Gilbert Fillion

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Some title!

You will agree that with sentences that long, without a single comma, we have no idea what this bill is supposed to do. Let us try to wade through all this verbiage and see what it all means. We are told that the proposed amendments have the effect of abolishing 271 positions to which appointments are made by the governor in council. This is absolutely ridiculous. The 261 positions mentioned are now vacant. There is no one filling those positions. There is no money to be saved. This is a lot of smoke and mirrors, nothing else.

People often forget that administrative tribunals are above all a court of first resort for the citizen, one of the initial levels where citizens can be heard. We have, for instance, the Employment Insurance Tribunal. If a citizen is dissatisfied with a decision made by a public servant, he can go before an arbitration board before filing an appeal at any other legal level.

There are a host of administrative tribunals that are creatures of the federal government. This bill confirms that many of them are useless, since the government proposes their outright abolition. Others will simply be reorganized, while the majority will not be affected.

So this bill does not cover all administrative tribunals. The government is just giving us a sample. This is not a thorough reform, nor is it an in-depth study of each tribunal.

If the government wants to preserve these administrative tribunals, as is the case here, it should have arranged for these authorities to play a real role. For instance, the Quebec government is also making an inventory of its arbitration boards and its administrative boards, but it is asking the real questions. The real questions are not being asked here, in other words, the independence and impartiality of judges and tribunals. Is the government asking these questions?

Certainly not. The present government prefers to hide its head in the sand instead of asking the real questions. Are the people in these positions really independent? That is one of the questions that keeps coming up in connection with the appointment of the people who sit on these tribunals. I will get back to that later on.

The bill creates a new mechanism to remove from office people sitting on these tribunals. This is a good thing. It is about time the

government realizes that some people it has appointed are simply unfit to sit on an administrative tribunal.

In fact, in a report on the future and mandate of the Canada Post Corporation recently tabled here in the House, under recommandation 28, the author said that the government should only appoint to the board of the Canada Post Corporation people having the necessary expertise and wherewithal to manage a company of that size.

This confirms that political appointments- there are close to 2,000 of them-are not suitable since the appointees are creatures of the government. They are being rewarded for services rendered.

With this bill, the government is establishing a process allowing the chair of an administrative tribunal to ask the minister in charge whether any member of the tribunal should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures. Of course, this can only be done on grounds such as infirmity, misconduct, failure to properly execute the office, and incompatibility.

We are led to believe that an in-depth inquiry will be held. But we are fully aware that once again it is the minister who will decide. We always go back to the same issue, because it all boils done to this: the independence and impartiality of decision-makers or lack thereof. How can these tribunals be impartial when already the question of appointments is creating a problem? It is having repercussions within the board.

A new provision of this bill also proposes a standard procedure for the appointment of chairpersons of administrative tribunals. It says that, from now on, chairpersons will be designated and not appointed.

Can someone in this House tell me the difference? This is only a charade, smoke and mirrors, pure and simple. Once again this will undermine the credibility of all administrative tribunals. In other words, administrative tribunals are patronage heaven. As the elders in my region used to say, they are «patronage heaven». We could have carried out a true reform of these tribunals or at least of the way they operate.

It is of the utmost importance that these bodies be at arm's length with the government. They are not. These tribunals must absolutely be totally independent from the government. How can that be when they are appointed by the government? We have to admit that these appointments serve as rewards for friends of the government.

You only have to look at the last Hill times ; you will find a full half-page, in very small print, of Liberal patronage designations or appointments, whichever way you chose to call them, a list of

members of the Liberal Party who now hold positions everywhere, in the Senate, MP offices and administrative tribunals. The list goes on and on.

Of course, when someone pays $1,000, $1,200 and up to $3,000 to attend a political event or dinner, one expects at one point, whether they be lobbyists or others, to get something in return. Are these famous administrative tribunals not a way to get something in return?

When these people must take major decisions that would embarrass the government-let us recall the last bill that was discussed earlier-might they not be tempted to go back, to step backwards, because they would have this sword of Damocles over their heads, which could bring about their removal from office?

These people might also be reluctant to develop a case law that would be favourable, for instance, to a particular citizen and, in taking this decision, they could penalize the government. In this structure, in this whole hierarchy, it is not easy for the ordinary individual to finally be heard.

Consequently, it is a measure that ensures the members of an administrative tribunal would be much more inclined to thank whomever appointed them. Of course, if someone embarrasses the government, he will be fired. Let us remember the maxim that says: "Do not bite the hand that feeds you." I think it applies in this case.

The government is going the wrong way with its Bill C-49, because it simply refuses to deal with the thrust of the matter, which is the appointment of people. The government must stop making appointments once for all. I am puzzled at the favouritism it is showing. When I was elected in 1993, some of my constituents came to tell me how there was favouritism in the appointment of some administrative tribunals. Since we were under the Conservative government, we saw a number of heads roll afterwards. They were rolling all over the place and in all the ridings ofof Quebec.

Changes were even made to mandates, as in proceedings before the Federal Court for instance. There were changes in counsel, changes in government, changes in the make-up of administrative tribunals. That is what parliamentary life is all about. Do not come and tell me that there is no connection between those in power and these individuals. As I said and as we know full well, these appointments are made to reward the friends of the government. There are several examples of this.

New returning officers were just appointed by Elections Canada in the various ridings. Just by chance, a former Liberal member was appointed in my riding. What a coincidence. No one will have me believe that this person will be able to remain totally impartial in the performance of his duties.

Looking at other appointments in neighbouring ridings, I realized that the same thing happened there. They have appointed all over the place Liberal candidates defeated in the last election, and God knows there were many Liberal candidates defeated in Quebec. Just take a look at The Hill Times . We would have to be blind not to see that these people will not be able to carry out their duties with all due impartiality.

There is another concern, which we have experienced in this place as a matter of fact. The House will recall how those in charge of taking the census were appointed recently. That was done just recently. The government simply interfered with the process at Statistics Canada by sending its priority list. Do not come and tell me that the purpose of Bill C-49 is a sound reform of administrative tribunals. Patronage is the Liberal government's trademark, but we must not think that the Conservatives are any better. Nothing changes, except the patronage appointees, when one government goes out and a new one comes in.

With this bill, the government retains control over all appointments. This kind of flies in the face of the basic principles of democracy, which are usually the impartiality and independence of administrative tribunals. One could naturally question the legitimacy of certain tribunals. I will address it later or another member of my party will complete my remarks.

Since you are signalling that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I believe this bill should be defeated without further ado. I request the unanimous consent of the House for tabling the following motion:

That Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other acts, having been passed by the Liberal majority of this House at second reading, be referred to every standing committee of the House of Commons dealing with an administrative tribunal covered by the bill.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this bill. I would like to start by saying that I fully support the amendments presented previously by the hon. member for Laurentides. The Bloc Quebecois had many good reasons for wanting to postpone third reading of the bill.

Since the government has decided otherwise, we will continue the debate. Manganese is an additive that we get mainly from our neighbours to the South, the United States. Now if it were produced in Canada, in Ontario, for instance, would the government have spent so much energy on trying to ban it? I wonder.

The government says that this bill represents a serious threat to public health. It also says that it may cause serious damage to antipollution devices on cars, and third, it has confirmed that it must harmonize its policies with those of the United States.

I may remind the government that we now have an agreement on the free circulation of goods. I also realize that the Minister of the Environment is under enormous pressure. There is a very strong lobby, I agree. But who are these people who are putting pressure on the minister? Who are they? Auto manufacturers? Friends of the government? Other people, other companies, including car manufacturers who think that this product damages antipollution devices?

However, many studies have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that manganese can even be beneficial to the environment. It has been scientifically proven that it helps reduce emission levels of nitrogen dioxide, which causes urban smog, by up to 20 per cent.

And we all know that nitrogen dioxide is itself harmful to the environment and to the health of Quebecers and Canadians. In

other words, by passing this bill, we are helping to destroy our environment and consequently endangering the health of our constituents.

In fact, this bill also increases emissions of nitrogen oxide. The effect would be the same if all of a sudden we increased the number of cars on our highways by several hundred thousand. We can imagine the harm that would do.

If the government thinks it is deleterious to our health, then why is the health department not drafting a bill to ban it outright? Asking the question is answering it, as this government is unable to prove, scientifically or otherwise, that this product is harmful.

In my opinion, there is only one real reason why the government has introduced this bill: protectionism. As several of us in this House have pointed out, we must keep in mind that manganese can be replaced with ethanol. Through this bill, the government is protecting ethanol producers, most of whom are based in Ontario and western Canada. Protectionism is one of the reasons why the government has introduced this bill.

Let us not forget either that, in 1994, the then Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health had taken position on this issue. They were very well positioned. Did they not put forward a development program favouring ethanol production? This program was financed to the tune of $70 million. Can these previous commitments suddenly be set aside? No, we are stuck with them.

Having taught mathematics for several years, I think of this as a very simple equation: Ontario ministers plus proposed ethanol plants in Ontario equals the bill before us today. It is that simple.

What about the $275 million lawsuit filed by Ethyl Corporation, an American company that produces manganese? Ethyl claims that this is a violation of NAFTA. Do we as Canadians have so much money that we can afford not to take this lawsuit seriously? Did the Minister of the Environment take the time to consult with his legal advisors on this lawsuit matter before going any further with his project? At a time when this government is making cuts in social programs and the health sector, in the Canada social transfer, I think this is serious enough a matter to consider before passing this bill.

I have another concern relating directly to the bill. The government must take the opinions of the provinces into account. If it asks the provinces for their opinions, it is only natural that it take these opinions into account at some point. But it is a well known fact-this is nothing new, not just since we came here-that the federal government does not respect the provinces. In fact, it is an old habit of theirs, in almost every area.

They are not acting any differently in this matter as in others. It is no secret, the point was made over and over that six of the ten provinces strongly oppose this bill and demand that it be withdrawn.

Once again, interprovincial trade is threatened. The provinces had their say, but this government, the federal government, is a centralizing government. That is nothing new either. We must not pass blindly legislation dealing with the health of Quebecers and Canadians and their environment. We must have all the facts we need to ensure that this government bill truly protects those it is intended to protect, that is to say the public as a whole.

The government must not listen only to powerful lobbyists. It must be more open than that. As I said earlier, the minister's decision to go ahead is not based on any scientific facts. It is imperative that the government redo its homework because the homework handed in by the Minister of the Environment is full of mistakes.

While the government redoes its homework on this bill, we could take a look at all the consequences this bill may have.

I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of reconsidering the Bill in its entirety."

[Canada Post Corporation, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, but I first want to thank the minister, even though we have been waiting for this report for two months.

Now that the report will be tabled, will the minister pledge to immediately hold a public debate on the issue, so as to follow up on the content of this report?

[Canada Post Corporation, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.

On July 31, the minister received copy of the report prepared by the committee on the Canada Post Corporation, commonly called the Radwanski report. Earlier, the Standing Committee on Government Operations had passed a motion asking to obtain a copy of this report within five days of its submission to the minister.

My question is very simple. Why, more than two months after receiving copy of the report, does the minister refuse to give a copy of this document to the government operations committee, as she had pledged to do?

[Child Care, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this morning. Before I begin, I must clarify the motion of my Reform colleague. On the one hand, the Reform party wants the government not to spend any more public money on non-parental daycare, in other words to keep the funds earmarked for it at the same, limited, level. We must bear this point in mind. On the other hand, they want all of the existing expenditures for child care to be used to subsidize parents rather than institutions and professionals.

As for the first aspect, all provinces will agree that the money currently being spent on daycare is insufficient. Now that we are aware of the situation families are facing, these sums ought to be raised considerably in order to provide quality services. Most definitely, choices must be made. Should this money go directly to parents, or to a daycare system that is already in place and monitored?

We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that, at this time, the daycare system already in place-which is of course, as I have said, under-funded-ought to be improved. This is the way to go to provide better services to children.

I will take a closer look at the concept of having child care funding go directly to subsidize parents, rather than to institutions and professionals. My Reform colleague may think that this motion is the solution to all of the problems of insufficient daycare spaces. Not so.

Even this government, the Liberal government, managed to sell the public during its 1993 campaign on its plan to increase the number of daycare spaces, a promise they have not yet been able to keep-nor will they before the next elections.

Proposing such a motion indicates a very poor understanding of the problems faced by parents who have to work.

The problem will not be solved by giving the money directly to the parents. On the contrary, I think this would only make the problem worse. At this time, our child care centres are effective and provide an important service to parents who rely on them to care for their children.

There are different types of child care. There are both public and private facilities, as well as small centres caring for fewer than nine children in residential neighbourhoods in each of our municipalities. These centres offer an ongoing presence and promote child development. In fact, their activities are focused on the social development of their small charges.

Child care centres do not serve only the parents who, for various reasons, choose to send their children there. They also help other parents who must turn to them on a periodic basis because they work or go to school, or because of illness in the family.

In Quebec, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As we know, the federal government transfers money to Quebec so it can run the child care network. The hitch in all this is that, in transferring this money, the federal government sets certain conditions the Quebec government must meet.

As you probably guessed, I would like the federal government to completely withdraw from this area of jurisdiction and authorize the transfer of tax points directly to the provinces, which will then

be able to set up the system they want. If the federal government insists on continuing to transfer money without giving us the tax points, it should stop imposing so-called national standards that simply confuse the issue.

To help parents and the child care network, the Quebec government gives the money to the child care centres themselves for certain reasons. First, it helps preserve the quality of services. This approach assures parents their children will be in an environment that will allow them to develop normally.

Quebec's child care centres must meet certain standards and undergo inspections by a monitoring agency to ensure that these standards are being maintained.

If, as the Reform motion suggests, the money were given directly to parents, would the exact same level of service be provided? Of course, it is another option, but would controls be available? Why change something that is working well as it is?

If we really want to make child care more like that provided by the parents, we could draw inspiration from the child care project underway in my riding, where a not-for-profit organization offers home day care services in rural areas. The services are provided under the supervision of an agency which, as I just said, is a not-for-profit organization. The purpose is not to make money, but to make sure the services parents are entitled to are available everywhere. Visits can be made to these homes to ensure the children are receiving the services they are entitled to. As I said earlier, existing day care centres promote the social development of children. They do more than that: they teach these children how to live in society.

As we all know, today, families have few children, often a single child. In this context, daycare centres will a void. They focus their action on the modern family concept.

I think that the social integration of children should be fostered from a very early age and that daycare centres are one way of achieving this. This is a place where young children can prepare for entering the school world. If we think back to this time of our lives, we will remember that it was not always easy. Daycare centres play a role in helping children and, indirectly, their parents. As far as I am concerned, daycare centres are useful, efficient and necessary.

The problem, of course, is the lack of day care spaces. Unable to meet the promise it made in 1993 to create day care spaces, this government will have to review its position on this issue as well as on social housing. In fact, it has taken the same approach to day care as it did to social housing, completely withdrawing financial support. There is indeed a need for daycare centres.

My hon. friends from the Reform Party are headed in the wrong direction with this motion we have before us today. There is also a danger. Subsidizing parents could create a new problem: parents could use the money for themselves, as it will certainly happen. Not everyone will do it, but some parents might use the money to hire people who are not always qualified for this type of work. Such an arrangement would also promote moonlighting. As we know, no level of government can currently afford such schemes. Governments are trying to stop clandestine work in other areas, but to bypass the daycare structure would actually open the door to such activity.

Hiring a good person to look after the children is probably a parent's primary concern. Sometimes though, mistakes can be made. Sometimes, people do not have the proper qualifications to do the job. People who work through the daycare system are, of course, paid a salary. This salary is taxed, which means it is easier to monitor the situation.

Moreover, daycares often provide support for single-parent families which, as we have often said it this House, are usually headed by the mother. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that, more often than not, these women have to rely on social assistance. Therefore, they must have access to quality services.

However, I think there is room for improvement in daycare services. A lingering problem in my region is that few daycares take into account the needs of parents who work in the evening, at night and on weekends. We must absolutely look at this issue and provide services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. This is an improvement that must be made as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, Reformers are again headed in the wrong direction, because daycares come under provincial jurisdiction. If the Reform Party wants to do something about this issue, it should team up with the Bloc Quebecois to ask the federal government to completely withdraw from this area, and to pay fair compensation to the provinces. The federal government is far from taking this position.

During the federal-provincial conference held in September 1995, the federal minister even went so far as to say he was prepared to co-operate with the provinces, provided that-

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to clear up some misconceptions. At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member gave us the historical background of the judicial review, but forgot to mention certain things. Indeed, the judicial review came into force in 1976, when the Trudeau government wanted the death penalty to be abolished. That much is true.

But why was the judicial review established at that time? To ensure a majority to vote in favour of the death sentence. That is why in 1976 the government tried to amend what is contained in Bill C-45. To get the votes. It is important to understand how things stood at the time. There was a little bargaining going on at that time, one vote on one thing for a vote on another thing. I will give you this if you give me that. In politics, that is essentially what the Liberals do regularly: "Vote for me and I will vote for you some other time".

As for the present legislation and the three proposed amendments, it is obvious that, despite the rhetoric we just heard, these three provisions will not improve the legislation.

Let us take, for example, the first amendment, which requires unanimity instead of the support of two thirds of the jury. If one member of the jury says no, the judicial review application will be rejected. The Bloc Quebecois has proposed changes to these amendments, which were brought forward by my colleagues at second reading.

The second amendment concerns the removal of the right of multiple murderers to apply for judicial review. This amendment is totally arbitrary and unfair. I think we could have focused on these words instead of relating facts that we continuously read about in the newspapers.

As for the third amendment, will it increase access? This amendment will restrict access to the judicial review. It will become practically impossible for anybody to use it. We have suggested that this whole issue be sent back to committee for further study.

Here is the question I want to ask my colleague: Is he willing to defend this bill before his caucus, to send it back to committee and to stop relying on the emotional reactions that this bill has created because it was introduced in the House following certain events?

Therefore, why not suggest that his caucus do a more detailed study, and, in particular, that ordinary Canadians, who could give this bill more credibility, be consulted?

In closing, I would tell him this: The public would be happy to have its say on this amendment to the act. I would also tell him that using this bill to play politics is political opportunism and not the best way to ensure a good bill.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I will answer this: When we want to change things, when we want to improve things, we have to work within the system, to discuss, to negotiate.

During this Parliament, committees operate in a way they never did before. So there is room for improvement and there is still time to act.

Now, as far as the Bloc Quebecois' role as official opposition is concerned, I must say that it plays that role fully, on top of its mandate, which is to defend the interests of Quebecers. Whenever the interests of Quebecers are at stake, we have solutions to suggest, we question the government, whatever the subject, whether it concerns what happened in Somalia, what is happening on the job creation front, what is going on with respect to family trusts or what is going on in the different committees.

In the committees, there are certain stands with which the Bloc Quebecois disagrees. On such occasions, we criticize and play our role as official opposition fully.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here right from the beginning of this debate, and I have to admit I have not been able to understand what Reform members are driving at. What do they want?

None of them has been able to describe the kind of democracy they would like to see here.

But I did understand one thing. Reform members are unable to adjust to the system. Whether we work here, in the Canadian Parliament, in a workers' union, in a school, or a hospital, there is always a system that cannot be ignored. It is needed if we are to avoid constant strife and futile discussions, to avoid having to do without an established order. Under such conditions, it is extremely difficult to reach a consensus.

It is a well known fact that Reform members have a hard time agreeing among themselves. Just imagine the problem they have living within the system as it now stands.

To make things change, one must work from within the system. That is the way to improve it.

I have to admit that I sometimes have a hard time accepting what goes on in committee. I sat on the public accounts committee, which is chaired by the official opposition. The chairman did an outstanding job, I have to say. He did not try to give preference to the official opposition during the proceedings. Instead, he tried to stick to existing criteria.

Since the chairman of the public accounts committee was a member of our party, I would obviously have liked to have preferential treatment and to get a little more time during the proceedings. But we followed the rules on allocation of time in committee.

There is room for improvement in the committees, and some procedures could also be improved. However, did Reform members make any constructive suggestions in that regard? In any case, in the committees I sit on, and especially in the government operations committee, I never saw nor heard any Reform member try to improve our operations. This is not to say that everything is perfect, far from it, but within the committee everyone is allowed to express one's view.

Problems can arise when the time comes to table in the House a report on a committee; there too there might be room for greater information and above all improvement.

All committee members should be able to talk to each other, to have certain discussions, instead of constantly complaining that nothing works. This is how to improve things.

As we know, the Reform Party wanted to change Canada. Let us look at what it has been doing for the last three years. In my opinion, it has not succeeded in changing much, except, as I heard the hon. member for Vancouver North say this morning, for turning the House into a spectacle, into a farce.

I do not have to go back very far. Since the House resumed its work this week, what has happened here? We got to hear the same old stories, stories that took up a lot of the time of the House, that

kept members away from dealing with the real problems Canadians have. They used anything and everything to make a spectacle of this House.

We avoided true debate on job creation. We avoided talking about family trusts. Those are the issues people want to hear about. I find this morning's debate pointless. Why is this issue being raised again? Why challenge the Bloc Québécois' legitimacy as the official opposition and refuse to go by the rules of the Canadian parliamentary system? The voice of democracy has been heard.

It is as a result of a democratic process, namely the last election, that the Bloc Quebecois, which has been mandated to protect the interests of all Quebecers in this House and has, until now, fulfilled its mandate in an honourable and dignified manner, became the official opposition. Why is its legitimacy always put in question by the same people, the same political party?

I can understand that there is some frustration, but at one point they have to get over that kind of frustration. They have to roll up their sleeves and get to work. I think that is still beyond the Reform Party. Why lose time on a pointless debate on procedure, that means nothing to Canadians, that will not change the way things are done and that will bring no improvements whatsoever, when we have so much to do?

Of course, they will blame it all on the separatists. But that is not the case. In committee, we have constantly made suggestions to the government, ever since it was elected in 1993, and we will continue to do so. We want to represent with dignity the people who elected us, my constituents and each and every Quebecer. That is how things should be done. If something needs to be corrected, we should go through the existing channels, make suggestions, hold discussions and things will improve.

Let me conclude by asking the following question: What have the members of the Reform Party done to improve the system? In my view, not a thing. I agree with my party's whip. So, "until the next time".

[The Flooding In The Saguenay, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on July 19 and 20, the Mauricie, North Shore, Charlevoix and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean regions were hit by disastrous floods. Some people lost their lives, and extensive material damage was sustained throughout the area, as roads and bridges were washed out and homes, businesses and industries were severely damaged if not completely destroyed.

We must draw attention to the exceptional courage shown by the victims. They are working very hard to rebuild their homes and their region.

Their courage found its strength in the solidarity shown not only by Quebecers but also by many Canadians. On behalf of all the flood victims, I wish to extend my warmest thanks to all those who put generosity first.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, once again, to be very very clear, of course, Quebec will not intrude in the decisions Newfoundland will have to make.

We will not intrude in these decisions, because it is for the province to make its decisions. What we are asking is for minority rights to be totally protected.

You never took into account the law of the majority when you were on the other side, my dear colleague.