Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Privilege

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, it has become common, if not systematic, to have reports of the standing committees of the House and the content of in camera discussions leaked to the media by Liberal members, before this information is officially tabled in the House. It was the case, over the past two weeks, with the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on nuclear non-proliferation, the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on amateur and professional sports, and the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

Such disclosure betrays the spirit and letter that must guide us in the tabling of reports from the Liberal majority, along with the dissenting opinions of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.

Yesterday evening, the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on prebudget consultations was no exception. It was leaked during the 10 p.m. CBC national news. The Liberal majority disclosed some information contained in the committee report which serves the interests of the federal government and which allowed the Minister of Finance to be in the limelight, to promote his tax reduction initiative and spout propaganda about the federal government's achievements.

This is contempt of the House, which may be punished. According to Maingot, in chapter 12, page 229:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

The disclosure of a committee report or of the content of in camera discussions by members of these committees, before the opposition's dissenting opinions are prepared and all the information is tabled in the House of Commons, constitutes contempt of the House and is a serious breach of democracy.

The Liberals' way of doing things is also an unforgivable affront to the privileges of those parliamentarians who respectfully and honourably comply with a rule which, for all intents and purposes, practically no longer exists. This also hinders the work of members, who make themselves available for intensive consultations throughout the country for two months and who see the results of their efforts and those of all the witnesses who took part in the exercise reduced to nought for purely partisan reasons.

This disclosure of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance seriously undermines the credibility of the committee and of its members and creates an unhealthy working atmosphere in which suspicion and disrespect overshadow co-operation, loyalty and one's word of honour. In fact, confidentiality and honour no longer seem to hold much meaning for the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Faced with these troubling incidents, I respectfully ask you to tell the House whether the rule of confidentiality still applies to House of Commons committee reports before they are tabled and whether it is a rule we must observe out of respect for parliamentarism and democracy. That being the case, I ask you to consider the action taken by Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance as contempt of the House. And, should you agree that it is, I am prepared to move a motion in the House that would allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to conduct an inquiry.

If, however, it turns out that this rule of confidentiality is no longer a sacred precept of the parliamentary system, we will conduct ourselves accordingly in future. But it would be very unfortunate if that were the case, for the loss of this rule would strike a hard blow to democracy and to the credibility of this institution we all respect as parliamentarians.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the accusation of this hon. member against anyone else in particular.

I must say that, on the substance of the matter, that is whether or not it is acceptable for such documents to be leaked, of course, the answer is no. I will never agree with that. I have too much respect for this institution.

We agreed—was it yesterday or the day before? —to have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs look into the matter. In fact, I discussed this with my parliamentary secretary, who happens to chair the committee.

You can be assured of my full co-operation, Mr. Speaker; I will do whatever it takes, even amend regulations if necessary, to have documents tabled as soon as possible after committee work is completed. I too want these leaks to stop.

I take issue with the member's allegation that it is members of one party in particular who systematically commit these offences. I am not so sure about that. Otherwise, I can assure you I would have put an end to this practice a long time ago. I do not know who is responsible, any more than the hon. member does, but, unlike him, I am not accusing anybody. I am simply saying that I do not know.

What I want, what we all want, I hope—I think I can speak for everyone in this House—is to find a way to end any practice that violates our rights and privileges. This is a very good example of the kind of thing that happens and should not have happened.

In this respect, I agree with the hon. member. I hope that the committee can complete its work, its research, and present its findings as soon as possible.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege will address two issues. First, the reporting of this report in the media before being tabled in the House is an attack on the dignity of the House. Second, the premature release of this report in the media is an affront to the authority of parliament since the finance committee made a specific decision to prohibit the publication of this report until tabled in the House.

The CBC network last night reported on the details of the report. The CBC in its response to this report used words such as “the key recommendations are” and “the emphasis will be on”.

On the front page of the National Post an article says that the Commons finance committee will ask the federal cabinet to put in place a productivity covenant as one of its key prebudget recommendations to the finance minister. Other statements in the paper are:

In its prebudget report to be tabled tomorrow, the committee calls on the... government to—

At this point the paper used quotation marks, giving the impression that it was quoting the actual report:

—“subject all existing government initiatives to an assessment which evaluates their expected effects on productivity and hence the standard of living of Canadians. Every budgetary initiative should be judged according to this productivity benchmark”.

What is more disturbing is that on December 2 in the National Post Paul Wells wrote about the issue of leaked committee reports and made this comment:

The catalyst for yesterday's round of soul searching was Reform's House leader who rose to complain that yet another committee report—this one from the subcommittee on pro sports—was leaked to a newspaper. The Toronto Star got that one, but we've scooped a couple of reports here at the Post.

Journalists are now publicly bragging about obtaining leaked reports. The impression left with the public is that the authority and dignity of parliament is a joke. On page 41 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it states that parliament:

—has the right to control and to prohibit the publication of its debates or proceedings.

In the finance committee there was a discussion about the potential for this report being leaked to the media. There was a consensus among all members of the committee that this report ought not to be published in the media before it was tabled in the House. Since the committee has the right to prohibit the publication of its report, the publication of its report by the media is an affront to its authority.

In contrast let us consider the authority of the courts. When a court orders a ban on the publication of certain elements of a trial the media respect that order. When the House or its committees order a ban the media ignore it.

Maybe we have this situation because committee members do not have confidence that the government will seriously consider their recommendations. They go to the media and hope at least to get some recognition from the public for their work. At the same time the government views the committee process as a communication exercise reducing parliament to a minor bit player in the legislative and policy making process.

The use of parliament by the government is not subject to conventions or law or the Constitution, but it is subject to decisions by the communications department of the Prime Minister's Office.

We had a case this morning when a number of members were complaining about how the minister of public works chose to make an announcement outside the House regarding the renovations of the parliamentary precincts. It is an example of how the Prime Minister's communications department makes decisions based on what is good for it, and the traditions of parliament be dammed. The media that published the recommendations from the finance report should be brought before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and asked how they received copies of the report. The other matter to be determined would be whether the media deliberately disobeyed an order of the committee and whether there is any dignity left for the House to salvage.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time this subject has been raised in the House.

While I know it is a very serious matter for all members of the House and they regard it as serious, I reiterate that if members of a particular committee whose report was leaked or scooped or whatever feel sufficiently strong about what has happened, and I hope they will feel sufficiently strongly about it, they will take the steps to provide a fuller factual background for the House and not simply delegate this messy problem back to the House or delegate it to the committee on procedure and House affairs.

If committee members feel strongly about their work on a committee they have the ability at that committee to take the steps to find out what has happened, then report it to the House. The House then deals with a better factual backdrop and takes steps perhaps involving discipline, perhaps admonishment. I do commend that to members. Let them take care of their own backyard in their committees rather than simply complaining and offering it up to the Speaker and to the PHA committee.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. I think I have been up in the House talking about this issue probably as many as nine times since the election, twice this week.

I probably have a clear idea of what you are going to say. We are getting used to that too, and I understand your position on it, which I respect a great deal.

We brought this issues before procedure and House affairs. We talked about it this morning and we will be dealing with the issue. I am not sure what the outcome of that will be.

I am aware of even the offers that are made by various media to members of parliament suggesting that if we get the documents first perhaps we can have a front page or we will give a big scoop here and a big scoop there. This is truly a result of members responding to that, so the integrity basically falls apart. Once it starts, where does it stop?

I am concerned as much as anybody else about the authority, the dignity and the integrity of the House of Commons and its offices, but obviously some in here are not and that denigrates everybody in here.

My colleagues said we are responsible but we are not going to tolerate being scooped. We will not be undersold in the House of Commons. It is to the point now where I have to decide, if this cannot be stopped, whether we consider on this side of the House that reports in committee are just public documents. We are not going to get into this. We have upheld what we feel is the honourable thing to do and that is not to leak reports. This is continuing consistently and it is getting worse. I feel obliged to put the House on notice that we are not going to tolerate this any longer. These reports have to be considered public because we are not going to be out scooped by any of these people who lack the integrity and the dignity they are supposed to have.

I am going to have a long talk with our critics. We will get back to the House, but this is the last time I make this statement. We are sick and tired of it, quite frankly, and I am not going to allow my colleagues, our critics, to be undersold by anybody in the House.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee experienced the same kind of situation.

I respect the suggestion of the hon. member who sits on the justice committee that perhaps the committee should be looking at this, but there is no process by which we can do that.

The chairs of the committees perhaps should take this seriously. If a motion were put by a committee member to the committee to look into and investigate to the best of its ability how a leak occurred, that would be different. But I do not know whether the hon. member was suggesting that chairs of committees are prepared to accept and move on that kind of motion or whether those kinds of motions would simply be voted down by the government side. If what I am hearing is a suggestion that we could do that, then that signal must come from the government side whose members control all the committees. If that is the case, then perhaps these kinds of things will not be brought to the House.

I did not even bring that issue to the House at the time it occurred because I knew how useless it would be. I did not have a name to present in conjunction with that complaint. But I did speak to the reporter and I did, in a very diplomatic way, suggest he had been used by the government to leak a government report prematurely and he admitted that is exactly what happened. But when I asked him who was his contact person, he just threw his hands in the air and laughed. I understand he cannot reveal and he would not reveal his contacts.

The point is if there is a suggestion that the government side of these committees will look into these leaks, I think we will get to the bottom of it. I think we will stop at least the usage of House time in airing these things and having Mr. Speaker make the only decision that you can make when we cannot bring forward a name of a member of parliament responsible for the leak.

[The Speaker]

I wish to thank all the hon. members who spoke today, especially the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who has raised the question: What about the integrity and honour of this House?

I must admit that I am becoming less patient by the day. This is the second time this week that the same issue has been raised. Today, neither the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot nor any other member named names; they just referred to members of this or that political party.

I would like to make a suggestion, which is more than a suggestion really.

I would like the House procedure committee to address this matter as soon as possible. I would like some kind of recommendation to come forth to the House.

I have said on so many occasions that I do not have the power needed to curtail this type of thing. Collectively members of parliament have this power.

As a first step, and I would like this done urgently, I want the procedure committee to deal with this issue and I would like some suggestions. I do not like to go to the next step right away, but unless there are some suggestions forthcoming for the protection of all of us, then at that time I may consider just to have a debate in the House to find out what we will do as a House.

One hon. member brought up a very strong point. I do not know if this is possible at this juncture, but the question is in my mind, as it must be in yours.

If a court of law can put a ban on publication on certain materials and it is upheld, why can the highest court in the country not do something? I put that as a question, only as a question. But I wish that first the procedure committee would have a look at it post haste and we will wait and see what the outcome of that is.

But my patience, like yours, is wearing a bit thin, for all of us as members. We do our work and I think that in honour we should have the decency not to leak these papers for one-upmanship. I do not like the word undersold. I do not like the word scoop. We are parliamentarians and we are going to do our duty as we see fit. I want this to be done as soon as possible.

Points Of Order

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct an impression I left with the House as a result of statements I made on November 2.

In asking a question of the solicitor general respecting a flight taken by RCMP Commissioner Murray in the RCMP jet, I implied the only reason for the commissioner's flight was to attend a retirement party. As I did not go on to say that the commissioner had other business in Vancouver and the timing of the RCMP retirement party was established to coincide with the trip, it was an unfair representation of the commissioner's activities.

I have had the opportunity to meet with and personally apologize to the commissioner and he has accepted my apology. I believe that politicians must be accountable for their statements, both in accuracy and fairness, and it is for this reason that I wish to register my apology with this Chamber.

[The Speaker]

So noted.

Pursuant to order made yesterday, the House will now proceed to Statements by Ministers.

Organized Crime

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has made a pledge to ensure that Canadians will continue to feel secure in their homes and on their streets. Ensuring public safety is at the heart of this government's mandate.

Having recently been appointed Solicitor General of Canada, I want to build on the first annual statement made last year and reaffirm the government's commitment to combat organized crime as the key part of our public safety agenda.

Organized crime is a serious and growing concern. It is big business and it is a national problem that threatens public safety.

Earlier this year my predecessor released key results of an independent study on the impact of organized crime. The study assessed organized crime activity like money laundering, illegal drugs, economic crime, people smuggling, contraband smuggling and motor vehicle theft.

The study confirmed that organized crime has an impact that goes far beyond the obvious violence and economic loss we suffer as a society and individually. It affects the health and safety of all Canadians. It has a devastating impact on our communities, our families and those most vulnerable like the elderly and youth.

Organized crime is an issue that is and should be a concern for all Canadians. A recent poll shows that nine out of ten Canadians consider organized crime to be a serious problem. This tells us our priorities lie in a co-ordinated strategy to effectively fight organized crime together.

The national workshop on organized crime last April was a major step toward achieving this objective.

I would like to thank the policing and law enforcement community, the provinces and territories, federal government departments and others that participated in this event. We are building on their advice and expertise.

Working with all these partners, we have identified a number of shared priorities, combating drug abuse and the illicit drug trade, addressing high tech crime, fraud and other economic crimes, and reinvesting our national police services for an integrated national public safety network.

Organized crime is an issue that spans our nation and transcends our borders. No one jurisdiction can effectively act alone. Organized crime has no borders; it does not respect them. At the international level we have been working very actively with our partners. Over the past year we have expanded co-operation with the United States through the Canada-United States cross border crime forum.

In October federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice recognized that organized crime was a serious and growing problem. Their discussion resulted in the first ever joint statement on organized crime which set out eight shared principles of action. The statement reinforced Canada's commitment to working together in partnership to combat organized crime. I am pleased that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police strongly and publicly supported the joint statement. I am confident we are on the right track, but we need to step up our fight.

The federal government is taking action. Our next move will be to help take the profit out of organized crime. Early in the new year the government will introduce legislation to curb money laundering. These measures will provide new and powerful tools for law enforcement in addition to helping us work with our international partners.

I am encouraged by the recent initiatives to combat organized crime that have been undertaken by a number of provinces. I also recognize the work of the RCMP and other agencies in my ministry; federal departments such as justice, revenue, citizenship and immigration; and other police forces and agencies that continue to target resources to fight organized crime in a more co-ordinated and focused fashion.

My ministry and our partners are fully committed to doing what it takes to stamp out organized crime. I look forward to working with CACP, police across the country, and the provinces and territories in my new capacity as solicitor general. Together we will work to ensure Canadians continue to enjoy a level of safety and security that is unparalleled in the world.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I welcome the opportunity to respond to the solicitor general's statement on the state of security in Canada, in particular organized crime. There is overwhelming evidence that organized crime is increasing at an alarming rate. Today's numerous headlines on organized crime activities highlight the importance of action and commitment that the government get on with its job.

We agree that its effects are far reaching and devastating to our society both economically and socially. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is warning of the existence of 18 international crime rings in Canada. The CSIS report indicates that the cost of international crime to the domestic economy is $14.8 billion. Drug trafficking, dumping of toxic waste, money laundering, smuggling of arms, contraband, counterfeiting, security frauds, software piracy and auto theft are some of the issues under the control of organized crime.

CSIS is reporting that international crime organizations attack the very fabric of life in a democratic law based society like Canada. Criminals involved in organized crime have successfully landed in Canada without any opposition due to our lax immigration policy and inadequate screening. Organized crime with foreign origins poses a serious threat in many metropolitan areas of Canada, particularly on the west coast.

The danger imposed by modern day organized crime is a serious and destructive force. It imperils the security of our citizens and our nation. This threat attacks us in our streets, in our businesses and, worst of all, in our school yards. Organized crime is a threat to our economic sovereignty because the cost of organized crime in our society is astronomical.

The counterattack will require additional resources, legislation and co-operation provincially, federally and internationally. Canada cannot afford the continuing lip service the government is providing to the problem. We need resources. We need action and we need it now. Canadians will only feel safe and confident when these resources are committed to this attack. Crime is organized. So too should government efforts be.

I join the minister in congratulating the work of the RCMP, justice, revenue, citizenship and immigration, and others. I presume the minister also congratulates CSIS on its work. All these agencies must work together if they are to be successful in the war on organized crime. Effort must be made to avoid a duplication of resources and investigation by the agencies.

Taking today's headlines as an example, “CSIS warns of 18 international crime rings in Canada” and “RCMP charge four with eastern European crime links”, we must ensure there is no overlapping and squandering of essential but limited resources. In summary, no turf wars.

The minister has said that crime respects no borders. I would go even further and remind the minister that all those borders are not defined.

On a related issue, according to a study published by Carleton University, Canada is especially susceptible to economic spies because it is one of the world's most open and trade dependent countries. CSIS has warned that computer hackers pose a serious threat to national security. Terrorists could hack into government networks to sabotage and steal important valuable information. CSIS's own computer network was broken into. It has been reported that the RCMP web site has been tampered with. A recent CSIS presentation shows that 28 federal departments have been hacked.

Control of information is critical and concerns are not restricted to cyberspace. The government even has trouble with low tech like ink on paper. This past week access to confidential documents has been made easier, thanks to the federal government's decision to let contracts to bankrupt companies that are supposed to shred confidential documents.

What happened? The documents were shipped out in their entirety, not shredded or burned as required, to destinations like China and Korea. The government has not retrieved the documents. Nor does it seem to care. Some of these files were so highly classified by the privy council and national defence they should have been burned in front of witnesses.

The government's cavalier attitude does little to assure Canadians that their privacy and security has not and will not be breached. I urge the government to get on with the job. It seems that sometimes with the government more is said than done.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, but I am also a little bit disappointed.

To me, the ministerial statement by the solicitor general is nothing but lip service. It is a perfect example of the kind of promises the Liberal government makes, promises that are based on noble principles but, unfortunately, never materialize. The statement by the solicitor general is just cheap talk, despite the fact that nine Canadians out of ten think organized crime is a serious problem in Canada today.

This is even more so since recent events have shed some light on the true role of the solicitor general within the government. As we know, his predecessor was forced to resign and even admitted that he was covering for the Prime Minister.

Nothing can lead us to believe that the new solicitor general will be able to follow through on the intentions expressed in his annual statement. His role will be limited to that of the Prime Minister's valet, especially considering the fact that no Liberal member seems to have what it takes to be a true solicitor general. The solicitor general is really just a front. The true solicitor general is the Prime Minister and his staff.

Money laundering seems to be the new priority of this government. We must applaud this awakening that is kind of sudden but oh so salutary if we want to fight organized crime effectively.

In that context, the Bloc Quebecois, through me, has introduced Bill C-435 to withdraw the thousand dollar note from circulation. It is a simple legislative measure which, according to several experts who were consulted, would really hurt the gangsters who threaten our comfort and our safety.

No one can dispute the merit of the legislative measure the Bloc Quebecois has proposed. Canada is in fact the only western country with bills of such large denomination in circulation. In addition, it is a lot easier for money launderers to go about with ten $1,000 bills than with a suitcase full of $20s or $50s. It is worth noting that a study in the United States showed recently that most $100 bills bore traces of cocaine. We might well ask ourselves what is to be found on $1,000 bills.

A further bit of information. The Bank of Canada determined in August that 3,372,000 $1,000 bills were in circulation. In addition, 128,286,000 $100 bills are in circulation.

Withdrawing the $1,000 bill would be a positive step for the government. It has the support of a number of representatives of the police.

Before concluding, I would point out that the government should swallow its pride, stop being arrogant with the opposition and the public at large and give Bill C-435, which I introduced on September 24, proper attention.

It would show it is not simply a government of verbiage, but that it intends to take specific measures to fight this cancer known as money laundering and organized crime.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I take this opportunity to welcome the new solicitor general to his new post. He is, like myself, an islander. He comes from perhaps a more gentle island, a little less rugged than my own, but from parts of my island we can look across the channel and see his island. That is as nice as I will be.

I will move now to address some of the comments he made today in his report. First I suggest that he wants to build upon the last report which came before the House a year ago. It will be tough going because there is very little foundation to build upon.

In the last year the commitments made by the previous solicitor general to combat organized crime have not come to any kind of fruition. Indeed, all we have heard is another statement of what they hope to do.

I will read the definition of organized crime from the government's own document. It includes economically motivated illicit activity undertaken by any group, association or other body consisting of two or more individuals. It is beginning to sound like we might include leaked documents in this definition, given the point of order today. The definition also includes, as I have suggested, formally or informally organized, negative impact of said activity, and so on.

The types of organized crime that take place in Canada would be shocking to Canadians. It includes money laundering. It includes the sale of illegal drugs. It includes, which I think is particularly shocking especially to the generation following us, environmental crime and the way hazardous waste is either sold or hidden in the country. It includes contraband, economic crime, fraud, migrant trafficking and motor vehicle theft. The cost of these activities is in the billions of dollars. The cost to the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, of the illicit drug trade is staggering.

There is a statement from the government's document on the organized crime impact study which deals with the seizures of illicit drugs and the increase in the use of crack among adolescents, which has gone from 0.5% in 1993, the year when I believe that party took power, to 1.9% in 1995. There has been a gradual increase in the use of illicit drugs.

These types of activities require urgent action.

At the same time that we have this report and the government talks about the need to combat organized crime, we have seen the downsizing of the RCMP. We have seen the training centre in Regina suffer from funding cuts. We have seen RCMP offices in British Columbia suffer from funding cuts.

We in the New Democratic Party call upon the government to reinvest in the necessary policing forces if we are going to actually be tough on crime in this country.

I welcome the statement of the solicitor general. I look forward to working with him in a constructive way to combat organized crime in this country.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I also want to begin by congratulating the new solicitor general, who is an Atlantic Canadian. I can certainly say that he is going to have his hands full in the next number of months.

I must say that today's statement is an absolute and utter disappointment coming from the solicitor general. It really consists of nothing more than another promise in a long line of promises from the Liberal government to introduce new anti-money laundering legislation.

This is the fourth time in two years that the Solicitor General of Canada has made this specific promise. The present minister is the third consecutive minister to make the promise.

Let me refresh the memory of the current solicitor general.

In September 1996, at a summit on organized crime, the solicitor general of the day spoke of the grave concerns with the same grave words used by the solicitor general today regarding the increased threat posed by organized crime.

The solicitor general at that time promised to introduce new legislation to enact new financial reporting requirements regarding suspicious transactions and cross-border money movement.

Thirteen months ago, in November 1997, the solicitor general's immediate predecessor stood in the House and delivered his first and last ministerial statement on organized crime. He too promised anti-money laundering legislation.

In April of the same year, the same solicitor general reiterated the same promise to yet again introduce anti-money laundering legislation at an organized crime summit.

While the government held summits and made promises, organized crime continued to increase and flourish in this country. In particular, Canada has earned the unsavoury international reputation as one of the better places in the world for criminals to hide their illegal cash. That is not a partisan comment on my part. That is the conclusion of the U.S. State Department.

In its annual report on the international narcotics control strategy, the State Department of the United States called Canada “an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering”. The report also put Canada in the same low category as Brazil and the Cayman Islands for its organized crime. The U.S. State Department also cited Canada's weak money laundering laws as the main reason our country is viewed as a safe haven for many international criminals.

More promises from this solicitor general are not good enough. The law enforcement community is tired of the promises and is tired of hearing about pending legislation. They want action.

It is not unlike the Minister of Justice, who has repeatedly expressed her commitment to table young offender legislation in this House. We are still waiting.

In August 1998, a senior CSIS official said that organized crime in this country was at a crisis level. It is ironic that yesterday's report from CSIS indicated that there are international crime syndicates operating in this country. They have identified 18 international crime syndicates operating at this time.

This government's repeated broken promises to introduce new legislation against organized crime have kept Canada's doors open.

I am also extremely disappointed that the solicitor general decided not to address the organized crime funding crunch in any meaningful way in his remarks. The platitudes ring quite hollow for all law enforcement agencies when they do not see the dollars coming from this government to back them up. Simply recognizing the problem is not good enough. Calling it serious is not good enough.

Initiatives in pending legislation do not cut it. Last spring I challenged the solicitor general of the day to justify the $74 million cut in this fiscal year to the RCMP's organized crime budget. The solicitor general said that my information was wrong, much in the same way he denied having an inappropriate conversation with Fred Toole, much in the same way the Minister of Transport denied allegations today.

Those allegations came from the commissioner of the RCMP and the auditor general. The fact is that the RCMP in their documents indicate that $74 million or 13% was cut from RCMP funding for policing services.

This was reaffirmed in a letter of July 1998 from the RCMP commissioner. The one and only strategic priority of the RCMP federal policing services is protection against organized crime.

Specific responsibilities of federal policing services include the government's anti-smuggling initiative, proceeds of crime, coastal enforcement, immigration enforcement and the criminal intelligence program. These areas are all in decline.

How does the solicitor general honestly expect this House or the RCMP, our national policing organization, to do its job in fighting organized crime when the budget has been absolutely gutted by the finance minister? Both the solicitor general's predecessor and the RCMP commissioner publicly called for more resources to combat organized crime. Front line police officers in every major Canadian city from St. John's to Vancouver are overwhelmingly asking that this resource be allocated.

It does not matter what the solicitor general says unless he is prepared to back up the words. The presence of biker gangs on the streets of Canada is becoming all too common a sight. The strongest message that the solicitor general could give today against organized crime would be to restore funding. Instead we get more of the rhetoric that we have heard time and time again.

Today's statement by the new solicitor general provided him with a golden opportunity to put his own stamp on his new ministry and to prove that he is more than just a nice guy who is busy undergoing on-the-job training.

RCMP, CSIS, corrections officers, customs officers and all of our law enforcement officers deserve our congratulations, particularly given what they are working with these days. I urge the new solicitor general, if nothing else, if he really wants to do something about organized crime, to visit the finance minister and make a strong pitch for what is needed, more funding.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

December 3, 1998

Mr. Speaker

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 3rd day of December, 1998 at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) by the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, but I must say that I am also rather disappointed and even outraged to see that we are being gagged once again to put an end prematurely to the debate on Bill C-43.

Why establish a customs and revenue agency? The Minister of National Revenue told us that changes in his department were needed to achieve certain objectives, namely to ensure quality services at a lower cost, fair administration, modern and effective management and, of course, parliamentary accountability.

It is true that the minister must redefine methods and procedures within his department in order to achieve his objectives. However, changing the container does not necessarily means changing the contents. The minister naively believes that establishing this agency will make all the problems within his department disappear as if by magic.

Speaking of serious problems within the Department of National Revenue, instead of putting all his energy into solving these problems, the minister is creating a monster that nobody wants.

Obviously there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the Department of National Revenue, because there are many problems.

Among other things, the auditor general, in chapter 15 of his September 1998 report entitled “Promoting Integrity in Revenue Canada”, talked about several incidents of misconduct within that department. We know that the nature of Revenue Canada's activities calls for a high level of integrity. The integrity of the organization is, therefore, an asset in that it impacts on the behaviour of those with whom Revenue Canada has business dealings.

According to the auditor general, the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency will not solve the problems. In addition, the auditor general tabled his December 1998 report on Tuesday, and this included chapter 24 “Revenue Canada—International Tax Directorate: Human Resource Management”.

We know that the International Tax Directorate is the focal point for all questions relating to international tax rules. We also know that international operations are liable to weaken the tax base. We know that international tax is a rapidly developing area with strong possibilities as far as tax receipts are concerned, but that there are serious problems in the human resources area.

Key positions have been staffed by secondment, reassignment or acting positions. Only 52% of current headquarters staff are permanent in their positions. The auditor general feels that frequent staff movements are a cause for concern in that they prevent the directorate from maintaining the levels of experience and qualifications required for the work to be done.

He also states as follows:

The establishment of the new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined in this chapter.

In the first case, in the interests of fair administration, the minister should take all steps possible to ensure the integrity of all employees in his department before thinking about establishing such an agency.

In the second case, that of international taxes, it is much more obvious that the establishment of the agency will resolve none of what is going on because it is to the advantage of large companies operating internationally. They make in the neighbourhood of $250 billion, which is an enormous tax base.

International tax experts in big business are, for the most part, specialists from Revenue Canada or experts who have been sent there on special training assignments. At some point, we come up against a lack of competence at Revenue Canada, but considerable expertise in big business. Big business takes advantage of the system, with the result that the international tax base dwindles, to the detriment of taxpayers who must shoulder an increasingly heavy tax burden.

What the government actually wants is to abdicate its political authority because it is incapable of assuming its responsibilities and making the necessary changes in its department and because it wants to hang on to the existing international tax system in order to benefit big business with its international transactions.

What the government wants is to create a bank of handouts for its friends and supporters of the party, both with respect to administrators and with respect to big business and its international transactions.

Nobody wants this agency, not the provinces, not Quebec, not the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and not Revenue Canada employees. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to address Bill C-43 this afternoon, a bill introduced by the minister of revenue and Canadian Olympics lobbyist.

We have had ample opportunity to debate Bill C-43 here in the House. Why do we keep wanting to debate it? It is that we think, perhaps unreasonably, that our Liberal friends, our friends in the government, might listen to reason on the fact that all those concerned will be affected directly or indirectly, in one way or another. They fear the passage of this bill and the fact that the way it is implemented could harm them and take away their responsibilities and their independence in their respective areas of action.

Whether we are talking about SMBs, cities, provinces, or the largest of businesses, I think there is a consensus. We are wondering why, in the face of such unanimity, the government is so obstinate? It says “We want to continue, we want to continue, we want to continue”. There is perhaps something a bit twisted there. We may well ask. Perhaps there is downright obstinacy on the part of the government and the minister involved.

Maybe the minister, in lobbying for Vancouver to hold the Olympic Games, forgot the file on his desk and his officials to the opportunity to move it along. However, I would be surprised if it were unionized staff because the 40,000 unionized employees at Revenue Canada stand to lose their rights and entitlements if the minister relinquishes his responsibilities and shifts them to an agency like the one he is proposing.

While he was off campaigning for the Olympic Games in Vancouver at the expense of other municipalities, his employees, his staff, were moving this bill along, not accepting amendments and refusing to hear reason.

In his fine speeches and his press releases, the minister kept saying “Yes, but we consulted”. Consultation has become a government catch phrase. True, they did consult. But did they listen during these consultations? Did they listen to those they consulted?

The government, through the minister, says the provinces agree. The fact is that there is not a single province that agrees to have an agency like this one. This agency would be authorized to collect federal taxes. It may also be authorized to collect provincial taxes. I read speeches from Reformers, saying “This is good, because in British Columbia, it is total chaos in this respect. Therefore, it is OK for big brother in Ottawa to come out and say it can put your fiscal house in order”. This authority could extend to the collection of municipal taxes, and even to school taxes.

Such an agency would definitely step in exclusive provincial jurisdictions, not only in Quebec but also in all the provinces.

If the government turns a deaf ear to the provinces, small and medium size businesses, public servants, members of the opposition, perhaps it is because it has a superiority complex or thinks it is perfect.

Yesterday, during the television program Maisonneuve à l'écoute , Pierre Maisonneuve asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs “Do you not find that you often sound like a grandfather with his grandchildren, or a father with his children?” This was said by Pierre Maisonneuve. “You seem to be saying I am the one who is right. Listen children, provinces, premiers and other provincial officials, I can hear your whining, but it is just whining”.

It is like parents with teenagers. Parents tell them “you can argue all you want, father knows best”. There was a program with that very title. This is how the federal government seems to be behaving. The federal government is the only one in step. The others are all out of step. One wonders.

Why are the provinces, the Bloc Quebecois and several other parties and stakeholders opposed to a bill like this one? Primarily, although not exclusively, because of the government's loss of accountability to the agency.

The government is increasingly dumping its responsibilities. Could it be that it is becoming lazy? Is this the idea of a party in office?

The establishment of this agency, if it comes about, unfortunately will result in a loss of accountability. Some of my colleagues said “Just imagine asking the minister to explain a scandal of one kind or another involving the agency”. The minister would reply “It is not our responsibility. This is an independent agency for which the government is no longer responsible. We will ask questions, but it is no longer my responsibility”.

The loss of accountability and responsibility on the part of a minister is like the lobbying minister for Vancouver, who just told us “I want to get rid of some of my responsibilities”. It also makes us worry about the huge powers that this agency could use. It would get these powers through the people appointed by the Liberal government to the agency's board of management.

If we look at the board of directors of the agencies that were set up recently, it is not surprising to realize that true grits make up the majority of the board members. This agency that will collect taxes throughout Canada will be controlled and managed by people appointed by the Prime Minister. Things never change, which is why the people who have considered the issue and have legitimate concerns are not feeling too happy and secure right now.

And what about the approximately 40,000 public servants at Revenue Canada who will no longer come under the Public Service Employment Act if this bill is passed? For these public servants, this means losing the fundamental rights to be protected they currently enjoy as employees of Revenue Canada.

Why are we not taking into consideration the views of small businesses, which have said unanimously or by a clear majority that they are against such a bill?

These are the questions my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and members of the other parties as well as provinces and businesses have put to the minister but remain unanswered. I would like to know why the minister does not want to sit down with the provinces and why he does not want to examine how Quebec manages to harmonize the GST with the QST and then send what we owe to Ottawa.

We now know where we stand in Quebec, in this respect. The Heritage Minister often talks about “victims” in the House. However if there are concrete and positive achievements, why not draw from their example? Why always try to interfere with something that works in Quebec or another province? The federal father or grandfather is always explaining to his children that they did well, but he is capable of doing better. He will crush the work of a province, a municipality or a region to prove he is the best.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois are speaking on behalf of revenue employees, small businesses and individuals, and they are saying to the minister: “Listen. Listen to us. Listen to them. Stop the juggernaut of tax collection. Let us work together on changes that will bring harmony”. But for the federal government “harmony” means to implement what we have decided, because anything we decide is good for you.

Quebeckers have had enough for a long time, but now we are hearing the same thing from other provinces which are saying: “That's enough. Hold everything and listen to us”.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, some hon. members in the course of this debate have said that they cannot support this bill unless it includes provisions ensuring that taxpayers are fairly and impartially treated by the agency. In effect they want to entrench the taxpayers bill of rights in the legislation itself.

I would like to remind hon. members that in 1985 Revenue Canada was the first revenue administration to proclaim the rights of taxpayers with its declaration of taxpayer rights. This declaration is entrenched in the day to day operations of the department and is part of the public service's ethos that will carry over to the agency.

Bill C-43 also ensures that the Minister of National Revenue will continue under the agency to be accountable to the public and to parliament for all aspects of the agency's performance, including the way officials exercise program authorities such as assessing and collecting taxes and duties.

Under the agency members of parliament will continue to be able to deal directly with the Minister of National Revenue to resolve their constituents' problems. If there is ever a problem of abuse of power, the minister will have both the authority and the responsibility to correct it.

The Minister of National Revenue launched a fairness initiative in March of this year to solicit feedback on the fairness of Revenue Canada programs. To ensure the entire process would be objective, Revenue Canada partnered with the Conference Board of Canada to analyse the results, hold a national symposium to verify priorities, and produce an independent report. According to this independent report, Revenue Canada is well regarded among Canadians.

I would like to assure hon. members that feedback from consultations show that Canadians are pleased with the current declaration of taxpayer rights. The conference board report specifically states that Revenue Canada has already made significant strides in making fairness an ongoing part of every employee's job and that it is well equipped to provide fairness to Canadians.

Many suggestions have been received to make further improvements to the fairness of Revenue Canada. Department officials are in the process of developing an action plan for the minister's consideration.

In addition to not being necessary, adding a taxpayers bill of rights to the agency legislation would have the effect of amending program legislation such as the Income Tax Act. Provisions such as those proposed should therefore be directed specifically at that act and other similar statutes that the agency would administer.

Some hon. members have also argued that five years is too long to wait for a parliamentary committee to review and assess the new agency. I would like to assure those hon. members that there is nothing to prevent parliament from undertaking an additional review at an earlier date, if considered necessary. Allowing a period of five years to elapse before a formal review is undertaken is a fairly common approach in federal statutes. The reason for this timeframe is to give the agency adequate time to implement and fine tune its policies and to operate for a sufficient length of time for an effective assessment to be made.

I also remind hon. members that parliament will have other opportunities to assess the agency on an ongoing basis. It will review the agency's corporate business plan, just as it now reviews Revenue Canada's plan. It will also review the agency's annual report regarding its performance during the preceding year. Before the agency can spend any money, parliament will have to approve the appropriations just as it does now for Revenue Canada. Finally, the auditor general will be the agency's auditor and will report to parliament just as he does for Revenue Canada.

Some hon. members have proposed that even if passed by parliament, this bill should not be proclaimed in force without the approval of at least one-half of the provinces. There is no reason or rationale why the federal parliament would make coming into force of this federal statute subject to provincial approval.

I can assure hon. members that the agency would provide the means to serve the collective interests of the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as the national interest by setting the right conditions for even greater co-ordination in tax administration.

I would stress that there is no obligation on the part of any province to have the agency administer more programs on its behalf.

The agency is about creating options and opportunities for the provinces. It must earn the business of the provinces and would be well placed to do so once it is established.

All provinces, except Quebec, have left a door open to allow the agency to deliver services to them. Detailed agreements may not be signed until the agency has been established. This is why I invite all members of the House to support the bill so the agency can reach agreements with provinces to eliminate duplication.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill establishes an agency that will enforce and administer the Income Tax Act instead of Revenue Canada.

This bill, which was introduced by the government last June, is a result of the Speech from the Throne in the previous Parliament. At the time, the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency.

The government has followed up on this and proposes in Bill C-43 to establish a semi-independent agency that will be responsible for collecting all taxes in Canada.

The agency would administer all forms of taxes, from provincial sales taxes to taxes on gas and liquor, on a country-wide basis. There is, to say the least, cause for concern when a single agency is given so much power, specially in an area of such importance as taxes. I believe we are justified in asking if the real interests of citizens can be protected by the private sector.

Moreover, this superagency will be able to expand its powers even more if provinces and municipalities accept. Indeed, according to the bill, this agency will be responsible for negotiating with interested parties to collect all forms of taxes in Canada.

Yet, the numerous efforts of senior officials of Revenue Canada convince the provinces to allow Ottawa to administer their tax programs have failed.

When the government tabled its bill, not a single new tax administration agreement with any province was in sight, and not even a single letter of intent had been signed by a province to be part of an agreement. Quebec and Ontario categorically refused to even consider the possibility of dealing with the agency. Even P.E.I. has indicated that it is not ready to transfer further tax powers.

One of the reasons for creating this agency is doomed to failure from the outset.

Provinces simply do not want to relinquish to the federal government what little taxation power they have left. Quebec is no exception. The creation of a huge tax collection agency through which the governments hopes to extend its powers flies in the face of Quebec's position and demands.

Naturally, the Quebec government is all for improving tax legislation administration, which should be streamlined, but not at the expense of its own administrative authority. One way of making the system more efficient would be to have all tax collection operations, both provincial and federal, concentrated in Quebec.

The Quebec revenue department already collects the income tax and other taxes in Quebec, as well as the GST. It could also collect the federal income tax.

Quebec's proposal is to have the Quebec revenue department collect all taxes in Quebec. Unlike the proposed federal agency, this department is fully accountable.

I find profoundly disturbing the concept of an agency not reporting directly to a government being responsible for all tax collection activities. How can we make sure such an agency will give priority to the public interest rather than to its own interests?

Also, in this era of computers and e-mail, many companies buy and sell confidential data. It is normal to wonder whether an agency, which will be less accountable than a department such as Revenue Canada, will be able to adequately protect people's privacy. It is easy to imagine the wealth of personal and financial information that could be concentrated in the hands of this body.

As well, with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, we are talking about 40,000 employees, that is 20 per cent of the whole public service that from now on will be at the mercy of the agency's board of management.

Clause 30(1) of the bill states that “The Agency has authority over all matters relating to general administrative policy in the Agency; the organization of the Agency; Agency real property; and personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.” Therefore, the Agency will have the power to raise or lower salaries, hire and fire employees and improve the managerial staff's terms and conditions of employment.

As we know, there is a very different salary scale in the private sector. Just think of the large banks' CEOs, for example. Everything in the current market suggests that officials and managers will be very well paid, whereas the working conditions of support staff, processing officers and so on will not be as good. This is hardly reassuring.

The government said it wanted to modernize the public service and improve the way fiscal legislation is implemented. But it is on the wrong track with the establishment of this agency. Modernization and privatization are not synonymous. It is unfortunate that the government did not try instead to work together with the public service unions in order to find ways to improve the system. There is nothing to suggest that the agency, as defined in Bill C-43, will improve anything. Quite the contrary.

As a matter of fact, according to a study by the Public Policy Forum, 40% of the businesses surveyed saw no advantage to this agency, and more than two thirds felt that it would increase or maintain their costs and, therefore, would have no positive effect in that sense.

Moreover, the structure proposed in Bill C-43 adds another level of bureaucracy in the form of an appointed board of management, which would only have a supervisory role, or so the Liberals say. Nevertheless, this board will require time, money and additional staff, and the agency will still be accountable to Treasury Board for administrative issues.

So the government is keeping all the old mechanisms in place while adding this new board. This means that we end up with yet another level of bureaucracy that makes the system even more cumbersome.

I just do not understand. If the mechanisms are the same and if, as the government says, the minister and his staff will still have control and will make sure the agency is transparent, then we certainly have good reason to wonder what purpose this agency will serve.

Is the government saying these things to ease our concerns and is it planning to eventually give more latitude to this agency, or is it simply trying to shirk its responsibilities and to distance itself, among other things, from negotiations with the provinces on tax administration issues?

It is always easier to blame an agency and to establish commissions of inquiry than to be accountable.

With what I just said, no one will be surprised to learn that I too am strongly opposed to this bill.

Like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I think that a task as fundamental as enforcing the Income Tax Act cannot be performed by an agency such as the one proposed in Bill C-43. This is not the way to modernize and simplify the administration of our tax system.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43 establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

As the labour critic for the Bloc Quebecois I feel concerned by this bill. As the member for Manicouagan just mentioned, 20% of the public service of Canada will disappear, that is 40,000 employees. This agency will be a quasi-private business, and it will be independent from the whole government administration. In our view this goes against public interest and it will also change the working conditions that prevail in the federal public service.

I will also remind the House that this bill, slipped by us in June, at the end of the last session, is very insidious, particularly in an historical perspective. While I am not a constitutional law specialist, I know that this bill really goes against the spirit of the Constitution of Canada and of the Canadian confederation, two words that are no longer used because, over the decades, Canada has miraculously evolved from a confederation to a federation of provinces.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is a perfect example of this. Again last night, we saw him on television mixing up issues and concepts. It is as if two and two no longer make four. It is difficult to know where this country is going and this is just the beginning.

People should know that the authority to collect income tax was the exclusive prerogative of the provinces in the spirit of the 1867 Canadian confederation. Now the federal government, as it did before during economic crises or wars, is assuming the right to tax Canadians directly, going against the spirit of Confederation. This we can never stress enough, particularly on the eve of a debate as important as that on the Canadian social union.

In this spirit we must be grateful and perhaps do like previous governments, such as the Duplessis government in 1954, which invoked the Constitution and its spirit when levying direct taxation. We must thank him for having done so because we can now rationally think and dream of making Quebec sovereign.

If the Quebec government had not assumed this right to direct taxation, if it were still at the mercy of the federal government, historically, where would Quebec be? Where would the distinct society be? Where would our distinct character be? It is because of direct taxation that Quebec can, in conformity with the spirit of the Canadian Constitution—keep its dreams alive and reach its full development.

There is the historical aspect I just mentioned. As a member of parliament, something else worries me in this bill. The bill uses wording found in a speech by the President of the Treasury Board and talks of modernizing the public service. That was the term used when unemployment insurance was reformed. The unemployment insurance reform gave birth to employment insurance. As the months have gone by, we have come to see what came out of that. Previously, about 80% of those paying unemployment insurance were eligible for benefits. Now, after modernization, 42% of those paying employment insurance can become claimants.

Buzz words like “modernizing the public service” scare me. They indicate that the government has some very neo-liberal projects or intents. They are very anti-union and anti-labour. They encourage a weakening of the middle class and of unions, widening the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. They are the reason for statistics like the ones published today indicating that child poverty is growing in this country, in spite of the commitments the government made.

These results did not appear as if by magic. They are the outcome of decisions made secretly without any of us being really made aware that they have been made.

Another aspect one must remember in this bill is it will reduce once again the role of Parliament. Parliaments are more and more weakened, not only in Canada, but in all the western world, because elected representatives can no longer ask for accountability and the executive longer has any accountability.

These past years, especially in the transportation area, very important decisions have resulted in the fact that Parliament can no longer ask for accountability in the management of public assets. I am thinking of Nav Canada and air traffic controllers, who used to be part of the department of transport. When faced with certain decisions elected representatives used to be able to ask questions and question the government. This is no longer possible. This is a private agency.

I am thinking of Air Canada, where I met with union representatives last week. The union is very worried about the experiment under way at the Ottawa airport, where automated tellers will replace some Air Canada employees. They will directly serve clients, eventually causing massive layoffs. Parliament has no authority to ask for accountability because Air Canada has been privatized. Likewise with the CN, where they made massive layoffs but we were unable to talk about it here because it is a private agency.

And I did not mention the Canadian food inspection agency that was established a few months ago. Elected representatives could question the government on its management, but they cannot anymore, because it is a private agency.

Take the ADM, Mirabel-Dorval. The government hid behind this organization and said it could do nothing. It gave a mandate to ADM and experts, who did what they could.

As parliamentarians, whom can we hold accountable? How is public interest served in all this? What is left for taxpayers who pay their taxes and see decisions being made which have an impact on their daily lives? Parliamentarians, who are asked questions—whom else can people ask but their elected representatives?—will have to give up sooner or later because they will not have the authority to hold accountable those who should be.

The government is losing control. This is very serious. This is very neo-liberal. This is very undemocratic. Disappointingly, this is done with the approval of senior officials, who instead of having the best interests of the public at heart only have theirs. Here is what is written in a clause on the loyalty directors will have to have for the agency.

Subclause 42.(1) states, and I quote:

Every director of the Agency, exercising their powers and performing their duties and functions, must

a) act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interests of the Agency—

Where is the public interest when the bill refers to the best interests of the agency, an agency that is partly privatized and that will soon be fully privatized? The clause reads “must act... with a view to the best interests of the agency”. It is immoral to write such things. When one is paid by the state, one should act in the public interest. It is our first responsibility. We act on behalf of the state, not even on behalf of the government.

Members know how things work. A government that puts things like that in its legislation is not even trying to hide its intent, and this must be condemned. I cannot understand that the Canadian elites have not done so.

For Quebec, this is a great lesson, in view of what we will all be called on to ponder. This is a unitary Canada, a centralized Canada, in which the provinces will become regional governments and in which Ottawa will control everything. This may be good for Canada—it is their problem—but it is obvious that Quebec must get out of this crazy situation as soon as possible, otherwise Quebeckers will become increasingly diminished and enslaved in that Canadian federation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yukon, the Environment; the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, AIDS.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to dedicate my speech to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I believe her to be a minister who has shown open-mindedness in the past, and I believe she has an understanding of a number of things.

I would like to ask her, through you, Madam Speaker, to give a warm hand to our colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who has done an excellent job for the official opposition in connection with Bill C-43.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.