Debates of March 27th, 1996

Law Commission Of Canada Act

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was really interested in the comments by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the thoughts that crossed my mind was a term I was trying to think of earlier in the most recent exchange. What we are looking for here is Liberal logic. Basically he has asked them to take a look at some very logical, rational ideas that would put the rights of the victim first.

Would he agree with me that the term Liberal logic is the ultimate oxymoron?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question. It never ceases to amaze me why, with all the resources we have, with all the intelligent people who sit in the House today, we do not enact these solutions. The power to do this lies with the government. Liberal logic is indeed an oxymoron. Here the Liberals have the opportunity for a solution and they play politics with it and fritter it away. Why? The goal of the House is not to enact solutions, the goal is not to bring forth good solutions to the Canadian public. The goal is the maintenance of power. The problems of the country become secondary to effective solutions to address the problems of the country. The problems become secondary to the acquisition and maintenance of power. That is a huge disservice to the Canadian people.

If the Canadian public only knew what went on in the House and how we are living in a very pyramidal system where the important decisions of the country are made by approximately 12 elected officials and a number of non-elected and unaccountable officials, it would be shocked.

All is not lost, however. If the government would remove itself from its profound and primary desire to maintain power and looked beyond that to build a better House of Commons which gives the ability to individual members of Parliament, across party lines, to represent their constituents effectively and to put forth effective solutions, which gives the power to committees to bring forth solutions and legislative initiatives to the House, there would be a much more democratic situation in the country. By doing so we would build a stronger Canada.

Instead we have a situation in which the frontbenches and the whip structures cower members in the back to do exactly what their leader tells them to do.

That does their constituents a disservice because there are numerous good solutions that the backbenchers have which I have spoken to many times. There is no reason why those solutions cannot be brought forth for the public to digest, debate and for us to debate in the House.

If we accept the current so-called democratic situation we have here today, we should be ashamed of ourselves. The House is far from being a democracy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 35(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Agreement 20 On Internal Trade Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

This is the ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade.

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 9, be amended a ) by replacing line 5, on page 3, with the following:

"nor in Council may, by order, subject to subsection (1), do any one or"; and b ) by adding after line 13, on page 3, the following:

"(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote."

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19, in Clause 14, be amended a ) by replacing line 6, on page 4, with the following:

"14. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by"; and b ) by replacing line 10, on page 4, with the following:

"ing out the purposes of the Agreement only after scrutiny and approval by the appropriate committee of the House of Commons".

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion which I just moved, Motion No. 1. Even though you read it, I would like to read it again to make sure that people understand its meaning. The motion reads:

"(2) Any order made under subsection (1) is subject to the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution explaining the measures contemplated by the order, which shall have been debated for two days before being put to a vote."

As Quebecers, we supported the free trade agreement with the United States. We support, in principle, free competition. We worked very hard to give Quebec access to the vast U.S. market. We know that, at times, the Canadian market was harder for Quebecers to penetrate than the U.S. one. Deregulating internal trade seems like a good idea.

We must deregulate so as to not impede free competition or the movement of goods, services and people. During the last referendum campaign, we Quebec sovereignists spoke at length of an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. This measure is a step forward that will allow for the free competition and the partnership that we sought to have with the other Canadian provinces.

As I said a moment ago, we have always been very favourable to free trade and, I repeat, we would like to see a very open economic partnership among the provinces so that we can work much more freely with the other provinces in Canada and, naturally, at least have the possibility of conducting trade as easily between provinces as with the United States.

That is what we are proposing in this motion, and particularly with respect to disputes, the committee which will settle disputes between provinces. We have a committee that settles disputes between Canada and the United States, but the bill that deals with an internal trade agreement sets up a committee to settle disputes that will arise over time.

This is where we have a problem. The process is rather complex. We are told there will be a complaints secretariat; if a complaint cannot be settled internally by officers of the permanent secretariat, there will be three other possibilities. First of all, there is the possibility of consultation, at the request of the secretariat. We will also have an internal trade committee. This committee will be a permanent one, with representatives from all the provinces, appointed by the provinces through a rather special procedure, with which we are also in agreement.

It will also be possible to form a special group, a sort of arbitrator for very serious conflicts between certain businesses that are not adhering to the rules of the agreement. If the working group decides on a course of action that is not sufficiently stringent or accepted, then the next step will be trade action taken by the government.

This is where we have a problem. Trade action can be implemented by order of the governor in council, in other words, by cabinet. That is why I am tabling this motion. We do not agree that the government should be allowed to decide by order to act, because I feel that the governor in council could decide, almost in secrecy, to act.

This is where the problem lies. There could be conflicts between economic sectors of activity or conflicts between certain businesses or ways of doing business. There will be some economic sectors in conflict with others, with the bulk of a given economic sector under the control of one or a few provinces, to the detriment of another.

This goes beyond trade and might affect the economy of a province, any province. That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois propose in this motion that there be a debate of at least two days in the House of Commons before the order takes effect. We feel that this is very important because it could affect a province.

This is not only a matter of trade. In some cases it may lead to confrontation between certain provinces.

This is the reason we believe there must be more transparency and a public debate, before the government acts. I have referred to the entire process, an excellent one, for settling differences. It is very well organized, very safe and complex and will, I think, be able to play an effective role. But, if the process cannot work, I envisage serious repercussions which must be revealed publicly and debated publicly.

For this reason, I find this is a bit risky. Some provinces, in any case, might be affected on the economic level. This is why we feel there must be debate for two days before we go ahead with a ministerial order.

These are the main reasons. We in Quebec are also somewhat concerned to see the federal government taking this decision via an order. We see this as just one more power the federal government is giving itself. It is another example of the federal's centralization. Since this is an agreement between the provinces why, in the long run, is it the federal government which will settle the matter by an order. This strikes us as somewhat dangerous. The federal govern-

ment might favour one province over another because of the power it has given itself to settle certain problems relating to internal trade.

Overall, we are in favour of liberalizing trade between the provinces, but we strongly insist-and I address these words particularly to the government members who will be having to vote on this-that they support this motion, so that MPs from the party in power will have the opportunity to have their say. Perhaps the government members representing certain regions will express themselves freely, so that their region, or their province, will be protected in sectors which might affect another province.

For this reason, we deem it very important to debate the matter in a way that is both open and transparent. I hope the government members will take this motion under consideration.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 2 regarding changes to the bill that will implement the agreement on internal trade.

During my address today I will explain that without the inclusion of my amendment, Bill C-19 will not address the concerns of Canadian taxpayers who are tired of the onslaught of patronage appointments from this Liberal government.

I will explain how my amendment will improve this legislation to serve the best interests of Canadians by providing a transparent system of scrutinizing governor in council appointments as they pertain to the agreement on internal trade.

The amended clause would read as follows:

14(1) The Governor in Council shall, 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 only after scrutiny and approval by the appropriate committee of the House of Commons.

Government ministers have made a practice of conducting the business of governor in council appointments in secret. The salaries which are bestowed on these appointees are paid for by the taxpayers. It is only right that these same taxpayers should have a say in how many appointments are made and how much the commissioners are paid.

This amendment establishes elected members of Parliament serving on committees as scrutineers to patronage appointments. It will ensure that Canadians, through their elected members of Parliament, play a role in governor in council appointments.

The process thus far has been anything but open. Even though the Liberals campaigned on integrity in government and pledged to award governor in council appointments based on merit, Liberal Party affiliation has been at least as important as merit. I would suggest that it has been far more important in many of the patronage appointments made by the government.

This amendment will help the Liberals to keep their election promise. After all, everyone needs a little help now and again.

The agreement on internal trade, which will be implemented by this legislation, was contrived from executive meetings involving cabinet officials of the 12 provinces and territories along with the federal government. These 13 government bodies are defined as parties to the agreement. Their objective is the removal of interprovincial trade barriers which cost Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a year. The objective is, indeed, admirable. The government is to be congratulated for taking the first step in freeing up trade within Canada. Unfortunately, it is only a very small first step.

The result of this process so far is a seriously flawed agreement which identifies the problems, yet does very little to solve them. The important thing to remember is that all provinces and territories signed the agreement showing an intent to remove trade barriers. The problem exists in the means available to remove those barriers.

The agreement on internal trade outlines a series of legitimate objections which allow exemptions to the agreement. These objections are based on public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or plant life and health; the protection of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; and affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups. If it can be proven that any of these provisions will be infringed on by the removal of a barrier, they will be exempt from the agreement. By doing this a party can protect specific interests very easily.

The fact that all agreements are based on the unanimous support of all parties leaves the door open to protectionist practices. This is evident in the removal of a dispute settlement mechanism in the energy sector. Just last week the House debated the Churchill Falls power contract. The trade barrier created by the contract is costing Newfoundland and Labrador close to $1 billion a year in lost energy revenue.

The very principle on which the agreement on internal trade is based is contravened by that contract. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador look to the new agreement on internal trade to right the wrong. Unfortunately, the process of deliberation between the provinces does not provide any real hope for the resolution of this problem as the agreement now stands.

The definition of a legitimate objective is extremely vague. It encompasses nearly every protectionist measure implemented by the provinces and ensures that barriers will continue to exist.

It is obvious from this language that disputes between parties will arise. It is imperative that a trade agreement contain a dispute settlement mechanism which is fair, effective and binding.

It remains to be seen whether the dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement will be effective. However it has met with considerable criticism from a wide range of groups, individuals and companies that have examined this agreement.

The process that individuals and governments have to go through to settle a dispute is lengthy, complicated and limits the access of individual businesses to the mechanism. The Minister of Industry and his provincial counterparts had the arduous task of striking an agreement which not only addressed the barriers to trade in Canada but was also agreeable to all parties on all issues. This was partially accomplished, although many of the sectors were not addressed effectively. That is the problem. Some were not addressed at all.

The committee of ministers set out objectives for designing the dispute resolution mechanism. This was to include: (a) disputes are to be directed by governments rather than private parties; (b) non-confrontation resolutions are to be used wherever possible; (c) no access to the courts will be granted in dispute settlements, no room for court interpretations; (d) restrict access to private parties in order to minimize the possibilities of frivolous claims being used as a means of harassing governments, resulting in financial burdens.

I want to repeat part of the last criteria set out by governments in this agreement: to restrict the access of private parties in order to minimize the possibility of frivolous claims being used as a means of harassing governments. This agreement is more concerned with protecting governments from harassment than it is with protecting individual Canadians and individual Canadian companies. That shows there is a real flaw in the thinking that has gone into the dispute settlement mechanism.

I question the rationale for restricting individuals access to dispute resolution mechanisms. As stated earlier, trade barriers cost Canadians money and jobs. Therefore Canadians need to be assured that their concerns on the existence of these barriers will be duly heard and acted on.

Access to dispute resolution mechanisms by individual Canadians ensures that the concerns of small businesses that rely heavily on internal trade will be dealt with. The purpose of this agreement is not to appease governments but rather to ensure access to markets across Canada. That is the purpose of this agreement.

The agreement on internal trade includes a provision which allows individuals access to the dispute resolution mechanism. The following is a brief outline of that provision. As I go through it, members will acknowledge that the mechanism is much too complex, much too slow and has no teeth.

First, an individual company is to contact its party to the agreement. Its party is either a provincial or the federal government, depending on jurisdiction. If the government involved refuses to act on its behalf, the party that wants to use the mechanism can contact the internal trade secretariat and apply for individual to government consultation.

Before access is granted, an individual has to undergo a screening process which determines whether the individual's claim is frivolous or vexatious. If it is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious, then the claim is disqualified and the individual company is not allowed to go through the dispute settlement mechanism.

If the claim is deemed valid, then the dispute will be heard by a panel of experts. This is where my amendment comes in. Each province and the territories, along with the federal government, will appoint five panelists to a roster that will consist of 65 panelists.

The terms of reference of these experts, their pay and their accountability is not mentioned in either the agreement or in this bill. The agreement also calls for the appointment to the office of the secretariat of internal trade of screeners and others as needed by the governor in council. The bill asks Canadians to sign a blank cheque for an undetermined number of people, to be paid an undetermined amount of money, to do an undetermined job.

Canadians are tired of this kind of patronage appointment. They want accountability. In fact, when the Liberals were in opposition they too wanted accountability of order in council appointments. They suggested that there be established a non-partisan nomination and confirmation procedure for order in council appointments. Is it not interesting now that the Liberals are the government they forget what they wanted when they were in opposition?

My amendment will deal with this problem of openness in order in council appointments.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, with the two motions on the floor I will deal first with the matter that was brought forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Party.

I would suggest this amendment is one that really reflects a continuing misunderstanding of how the dispute resolution procedures of the agreement are intended to operate.

The amendment is quite unnecessary because then the federal government would be tied to a procedure to which none of the other parties under the agreement are tied. There are 13 parties and the other 12 would not be tied to the procedure.

Further, Motion No. 1 is nothing but an attempt to restrict the scope of action that the government may legitimately expect to have to ensure that it is able to protect the national interest in the negotiated balance of benefits in the agreement on internal trade.

The proposed amendment by the hon. member for the Bloc is a cumbersome procedure. It is unnecessary and it is time consuming. It is unnecessary because the government in any retaliatory procedure under the act, the retaliatory measures first of all by the government must be fully consistent with the agreement on internal trade. Second, they are matters that are entirely within the government's constitutional jurisdiction.

Again I emphasize that the procedure being suggested is one that only the federal government would be required to follow. None of the other parties would have to follow it.

The amendment in effect would be an attempt to unilaterally amend the agreement that all parties have agreed to already. This cannot be done. The amendment is a disguised effort to delay or to impede the ability of the government to act in the national interest in areas that are clearly within its own jurisdiction. For these reasons I suggest that this amendment does not warrant the support of the House.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party involves a much broader question. It that involves the question of approval of government appointments. This was dealt with in committee and has already been rejected.

The committee was not the place where this matter should have been dealt with. The motion should be dealt with in another committee if the Reform Party is intent on pursuing such a matter.

This amendment proposes a complex method of making appointments. It is obvious the Reform Party has one intention, to tie up the House continuously in matters like this so business cannot go ahead. That is all on which the Reform Party is intent. The amendment is an attempt to grandstand, it is not an attempt to try to see that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly manner.

I would suggest this is a matter that it is not appropriate to deal with at this time and it should be rejected.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Longueuil wish to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville?

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like us to move on to Motion No. 3.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped together and Motion No. 3 is to be debated separately. I would like to make a few comments on Motion No. 3 as presented by the Bloc.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. Motion No. 3 is in the next group. We are dealing with the first two now.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.