Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to pay tribute to the people of my riding who have voted yes in the referendum, in a proportion of 52.7 per cent, in the provincial part of Shefford as well as in the Iberville part. In the riding of Iberville, 56 per cent of voters said yes.
From the outset, you should know that I intend to continue sitting in this House for the duration of my mandate as a member of Parliament for the Bloc Quebecois.
This morning, I rise to speak on Bill C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. As you know, Quebec-and Quebec members elected to this place in 1988-is responsible for the passage of the Free Trade Agreement. Had it not been for Quebec and its voters, Canada would have had a much harder time entering into this agreement between Canada and the United States that has greatly benefited both countries.
Quebec is a state which is open to the world. At present, and this is very sad, it is easier for Quebec to trade with the U.S. than with the rest of Canada because there was no legislation like this, and that made interprovincial trade extremely difficult. As the Minister of Commerce indicated, the difficulty came from the fact that Canadian laws dated back to the 1940s and that there was an unwillingness to evolve.
As I said a moment ago, Quebec trades mainly abroad, with the United States of America becoming our main trading partner. We also trade with the rest of Canada, although less and less as time goes by, and our trade relations with the rest of Canada or our provincial partners are also important.
Bill C-88 will normalize a situation that did not exist before. Take clause 9 of the bill for instance, which we have a problem with. It reads:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
made between the provinces
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
The fault we find with this bill is that, once again, the federal government is taking pride of place. In the context of federal-provincial relations, Canada has always taken pride of place and retained the right of disallowance. In this case, penalties could even be imposed instead of deferring to an arbitral tribunal, as would normally be the case between states or provinces.
We totally disagree with Ottawa giving itself the kind of power this legislation would afford it. As I said earlier, Quebec has always been in favour of interprovincial trade in Canada.
What I cannot understand is why Canada manages its internal trade the way GATT managed international trade in the late 1940s. Mr. Manley himself, the current trade and commerce minister of Canada, said so.
The important thing to remember is that, in clause 9 of this bill, the government gives itself a power to disallow and punish. We also object to clause 14, which reads as follows:
- (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, appoint any person to fill any position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, for carrying out the purposes of the Agreement.
This provision means that, once again, Parliament will not have a say regarding these appointments. The Liberals always talk about reforms. They always say that they want to change the system. Yet, when they introduce bills, we realize that this is impossible, that the system cannot be changed and that there will not be any reform.
Once again, the governor in council has the privilege of making appointments, without asking for Parliament's approval. Sometimes, we wonder what we, elected representatives of the people and regions of Canada, are doing here. We meet in this House as representatives of the people and that, as you know, is a costly process. However, when the time comes for the government to place its confidence in our assembly and seek its approval, that government bypasses the whole parliamentary process and makes appointments through orders in council or departmental orders.
If Canada is considering reforms, it must correct that situation and give much more power to this Parliament. Canadians and Quebecers are not stupid, you know. They are increasingly aware of the fact that we do not make many decisions here; we just talk. Everything is already decided, and this is what I strongly object to. Reform members also denounce that situation, and this is to their credit, even though we may disagree on what needs to be done. We happen to think that we are a different country. We feel that the chaotic situation in Canada could be corrected by making some constitutional changes.
The ball is now in the court of the people opposite. What will they do? Probably nothing. We will wait and see. We expect that futile discussions will go on for the next 30 years, but I have to say that we do not intend to stick around very long.
In conclusion, this bill provides once again the federal government with the power to act alone and not consult the provinces, something which is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because, in a partnership-as trade relations should be-one side cannot give itself the power to control everything.
Federalism will once again create difficult situations. This bill will probably be passed without amendments, like several other ones, thanks to the Liberal majority. By staying within the Canadian federation, Quebec will have to suffer the consequences of that legislation, which will increase the power of the federal government, at the expense of the provinces.