million for Quebec. This means that Ontario received $1.2 billion more per year than Quebec in federal spending. Even though 36 per cent of the population then lived in Ontario, while Quebec's share was 26 per cent, the difference was enormous.

The point I was trying to make earlier, to tie in with research and development, is that there was a $700 million discrepancy in that area, for a total of almost $2 billion per year in science and technology, and research and development.

What this means is that Ontario was getting $2 billion more every year. I am not saying this only for Ontario, but for all the other Canadian provinces that are disadvantaged by this. A large percentage of the $2 billion invested each year on science and technology-given how many jobs for scientists and experts there are in that area-is spent on salaries.

Let us take a look at the economic spinoffs in Ontario. First, there are taxes paid on the products, houses and other goods purchased in the province. You can imagine the magnitude. I am strictly speaking in terms of science and technology, and research and development. Two billion dollars generate substantial economic spinoffs in a province.

That is precisely why, a few years ago, I had suggested that the national capital region be considered a province in that respect and that the federal government keep the taxes collected in the region. It would have been fairer. But the government will hear nothing of it, because this benefits Ontario greatly. The fact that Ontario has always been richer than most Canadian provinces explains the presence of the federal government in the national capital region, where it spends tremendous amounts of money.

This is all explained in the document I wish I could have tabled, so that government members could take a look at it, but I will find another way to get it to them.

This goes to show that, when, in the speech from the throne, the government claims to want to be fair and equitable, to encourage harmony, to anticipate political uncertainty, it should start by being fair and equitable to the provinces, including Quebec, until it becomes sovereign.

My other point also concerns research and development, as I said earlier. By the way, our leader is welcome to come and visit the Tokamak facilities in Varennes next week. It is a nuclear fusion research centre. The nuclear industry is a clean industry that can be established within city limits; it really is tomorrow's source of energy. The federal government has decided to withdraw from this project.

I invite you to visit the Tokamak project, in Varennes. It is an extraordinarily modern facility that is the result of a partnership involving Europe, Japan and the United States, and where research is conducted on nuclear fusion, a form of energy for the future.

Electricity is produced with turbines, and power will come from the fusion that generates the heat. It is thousands of times more efficient than uranium and other sources of energy. This is not an imaginary thing. It is said that this form of energy will be available in 10 to 15 years.

The materials created and developed through this research allow companies from the Montreal region and elsewhere to build high performance products that they would not otherwise be able to make.

The chief executive officer of the company says that a large number of products sold are the result of the research conducted at Tokamak. This means that financial spin-offs for the federal government are greater than the $7 million it is currently investing in this program, but does not intend to reinvest next year.

I do not know how the federal government does its evaluations but, by ending this annual investment of $7 million, it not only jeopardizes the very important development of nuclear fusion, it also loses potential revenues for itself. This is really a bad calculation.

It is true that the $7 million invested in nuclear fusion research at Tokamak came from the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL was competing against Ontario's oil and uranium industries. The Minister of Natural Resources said the project was not one of her priorities. I realize it is not one of her priorities because she must first protect the oil and uranium industries, not this new form of energy called nuclear energy.

The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak, since he does not have to protect other forms of energy. He is neutral in this respect. The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak. I am making this request in all honesty; I am not playing politics. I believe the federal government is making a fundamental mistake by ceasing to invest a mere $7 million per year in the Tokamak project. This is very important.

I would also like to talk about the whole issue of drugs. I remember all our efforts to attract medical research investors. We worked very hard. That was the first time I saw scientists travel to Ottawa to demonstrate against the opposition. There was a delegation of close to 200 scientists and researchers, primarily from the Montreal area, who came to demonstrate in favour of the government and against the opposition, which wanted to block passage of Bill C-22 concerning drug research.

The Liberals were then in opposition and they vigorously opposed the bill. We were calling for the protection of patents. We wanted to give some protection to those doing drug research and development so that they could justify their investments.

Mr. Trudeau had allowed drugs to be copied after five years. Companies doing drug research were forced to go out of business. Office buildings and research centres, particularly in the Montreal area, had to close their doors.

Hundreds of jobs were lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars left the country, and the Conservatives of the time wanted to get them back. Hundreds of millions of dollars came back into the country to be invested once again in the Montreal area, because there are many very competent people doing drug research there.

As recently as this morning, we learned that the Swedish company Astra is going to invest in the Montreal area. This will be the first time that this Swedish company has invested abroad, $300 million over a ten year period, for drug research.

Lately, we have learned to be very wary of the government. I have met people who lobby in Ottawa. They are in favour of Bill C-22 and C-91. They have doubts about the present Liberal government, which intends to reduce the number of years during which drugs are protected.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the address in reply to the throne speech, although I find it a bit odd to do so now, since the speech was given on February 27, 1996 and it is now mid-November. I suppose the government, which controls the program in this House, did not want us speaking about the throne speech when it realized it had not met the objectives it set for itself.

I have been here for 12 years, and although I do not recall what happened other years, it seems to me it has taken a while to get to the throne speech. If we had spoken about it in March, April, May perhaps, I would understand. But it is now November. My birthday is November 15 and I did not think I would be speaking about it so close to my birthday. I would have liked to speak about it much earlier.

The throne speech dealt with research and development, science and technology. The government said it would take steps to improve promotion of science and technology, and research and development in order to encourage job creation. It also said it would pay particular attention to the political uncertainty hanging over Quebec.

It also talked about improving free trade with the United States and Mexico, and mentioned NAFTA and a climate favourable to economic growth. These were the main points covered in the throne speech. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what is being done.

With respect to research and development, this morning I listened to experts and representatives of certain departments and Canadian institutions appearing before the industry committee. They seemed quite discouraged by the fact that the government was reducing research and development budgets. In my view and in the view of a number of people who know a little bit about economy and a country's economic performance, research and development is vital. It is something that must not be neglected.

We must always keep a keen eye on a government's obligations regarding education, training, research, and assistance to businesses so that we can operate more economically and be more productive. All this concerns the production environment in a capitalist system like the one in which we live.

People need training in order to be more effective. They need to be healthier, better educated. There must be more applied research that is more closely related to business needs. The purpose of all this is to provide a better standard of living for Quebec and for Canada.

This is, however, not what is happening. Since the Liberals have been in power, there is more unemployment, more people on welfare, things are going from bad to worse. Every day we have to motivate people, to give them faith in the future. At the present time, there is a little glimmer of hope, a minimal rate of growth.

Great attention must be given to everything related to research and development, educational levels, health, products, pure science, so that we can keep up with the growing international competition in the market place.

There are some who think that international competition is somewhat vulgar, bad capitalism, but it is nonetheless a reality. The reality is that we have decided to open up markets with the United States first, and then with Mexico. Now we are trying to open up markets with Israel, a small country, but still this demonstrates the desire to open up markets.

The countries of Asia and the Pacific have the same desire to open up markets in order to communicate, to do business together. This seems to me to be a good thing for humanity. The greatest opportunities to meet and to dialogue are always available in trade and in business.

I have seen this in the few trips to Africa I have had the opportunity to take. Several of our experts told us that trade was the route by which we will manage to get to know each other and to do business together. Not in the crass capitalist sense of the word, but rather in the sense of having trade exchanges in which the interests of all partners are served. And when people's interests are served, they make an effort to understand each other and get along better, so that gradually, we are better able to live together in peace and harmony. We might have fewer wars and fewer conflicts if we are more open to the world.

Since we know there is an advantage to being open to the world, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Canadian government must co-operate with business, universities, unions and everybody else, whether we are talking about human, scientific or other research, to help us draw on the resources we need to develop our own potential and help others do that as well, whether we are talking about trade, productivity, health care, education, or other sectors. This is all very important.

The government must also be fair. So far, I can tell you the government has not been fair in the way it distributes spending on research and development and science and technology among the provinces.

In 1989, I chaired a committee when I was with the previous government in power. It produced a report. At the time, we noticed that when officials of Statistics Canada evaluated how federal spending on research and development and science and technology was distributed, they always excluded the National Capital Region, which greatly distorts the results.

For instance, if we ask Statistics Canada: "Are your own employees distributed equitably among the provinces?", Statistics Canada answers: "Yes, we do a good job of distributing our staff". So I asked them in a committee in 1989, and this was quite sometime ago: "How are Statistics Canada employees distributed across Canada"? They told me: "They are very well distributed, we have about 150 in Quebec, 185 in Ontario, about 85 in the West and 40 or so in the Maritimes". I said: "How many employees do you have together?" I was told: "We have around 4,500 or 5,000

employees". I said: "Where are the others, I counted only around 700 or 800"? They told me: "The others are in Ottawa".

So there were around 3,500 or 4,000 in Ottawa and furthermore, Ontario had 185, and Ottawa is in Ontario.

This is just an example. So when Statistics Canada provides statistics, they are completely distorted because they exclude the National Capital Region, which is concentrated mostly or at least 80 per cent in Ontario.

Imagine what that represents. I did a calculation, and with unanimous consent, I shall if I may table this document in the House for information purposes.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the hon. member for Vaudreuil, one of those members who have frequently raised the fact that political uncertainty was disastrous for Quebec in terms of attracting investments in the province.

I should point out to him that, just today, an announcement was made that a Swedish company will be investing $300 million in pharmaceutical research in the Montreal area, probably in or around my riding.

If political uncertainty has such a disastrous effect-and perhaps he could address this in his response-it certainly is not political uncertainty caused by separatists, as he puts it, that adversely affects investment.

I would say that the Liberal government's attitude is much more detrimental. On November 5, Claude Piché wrote in La Presse that it was strictly an irrational excuse on the part of the Liberals to claim that investments were not coming in as they should in Quebec because of the political uncertainty caused by the separatists, when in fact it was just the opposite.

The problem is due to the fact that the federal government itself would have everyone believe that the lack of investment is due to political uncertainty and the sovereignist cause.

It is absolutely not true and I would like him to say so, because, if he is serious about wanting to help the people he represents-I think he speaks mainly for the people of Montreal and Quebec, given that he was elected by the people of Quebec-perhaps he should stop talking about political uncertainty and start creating an atmosphere to counter such a perception by investors, because this is strictly a matter of perception.

The perception does not match the reality. There is no survey indicating that political uncertainty in Quebec adversely affects investment. He should say do publicly-I sincerely hope he will-if he is serious about wanting to help the people of Montreal. That is my first point.

My second is the Bombardier investment issue, that the hon. members from western Canada keep raising. The problem, really, is the way the Liberals have announced it. The Prime Minister himself came to Montreal to announce that he was lending $87 million to Bombardier.

In fact, it is a loan equivalent to about six or seven million dollars per year, over a few years. As far as I know, never before has a Prime Minister made a trip with his ministers to announce with great pomp annual subsidies of $7 million to a major company such as Bombardier, when the economic spin-offs will be much greater than the $7 million in question.

The problem that westerners face has to do with the way the Liberals came with great pomp to Montreal to announce what was in fact a loan of $87 million. It is a loan and this is fine. I have nothing against it.

The problem is the way it was announced. The government misled people from the west by making them believe it was a huge subsidy, but it is not the case. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Vaudreuil would explain it, to correct the false impression created by the fact that the Prime Minister came with great pomp and that the Minister of Industry said the government was giving $87 million. The government is not giving $87 million: it will give about $7 million per year, taking interest rates into account, for a few years. The hon. member should set the record straight.

[Investment, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Liberal members keep saying that an end must be put to the political uncertainty created by separatist threats.

The reality is that they are entirely responsible for the political uncertainty, with their federalist threats, such as changing the rules of democracy to suit them, preventing Quebecers from deciding on their own future and encouraging the partition of Quebec in the event of sovereignty. Furthermore, political uncertainty exists only in the discourse of hard-core federalists.

For proof, we have this morning's announcement in the newspapers that Astra, a pharmaceutical company, has selected Montreal as the site for its first research centre outside Sweden. This project represents an investment of over $300 million over ten years.

Fortunately, foreign investors do not allow themselves to be influenced by the dire warnings of federalists. They know good places to invest and both Quebec and Montreal are excellent choices. They have our thanks.

[Program Cost Declaration Act, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durham, a Liberal member, has put forward Bill C-214, a bill to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed government programs.

The hon. member for Durham, who sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts as vice-chairman, is very interested in any administrative or legislative measure that would make the government more responsible or accountable for the enormous amounts taxpayers invest every year in the federal public service.

I want to assure the hon. member of my support in requiring the estimated annual cost and cost per capita of every new program be published as soon as the bill that authorizes it is introduced in Parliament or the regulation that implements it is issued.

The bill also requires that the auditor general be called upon to determine whether the method of calculation is valid and the cost is a good estimate. This assessment and the method to calculate the estimated cost used by the auditor general would go a long way to reassure the public on the objectivity of the calculations and cost estimate.

To increase public awareness of the actual cost of government programs and enhance transparency, as promised by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign, transparency that never really materialized, this bill also requires the total cost and cost per capital of each program to be displayed at any place where the program is delivered to the public.

The purpose of Bill C-214 is to require all departments to provide detailed financial or cost analyses for any new legislative measure.

Estimating these costs on a per capita basis will help individual citizens understand more clearly how much each new piece of legislation costs them personally, how much is actually taken out of their pockets each time the government put a new program in place.

This bill will make legislators and public service officials more aware of the financial impact of various legislative measures. It will also encourage the public to pay closer attention to government spending.

I agree with the hon. member for Durham, when he says that, had such a legislation been in place in the past, the debt burden facing the taxpayers would have been much lower today.

I sympathize with the hon. member for Durham. His background and personal experience, as well as his work at the public accounts committee level, have all contributed to leading him to put Bill C-214 before this House. However, while he has our support, the problem for the hon. member, who sincerely wants to prevent the setting up of programs that are useless and too costly, is that his own government, his own party turns a deaf ear to his bill.

Indeed, the cost of government programs is the least of the Liberal's worries. Since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Liberal Party of Canada has buried Canadians under a mountain of debts, and the current Prime Minister is carrying on the tradition. The notion of cost-benefit analysis is a foreign to this government as its understanding of Quebec is flawed or, for that matter, the existence of two distinct peoples in Canada and the partnership that could exist between them. This Liberal government's constitutional policy is based on confrontation. The Liberals prefer covering up to transparency and to analyzing the real costs of government programs.

For these reasons, Bill C-214 stands little chance of being supported by the hon. member's own party, even though such legislation is urgently required.

A good illustration of the Liberals lack of support for Bill C-214 is an E-mail note we received in which the Liberal member for Bruce-Grey writes the following to his colleague for Durham, and I quote:

"While I find the objective of the bill laudable, I am concerned that it could prove to be costly and cumbersome, particularly if applied to all new programming proposals regardless of materiality".

While cost estimating is the very basis of the evaluation of any new product or service in the private sector, the Liberal member for Bruce-Grey tells us that estimating the cost of any new program would be too costly when we do not know whether the program will actually be implemented. The member for Bruce-Grey seems to be implying that it is better to implement a new program without knowing its costs, then to know the costs of a new program whose financial impact would lead us not to implement it.

Such is the Liberal philosophy: it is better to not know the costs of a new program, because this information could arouse the suspicions of the media, of the opposition parties and of the taxpayers, who would strongly object to its implementation.

Better to keep the public in the dark about the real costs of programs, and above all to keep the auditor general, with his objective and transparent opinion about such information, at a distance.

We saw this, during hearings of the finance committee on the transfer of two billion dollars of Canadian capital tax free to the United States. Members of the Liberal majority and the chairman of the committee himself tried to put the auditor general on the

spot, because he had dared to give a dissenting opinion on the controversial decision by the revenue department and the finance minister regarding this unusual transfer of funds to the United States.

The final report by the Standing Committee on Finance, with which the Bloc Quebecois was not in agreement-we tabled a dissenting report-is devoted largely to trying to refute and undermine the auditor general's opinion.

As political debate and public morality, we have seen worse. Instead of attacking the message, Liberals attack the messenger.

At the end of his note to the member for Durham, the Liberal member for Bruce-Grey says, and I quote:

[English]

"With respect to the role of the auditor general, his mandate is one of ex-post review. Indeed your proposal may create a conflict of interest for his office".

The Liberals want to continue to maintain the role of the auditor general's office as one of intervening after the fact, when the deed is done and taxpayers money has already been committed and spent.

As for the possibility of conflict of interest in the auditor general's role, the Liberals have put themselves in a conflict of interest situation for some time by attacking the auditor general during hearings of the finance committee and in their subsequent committee report to the House. The auditor general is accountable only to Parliament, and that is why the Liberals are so afraid of him, do not want to extend his mandate and are trying to undermine his credibility to diminish the impact of his views. This is petty politicking.

Bill C-214 presented by the hon. member for Durham, will unfortunately not be supported by his own party, because it calls for innovation in administration, for transparency-

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the government is responsible. But being responsible is one thing and giving oneself excessive powers is quite another. Here, in Canada and Quebec, it was decided that the legislative power and the executive power, that is to say justice, should be separate.

If the government is linked directly to its courts, why bother creating any? The minister might as well make his own decisions and appoint administrators, but there is no point establishing a tribunal to settle disputes while giving himself the authority to settle disputes.

Furthermore, the real reason for these tribunals, in my opinion, is that the government wants to appoint its friends. When this bill is passed, it will be able to make at least 1,000 appointments. I say at least 1,000; the fact is there are 2,000 positions to fill in various tribunals. With an election just around the corner, the government cannot wait to be able to appoint its friends. It has not been able to do so up to now, because the Conservatives had already done the same thing, but at least in their case, they did not appoint a friend just for a month. Now, the Liberal government will we able to designate friends for one, two, three or four months, then throw them out and designate another bunch, playing this little game over and over. This whole thing is scary and downright outrageous.

At least, there were appointments for three, five or seven years in the past, but now this is all changing. Appointments are being replaced with designations and these will be for as long as the Liberals have left on their mandate. They have one year left, so designations will be for one year, and if they get re-elected, they will get to start over, appointing new people whom they can expect will work hard for them in the next election. This is what this means. This is outrageous. It is really taking us back 100 years. We are going backward instead of forward with this government, might I say a totalitarian government. Are we headed for a totalitarian regime or will democracy prevail?

We want those who have responsibilities to be free to exercise them, without having to account directly to the government. There lies the big problem. Such an approach must be strongly condemned. This is serious, much more so than what the hon. member of the Liberal Party suggested, when he said that the government's role was to manage. The government is indeed elected to pass legislation and make regulations. Then, people are appointed to implement the legislation or regulations, but the government must not get involved directly in the implementation of the legislation and regulations it puts in place. The two must be kept separate to ensure that, after it has been passed by the government, the legislation is implemented by individuals operating at arm's length, without having the government on their backs.

What the government is doing on an interim basis, by designating the chairpersons of administrative tribunals, is giving itself the power to dismiss them at any time. That is the problem with the government's interfering with administrative tribunals. In many cases, this will have serious implications for anyone who has to face the big machine often.

In the judicial system, the little guy is often the winner. He has the advantage. It used to be that this was also the case in tribunals, but with the administrative changes the government is introducing, the tables will now be turned and the big guy will win. The little guy will always come out the looser. The government will interfere directly and indirectly with the decision making process. That is totally unacceptable. The Bloc Quebecois will vote no, a strong no.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today against Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals. We must particularly note the word "disciplinary". The minister wishes to have the power to smack his administrators around a bit. Our colleague and fellow member of the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment stating that there ought to be a parliamentary mechanism governing the appointment or revocation of the appointment of members of administrative tribunals.

As my introduction, I would like to offer a brief explanation of what administrative tribunals are, what their importance is. Bill C-49 makes major changes to the operation of administrative tribunals. Although these modifications have not attracted much media interest, they are nonetheless important.

The administrative tribunals, while often less well known than the superior courts, nevertheless have major impacts on the daily lives of Canadians and Quebecers. Often they bring down far more decisions than do the superior courts. What is more, the consequences of their decisions are often very important to citizens and to the state, whether Canada or Quebec. Indeed, the significance the administrative tribunals have assumed in recent years is now an accepted fact. They have become the preferred decision-making venue, where citizens wishing to confront government regularly stand up for their rights.

I will name a few of these tribunals to show how significant they are and the role they play in our society. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the agricultural products review board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Competition Tribunal-this one is very important-the Copyright Board, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. These are commissions and tribunals that play a very important role in our society.

The Liberals have decided to change the way these tribunals are administered. This will have serious consequences. I believe the main reason, and they have said so, is to cut positions and administrative spending. That seems legitimate. But if we take a really good look, it is not the real reason.

The changes the government makes will infringe on the independence of these tribunals and will also further centralize the powers of the federal government in Ottawa. The real reason for these changes in the constituent legislation of administrative tribunals is

mainly that the government wants to designate the presidents instead of appointing them.

To designate is a very serious matter. When one designates, one can also revoke a decision very quickly, and as mentioned in the legislation, if the minister responsible feels that he has a role to play and the president of a tribunal does not exactly reflect the ideas of the minister or the government, he can be removed-in other words, fired-for reasons that are more or less substantiated. This is supposed to enhance administrative flexibility, but it is a very serious matter, and I will explain this in a few minutes.

In the past when the president of a tribunal was appointed, it was for two, five or seven years. This created a certain stability and a certain independence in the way the president made his decisions. However, if the president is designated and can be removed at any time, this means he will always be at the beck and call of the government in power.

I think the main reason behind this bill is to make it easier to appoint friends of the government. As you know, the Conservatives were in power for nine years. During that time they changed practically all the incumbents, all 2,000 of them, on these tribunals. These are very attractive appointments to positions that are very well paid.

The Liberals have been in power since 1993. Three years later, they now realize they cannot hand out these positions fast enough to their friends. They are changing the act to be able to do so quickly, in other words, to have the power to fire most of the people who are sitting on these tribunals and put their friends in instead.

To me this kind of bill is outrageous. That is why I am pleased to have this opportunity to criticize publicly the current government's conduct in this respect.

We know that many of the people who will be appointed are friends of the government. In fact, during the last election campaign, one of the Liberal Party's officials came out and said publicly to the defeated candidates that they did not have to worry, that a job would be found for them, that there were plenty of jobs, and that those who so desired would be able to get a job from the federal government.

I think that today, the government has realized it cannot appoint its friends fast enough. So they are changing the legislation to make it easier to remove incumbents and appoint their Liberal friends to these administrative tribunals.

I believe that is the main reason for all these changes in the legislation. This is why they must be denounced, and also why my friend, the hon. member for La Prairie, has presented his amendment calling for the House of Commons to have a say in the appointment of members of administrative tribunals.

If we are to have responsible governments in future, we must not use this as a pretext for forcing people to back the winning horse. In recent years, we have noticed that often those involved in politics or political organizations are like weather vanes. Often, if the government is winning, if people or polls say that this or that party is on top, many people change sides at the last minute. In the final weeks, rapid changes can be seen taking place. Often one of the reasons they do so is to have a chance at an appointment to some commission or other.

In this sense, this does not seem good either. People involved in politics must be prompted to do so by their ideals, their belief in a party's philosophy, not because they are angling for a job, that is to say serving their own interests. In my opinion, if we want to have governments that are responsible and capable of selling their ideals, the machinery must be cleaned up, and when it comes down to it, this bill does the opposite. It has people working with a view to a chance at job in future if their party wins the elections. These amendments on the appointment of members of administrative tribunals are, to my mind, quite shameful.

What is unfortunate with this bill is that it will hamper the independence of the tribunals. Our judicial systems have always been world-renowned. Our judicial systems and our tribunals were truly stable. There was no interference between the legislative system and the justice system. What the minister and the government are doing now is providing the government with the power to interfere directly in tribunal decisions. A tribunal must be independent of the legislators.

What the government is proposing is exactly the opposite. It wants to interfere, by equipping itself with means of discipline. That is what is written into the law, moreover. It will be able to take disciplinary measures in order to direct the administrative tribunals, which means direct government involvement in the decisions of the administrative tribunals. This strikes me as very, very serious.

As we know, judges in the judicial system are appointed until the age of 75. These long appointments make it possible for the judicial system to be stable and totally independent. What the minister proposes is the exact opposite in that it would make administrative tribunals less stable.

The president of the Quebec Bar Association was very clear about this when she said that "the lack of job security may have an unexpected psychological impact on the decisions of a person who may be more concerned about pleasing the government than rendering a fair judgment". As I pointed out earlier, these people will be more concerned about pleasing the government and meet-

ing its expectations from day to day than about making the decisions they must be free to make.

This bill and these changes are a disgrace because they do the exact opposite. This goes against common sense. We want our society to move forward, but the government is taking us back to the 1920s, the 1930s, the Duplessis era, or the turn of the century. This kind of measure is totally unacceptable.

We often criticize the United States for the way they do things. But I can tell you that in the U.S., for example, tribunal members are appointed by committees, which, I think, is a much more equitable approach. Committee chairs and members should not be appointed by the party in power alone, but by House of Commons committees.

The government could propose names, but the appointments would be debated in committee so that these decisions can be made at arm's length from those in power and committee members chosen for their abilities and not their political ties. These people could then do their jobs with competence and great freedom of action. This, I think, is very important in order to clean up the system.

We should follow the U.S. government's example in appointing our legal authorities.

The government is giving itself enormous power over administrative tribunals. When the minister alone appoints all these people on behalf of the government, he does so unilaterally, without ever consulting the provinces, and yet these tribunals often need to make rulings in very important areas like the oil, uranium and electricity industries.

The large corporations in the energy sector wield a great deal of influence. If the minister is not happy with the rulings made by a tribunal, he might simply appoint someone else. The minister's power to appoint someone else is considerable as it gives him direct control over decisions. That is the issue. The minister's power to appoint and dismiss tribunal members for all kinds of more or less valid reasons gives him direct control over decisions. It makes no sense for the minister to establish tribunals while keeping this great power to decide.

We know full well that these people will have to meet government expectations and that decisions affecting major areas like those I mentioned earlier-the oil, uranium and electricity industries-could displease or penalize Quebec, especially when electricity is concerned. The government could take matters into its own hands instead of letting the tribunal decide, for the reasons I gave you earlier. It could make its own decision and hurt Quebec's interests. It is very important to mention this.

As you know, it has been quite difficult in the past to get justice as far as Quebec's major economic sectors are concerned. And the government is about to give itself extraordinary powers. What this means is that the government will never consult with the provinces before making appointments, and that the person appointed to the chair will not make a decision without first notifying the minister because, if he displeases the minister, the minister can dismiss him-as the bill points out-without compensation. He could be dismissed just like that, because the government does not like the way he handles cases.

This is a real case of judicial interference, which I condemn today, like several of my colleagues as well as some Reform members. We can never say it often enough. I hope the minister will reverse his decision, because this is really unfair and unacceptable. This is a step backward instead of forward.

Bill C-49 will have serious consequences for our tribunals' independence. Instead of moving democracy forward, we are regressing. The government is giving itself way too much power. That is why I am in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague from La Prairie and opposed to Bill C-49.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

We are not against everything, on the contrary. We are keeping tabs on the government. He should be ashamed for saying that. He was fighting to prevent us from passing Bill C-22 and Bill C-91. It was his party. He were not here at the time. I was here. I remember. We won, and today, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in western Montreal, especially.

Just recently, the Liberals on the House of Commons committee on regulations tried to pull a fast one. They tried to change the period. Lucky the Bloc Quebecois was there to keep an eye on them, because otherwise we would have been had once again. Can we trust these people? Never.