Benoît Sauvageau

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from the NDP, I too am pleased to speak today on Bill S-21.

This is an act respecting the corruption of foreign public officials and the implementation of the convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions, and to make related amendments to other acts.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it addresses the problem of corruption in international business transactions involving governments and government projects. It follows on the signature by Canada and 28 other countries of the convention on combating bribery which was signed last year.

This agreement required five of the ten greatest OECD trading partners to ratify the convention by the end of 1998.

Four have already either done so or stated their intention of doing so by the end of December, the United States, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. Canada's ratification, therefore, would allow the convention to come into effect.

Here we are at five minutes to midnight, and the government is just waking up, only a few days before the end of these sittings, and asking us to turn our work topsy-turvy in order to get this convention put through. Obviously, we support it, but some questions could be asked about the process leading to its adoption.

I will describe the convention. By signing it, the countries commit to enact legislation which will make it illegal for companies to bribe representatives of foreign governments. They also promised to develop a mechanism for overseeing the implementation of the law.

Under this convention, the parties must ensure that intentionally offering or agreeing to give or offer an unfair pecuniary or other advantage to a foreign public official to obtain or retain a contract or any other unfair advantage in international trade constitutes a criminal offence. The convention also applies to kickbacks paid to persons holding public office, that is lawmakers and officials of public organizations. In addition, this convention deals with facilitation payments and requires that the parties implement rules to prevent misleading accounting practices and the use of forgeries for the purpose of bribing or covering up bribery.

The purpose of this bill, whose main thrust is found in clause 3, is to implement this convention. From now on, all OECD countries will be subject to the same rules. Bribery and kickbacks will no longer be tolerated and will in fact be considered criminal offences.

This convention will ensure that businesses in Quebec and Canada have access to a more level playing field on which to compete internationally. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois joins the business community of Quebec and Canada in supporting this bill. But perhaps we could go further.

There are now 28 member countries in the OECD. We all know that we also trade extensively with developing countries, APEC countries and other countries around the world. So, as far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, this convention negotiated with 28 OECD countries should be placed as quickly as possible under the aegis of the WTO.

I must say I am bitterly disappointed with the Liberals' attitude. The Conservatives have spoken of threats. Here we have another example of the lack of respect of Liberal members and an example of the way they perpetuate the bad reputation politicians have in the community as a whole.

When members speak in this House in a debate that is not totally conflictual and are continually being interrupted by sarcasm, jokes or private conversations, they may well wonder what happened to courtesy. Perhaps there is none in that party, it is found only among the opposition. That would be one more thing they do not have that the opposition does.

They have a whip that occasionally tightens the screws. Will they understand? Perhaps the whip should move and sit there to get them to understand common sense. When they are not busy accusing or threatening the Conservatives, they are preventing other members of this House from speaking by holding their Christmas party in the House at 3.50 p.m. on a Monday. It is rather disgraceful.

We might also ask ourselves, as the minister and the government are acting in good faith and accelerating the passage and the process of the convention on corruption, why this same government does not take as much interest in other actions that could be taken internationally, through national leadership, in order to improve international trade, which is increasingly a part of our activities.

My colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has just tabled a fairly thick petition calling for abolition of the Senate. But the Senate, perhaps in a moment of brilliance, recently tabled a report. In it, they ask the government to issue a code of ethics for business, stronger and more restrictive than the current voluntary code established by Canadian business.

I myself asked the Minister for International Trade whether he intended to implement the code of ethics recommended in the Senate report. The minister told me that a simple “yes” or “no” would not suffice with respect to such a recommendation and that further study was required. We are all for that.

When we asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Subcommittee on International Trade to examine the idea of a code of ethics for Canadian businesses so that Quebec and Canadian values would apply in other countries, we were turned down by the Liberal government. The committee is refusing to examine this proposal at the very time that the Canadian government is prepared to rush through in one day a code of ethics for businesses operating abroad.

The same Senate report says that any Canadian assistance—whether through the Export Development Corporation, CIDA, or other government agencies—to Canadian or Quebec based businesses for the purpose of conducting trade abroad should be tied to observance of minimal standards.

But no recommendation is made regarding the obvious need for a code of ethics, to ensure Canadian businesses will not, in order to save a few dollars or cents per hour, exploit women and children by making them work in dreadful conditions, in countries where working conditions are much worse than they are here.

Also, the government helps businesses through subsidies, financial assistance, or payments following the export of goods or services. We are asking, and the Senate committee is recommending, that such assistance be tied to compliance with minimal standards on Canadian exports. But again, the government has turned a deaf ear.

We are pleased that the Canadian government moved quickly to implement the convention on combating bribery in international business transactions, thus becoming the fifth OECD member to do so. However, we must question the government about its true intentions, as we wonder whether it is not making a small concession to hide a more serious problem, that is the absolutely dreadful working conditions imposed on children, men and women in some parts of the world. The Canadian government could not care less, because “we must not adversely affect our companies' competitiveness”. In order to make money, increase their sale figures and preserve their competitiveness, some Canadian companies go to countries where human rights are not respected.

The Senate made two very realistic recommendations: the establishment of a code of ethics for businesses that is more strict than the voluntary one, and a requirement to comply with minimal standards to be eligible for government assistance regarding international activities. But these two issues will remained unanswered for a very long time, because while it looks like the government is quick to take action, it is slower in providing concrete help.

I will conclude on this point, and we will see the government in action.

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, like the two previous speakers, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

As we Bloc Quebecois members indicated in previous speeches, we support this bill. However, since we had some reservations about certain aspects of this bill, at report stage, we introduced a number of motions in amendment to try to improve it. But they were defeated.

These motions result from a study of the Special Import Measures Act done by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and by the finance committee. I would like to briefly outline these motions, which reflect the issues on which we differed.

Our Motion No. 1 read as follows:

That Bill C-35, in clause 15, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following:

“(3.1) In determining whether the complaint is properly documented, the Deputy Minister shall not take into account representations received from parties other than the complainant.”

A number of witnesses voiced concern during committee proceedings. The Canadian Steel Producers Association was one of these witnesses with concerns about certain provisions of the act. The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of these witnesses, which were asking that Revenue Canada ignore the unsolicited presentations by parties other than the complainant before the start of an investigation.

Such an approach would have Revenue Canada take into account only information coming from the complainant, without having to consider unsolicited comments from outsiders.

This approach, which was rejected, seemed reasonable to us since it would apply only before an investigation was opened. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to care any more about our requests than about those of an industry as essential to the economy of Quebec and Canada as the steel industry. Therefore, it rejected this amendment, which will not be included in the bill.

Motion No. 2 read as follows:

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

We considered that Bill C-35 should not contain provision for the minimum duty. We think it is premature to include the concept of a minimum duty in the Special Import Measures Act.

We think the government should stop approving policies that reduce the protection afforded Quebec and Canadian businesses when our main trading partners are not doing the same thing.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended in its report—not one of the ones that was leaked—inclusion of the concept of a minimum duty in section 45 of the legislation on public interest.

However, clause 27 of the bill incorporates the concept of a minimum duty by amending section 45 of the existing legislation. Thus, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may, on its own initiative, or on request, initiate a public interest inquiry if it is of the opinion that the imposition of an anti-dumping or countervailing duty, or the imposition of such a duty in the full amount provided for by any of those sections, in respect of the goods, would not or might not be in the public interest.

As a result of a public interest inquiry, if the tribunal is of the opinion that the imposition of a duty might not be in the public interest, the tribunal shall without delay do two things. First, it shall report to the Minister of Finance that it is of that opinion and provide that minister with a statement of the facts and, second, it shall cause notice of the report to be published in the Canada Gazette , which many people read every day without fail, as we all know.

In addition, in that same report, the tribunal shall specify either a level of reduction in the anti-dumping or countervailing duty provided for, or a price or prices that are adequate to eliminate injury, retardation or the threat of injury to the domestic industry. It is through this last measure that the concept of minimum duty is introduced.

Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 concern the notion of “material harm”. In our opinion, the definition of material harm was also problematical. The Bloc Quebecois called for insertion of a definition for the expression “material harm” into the Special Import Measures Act. This, coupled with the criteria suggested in the current regulations, would clarify this important concept for everyone.

In Motion No. 4, we proposed, and I quote:

That Bill C-35, in clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” means harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling.”

We also proposed to make reference to “material harm” in several other provisions, including in clause 44, line 46 on page 33, which would read as follows:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”

We also asked that the notion of “material harm” be applied to clause 51, through the following amendment:

—be amended by adding after line 18 on page 36 the following:

“(f) defining the expression “material harm” for the purpose of section 44;”

This is very technical, but so is the bill, and this is why we had to conduct a thorough review.

So, had these amendments and improvements been included, the legislation would leave no uncertainty for Quebec and Canadian businesses. These motions are very important, because the bill is supposed to improve the Canadian system of special trade measures so that it can better reflect the new economic context and the changes in the rules of international trade, and leave no room for confusion.

Another Bloc Quebecois proposal ignored in this bill concerns the future or retroactive method of imposing duties. We wanted Revenue Canada to continue using the future method. However, we would, in cases where prices or costs are likely to fluctuate significantly, like to have Revenue Canada authorized to use the retroactive duty imposition method.

This method would be used only exceptionally and only when Revenue Canada considered it necessary. This is why we tabled Motion No. 7 in this House.

I will read a passage from this motion:

That Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 36 the following new clause—

In this regard, we referred to the prospective and retroactive methods.

This bill is very important as it governs the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped or subsidized goods where this dumping or subsidizing has or may have an injurious effect on producers in Quebec and Canada, while at the same time making changes to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

We need only think of our farmers on the Prairies, who are facing very definite problems with farmers in the northern United States, to realize how the border aspect of subsidies and dumping duties are a part of our daily lives.

The interventions of Bloc Quebecois members during this study have already led to a few important changes and substantial improvements. We suggested, for example, concrete measures allowing small and medium size producers in Quebec and Canada to have fair, equitable and easier access to the redress procedures provided by the current legislation.

We also proposed improvements to the way the Canadian International Trade Tribunal operates. The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that the cumulative effect be taken into consideration by the tribunal when assessing damages.

Furthermore, the amendment of section 76 of the Special Import Measures Act, requiring the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to assess the cumulative injurious effects of dumping or subsidizing in the context of interim reviews was consolidated as the result of our interventions.

We agree with the intent of this bill, which marks the government's first effort to clarify things. Quebeckers and Canadians, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, have long been calling for less bureaucracy and more efficiency. The government must give producers in Quebec and Canada the tools they need to compete in the global economy.

Dumping and subsidies are tools criticized, but often used, by industrialized countries. This legislation and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act are necessary, in fact essential tools to counter dumping and subsidies.

It is important that these laws be designed in such a way as to appropriately meet the needs they were intended to address.

These amendments should hopefully improve the Canadian trade remedy system so that it will better take into account the new economic context and the evolution of international trade rules.

Unlike our colleagues across the way, who suddenly changed their tune after they took office five years ago, we in the Bloc Quebecois have always been in favour of free trade. We can therefore only applaud any steps taken to help ensure businesses in Quebec and Canada are full participants in this era of globalization, in a well-structured context based on appropriate legislation.

Overall, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-35, which is to clarify the role of the Canadian international trade tribunal and to improve the Special Imports Measures Act. The review conducted by the subcommittees helped identify the improvements that should be made to these acts.

Bill C-35 will implement the recommendations included in the December 1996 report on the Special Import Measures Act which, as I said, was not leaked, and which the Bloc Quebecois greatly helped improve and fine-tune.

This review has identified a number of improvements which should be made to these acts, but more needs to be done, including the changes put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and by officials from various industries.

So, in spite of some concerns, we are rather pleased with the bill and we will support it, as we did at the previous stages. However, as we said before, we feel that rapid developments in international trade emphasize the need to review these two laws on a regular basis in the future.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

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”.

[Bill C-55, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said on the weekend that the government was ready to water down its policy on Canadian advertising in foreign magazines, thereby contradicting not only the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but his own officials.

However, the office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage reported that the government would not be watering down Bill C-55.

What lobby is the Minister for International Trade caving in to to be in such contradiction with his own government?

[Steel Industry, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the steel industry in Quebec and Canada is facing very serious problems as a result of the financial crisis in Asian countries and in Russia.

To clear their stocks, these countries are selling their rolled steel at a price that is lower than what it costs to produce, which clearly represents an unfair dumping practice.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. What does the minister plan to do to stop this unfair competition, given that this industry generates nearly 200,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada?

[Yves Blais, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and emotion that I rise today to mark the passing of my friend, Yves Blais, the MNA for the riding of Masson.

Mr. Blais was a member of the Quebec national assembly since 1981. I therefore had the privilege of getting to know him and of working with him and his supporters.

Yves Blais loved his work but, above all, he loved his fellow citizens. In spite of his health problems, he was convinced he could still be with them and work for them for some time to come.

Yves Blais was an enthusiastic and convincing sovereignist. He would often say “I am a sovereignist with hopes and dreams”. He will be greatly missed, but we will remember him for his fervour and determination in working to build our country.

I offer my condolences to his family, his friends, his supporters, and to his great companion and friend, Percival Broomfield.

Yves Blais, we thank you.

[Montreal Economy, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a number of federalists even among Quebeckers take pleasure in disparaging Quebec's and more specifically Montreal's economic potential.

These federalists envisage the worst possible scenarios, which they link to the so-called political uncertainty in Quebec.

Ironically, it was a Toronto paper that brought the doomsayers back into line.

Last week, the National Post reported that Montreal had resumed its role as Canada's business capital. While Toronto lost 119 head offices in 10 years, Montreal increased the number of big businesses in its environs by 6%.

The evidence speaks for itself: business people, investors and Quebeckers are no longer impressed by alarmist and apocalyptic talk.

I would therefore like to congratulate the PQ government on its efforts to revitalize Quebec and Montreal's economy.

I too am confident.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal member say in his eloquent speech that when a party is elected on a particular political platform, it must follow up on that platform. He could have talked about the elimination of the GST, pay equity, withdrawal from the free trade agreement, the elimination of the GST on books or the end of patronage appointments, all to be found in the red book, but he simply forgot.

Listening to his speech helped me understand why people have so little confidence in and so little respect for politicians. To summarize his speech, we could say, as we used to say in the schoolyard when we were kids, “my father is stronger than yours”. That was more or less the substance of his speech.

I will now try to ask a different question to the Liberal member. I will ask him what part of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park agreement would be unacceptable in Bill C-48. I remind him that this has nothing to do with the big bad separatists.

Second, clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 reads as follows:

—is satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

Clause 5(2) talks about lands owned by the Canadian government but, at the same time, section 92.5 of the Constitution says that Quebec legislation applies to all public lands, including river beds.

First, how can the member explain the inability to come to an understanding on the basis of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park agreement, and second, how can he explain the difference between clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 and section 92,5 of the Canadian Constitution?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member is absolutely right. The members opposite are telling us that if a bill is good it must come from the federal government.

Well, they will have to go back to the drawing board. They should look at the Rio agreement to see if they have fulfilled their environmental commitments. If they bother to do their homework, they will realize that they cannot even manage their own jurisdictions.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to such demagogic and terrible remarks. First, I will say to the hon. member making these ridiculous comments that the Bloc Quebecois supported the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. So we are not so bad after all.

Second, he is comparing provincial jurisdictions with municipal jurisdictions. Perhaps he too neglected to read the Canadian Constitution. Even though we did not sign it, we can read it to him. His culture is lacking, so we will improve it a bit. I will quote for him some parts of section 91.

Section 91 states that:

—the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,

1. Navigation and Shipping;

2. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals;

3. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries;

4. Ferries—

—between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

In addition, the jurisdiction of Quebec is further recognized in the British North America Act of 1867 under sections 92 and 92A.

When a member, whether from the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or any other party, objects to the fact that we want to respect this Constitution, at least as long as we live within Canada, and says that a province, whether it is Quebec or any other province, only has jurisdiction to deal with municipal problems, it is a shame for Parliament, a shame for this party and a shame for Canadians.