Madam Speaker, Bill C-88 deals with internal trade in Canada. The bill frequently refers to the Agreement on Internal Trade, which includes several hundreds, and even thousands of articles. Since Bill C-88 expressly refers to the agreement, it makes sense to give an overview of the bill and of the agreement itself.
The agreement includes six major parts: a general section on the major application principles; a section reaffirming constitutional rights; a section dealing with the definition of rules and general obligations; a section on the specific rules for the eleven sectors affected by the agreement; a section dealing with dispute settlement procedures; and, lastly, a section on exceptions.
The agreement is based on three general principles. The first one provides for similar treatment of persons, goods and services, regardless of their origin in Canada. The second principle concerns the harmonization of standards and regulations, so as to eliminate certain practices which could impede internal trade in our country. The third general principle provides that we must ensure the free movement of persons, goods and capital.
The articles of the agreement to which Bill C-88 refers are essentially those relating to the dispute settlement process. Articles 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 deal with the establishment, mandate and membership of the Committee on internal trade and its secretariat. The committee must, among other things, supervise the implementation of the agreement and facilitate the settlement of disputes.
Article 1705 is of particular interest. It concerns the appointment of a panel when disputes arise. The parties to a dispute may, after a period of mediation and conciliation, ask that a panel be established. This five-member panel must rule on the validity of the dispute and on the retaliation measures the aggrieved party is entitled to take. This article defines the phrase "one of the parties". According to the agreement, "a party" is a province or territory, or the federal government itself. The parties may act on behalf of natural or artificial persons, provided there is a direct and substantial link with them.
In the case of the provinces, it is said that a link exists with a person if this person resides in the province and if the losses suffered have economic consequences for the province. In the case of the federal government, a link is supposed to exist with a person if this person is federally incorporated or if it does business in an area of activity under federal jurisdiction. In this regard, we feel that the bill is very, even excessively, generous because, as we know, the federal government has a tendency to get involved in all areas of activity, and even to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Since, in this case, the federal government may be regarded as one of the parties and may even represent a person doing business in an area of activity under federal jurisdiction, we must proceed with caution. Otherwise, the federal government could become involved in all spheres of society, according to the proposed definition of its own role.
It must be clearly understood that the decisions of the special group are not binding, of course, but it does determine whether the measures in dispute are indeed contrary to the wording of the agreement and if they have caused prejudice.
In addition, the Committee must make recommendations to facilitate settlement of the dispute. And if the party concerned by the complaint does not comply with the recommendations of the special group, then Article 1710 applies, which sets out the sanctions which may be imposed upon the party affected by the complaint.
But the true scope of the bill is as follows: the primary objective of the bill is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. The Bloc has always been in favour of the liberalization of trade. The proof of this is that the Bloc and all other Quebec politicians, in particular the members of the Parti Québécois, had defended NAFTA. However, even if we agree in principle and support the principle behind this bill, we cannot accept the wording of clause 9 which permits a far broader interpretation, which might allow the government in Ottawa to intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when not a party to the dispute.
The federal government could interfere because it is said that each time a third party has some connection with the federal government or with an activity under federal jurisdiction-and as I was just saying, we are familiar with the federal propensity to horn in in all areas-then the federal level could be all-pervasive. This clause is far too broad for us to support.
According to the terms of the agreement, still in reference to this clause, the federal government shall equip itself with the possibility of imposing retaliatory measures where it might be the injured party. The wording of clause 9 of the bill, however, leads us to voice two serious objections.
The first is to the text, which reads in the first sentence of clause 9 as follows:
For the purpose of suspending benefits, or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following-
So here clause 9 of the bill allows the Governor in Council to "suspend rights and privileges granted to the province, modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the province, extend the application of any federal law to the province or take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary".