Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-203, the purpose of which is to amend, and I will come back to this in detail, the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
I am glad to see you there, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure that this is a topic of great concern to you and that you will listen closely to what I have to say. Two topics seem to have you terribly worried lately; obviously, the postal dispute, and the impossibility of delivering mail from your riding, as well as your inability to send out your seasonal greetings in the coming weeks. I know that this concerns you greatly, and that internal trade weighs just as heavily on your mind.
What is the bill before us all about? I will read the bill's summary, which explains this very clearly.
This enactment will give the Governor in Council—
This enactment will give the Governor in Council the power to bring a proposal into force under the Agreement if, although not having unanimous provincial consent, it nevertheless has the consent of two thirds of the provinces that have at least fifty per cent of the population of Canada. This would apply only to cases where the proposal falls within the federal legislative powers established by the Constitution Act, 1867 that relate to free interprovincial trade.
There are two parts to this bill: the first is the amending formula, and the second deals with the jurisdiction of the federal government in matters of interprovincial trade.
I will start with the first point. Right now, the approach is based on consensus, meaning that the agreement of all the provinces is needed before proceeding. It strikes me as very appropriate to ensure that the parties involved agree before the rules affecting them are passed. The big risk in the proposed formula is that the government would be imposing rules on the provinces with which they were not in agreement, and the odds are that, if these provinces were not in agreement, it would be because their citizens were not in agreement either.
When it comes to questions of trade, whether we are talking about opening up borders to international trade or about interprovincial trade, there is obviously very strong pressure to liberalize that trade, but at the same time there is also pressure to do so with respect for the particular characteristics of diverse industries. There is, for example, the whole issue of the colouring of margarine, which is of concern to a lot of dairy producers. We have to understand their concerns.
So, it is certainly not up to the federal Parliament to decide to impose rules without a consensus among the provinces involved. So, I repeat, the current practice, a relatively recent one, is to obtain the unanimous support of the provinces.
The second element of the formula proposed, which is in fact the seven and fifty formula, that is seven provinces and 50% of the population, was never accepted by Quebec. It had long claimed—all sorts of problems arose subsequently—to have veto power. However, no Bloc Quebecois member would agree in this House to this formula, which, in the case of interprovincial trade, would reduce the powers currently enjoyed by Quebec.
I have a warning, because I know the members of the government are listening carefully. There is a danger in interprovincial trade. This is my second point, and I will move to it now because it follows nicely. The danger is that little by little the federal government—and the supreme court has given it all the tools it needs—will claim that many sectors of interprovincial trade are under its jurisdiction.
We have long seen the Constitution from the standpoint of the sections that speak of sharing jurisdictions. There are two ways, however, that the federal government can use the Constitution to acquire new powers. There is public order and good government, and there is the Criminal Code. We are not concerned with the Criminal Code here, but I will explain how that would work anyway. The federal government would introduce criminal offences in a particular sector to claim that it had jurisdiction.
Whenever there have been disputes, the supreme court has always ruled in favour of the federal government. This happened again recently. There were a series of decisions recently—I will not look at all of them individually—which meant that everything was on the table if the federal government decided to go ahead and use this provision of good order or good government to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction with respect to interprovincial trade. This is undesirable and I hope the federal government will not resort to this. It knows very well that, because of the way the court interpreted the Canadian Constitution in its decision, there would be the potential for the federal government to centralize further.
Therefore, as I was saying, there are two aspects to the bill. The seven and fifty formula, which is unacceptable to a province such as Quebec, would also be inconsistent with the claims of a number of political parties, although in the case of the Reform Party, this is less and less obvious, that they support the unique character of Quebec, the new phrase we have been hearing.
This formula merely adds force to our argument that Quebec can been considered to have a unique character on paper, in a declaration with no constitutional value, but when it comes to introducing bills or making legislation, and so forth, that does not count. This has symbolic value, it is a piece of paper that can be given to Daniel Johnson to parade around with in the next election campaign.
This must not have any legal impact, though, and still less have any use as a means of recognizing more powers, or specific powers, for Quebec, never, never. It is clear that if the Calgary declaration were sold under that angle, it would sell even less well than now. That agreement is not out of the woods yet, but that is not what we are debating now.
Now back to the second aspect, which states that the seven and fifty formula ought to be used for jurisdictions currently belonging to the federal government. This is what I am explaining. The problem is that the federal government is then going to claim that other areas of jurisdiction belong to it, where interprovincial trade is concerned. We can pretty well bet that the supreme court would back it up, as usual. There is an old expression in Quebec, with which you are very familiar, which says that the supreme court is like the Leaning tower of Pisa, it always leans in the same direction.
In the case of interprovincial trade, once again they are nibbling away at the powers of the provinces—in the case I refer to, the powers of Quebec—so that the federal government from the heights of its great wisdom here in Ottawa can declare that it is in the best position to ensure the proper operation of government. They would say that good governance and law and order should be left with the federal government. The government would then gradually invade provincial jurisdictions. So we cannot agree on either count.
Now, as far as interprovincial trade per se is concerned, it would clearly be desirable to further harmonize all kinds of existing regulations. I am in a good position to comment on this, since I live in a border riding. Geographically, the riding of Témiscamingue is in northwestern Quebec, on the border with Ontario. Naturally, we do a great deal of trade.
We have a very serious transportation problem. There is all sorts of regulations, and trucking regulations in particular. In our riding, on the border, there is this company called Tembec Inc. Its trucks only have to travel a few hundred feet to cross the border but they are subject to a different set of standards regarding loading and so on, depending on which side of the border they are on. That does complicate things somewhat and there are serious problems.
But this does not mean we should give the federal government the power to decide what would be best for these people. Hopefully, the provinces will step up negotiations to improve interprovincial trade, in the interest of businesses, individuals, workers and ultimately consumers.
In some cases, it is easier to trade with a foreign country, and the United States in particular, that between two Canadian provinces. Everyone agrees improvements are required, but certainly not along the lines of the proposals contained in the bill before us today, as it would not be in keeping with the amending formula Quebec wants, it would not give it a veto. On the other hand, it would enable the federal government to avail itself of this means to help itself to more and more power in the area of interprovincial trade. In the end, this would lead, once again, to a greater centralization of powers.
For these two very valid reasons, we cannot support this bill.
