Réjean Lefebvre

[Mouvement Desjardins, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend's annual meetings of the Mouvement Desjardins are proof once again of the huge success of the co-operative movement founded in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins. The total assets of the Mouvement Desjardins have increased by 33 per cent and are now worth $73.8 billion. Furthermore, this institution has declared surplus earnings of over $314 million.

The Mouvement Desjardins has mirrored Quebecers' dynamism, since its inception. In encouraging Quebecers to invest their savings in Quebec, Claude Béland, the president of the Mouvement Desjardins, said, and I quote: "We have no hope of winning the development war if we hand over our arms to others".

The success of the Desjardins movement is the result of an economic development model based on co-operation. Quebec's economic prosperity requires all participants in the Quebec socio-economic scene to work together in the fight against chronic unemployment.

[Access To Information, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion M-304 brought forth by the hon. member for Red Deer with respect to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The objectives stated by the hon. member for Red Deer tend to be very similar to those of my own party. As a matter of fact, in our view of democracy, it is very important that public financial management be characterized by transparency and openness.

All the hon. members of this House were elected by people who want and have a right to know how their money is managed, this money we take off their pay cheques every week for taxes of all kinds. The people of Quebec in particular want to know what the Canadian government is doing with their money and what they get back in return.

The Access to Information Act is one of the tools available to them and I think it should be amended to apply also to crown corporations such as Air Canada and Canada Post Corporation, government agencies such as the Senate as well as public office holders who report directly to Parliament, like the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General of Canada.

As I said, the Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that public administration should be as transparent as can be in a democratic regime. But this is not always the case here. Too many government institutions are still not subject to the Access to Information Act and I think that it is high time that the scope of this act be broadened to force these institutions to operate in a more upright and honest way.

The government continues to hide far too much information that could be useful to the public. Take the Senate for example. Partisan appointments to some of the best paid positions in the government are made by the party in office. The public has no say in the process, nor does it have access to the information circulating within the ranks of the government. That, in my opinion, is not very transparent.

Yet, transparency is essential to regain the confidence of taxpayers who are increasingly wondering about the way their money is spent, considering the national debt and the numerous cuts to social programs and other government services.

In his Throne Speech made in January of last year, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "The Government is committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament. Changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide Members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public policy and legislation". The Prime Minister also

said that, to achieve this agenda, integrity and public trust in the institutions of government were essential.

It goes without saying that a relation of trust between the government and the public is vital. However, we realize that no such relation exists when we see the resentment shown by Canadians toward the federal government.

This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to give weight to his words by taking concrete legislative measures to ensure greater transparency within the public institutions and agencies.

Of course, the Access to Information Act plays an important role in providing information to which the public is entitled. However, we must not forget that certain types of information must remain confidential so as not to prejudice the competitive position of certain Crown corporations.

The relevant legislation, the Privacy Act, is particularly important because it has the effect of protecting information, the disclosure of which might be injurious to national security. That is why this confidentiality has been recognized by means of exemptions provided under the Act. It also protects the interests of individuals, both with respect to personal information and information of a commercial nature. However, it is probably true that the corporations and institutions exempted from this legislation are not necessarily motivated by concern that information might be disclosed to competitors but may be simply reluctant to reveal to the public certain threatening aspects of their activities.

In any case, the complexities of a system for access to information on government administration are well beyond the scope of the motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer. Here the concern is not, as it says in the motion, to require that Parliament and crown agencies be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. As we have seen, there are two sides to this issue: providing access to information while reinforcing measures to protect privacy.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois, in the name of our democratic principles and in its resolve to increase the transparency of the present system, agrees with the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General released in March 1987, which recommended that the Access to Information Act should apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals and the Senate.

The Bloc Quebecois insists above all on the importance of full transparency, especially with regard to the Senate. As I said earlier in this House, people are entitled to have access to information issued by this non-elected level of government.

Quebecers and Canadians are dissatisfied with the present government, which keeps important information from them and which ignores them by not taking their views into consideration and dealing with important public matters in secret.

They are unhappy with the treatment they receive from federal institutions, public servants, politicians and the government machine. This is why the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the essence of Motion M-304 and believes the Access of Information Act should apply to all publicly funded government institutions. It is time to get on with it and implement real and effective access to information legislation that will reflect our concern for true and just democracy.

[President Of Canadian National, March 21st, 1995]

The president of Canadian National, Mr. Paul Tellier, said on television this morning that the working conditions enjoyed by CN employees were too generous for the economic context of the 1990s. Mr. Tellier's attitude clearly indicates the bad faith of management in this dispute.

I find astounding that Mr. Tellier would make such a statement, since he amply benefits from Canadian National's generosity. With a salary of $345,000 and an annual allowance of $51,752, and not forgetting an interest free loan of $300,000, Mr. Tellier is in fact the best paid public servant in the entire government machine.

This gentleman is in no position to be talking about the state's so called generosity toward its employees. Rather than make statements on television, he should do what he is paid to do and negotiate in good faith with his employees in order to reach a quick solution to the dispute that is affecting the entire Canadian economy.

[Contents Of The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why only Liberal members had this opportunity?

[Contents Of The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether the Minister of Finance briefed the Liberal caucus before the budget was tabled?

[Contents Of The Budget, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a government member admitted that members of the Liberal caucus were informed of the contents of the federal budget a week before it was tabled in the House on Monday, which gave them a chance to prepare for cuts that would affect their ridings.

Would the Acting Prime Minister confirm what was said by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, in other words, that budget secrecy was violated by her colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

[Federal Public Service, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, with the Prime Minister only too ready to make disparaging remarks about federal civil servants, who according to him are sitting around and doing nothing, and with the government poised to slash public spending, four Liberal MNAs for the Outaouais prefer taking it easy in the sun to defending the interests of their constituents.

The stakes have never been higher for the federal public service in the Outaouais, as it faces the worst cuts in its history. Outaouais residents are worried about privatization, reduced services and the loss of their jobs. And while they worry, MNAs Middlemiss, MacMillan, Lafrenière and Lesage are away, indifferent to what is happening and doing nothing to stop it.

What sort of political commitment is it when these Liberal MNAs would rather relax in a warm climate than look out for the real problems of those they represent?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

It is untrue.

[Social Program Reform, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec university presidents announced that they will not participate in federal hearings on social program reform. Denouncing the federal project, they said that they agreed with the Government of Quebec, that education was strictly a provincial matter.

Unanimously, Quebec university students opposed the federal reform. They condemned it saying, and I quote: "When they choose a country, students will remember that the federal government increased their tuition fees and their debt load against the will of Quebec".

Yesterday, the National Council of Welfare denounced the federal proposal to create two classes of unemployed, and urged the government not to widen any further the gap between rich and poor.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the minister go back to the drawing board. He said the reform was prompted by public opinion. Yes, Quebecers and Canadian want a reform, but not the one he proposes.

[English]

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the House about Bill C-51 and the grouping of motions 3, 7 and 8. I will start with Motion No. 3. This motion presented by the member for Vegreville is the result of complaints voiced by western producers, in particular special crop dealers. I understand that the purpose of this motion is to make it possible for elevator operators or grain dealers to be exempted from the obligation to hold a licence for selling or buying grain.

Before voting on the motion, we must consider the sections involved, as they appear in Bill C-51. According to what was explained to us, we understand that the amendment proposed by the bill is aimed at reinforcing the obligation to hold a licence. Bill C-51 clearly and explicitly prohibits the sale and purchase of grain without a licence. If a producer deals with an unlicensed merchant and if the latter goes bankrupt, the producer will receive no compensation from the CGC. Therefore, he does so at his own risk. The situation which led the CGC to include this provision in the bill could roughly be described as follows:

Certain new elevator operators are in the business of cleaning grain from special crops; their neighbours, too, find it practical to deal with them because they are closer and, possibly, because it is cheaper since they are not licensed, thus saving on license-related costs.

These costs can amount to as much as $20,000 a year. Eventually, the elevator operators offer to act as intermediaries for their customers and sell the grain they cleaned. It seems that there is some uncertainty in the act that would make this possible. This is why the government wants to go ahead and clarify this provision. The motion before us now would make it possible for small operators to be exempted from the obligation to hold a licence, thus allowing them to save the costs associated with such a licence.

At the present time, all elevator operators and traditional grain dealers hold a licence certifying that they meet CGC standards. The commission prohibits anyone without a licence from buying or selling grain. The CGC demands that licensees post bonds equal to the value of their highest monthly transactions. The reason for this is very simple. If they want to deal in grains, they have to prove that they have the financial capacity to do so.

There is a system of securities guaranteeing payment of delivered grains in the event of bankruptcy of the elevator operator or grain dealer. In the past, the CGC, and consequently taxpayers, had to pay for shipments made to two elevator operators who went bankrupt. The cost was $3.8 million. The motion by the hon. member for Vegreville would be especially worthwhile for special crops since the government intends to introduce a bill on that subject in the spring.

I suppose that we could then include a provision to that effect. What concerns me about the motion of the Reform Party is that it could lead to deregulation of the industry. With this motion, those who would apply for a licence exemption would get it unless the CGC proves that the elevator is not suitable for grain processing.

Given the cost of a licence, well-established companies, like Cargill, could ask to be exempted and the commission would be unable to refuse. Consequently, despite the underlying good intention of the motion, I must reject it because of the risk of deregulation.

As for Motions Nos. 7 and 8, grouped together, they puzzle me. They are mainly technical in nature. Lines 9 to 15 in clause 33, and clause 34 have been added to the bill to allow the CGC to change grade names more quickly. Removing these would block the process. I will therefore oppose the motion.

The confusion started in 1988 when the CGC wanted to be able to react more quickly when new grades were needed. An amendment allowing for the creation of grades and grade names by regulation was adopted in 1988. Although the amendment dealt only with grades and grade names, the approval of the Governor in Council was needed. From 1990 to 1993, the CGC used an invalid procedure to modify grades and grade names of grains. Prior to 1988, grades and grade names were specified in a schedule to the act and could be modified only by legislative amendment.

According to lawyers, a regulation made without Governor in Council approval cannot be implemented. The CGC did not see fit to have Sections 33 and 34 exempted from Governor in Council approval in order to speed up the process. Therefore, I will oppose the motion because we must abide by the law and also for the sake of efficiency.