moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-99, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 2, with the following:
"Minister the annual administration fee fixed by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry,".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-99, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 28, on page 4, with the following:
"paragraphe 3(4)( c )(i), the time when the annual administration fee fixed by the committee referred to in section 7.1, is payable;''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-99 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 4, the following new Clause:
"4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)( c )( i ), fix the annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual administration fee.''
-He said: Madam Speaker, I realize these amendments are rather technical and dry but they are nevertheless important, and they take the same approach as the amendment we introduced earlier when we condemned the use of the word prescribe and the whole regulatory process and mechanism that entails.
However, before I continue, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words, which I appreciated. I want to return the compliment, because I think we should realize the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry is not only a very good parliamentarian but also an outstanding asset to our work in committee.
I would also like to comment on what he said about establishing a bloc canadien. In fact, in the forties there was a "bloc populaire" to defend the interests of Quebecers. In the nineties, and English Canada is not about to forget it, we saw the birth of a bloc québécois. To continue the musings of the parliamentary secretary, we might see the birth of a bloc canadien very shortly in Canada, after Quebec becomes sovereign, a bloc that would be foster the best possible relations with a sovereign Quebec, including an economic and political partnership, which we support because it is sensible, it is the way to mutual respect between good neighbours and recognition of the equality of the two peoples here in America who are different from the United States, who are different from Europe and who represent certain cultures on this planet, since Canada is also a distinct society. If there is enough good will on both sides in the months and years to come-and our contribution to the industry committee is a good example of that, we will be able to work together for the well-being and prosperity of our respective peoples.
I would like to comment on the remarks of my colleague opposite, who expresses surprise at the spirit of our amendment on the reduction of government coverage, claiming that we wanted to protect lenders rather than borrowers. I think we have to face the fact lenders are reluctant when it comes to small business. That is the reason for a small business loan act. We know there is a reluctance and that the government wants to keep the legislation but to distance itself from it by reducing its coverage. I think this will be to the detriment of what is increasingly the motor of economic development: the small and medium business, the SMBs. This is why we are being very careful in this. We want to ensure the continuation of the coverage currently offered to the more vulnerable small borrowers, the ones threatening to lenders.
So, getting back to the spirit of this second bloc, it is to reinforce, as mentioned earlier, the roles of parliamentarians. In any civilized society, as ours claims to be, where there is representation by election, I believe there has long been a certain malaise over the role of those elected to Parliament. The role of parliamentarians is becoming more increasingly insignificant. And I think this is one of those times when we are reminded that things could be done differently. Over the course of several decades, the public service has progressively become heavy, especially at the top. As was mentioned earlier, the executive branch assumed a great deal of power, and while Parliament is certainly a place for debate, it has very little power, and that is what we are condemning and want to change. There is also continuity.
I think that anyone who has seen the Bloc Quebecois at work in the various committees can appreciate the logic underlying our remarks and contribution, in ensuring, rather like I am doing this morning, that parliamentarians have greater power to influence the decision making process so that the public interest remains first and foremost, at the expense, if need be, of other interests, which, as you know full well, have other ways of making themselves heard.
Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary criticize our amendment proposal, saying that, should coverage be reduced, as we in the official opposition are concerned it will, the industry committee will make appropriate representations to the Minister of Industry to have this issue reviewed. That is not much, in terms of power.
This means that, when a problem is reported, the industry committee will come to agreement and quietly make representations to the minister, asking him: "Would you please stop doing this, Sir; you are hurting our constituents". Parliamentarians certainly do not have much power, in such instances.
This is what we deplore and want to change by introducing an amendment which, as we can see, has unfortunately not garnered unanimous support in this House. Even the Reform Party is not very keen on our proposal. This is unfortunate because it discredits our role once again, given what that role should be. This is not only the case in the Parliament of Canada, but in all British legislatures where, over the decades, elected representatives were gradually stripped of certain powers because of the size of the bureaucracy, to the benefit of technocrats who want to work behind close doors. It goes without saying that it is easier to resort to regulations and orders in council.
I remember the debate on Bill C-88 dealing with internal trade. It provides that the federal government can, through orders in council, take action against the party deemed at fault. Using orders in council means that there is no public debate. It means that we cannot even discuss the issue on behalf of the province deemed to be unco-operative or at fault. The elected representatives of that province would not even be allowed to make public representations, because the issue would have been settled through an order in council. This, in my view, is rather ominous. This is why we moved these three amendments, which essentially seek to eliminate the use of regulations and replace it with a committee decision. More specifically, Motion No. 6 seeks to add a new clause 7.1 which reads:
7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)( c )(i), fix the annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual administration fee.
As things now stand, the minister is keeping this power for himself without too much consultation and is being very discreet about it. So much the better for those who will be aware of that, and too bad for the others.
Instead of that, it is possible to rely on the existing political structure, and to proceed in a manner which is more transparent and more public. This is what we hope to achieve with these amendments.