Maud Debien

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this independent customs and revenue agency will help the revenue minister to shirk doing his duty to protect taxpayers from any abuse of authority.

We know that the government is in the habit of hiding behind independent agencies to say that no, the government is not to blame for this or for that, the agencies are.

Is the establishment of an agency to carry out, for the government, basic duties like enforcing the Income Tax Act supposed to reassure taxpayers?

Does the hon. member not believe that privatizing the revenue department is just another way to appoint friends of the government to all the positions available on the agency's board of management?

[Tribute To Maurice Champagne, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am using the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the Quebec Ligue des droits et libertés to pay tribute to Maurice Champagne, who was its chair and executive director from 1971 to 1975.

A poet and essayist, Mr. Champagne recently passed away. He oversaw projects that led to the Government of Quebec's passing of the charter of rights and freedoms and the Youth Protection Act and to the establishment of a family policy.

Maurice Champagne's accomplishments will survive him. A few days ago, the Ligue des droits et libertés held a conference on the situation and the future of rights and freedoms in Quebec and in the world. It invites us to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has always guided its actions.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for all the amendments that reduce the scope of Bill C-43, because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

In the throne speech delivered in February 1996, the federal government announced the establishment of a national revenue collection agency. Just when we thought the government had completely abandoned the idea, the Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, just before the House adjourned for the summer.

What the minister came up with is not a mere collection agency, but a terrible bureaucratic monster, which threatens the confidentiality of personal information, the rights of revenue department employees, and the provincial powers relating to revenue collection. Even the business community is opposed to the establishment of this agency.

The minister admitted he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43 before the Christmas recess. We wonder why he persists in going that route, considering that no one wants this national customs and revenue agency. The minister proposes to change the current structure of the Department of National Revenue by transforming Revenue Canada into an agency that is quasi-independent of the government.

It would have the job of collecting taxes, not only federal taxes, but taxes of all sorts, including sales and property taxes, provided of course that tax collection agreements are signed with the provinces and municipalities.

Let me list the reasons why we should oppose this bill. First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. In the era of electronic communications, the risks of trafficking in personal information are inversely proportional to the concentration of information within private organizations. If ever it is created, the agency in question will have access to an incredible quantity of personal and financial information.

In addition, this agency would be less accountable through the minister and less subject to scrutiny by parliament than Revenue Canada is at present. As a result, the dissemination of this personal information about taxpayers would be completely beyond public control.

Second, the customs and revenue agency could also jeopardize the working conditions of Revenue Canada employees and even threaten their jobs.

In fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would no longer be covered by the Public Service Employment Act. In two years' time, the agency could thus lower employees' salaries, lay them off, or decide on their working conditions without having to consult them. By passing this bill, the government is taking a heavy-handed approach to modernizing the public service, instead of trying to reach agreement with unions.

Third, the customs and revenue agency does not impress owners of small businesses. The business community was supposed to be the main beneficiary. However, reaction to the agency's announcement was restrained and ambivalent, to say the least. Such bodies as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have expressed misgivings about the concentration of power within the agency. According to a Public Policy Forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada, no fewer than 40% of businesses indicate no interest whatsoever in the agency. More than two-thirds also believe that its creation would not mean any savings over the present structure, or that it would cost even more.

Finally, and this is a vital point, the Customs and Revenue Agency runs counter to the federal principle of provincial sovereignty in areas that fall under their jurisdiction. Such an agency would, therefore, violate the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments If the provinces have independent revenues, they must be the ones to collect them.

Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who cannot be accused of excessive support for independence, rose up more than 30 years ago to denounce the practice of the federal government's collecting more taxes than it needs in order to implement policies coming under its jurisdiction. Trudeau saw such an act as illegal, even. In 1957, he wrote that the federal government cannot legally have funds in its coffers which it claims, after the fact, are for provincial purposes.

What would happen if the federal government assigned to a central collection agency encompassing the whole of Canada and coming under federal authority the power to collect taxes of various kinds, instead of the provinces and the municipalities? In our opinion, it would then become impossible to halt the centralization of the Canadian federation. When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world, I think he is the only one to believe it.

I will be blunt: if the federal government collects its own taxes to finance its responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, that is plausible. However, the fact that it wants to give responsibility for collecting provincial and municipal taxes to appointed officials, who are not directly accountable for their actions, is inconceivable and unimaginable.

As the Minister of Finance announces his surplus of billions of dollars, he should respect the consensus reached by the provinces and give them back the money he cut in recent years. That would enable them to look after health, education and social services, which are also their responsibility under the constitutional agreement. For that, however, we should not really count on our colleagues opposite. The mission of the Liberal members is to defend the federal government and not the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

The example of the Canada customs and revenue agency should suffice to convince those who have not yet understood that for the past 50 years Canada has been headed inexorably toward centralization. The federal government, and this Liberal government in particular, is trying to destroy all thoughts of autonomy—be they those of Quebec, provinces or regions.

The proposed customs and revenue agency will concentrate in the hands of a few super-bureaucrats the power to dig into the pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, at the expense of Revenue Canada employees, small businesses and provincial and municipal governments.

We think that the federal government already collects too large a share of tax revenues and that it uses its spending power in an inconsiderate manner. We will not, on top of that, give the minister carte blanche to collect all taxes across Canada.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-43, which proposes the establishment of such an agency, and this is why we support all the amendments that seek to reduce the scope of the bill.

[Central America, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.

The disaster unleashed on Central America has destroyed the entire economy of Honduras and Nicaragua, and has had a heavy impact on the economy of other countries in that region, one of the poorest in the world.

Does the government support the proposal by President Chirac that the debt of the devastated countries be struck off the books completely and that an international conference be held on the economic reconstruction of these countries?

[Hurricane Mitch Victims, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Mitch has hit Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, countries that were already struggling for some degree of economic prosperity. While the death toll is still being added up, thought must be given to the danger of epidemic and to preparations for putting the country back on its feet.

Jean-Paul Péloquin, a priest from Laval who has been working in the capital of Honduras for the past 31 years, wrote to his relatives that “the entire country, every square inch of it, has been at least 70% destroyed”. Yesterday, the governments of Quebec and Canada announced plans to provide emergency humanitarian aid to the countries hit by this disaster.

The people of Quebec are very familiar with the value of human solidarity, having reaped its benefits after the Saguenay flooding and the ice storm. I am therefore encouraging them to support the victim assistance programs of such organizations as the Red Cross, CUSO, Development and Peace, Oxfam Quebec and the Endeavours of Cardinal Léger.

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in turn to speak to Motion No. M-380 presented by my Reform colleague, the member for Red Deer.

The aim of this motion is, and I quote:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

There have, on several occasions, been emergency debates to support, after the fact, a decision to send Canadian troops to take part in peacekeeping missions.

We have noted that the Government of Canada has consulted the various opposition parties about these missions on several occasions, but after the decision was already made. Today's motion calls for one step further.

As we know, the Bloc Quebecois has already spoken on the matter in its dissenting report at the time of the release of the government's foreign policy statement in 1994. The Bloc Quebecois felt that one of the primary roles of Canadian forces on the international scene is to support peacekeeping missions by taking part in them. This is undoubtedly a Canadian talent and a flower, as we put it, in its international reputation.

However, we wanted Canada's future interventions to be subject to more specific criteria, and that is the gist of today's motion. The motion before us seeks to ensure greater parliamentary control over the participation of Canadian military personnel to peacekeeping missions.

It goes without saying that members from our party are delighted to have this opportunity to discuss proposed changes to the Canadian Forces' activities abroad, during peacekeeping missions. We thank the hon. member for Red Deer for providing us with this opportunity to show the timeliness of our dissenting report.

Motion M-380 is consistent with the concerns expressed by the Bloc Quebecois during the various debates held in the House on this issue. Let me briefly mention the position adopted by our party regarding the issue before us today.

First, we think that the Canadian Forces play a major role on the international scene, and that they must support and actively participate in peacekeeping operations. However, we believe that the criteria used to determine Canada's future participation must be tightened.

As we know, recent peacekeeping missions have experienced problems, and Canada must take note of that. The missions to Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Haiti, for instance, have reminded us that we need to base our interventions on democratic legitimacy and rigorous planning.

We also pointed out in our report that:

The costs and complexity of intervention will require a new attitude on the part of the international community. The events in Rwanda and Bosnia are eloquent evidence of this. Canada must learn from the experience of all these peacekeeping missions. In the future, mission objectives and orders will have to be carefully established, under the aegis of the United Nations.

The conflicts to which I just alluded have clearly demonstrated the importance of first defining a more explicit framework for our interventions. The Bloc Quebecois also recognized the need to give the Canadian Forces a special configuration to maintain the credibility of our intervention.

At this stage, I would like to comment on a remark the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs made earlier. He said that, while the motion calls for a vote to be taken in the House of Commons every time Canada is asked to send troops to restore, monitor or maintain peace, this would not be possible and that the urgency of the request would not allow us to summon the House and to make decisions in a timely fashion.

I would just like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the crises he gave as examples, which would require a timely response, never happen overnight. They usually develop over a long time. Canada has a duty not only to act in times of crisis, but also to prepare for crises that, as I just said, do not happen overnight.

At the same time, we believe Canada should review its existing military alliances. Let me quote, once again, from the 1994 dissenting report:

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to spell out the direction that Canada should take in this area. First, we think—and we still do—that Canada should rethink its current military alliances with NATO and NORAD so that their strategic missions reflect the UN's needs.

This approach would inject new life into these organizations and would make them more effective in protecting safety and in resolving conflicts. It would also make it possible for Canada to meet its public security objectives, which are crucial to its own domestic security.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois considers that Canada should encourage the setting up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad.

We are talking about thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers engaged in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. Of course, these soldiers being generally sent on a mission for six months or so, there is a rotation. However, since many human lives are at stake, we think the motion by the member for Red Deer should say something about determining the size of the contingent as well as the costs and the objective of the mission. Even though Motion M-380 is silent on these issues, it has the merit of putting the debate in the proper context.

Finally, as we have said many times in previous debates, we think Canada should submit any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, where time allows. I would like to point out that we are being realistic, here.

We are happy to see this proposal being echoed in the motion before us today. Since the Bloc Quebecois supports the fundamental principles outlined in this motion, we will vote in favour of it.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of the great importance the Bloc Quebecois accords to this debate on the democratization of government decisions with respect to foreign affairs.

The globalization of exchanges we are now seeing, whatever their nature, makes the need for control of these activities by the people's elected representatives, and therefore by this House, all the more pressing.

The increased importance of international organizations such as the UN and the European Union, our participation in NORAD and NATO, the globalization of social movements, population movements, human rights issues, problems related to drug trafficking, and environmental abuse, to name just a few factors, all have a direct impact on both global security and on the sovereignty of nations.

With this motion, the government has an opportunity to take a first step and meet the challenge of transparency by involving Parliament in decisions about whether to send Canadian military personnel abroad.

[Journées Québécoises De La Solidarité Internationale, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating this week the Journées québécoises de la solidarité internationale.

This is an opportunity to reiterate our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Everyone in Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and in the Outaouais, Abitibi, Lanaudière, Bois-Francs and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions is invited to take part in the numerous activities organized in co-operation with the Quebec Ministry of International Relations, to discover the Quebec way of showing solidarity with the rest of the world.

For example, the Quebec government provided financial assistance to the victims of a hurricane in the Dominican Republic and, on November 20, a collective mural on human rights will be unveiled in the national assembly.

The reason Quebeckers are increasingly involved on the international scene is not only to assert their identity, but also to show their solidarity towards the other nations of the world.

[Quebec-Japan Relations, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, as we are welcoming a delegation of parliamentarians from Japan, to point out that 1998 marks the 100th year of relations between Quebec and Japan

Indeed, it was 100 years ago that Sister Hélène Paradis, from the Franciscaines Missionnaires de Marie community, took charge of a hospital, in Kumamoto. Since then, Quebec religious communities have played a major role in the development of Japan's education and health system.

After the second world war, the Quebec government was the first to borrow from Japanese financial institutions. Also, it was 25 years ago that Quebec opened its general delegation in Tokyo.

These 100 years of rapprochement between Quebec and Japan were marked this year, in Montreal and in Tokyo, by a number of activities. Let me take this opportunity to welcome our honourable guests from the land of the rising sun.

[Cirque Du Soleil, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the circus is in town. Indeed, the Cirque du Soleil is making news these days with its all new show called “O” in Las Vegas as well as the “Saltimbanco” tour, in town until November 8.

Since its inception in 1984, the Cirque du Soleil has astonished 17 million spectators with its wonderful amalgamation of the talents of street performers and circus artists. This Quebec company headquartered in Montreal currently employs 1,300 people and will generate approximately $300 million in billings in 1998. In addition, the Cirque du Soleil commits nearly 1% of its income from ticket sales to supporting young people suffering socio-economic hardship.

This is an example of success made in Quebec, where arts, business and solidarity have come together. I urge all my colleagues to attend the circus and wish every success to these ambassadors—

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. In my opinion, there is one thing on which we must agree right at the start. According to the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party, the students' right to express themselves freely and peacefully was violated at the time of the APEC summit. Refusing them financial assistance would therefore be tantamount to denying that right a second time, by preventing them from having proper representation at the commission hearings. These are fundamental principles.

To do otherwise would be to accept that the dice are loaded against the penniless students who are up against a whole army of lawyers on the public payroll. Finally, the third matter of principle is that this is not a run-of-the-mill case. It sets an important precedent. It raises vital questions, particularly on a government's political involvement in the justice system and on the violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.

These are the three fundamental principles that must be kept in mind when the entire matter relating to the APEC summit events is being addressed. In a more direct response to my colleague, I believe that we have proof, from all the documents we have been able to obtain and all the statements that have been made, including those from the dean of UBC, that the entire affair had been a long time in the planning.