Réal Ménard

[Human Rights, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that almost two years after having been elected, the government has not yet amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Will the Minister of Justice have the courage and the sense of responsibility to table amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act before the end of this session?

[Privilege, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, may I add two clarifications so that my colleague will not keep the chair in the dark about certain facts. In accordance with common practice, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was allowed to introduce unilingual amendments during proceedings.

You should know that as soon as we started our proceedings, the committee clerk asked all participants several times to hand over their amendments, so that they could be translated and made available in both languages. What is at issue here is that, at the start of the proceedings, my colleague from Fraser Valley East was tempted to table some 30, if not more, amendments. Given this pile of amendments, we in the official opposition asked that they not be considered, since one basic element of the rules adopted by the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is that all documents and amendments tabled during proceedings must be available in both languages.

I should point out to you that the Reform Party has representation on the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure. They supported these rules and I am concerned about the hon. member for Fraser Valley East's lack of courtesy and respect for francophones. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I mentioned during proceedings that-again, in accordance with common practice-we agreed to let the hon. member for Fraser Valley East introduce handwritten unilingual amendments.

You should know that we have always tried to co-operate and that the hon. member is quite brazen, to say the least, in claiming that his remarks were cut off, as a look at the time allocated shows that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East took up between 80 and 90 per cent of the time available for debate. It is only after a two hour filibuster based not on content but on form that we felt the need for consent, as part of committee proceedings, to suggest to the chairman that we should be able to call for a vote after spending five minutes on each clause under consideration.

In a fit of generosity, the chairman proposed that 15 minutes be allocated, and you may be surprised to hear that my colleague from the Reform Party was opposed.

So I am counting on the Chair to hand down a ruling that will respect the rights of francophones in this country.

[Program For Older Worker Adjustment, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must know that the federal government is not investing a penny in the program I am referring to.

I will ask my supplementary question slowly to make sure the minister understands. Now that the Quebec employment minister has announced her intention of initiating talks with Ottawa to convince the federal government to make a financial contribution to Phase II, should it be implemented, does the minister promise that he will acquiesce to his Quebec counterpart's request?

[Program For Older Worker Adjustment, May 17th, 1995]

Surprisingly enough, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On Monday, the Quebec employment minister announced the unilateral funding of Phase I of a labour adjustment measure in response to the mass layoffs in the clothing industry. The Quebec government would spend close to $7 million to provide assistance to these older workers, while the federal government will not contribute a penny.

How does the minister explain his stubborn refusal to modify the Program for Older Worker Adjustment or POWA, which is now putting Montreal at a disadvantage, by extending it to layoffs involving 20 workers or more instead of 100 as is now the case?

[Health Care, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in an article that appeared in the Quebec media, former Senator Claude Castonguay, the father of health insurance in Quebec and former health minister, gave a very clear analysis of the state of our health care system and the future of the system.

According to Mr. Castonguay, the federal government's withdrawal from health care funding is a major threat to the survival of our health care system.

Still according to Mr. Castonguay, despite this withdrawal, the federal government continues to act like an inflexible regulatory agency and dogmatically enforces the standards of the system. By calling the shots without sharing the costs, the federal government puts the provinces in an almost impossible situation. To us, it is clear that the only way to guarantee the

survival of our health care system is for the federal government to withdraw, with full financial compensation for the provinces.

The Bloc Quebecois continues to say, loud and clear, that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health care.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to invoke the rule of relevancy because we cannot see where the government whip's allegations are leading and what is the link with Bill C-43.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, you know I always respect my time limit. I wanted first to point out that the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead looks as tanned as the Minister of Heritage, so he too might have been to Los Angeles.

Finally, this issue might say something about the Minister of Industry's importance in the cabinet. I think it also shows the real influence that minister has. If we were dealing with a minister with real power within the cabinet, surely the legislative results would have been different. But it is really not too late for the Liberals to pull themselves together, and let us hope that, in the coming hours and days, we will see one last instance of the confidence that can still drive this government.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

This is a difficult question, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to answer it to the best of my ability.

It should be pointed out first of all that the chief government whip is not easy to pin down. It is therefore difficult to explain his about-faces in any great detail. It seems to me, though, that the answer may lie halfway between human nature and what I would call corporate pressure.

Perhaps you have already given some thought to the fact that Quebec is a step ahead in this respect. It certainly is no small thing that, in a democracy like Quebec, legislation and standards governing public administration were quickly established to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, conflicts of interests are avoided.

I keep saying that I am the son of a labourer. My father made a decent living but not a fortune. You do not have to come from a wealthy family to get into politics, as long as you have an idea to put across. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, for example, decided we would rather be funded through personal contributions.

For my part, when I ran and was elected to represent the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I ran on a $30,000 budget. This amount was made up of modest contributions by individuals who wanted me to become their member of Parliament. The difference between Bloc members and government members, who are under pressure from various sources, is that, when I rise in my place, I know that I do not have to account to a corporate constituency. I know that, whether I speak on drug patents, the recognition of same sex partners or the national AIDS strategy, I do so freely, without any constraints.

But to be able to speak absolutely freely, our election funds have to be clean and the system must ensure that the ties between corporate constituents and elected representatives are clear. The government party, which is made up of honest people for the most part, exposes itself to criticism because it relies on corporate financial backers who have interests and attempt to influence government decisions. That is why it is so difficult to remain honest and keep one's hands clean in politics without clear funding arrangements.

I think that party funding and lobbyists registration are issues that reflect our willingness as parliamentarians to maintain our independence of mind and action.

Let us face it, with respect to the party financing policy and the lobbyists registration system, the Liberals are a traditional party, that is to say a party subject to pressure from the corporate constituency of this country. Again, it is a shame that the Liberal Party did not continue to act the way it did in opposition.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

Yes, enlightening, and I am weighing my words. I want everyone to know that, were it not for the painstaking, relentless and honest work of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, this debate would never have reached the level of honesty, integrity and perceptiveness it has reached in this House.

All this to say that the lobbying issue, as we all know, is linked to the willingness of our Parliament to ensure that government decisions, policies and guidelines are developed in the open. No wonder the public is asking for such a piece of legislation, for a tougher law, because the voters generally are much more interested nowadays in public affairs.

Not only are people more interested in public affairs, but this reflex of our fellow citizens to want to know who makes the decisions, on whose behalf they are made and, of course, lastly, who tries to influence them is a very positive sign, a sign which we should welcome with great joy. In short, this bill ensures that all political decisions are taken openly and publicly.

I had a friendly talk a little while ago with the government whip who is, it must be said, a seasoned parliamentarian, an experienced parliamentarian. This man, the governement whip, who is my friend notwithstanding, reminded me that he had spent 12 years in the opposition, a claim that not all parliamentarians can make. Remember the fight he waged when he was in the opposition.

I remember seeing him, of course, I was very young then, but being young is not a life long condition. I remember seeing him intervene virulently in this House and ask the government, which of course was Conservative at the time, as we know, to give Canadian democracy a tougher lobbyists registration act.

What happened in the meantime, since we know that the government whip and his colleagues have not changed? How did these people who, when they were in the opposition, fought so hard for such a bill, come to present such a watered down version now that they form the government? This is a bill that could even be called insignificant.

What happened? Of course, the Liberal Party, which is a continental party, formed the government. As we know, it is taboo for the Liberals to talk about adopting legislation on popular financing of political parties even though, for the sake of fairness, we would have been entitled to expect them to be logical with themselves. Considering the dynamics of politics, we can accept that the government would not bow to the wishes of the opposition, but it is beyond understanding that the Liberals would go so far as to disown their own past.

It is beyond understanding and saddens us. Of course, we could argue that the role of the opposition is to criticize, but you know how the opposition has been responsible, enlightened and forward looking since October 1993. Finally, we turn to independent sources to see what is being said of the bill.

I would like to quote someone who is very influential in Quebec, a journalist-and journalists, like lawyers, command some respect in our society-an intellectual and a graduate of ENAP who began to take an interest in questions of accountability.

Let me quote Gilles Lesage, journalist at Le Devoir. He is a reporter for Le Devoir , a newspaper that the member for Kingston and the Islands should read more often. You will understand that a reporter for Le Devoir has no political ambitions. His criticism is essential to our democracy. I would like to read the first five lines, or so, from his article.

Here is what Gilles Lesage, a moderate and respected figure, had to say. Allow me to quote him particularly for the benefit of the member for Kingston and the Islands. He said: "As well-inspired as it may be, the bill does not even come close to fulfilling the promises made by the Liberals, even though the Liberal action plan for Canada was clear on the need to restore integrity in our parliamentary institutions".

Mr. Lesage was no doubt referring to the red book and to all the speeches made by the Liberal Party's big guns during the election campaign. They talked freely and openly about democracy, parliamentary integrity and transparency.

But let us go back to what Gilles Lesage had to say. He said, and I quote: "The action plan-still talking about the red book-suggested that Canadians should have the right to meet with ministers and senior officials or to be represented in their dealings with the government without having to pay lobbyist fees. It also promised a code of ethics, the appointment of an ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament and the implementation of the Holtmann parliamentary report from June 1993".

None of this is in this bill, except of course for the code of ethics. That is why Canadians are disappointed and that is why our institution is losing its credibility.

The Liberals have always talked from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing when they are on the opposition side and something else when they are on the government side. This runs through the party's history. I could give other examples, but that is the kind of thing that has done the most damage to our democracy.

The Bloc Quebecois, being responsible in its role as the official opposition, has studied this issue with an open mind and with great interest. I think it is worth reminding my colleague, a newly elected member who will surely gain a lot of experience in this House, of the five points proposed by the member for Berthier-Montcalm who, as we know, did a superlative job on this issue. He was even quoted by journalist Gilles Lesage, who wrote: "Mr. Michel Bellehumeur is suggesting five main amendments"-I hope the members of government are listening, especially their whip-"that is: the ethics code should be recognized as a statutory instrument; the ethics counsellor should be appointed by the House of Commons, not by the prime minister; lobbying fees and meetings with ministers and officials should be divulged; tax deductions for lobbying fees should be eliminated; and-last but not least-the distinction between categories of lobbyists should also be eliminated".

This is an outline of the legitimate claims put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. For the main part, these claims also appeared in the red book, which fast became the black book to Canadians. Yet, all these undertakings did not last beyond the official opposition's coming to power.

Let us examine each of these points more closely. As regards the ethics counsellor of course we should remember that the opposition had acquiesced to the suggestion made by the prime minister concerning the incumbent. We contributed and supported that appointment. The problem with the ethics counsellor is that we would have wanted him, considering the importance of his position, to be directly accountable to Parliament. That is neither unreasonable nor unrealistic and it would not require the government to go against its principles. Things are done that way in many situations where you want to give added importance to a certain position and elevate the debate.

Take for example the Chief Electoral Officer who has to be appointed by the House on the basis of a large consensus. We should also recall that in most true parliaments ombudsmen are appointed by the very parliament to which they are accountable. Why does the government insist on making the ethics counsellor work in isolation? Why has the government not taken advantage of what could have been a genuinely democratic measure and could have reconciled us immediately with the government, although momentarily? Why did the government fail to take advantage of such an auspicious situation by making a true democratic gesture? We know the answer. In fact, Liberals are not prepared to do that much in matters of lobbyist registration. They are certainly not prepared to submit a firm policy concerning their influence.

We would have liked the ethics counsellor to be accountable to Parliament appointed for a seven-year term, with the possibility of being reappointed one more time. We would have liked-which is certainly not trivial nor asking too much-the ethics counsellor to have much broader enforcement powers than he now has. As a matter of fact, what is it that is posing a threat?

Let us take very recent examples of government activities, for example what happened to the minister of heritage. Despite being indisputably a noble-hearted man, we must recognize that he is certainly not the most clever minister in this government. Between the moment the Prime Minister suggested that his ethics counsellor be consulted and the moment he advised the House of this decision, three weeks had gone by.

Let us now consider, Mr. Speaker, what is presently happening in the Prime Minister's own circle. Of course, in the last two days, I have come to understand a lot better why the government is standing up for the family. Recently, I had the pleasure of tabling a motion, and I had a hard time understanding why the government was so stubborn. Now I understand that, when the Liberals talk about defending family values, they also mean the importance of defending the close ties between the Prime Minister and his family and friends.

On the whole, the member for Ottawa-Vanier will agree that this bill has no teeth and would have gained from being strengthened. In matters of disclosure for instance, the bill provides for a number of things. A lobbyist must state the role played in the development of legislative proposals, the influence used in the tabling of bills, the making or amending of regulations, the development or amendment of any federal program, the awarding of grants, etc. There are about seven such duties.

Why are lobbyists not required to reveal the special ties they may have with public servants, senior officials and ministers? The government has trivialized things to such a point that lobbyists have to declare the department they had dealings with. As if even the dullest of minds could not guess from the lobbyists' area of activity with which department they had dealings.

The government whip, who waged a hard battle in the past, is now, as the father of psychoanalysis would say, a polymorphous pervert, which means that he changes form with the debate. How is it that no minister, no member stood in the House to demand that lobbyists be required to disclose the names of public servants, senior officials and ministers that they meet?

Mr. Speaker, in political life, as you know very well since you are a wise man, there are some tests of truth. The Lobbyists Registration Act is such a test of truth and we would have wanted the government to be strong. We would have wanted the government, for once in this mandate, to not only be strong, but

to work hand in hand with the opposition parties, since this is not just anything. As a Parliament, as parliamentarians, we could have built a wonderful consensus which would have allowed us to send a clear message to the population, saying: "We, as parliamentarians, agree that public policies which are our prime concern may be developed openly and publicly".

In closing, I would like to say how I am disappointed in the emasculated bill that the government is proposing and how much better it would have been had the government been stronger.

It is still time for the government to rally to the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to everything that has been said until now during the debate on the lobbyists registration system and I caught myself thinking that it is quite a paradox that, on this day, Friday, April 28, the House is at third reading of a bill which is at the very heart of our democracy while the government is linked to numerous nepotism and patronage scandals.

This is really something else. I see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to take part in this debate. It is also a paradox that he is allowed to speak without ever rising

from his seat. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is only through your kindness that we can hear what he is saying.

I would like to remind the House of the importance of the lobbying issue. We are not saying that this is an easy question. We are not saying that this is a trivial issue. We are not saying that this is a futile issue, because it deals with the degree of openness the government is ready to allow.

We must remember the words of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm whose contribution to this debate was so enlightening.