Richard Marceau

[Criminal Records Act, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I took the floor in order to show how a committee can be a little mean. I think it was a sad day for parliamentarism and for parliamentary committees in Canada.

Bill C-7 is a very different story. Initially, this bill was introduced during the first session of the 36th Parliament. It was then called Bill C-69.

The Bloc Quebecois made an outstanding contribution on that bill. In fact, that contribution was acknowledged by the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. I have to tell the House he also did an excellent job. For once, he did not have to obey the Liberal majority. He was willing to discuss.

In the debate on Bill C-7, the five political parties have shown openness, flexibility, and diplomacy. Thus, the bill got the support of the five parties in the House.

I would be remiss if I did not say how regrettable it is that the government does not show openness more often in parliament, whether in committee or in this House. Lack of openness and narrow-mindedness are the main features of this government, as we can see with Bill C-20.

If the Liberal majority showed a bit more openness, if it took off its blinders and stopped being so highly partisan, as it is all too often, I believe we would see more often bills like this one, which has the support of the five parties in this House.

Is it not a worthy cause to bring all the political parties to support a bill? Is it not worthy cause to try to reach a consensus on a given subject? Should any government, any parliamentary majority not have as a rule to get opposition parties to support everything that can be supported, all elements upon which there can be some agreement? This is what I call leadership.

A government should always reach for the widest consensus possible. But because of its lack of leadership, its lack of vision and its narrow-mindedness, this Liberal government refuses to reach for a consensus even if it would be much better to do so, as was shown in the case of Bill C-7.

On May 14, 1999, this bill got the support of all the political parties in this House, it was deemed to have been read a third time and passed. Through a motion passed on October 14, 1999, the House permitted that bills that had not yet received royal assent be reintroduced during the second session and, on October 18, 1999, what is now Bill C-7 was passed by the House of Commons.

We will recall that, last fall, the government had decided to postpone the opening of parliament, because of its very poor legislative performance. Indeed, its legislative agenda was so thin that it was not sure it would take us to the Christmas recess.

The Prime Minister took advantage of this to keep his patronage machine rolling and appoint a friend of the government as governor general, as well as several other cronies. Thus. Bill C-7 came back from the Senate with several amendments. It is now again before the House to be read a second time as amended.

The main objective of Bill C-7 is both very simple and very noble. Its purpose is to prevent serious cases of sexual re-offending against children or vulnerable members of society.

If protecting young people, children and the less advantaged members of society is not first and foremost for lawmakers, I do not know what is.

During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice, we heard and listened with great interest and a lot of respect to the opinions of social groups involved in rehabilitating criminal offenders. We had to properly determine the safeguards included in this bill in order to ensure the preservation of society in general and at the same time of the reputations of those who have committed serious offences and have been pardoned. It is the balance between protecting human rights, including those of pardoned offenders, and protecting society, particularly its weaker and younger members, that we had to seek.

Offenders whose record include criminal acts of a sexual nature are therefore directly concerned by this legislative measure. Although there is a relatively low proportion of repeat offenders, even the slightest doubt is too much.

Parents who send their children to day care, to a playground, to school, to Scouts, to a club for children or teens need to be sure that these places are not teeming with sexual deviants.

There is no worse thought for a parent that the prospect of his or her child being the potential victim of a sexual aggressor. There is nothing worse. It is essential for every parent who decides to hand over responsibility for a child to any kind of organization to have absolute certainty that this child will be safe and cannot be preyed upon by some sexual pervert. And this does not only apply to the present. We are aware of all of the physical and emotional scars borne by adults who were victims of sexual abuse as children.

The bill also covers vulnerable members of society as well as children. These are some of the weakest members of our society, people of sometimes limited capacity who could also, like our children, fall prey to sexual predators.

There are cases as recent as this very week of sexual predators in positions of trust or authority with children, and these justify rapid passage of this bill. It is not a question of limiting the right to privacy of those who have been granted a pardon, far from it, but rather of going beyond lip service and taking concrete action to keep our children safe.

During committee deliberations, the Bloc Quebecois was assured by government members that the solicitor general's authority would be used with the greatest circumspection. The Bloc Quebecois also supports the amendments proposed by the Senate and hopes that the implementation of these new legislative provisions will make it possible to ensure that our children and other vulnerable persons are protected effectively.

As legislators and guardians of democratic legitimacy, it is the duty of all members of the House to protect society's weakest and most vulnerable members, and the children who are its future. This bill is a concrete, first step in the direction of this laudable and noble objective, which should be paramount in our society.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois wholeheartedly supports the bill, why the Bloc Quebecois is glad to see that the five opposition parties support it, and why the Bloc Quebecois is disappointed that the government has absolutely no interest in taking a similar approach to other matters.

When we operate by consensus, when we, as a society, set a goal that cannot fail to meet with general agreement, all Canadians and all Quebecers stand to gain, as do the weak and disadvantaged members of our society.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to see that the members of the Reform Party are for the first time showing some interest for the French language. It is a bit surprising.

I will be brief. Since 1760, and even before, Quebecers have always been challenged to excel, if I can put it that way. Being a minority people in North America and living right next to the world's biggest economic, cultural and military force, Quebecers are challenged to excel. Since the Quebec people began to exist, this challenge has always been addressed by Quebecers.

When the debate on free trade became an electoral fight in 1988, Quebecers were the ones who made it come true. Quebec supported free trade while our friends on the other side were against it. But, what did they do as soon as they were elected? They began to support it. As members can see, if we repeat things often enough to them, they finally see the light, at least this is what I hope.

The majority of Quebecers are in favour of free trade. The sovereignist movement wants to be at the crosspoint between the two main movements, the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, which means political independence and economical interdependence. This is why we were in favour of the free trade in 1988, why we were in favour of NAFTA in 1992 and why we were in favour of the Free Trade Area of the Americas until 2005, because we will take up the challenge to excel. We have done it before and we will do it again.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comment of the hon. member for Rosedale. We did not choose to boycott. We were in the House because we were debating a fundamental bill, Bill C-20, which is an unprecedented attack on Quebec's future.

We were not boycotting the committee, far from it. My assistant in committee was even calling me to let me know when it was time to go there. In the meantime, I had to attend the House. I was not boycotting, and neither was any other member of the Bloc, because the Bloc never did. We participate in committee work in a productive way.

Previously, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, which is said to be a committee where tempers sometimes flare up, because it deals with issues that affect very directly the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.

I always made an effort, along with all the other Bloc members who sat on the Standing Committee on Justice, to ensure the bills move forward reasonably fast when we were in agreement. In a few minutes, I will address Bill C-7. The five political parties gave their support to this bill. We all worked together to move forward a bill whose objectives we support.

When I was appointed to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was told this was the least partisan of the House of Commons committees. I was pleased, because I do not like it when it is too partisan and I like it when we can work together.

I was most surprised and disappointed to see this was not the case when the report was adopted, on December 14 of last year. I was disappointed.

We can disagree with the substance of the report, and I am prepared to debate it further, but I find it totally unacceptable that it was adopted in ten minutes, at a time when we had to be in the House to counter an unprecedented attack against the democratic rights of Quebecers.

People in my riding ask me “Mr. Marceau, what can we give you as a Christmas present?” I always ask for the ability to be everywhere at the same time. But I do not yet have that ability.

I had to be here, in the House, and therefore I could not attend the committee meeting at the same time. But I ran all the way, and my colleague from Repentigny will recall that he and I ran from this House to the East Block to try to make it in time. But between the time we received the call saying “Come quick, you need to come” and the time we got there, the report had already been adopted.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting one recommendation, Recommendation No. 21. I think I am allowed to quote. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is gesturing to tell me that it is a very long recommendation.

We wanted it shorter and we wanted it stronger on environmental rights. Thank goodness they are not the ones who will draft the next referendum question in Quebec, because their recommendation does not even pass the clarity requirement they want to impose on Quebec.

So, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has something against the length of the recommendations of his Liberal majority, let him say so. We wanted it shorter and also stronger on the issue of the environment.

So, I continue to read the recommendation; it is only one recommendation. I feel like starting all over again, because he does not seem to have understood anything, but I will continue for the benefit of those who are listening to us.

We also believe that independent public oversight—reporting to Parliament at regular intervals on EDC's performance in respect of the implementation of its Environmental Review Framework—would be enhanced by adding a provision to the Auditor General Actestablishing the Office of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development as the Government's designated agent for that purpose.

I am still quoting the recommendation.

In regard to disclosure and accountability issues, the Committee takes the view that disclosure of environmental impact assessments which allows sufficient time for preventive action—i.e., identification and mitigation of potential problems as early as possible in the course of the proposal approval process and the project cycle—should be the operating rule, subject only to any commercial confidentiality and viability requirements that the Government deems essential.

In addressing this matter in its forthcoming public disclosure framework, we would urge EDC to carefully consider all of the arguments and relevant international experience. Finally, as we suggested in the previous section, EDC should explore the option of creating an ombudsman post within its organization to respond directly and in a timely fashion to public inquiries and appeals regarding sustainable development impacts.

This is one recommendation, and the government hopes, with this kind of mumbo-jumbo, to advance the cause of international environmental rights. It is ridiculous and proves, as the member for Jonquière said, that they do not want to do much when it comes to the environment.

I see you are asking me to hurry up, Mr. Speaker. That is unfortunate, because I could go on for hours about the disgraceful way the Liberal majority has behaved in this business. Not only is the report so much lip service, but when it came time to adopt it, ten minutes was all it took, when we were talking about a entity with some $35 billion in business. Puppets who had not followed the committee's work were brought in to rush the bill through.

So, to those who are listening, and I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, as much as I am addressing those listening, it is very unfortunate that, when it comes to things as important as this, the Liberal majority has decided to trample any semblance of democracy. But who can be surprised?

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the committee's recommendations on the environmental responsibilities of the EDC are limited to wishful thinking. We think, rather, that they should be based more specifically so as to further reflect the EDC's duties in this regard.

I would remind the House of what is written in the report. We shall see the best recent example—there are a number; we could have chosen others—of Liberal blah blah in such matters.

At pages 52 and 53 of the report, I will read their recommendations. Mr. Speaker, if you are able to understand what these recommendations say, I would like to speak to you. I quote:

The Committee accepts that EDC's environmentally-related plans are a good start but agrees with the Gowlings review that they are insufficient in themselves. At the end of Part I of this Report, we suggested a general amendment to Section 10 of the Export Development Actwhich would add language requiring EDC to give due regard to “the commitments and obligations undertaken by Canada under international agreements”. In our view, this would include internationally-affirmed principles of sustainable development and obligations under multilateral environmental agreements. If there is any doubt on that point, wording to this effect could be added to Section 2 (Interpretation) of the Act. We also see merit in adding language elsewhere in the Actwhich would impart statutory weight to EDC's environmental review framework and establish some basis of environmental criteria on which to determine the eligibility of project proposals for EDC support. While EDC may see such measures as “redundant”, in light of the perceived weaknesses in its present Environmental Review Framework, we believe that EDC could further enhance its public credibility by conducting—

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

I am pleased to see that members of the Progressive Conservative Party agree with my assessment of the Liberal performance in many committees.

During the hearings, witnesses expressed their delight that the EDC was not required to make public potentially damaging information about deals. The Bloc Quebecois is sensitive to these concerns. However, we find it entirely unacceptable that such a situation persists and we are worried that maintaining these standards will undermine the positive effect of the Export Development Act.

Once again, since I am certain that this is the case, I would like to repeat that we could have convinced the few Liberal members of the committee able to think for themselves that our view was the right one.

It is entirely normal and legitimate to worry that, with such a lack of transparency, the ECD's activities could serve ends entirely inappropriate and even contrary to the objectives of the bill. As an example, even as the bill was being reviewed by the committee, it was impossible for a Bloc Quebecois member to obtain a breakdown of the EDC's financial activities in Quebec.

If there is one place such information should have been available, it is in committee. When a bill is being examined in depth, it should be possible to get the answers to such questions. But despite repeated requests, the hon. member for Mercier was unable to obtain a breakdown of the EDC's activities in Quebec. Once again, it sends shivers down one's spine.

We therefore think it essential that the government retain the proposal of its task force to the effect that the EDC should be subject to the Access to Information Act. In my opinion, that is a minimum requirement.

Furthermore, in our opinion, this report is incomplete and the committee has not fulfilled its mandate properly, because the connection between the activities of the EDC and the question of human rights was pushed aside in favour of issues that were mainly economic.

The Bloc Quebecois has some serious reservations about how human rights are respected by the EDC. I would like to address this touchy point a bit further.

Although the EDC does provide financing services, it is particularly active in credit insurance. Among the risks it assumes are political factors. Even in assessing political risks, the EDC does not take the human rights situation into account, which leads us to say that, before providing its support to a company, the EDC should, as a bare minimum, ensure that the company in question subscribes to the OECD code of conduct relating to human rights.

It seems to me that a country that boasts of being a beacon for the world as far as the respect of human rights is concerned should ensure that one of its arms, namely the EDC, is making sure that companies with which it does business ensure that human rights are respected.

It would be unacceptable for the legislation to be used as a way to evade the precepts that guide our society in order to provide largesse to companies that are very often involved in developing countries.

Before I conclude, there is another aspect of the report we cannot let go without comment: the delicate issue of environmental standards. I can sense that the hon. member for Jonquière is riveted to her seat, because for her the environment is something that is fundamental.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

We are the best, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just said.

But then what happens? Liberal members are mere bodies. They come unprepared; they are just like puppets. They often ask totally inane questions. They rubber stamp a report like that one in ten minutes. It is unbelievable.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

The atmosphere was acrimonious, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has so eloquently put it.

This is not how a parliament and committees should work.

I can see members coming into the House to hear this bitter criticism of the way the Liberal government operates. It is a shame to bring in what I call puppets to get a report like this passed.

However, on many issues, on many points, the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the Liberal majority. We presented a dissenting opinion, because we completely disagreed on other points. I see my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert supporting me on this, and am grateful.

We agreed on a number of points, and there was the possibility of talking and taking time to reach a consensus in this committee. But no. This highly undemocratic government violates not only the rights of Quebecers to decide their future, but also the democratic rights of the members of this House to express their points of view properly, democratically, thoughtfully and coherently. All of this warrants the sharpest criticism possible.

The Bloc Quebecois, which drew on invaluable testimony gathered at public hearings, considers that there is an obvious lack of transparency in the operation of the EDC. There is a serious lack of access to information. Discussions could have continued at the report stage of the committee.

I am sure that some members of the Liberal majority, had they simply not followed the orders of their whips like robots, would have agreed with us. But no, to use a latin expression, they rubber stamped it.

They said “That is what the government has decided to do”. In any case, for the Liberal majority, everything from the government is good. In my opinion, it is overly injurious. I expected the work of the committee to be conducted in a way that would allow Liberal members to freely express their views.

However, the Liberal members, even those who were sitting on the committee, often came to the meetings unprepared. They simply followed the minister's orders, passed on by the parliamentary secretary, while opposition members, particularly Bloc Quebecois members, came prepared. In fact, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who was there at the very beginning, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, and my colleague for Mercier have always been among the best prepared. We took our responsibilities seriously, we were prepared—

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

Since I have been here, we have always worked closely with other parties in committee. We often disagreed, but we could still talk, exchange views and try to advance ideas that sometimes were contradictory. But the clash of ideas often generates the spark of understanding.

For the first time since my arrival here, there was animosity, anger, the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife in this committee.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

This is scandalous. It leaves us speechless. It sends shivers down our spine. We are dealing with an organization worth $34.7 billion. In 1998 its net profits amounted to $135 million. And yet it only took 10 minutes to expedite the matter. It makes no sense whatsoever. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding in agreement. You are right, it is completely unacceptable.

Worse yet—I see that the Chair is listening very carefully—the Liberal members of the committee had been replaced by members who had not followed the committee's proceedings and who were acting on the orders of their whip.

Not only did they take ten minutes to adopt the report on the EDC, an organization with activities totalling nearly $35 billion, but most people who were there had not even followed the work of the committee. We can see what kind of attention that report was given. Like you, I am outraged.

I think this shows contempt for the business of the House. Also, the chair of the committee insisted on holding meetings on the very day Bill C-20, which deals with the clarity issue in a future referendum in Quebec, was debated in the House. It is outrageous. As a Quebecer, as the representative of a Quebec riding, it was my duty to speak out against Bill C-20 on behalf of my constituents and to support the Bloc Quebecois, whose mandate it is to defend democracy for Quebec here in the federal parliament.

But what was the committee doing at the same time, in the building next door? It was ramming through a report which, after all, did not have to be adopted so hastily. It could have been studied more thoroughly, but no. While Bill C-20 was being debated here, the Liberal majority was in another building ramming through this committee report with people who had not even followed the work of the committee.

The people who are listening to us at home have every reason to be disgusted by the way parliament works when the Liberal majority decides to ignore democratic rules in this House.