Benoît Sauvageau

[Gasoline Prices, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for many years, the Bloc Quebecois has condemned this situation, as have independent retailers and all those concerned.

One of the major problems with this industry is vertical integration, which allows companies to control extraction, production, refining, distribution, and sales at the pump.

Will the government finally side with the public, take action and ban vertical integration in the oil and gas industry, or will it continue to be silenced by the hundreds of thousands of dollars that these major oil and gas companies contribute to the government's campaign fund?

[Gasoline Prices, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week, we learned that the big oil and gas companies were making huge profits. To add insult to injury, the price of a litre of gas today is outrageous. Drivers feel they are being bled dry.

Will the Minister of Industry finally wake up and bring into line the major oil and gas companies who are holding car drivers, taxi drivers, truckers and farmers hostage?

[Statutory Instruments Act, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I thought she was going to conclude by saying that we had the best regulatory system in the world, but she refrained from going so far. It may well be the only thing we do not have, since according to our colleagues opposite, we have the best of everything else.

All kidding aside, this is an interesting private member's bill. Despite being a technical bill, it is still interesting. In fact, it reveals a sensitivity, or an awareness of the lack of say that parliamentarians have in different committees or on different issues. Allow me to explain.

The bill introduced by the member of the Canadian Alliance, if it was boiled down to the essential, would allow for a disallowance procedure that would apply to all statutory instruments, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. In so doing, this enactment would ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet. Unless I am mistaken, this is how the current system would be changed under this legislation.

The way the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations currently operates is similar, as one would expect, to how other parliamentary committees operate. It is in this committee that my friend from the Canadian Alliance has experienced some frustration, as have members of the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties and often members of the governing party, and I will come back to this a little later. Therefore, committees sometimes unanimously come to the realization, after a bill has been passed and after several rounds of discussion here in Parliament, that the regulations that frame the legislation, or implement it, go beyond or against the discussions surrounding the bill, or its intent. In such cases, the regulations must be amended.

Officials—either unconsciously, or consciously— may have gone too far when drafting the regulations to frame or implement the legislation. The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations reviews these regulations and has seen that they sometimes infringe upon or go beyond the intent of the legislation, and overstep the value of the bill in question.

Like other committees, when we notice this, we issue a report that is tabled in the House. One can understand our frustration when, even if the report is adopted unanimously, the government, more often than not, says, “Thank you very much”. It then takes the report and shelves it and waits.

If specific regulations hinder the application or goes against the intent of legislation, it is our duty as parliamentarians, having debated it at first reading, second reading, in committee, and at third reading and having voted in this House on the intent or application of a specific piece of legislation, to say so. Take the Young Offenders Act. When we vote on and pass legislation such as the Young Offenders Act we have certain objectives. If the regulations go beyond what parliamentarians intended, then it only seems right to give those who passed the legislation the ability to repeal certain regulations. I have a hard time understanding the Liberals' opposition when they had agreed with Bill C-202. They woke up—I am not sure when or how—and are saying that, as far as Bill C-205 is concerned, they no longer agree.

It is difficult to understand how we can value our role as parliamentarians to pass legislation and entrust the application or regulation of this legislation to another level. That seems odd. However, this is not the first time and certainly will not be the last time that we will have difficulty understanding the consistency of the government's positions.

I have examples. The members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can decide unanimously or by a strong majority that private members' bills are votable. The Liberals, who make up the majority on this committee, vote on this. The government members who sit on this committee decide that private members' bills are votable. This is the committee's decision. Then, in the House of Commons, the government says no. Even though it is a majority or unanimous decision, it is set aside.

It is very frustrating for parliamentarians, especially when the 1993 and subsequent red books indicated that the power or role of parliamentarians must be increased and improved, and that the government then stubbornly refused to do so. When it comes to implementing regulations, it gets even more frustrating, because there is an obvious problem.

Examples were provided as a background to the bill, ain particular a report of the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The report, unanimously adopted, sought to repeal certain regulations. It was tabled over a year ago, over two years ago, and still nothing has been done. So, the act continues to be enforced erroneously. This situation must be rectified.

There is talk of tradition. There was a tradition about a hundred years ago that consisted of voting to send troops into combat. Now, the Liberals are ignoring this tradition and have decided, during a debate that did not lead to a vote, to send troops into combat. Sometimes traditions are fine, sometimes not. You cannot have it both ways.

If a House tradition shows how obsolete regulations are, it is our duty to correct this situation. In this regard, I fully understand the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance. This is our most difficult task because, as legislators, we must ensure that the laws we discuss and on which we vote will be enforced according to the spirit of the debate held in the House.

In committee, it is by improving the too often traditional and obsolete aspect of the British parliamentary system that we give meaning to the role of members. So, we clearly set out the scope of the acts we wish to propose. I find it difficult to understand why there would be any opposition to this bill.

I spoke to a certain aspect of this bill, and I would like to make one final point. Parliamentarians are also called upon to repeal regulations that go beyond the intention of a proposed bill or act. But this goes further; it indicates a problem with how we function as parliamentarians.

It goes further than this when there are debates on urgent and important issues. The role of an MP should also include the ability to vote on certain issues such as sending troops into combat in Iraq, which is of concern to us at this time.

We can see that the government's position is set and that a second UN Security Council resolution is not needed. We see how imminent the deployment of those troops is.

If the situation is being described as hypothetical, the fact that aircraft carriers, troops and military personnel are already being sent out, and that considerable sums are already being invested—it strikes me that the situation is less hypothetical than it is for the present Prime Minister—this is another aspect of our role of parliamentarians that ought to be taken into consideration in this debate.

It is in fact being described as a technical debate, a private member's bill that is technical in nature and concerns the disallowance of certain regulations. All of this addresses our role as legislators, that is to ensure that statutory instruments are properly enforced, but also our role as representatives of our constituents, a very strong majority of whom, in the case at hand, are opposed to sending troops into combat roles in Iraq. Our role as parliamentarians obliges the government to hear us out so that a vote may be taken on this.

I thank the hon. member for his work on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. I encourage him to continue with this clarification, and we are going to be in favour of his bill.

[Health, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the present financial situation makes it possible to meet the provinces' health requirements, which they have estimated at $5.4 billion.

Can this government, instead of stirring up squabbles, understand that what the health system needs is less uncertainty and instead some new funding and some stability?

[Health, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is threatening to cut off the money supply to provinces that refuse to accept the conditions imposed by Ottawa, the Minister of Finance is acknowledging that he has a sizeable margin of $8.7 billion for 2002-03. If they want to get the negotiating process off track, there is no better way of doing so.

Can the government explain to us the Prime Minister's obvious desire to set off squabbles by throwing oil on the fire?

[Leader of the New Democratic Party, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian political landscape is changing, especially today as two new members enter the House of Commons in addition to the arrival of the new leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Jack Layton.

We wish them all a rewarding career serving our fellow citizens.

The members for Berthier—Montcalm and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay passed the electoral test and we congratulate them. However, the new leader of the New Democratic Party still has that hurdle to cross.

To Mr. Layton I say, see you soon. To my two new colleagues, welcome.

[Quebec Byelections, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a byelection was held in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, following the departure of my colleague and hon. member of this House, Michel Bellehumeur.

Once again, the public clearly acknowledged the quality of work accomplished in Ottawa by the Bloc Quebecois and re-elected it for the fourth consecutive time, despite the intervention of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. The public elected Roger Gaudet, the new Bloc Quebecois member for Berthier—Montcalm, who received more than 50% of the votes.

Allow me to thank the citizens of Berthier—Montcalm for their confidence in the Bloc Quebecois and to congratulate Roger Gaudet for his resounding victory, which can be attributed to his obvious dedication and skills.

I would also like to thank all the supporters and volunteers who, through their involvement and energy, made this byelection the dazzling success that we are all celebrating today.

[Berthier—Montcalm Byelection, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the tune being sung these days by the Liberal candidate in the byelection in Berthier—Montcalm is a well known Liberal tune in Quebec: silence.

While the ADQ, PLQ and PQ unanimously passed a resolution in the National Assembly of Quebec, demanding that federal health transfers be unconditional, an embarrassed Liberal candidate saw his federal Liberal friends reiterate their intention to set out conditions.

Worse yet, instead of going ahead with the health care reform, the Liberals decided the best thing was to further centralize by creating a new bureaucracy in Ottawa to deal with health.

After cutting nearly $150 million in health alone in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm and in Lanaudière, the Liberals now want to pass themselves off as saviours. Having set the fire, they are now trying to put it out.

We have here a Liberal candidate who says he has to defend what is indefensible. It is clearer now why this candidate once was a contributor to the Bloc Quebecois. Deep down, he knows full well that the Bloc is the only party in Ottawa—

[Worldwide All-News Television Network, November 27th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to see that there is not unanimous consent. The members who said no are mostly members who live in a French minority. Through their vote, they willingly accept not to benefit from another all-news network in their own language. It must be because they already have enough, or because they do not want it. One would have to ask them in order to find out. But it is somewhat surprising and disappointing that they would not want to create, together, this all-news French network.

Some members are wondering what they opposed. I just told them that they said no to an all-news network in their language. I am sorry to tell them, but they should know what they are saying yes or no to. I am sorry for them.

We were told “Sure, but where will the money come from?” This issue, the money issue, will be discussed at international forums. However, if we were to follow the example of TV5, there would not even be a money issue, since we share the news and the technology of the countries that are part of this network.

[Worldwide All-News Television Network, November 27th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, from the outset, let me say that I support the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. I wish to read the motion again, because the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac was misinformed or he misinterpreted—at least that is what I humbly believe—the motion before us and found it to be not realistic.

This motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in conjunction with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie—

Last I heard, there were approximately 42 members countries in the Francophonie.

—give consideration to the creation of a world-wide all-news television network.

We are examining, with our partners in the Francophonie, the possibility of having a worldwide French language all-news television network.

I find that this motion is much in keeping with the new realities of the francophone community. Francophonie summits, which emulate to some extent Commonwealth events, are relatively new in the francophone community. The involvement, and even its establishment, of the International Organization of the Francophonie is relatively new. The Francophonie is growing. It is a community discovering itself, a community with very different realities within it.

The majority of countries in the Francophonie are African countries. They have French in common, but also the evolution and promotion of this language.

As the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier aptly said, and also my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, with this evolution of the Francophonie, we can seriously contemplate the possibility of creating a worldwide all-news information network.

Perhaps the outcome of these discussions within the international forums of the Francophonie is a matter that should be brought up at the next Francophone Summit. Perhaps the outcome will be to say no. But, for the time being, how can one do like the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and state that it is not realistic before even looking at the possibility of creating a network, when such an all-news network exists in English. I am referring to the BBC. There is also CNN, although this is a private network.

There are national news networks within countries. Could we, within the Francophonie, use this news, these structures, to make international news from primarily French speaking countries around the world available and accessible in French?

It is said that information goes hand in hand with democracy. I was surprised to hear my Liberal colleague say that it was not realistic to imagine giving information to countries that, all too often, suffer from a lack of information, such as countries in Africa. In many cases, these new and emerging democracies are deprived of international news about what is going on among their neighbours, their allies and around the world. These days, we live in a global village, and we are being told it is not realistic.

One only needs look at what the member states of the Francophonie have accomplished in recent years. The Sommets de la Francophonie have, more often than not, been a great success.

We have witnessed the role of the Francophonie in education. Countries with a common interest in the French language, such as Canada, form committees to assist, communicate and consult. It is not that some have a monopoly on the truth and the others are wrong. We are there to share knowledge and information about education and to give access to the member states of the Francophonie that are less developed to this education, to help people who are in circumstances that are all too often regrettable improve their lot.

An all-news network could broadcast information on the various means of education that are available to these different countries.

The same is true for culture. The member states of the Francophonie share a common culture, which is language, but we could learn so much more if every country in the Francophonie shared its own culture by making it available through information.

When an election takes place in an emerging democracy, the Francophonie sends an observer mission to monitor and observe what happens. An all-news network could broadcast what is happening in these countries to the rest of the world, particularly to concerned Francophones. I do not think it is not realistic to share the emergence of democracies, the emergence of events that carry hope in certain countries, these types of news, with other countries in their language, which is French.

There is also the issue of the economy in certain emerging countries of the Francophonie, where we share an interest through microcredit; the same could be said with regard to the status of women, and other issues.

It seems to me that a million and one subjects could be addressed by a French language all-news network. All countries need to be aware of all this information, as well as of international events as broadcast in English and in French by our networks in the western world.

My friend and colleague from the Progressive Conservative party has had an interesting idea. We might suggest that the motion of our colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier be examined by the new standing committee on official languages. This used to be the joint official languages committee, which was made up of MPs and senators and has had a number of successful outcomes to its credit. We now have the pleasure of having a committee made up solely of members of the House of Commons.

Last summer, hon. members will remember the ruckus about Radio-Canada not wanting to continue to carry hockey in French, thus depriving all French Canadians of a heritage they had enjoyed on state television for 50 years. The committee was one of those instrumental in remedying that situation, and now hockey is available to all Canadians, francophones in particular.

As for the situation involving the use of French on Air Canada, the committee was in large part responsible for rattling their cage so that minority language communities' rights were respected. Within a few weeks, there will be comment sheets available on planes in recognition of the rights of members of francophone communities who fly Air Canada.

At the present time, the debates of this House are broadcast across Canada by CPAC. Until recently, francophones from Manitoba westward were not able to tune in in French, because the French language channel was not available to them. The committee addressed this, and now it is.

The idea of our Progressive Conservative colleague, to refer this question to a committee, is very interesting and could be adopted by the members of this House.

Before I go on, I must say that I believe my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and myself have managed to demonstrate the importance of this motion, which unfortunately is not votable, because of the rules and procedures governing the business of the House.

I would, therefore, like to quite simply seek unanimous consent of the House to allow this motion to be put to a vote, in order to lend a little more weight to it. I believe that will be unanimously supported.