Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to speak in the House on such an interesting bill. I will say right off, however, that we oppose it and for various reasons, which we will look at in the next few minutes.
First, I have to say that the title of the bill surprises me a bit. The short title is the Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act. I am a lawyer, and this is the first time I have seen the name of a political party in the title of a bill. It seems rather partisan to me and contrary to our parliamentary traditions.
We cannot discuss this bill without raising one aspect of it that is a bit of a concern, namely the constitutional problems it raises. I refer specifically to clause 6.
This clause concerns the proclamation of a national or local emergency. This bill accords fairly broad and exceptional powers to the federal government to proclaim not only a state of national emergency, as already provided in the preamble to the Constitution, but a state of local emergency. This means skirting what we consider to be provincial jurisdictions.
No one will be surprised by the Bloc's total rejection of the principle of having the federal government intervening in order to declare a state of emergency, in Quebec for example, or in some other province. This prerogative should rest with the province in question and not the federal government.
In its current wording, clause 6 of the bill reads:
6.(2) Where the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a national emergency exists, the Governor in Council—
may, on the request of the lieutenant governor in council of the province—
issue a proclamation declaring that emergency to be an emergency for the purposes of subsection 3(1).
Why should a province then ask the federal government to please declare an emergency in that province?
This is a rather domineering and unacceptable form of federalism, and I am surprised that a political party such as the Reform Party, which calls itself decentralizing, would present a bill such as this. But the Reform Party is not short on contradictions, and I will come back to this later.
I was saying this prerogative of declaring a local emergency should be held by the provinces. In the United States, 43 states out of 50 have given themselves the prerogative of declaring an emergency, because the government of an American state or of a province is much closer and has different services that are close to the people and that should be implemented.
This control over various local governments and various local instruments is the responsibility of a provincial government—or a state government, in the United States—and not of the federal government.
I can hardly imagine the current Prime Minister declaring a state of emergency in Quebec during the ice storm crisis, for example.
The other problem is the very broad definitions contained in this bill. What does the Reform Party mean by “goods and services” or by “unreasonable or inflationary prices”?
The interpretation that can be given to those important terms is nowhere to be found in the bill and does not reflect what should have been the underlying values of this bill. The government is given such latitude that it is ridiculous.
In the Reform philosophy, when it comes to punishment it is amazing to see to what lengths Reform members are willing to go to please their constituents, namely voters from western Canada.
The bill provides that the amount of the fine for a second or subsequent offence may be double the amount of the previous fine. The amount of the various fines that may be given to those who commit this offence can be multiplied. That goes completely against the philosophy that exists in Quebec.
Similarly, according to the Reform logic based on law and order, the person is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed. Therefore, if a person commits the offence over a period of ten days, he or she will be charged ten times, which is not only redundant but also ridiculous.
Another contradiction I would like to mention is clause 9. Under clause 9 of this bill, the Senate or the House of Commons may revoke a national emergency proclamation. For a political party that is against the Senate in its present form, it is a little surprising to see that it is willing to give the same power to ten senators as it is giving to twenty members of the House of Commons. It is surprising and even disappointing for us to see senators being given that kind of power. We want to see the Senate abolished.
This was another contradiction of the Reform Party that I wanted to point out.
Finally, under clause 12, the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the act. We believe that this regulatory power, as defined in this bill, is much too broad and that letting a government rule by order in council in a critical situation like an emergency is definitely not in the public interest.
Therefore, the title of the legislation is inappropriate, in that it is too partisan. The bill lacks clarity and opens the door to misinterpretations. The principle of the act and the order proposed by Reformers would be served only too well by this bill. The Senate would play a key role in implementing this legislation, which is unacceptable, as senators are appointed by friends of the government. As a result, the federal government would have too much latitude to interfere in areas that must remain exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
For these reasons we oppose this bill.