House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.
Diplomats November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we have raised this question in this House before, but never got any real answers. That is why we are asking it again today.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain to Canadian taxpayers why he refuses to immediately put an end to this practice, which is unacceptable at a time when UI benefits are being cut back to replenish the state's coffers?
Diplomats November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadian diplomats are having the government pay for plane tickets that they do not use, and then getting refunds from the airline and pocketing the money. This practice is such that a diplomat posted to Australia with his family can derive benefits equivalent to one third of his annual pay by cashing in his plane tickets.
Given that his government is asking all Canadians to tighten their belts, how can the Minister of Foreign Affairs justify tolerating such an outrageous practice benefiting diplomats?
Government Review November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of the civil service depends on a close and frequent assessment of all of the government programs. Departments must ensure that their programs meet their original objectives. Also, they must ensure that the various departmental programs produce very good results, in the best possible way, and that they do no waste the taxpayers' money.
In his 1993 annual report, the auditor general made an assessment of the federal government programs which was very negative. He concluded that not only was the program assessment process seriously flawed, but also that only a quarter of federal expenditures had been reviewed between 1985-86 and 1991-92.
For over two years now, the official opposition has been calling for a comprehensive assessment of all federal programs. Also, for this assessment to be efficient, it must be transparent, which means that members of Parliament should be able to take part in it. As you know, only elected representatives are accountable to the people. The President of the Treasury Board told us today that, as elected representatives of the people, we have the right to be well informed on how the money is spent. But what have we seen since this government took office?
For example, the so-called program assessment undertaken by his colleague from Intergovernmental Affairs was done behind closed doors. At a finance committee hearing, the official opposition even asked the President of the Treasury Board to release the studies, especially those on duplication, made in connection with the program review.
At the time, the President of the Treasury Board referred us to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who refused to release them on the grounds that they were useful only to the policy makers. So much for transparency. We have to judge a government by its actions and results rather than by its rethoric.
I am afraid this new management culture that the President of the Treasury Board says he wants to put in place clashes with the policies the present government has been practising since it took office.
It is all fine and well for the President of the Treasury Board to preach and to say he wants to improve the federal program review, but the results will be disappointing as long as parliamentarians are denied access to the necessary information.
I mentioned duplication of services earlier. To be effective, every program review process must answer this very simple question: Who is doing what? Which level of government is best able to deal with various areas? The federal government said and still says that jurisdiction must be given to the level of government which is best able to deal with it. Again, we must ensure this is not only rethoric.
What is the every day reality since the present government took office? The reality is that the federal government is interfering increasingly in areas where the jurisdiction and legitimacy of Quebec and the provinces are absolutely clear. I will give you examples, passage of Bill C-76 and the issue of manpower training.
With Bill C-76, the federal government has given itself the powers to unilaterally impose national standards, particularly in the areas of post-secondary education and welfare, thus increasing useless duplication.
Even though all of Quebec's social and economic stakeholders agree that the Government of Quebec is the level of government which is in the best position and which is the most effective to deal with manpower training, the federal government refuses to withdraw from this sector with compensation.
A government is judged by its actions. The federal government's profoundly centralist philosophy prevents it from improving effectiveness in the public service. Instead of eliminating duplication and the waste by making a strict assessment-through an open and transparent process-of all of the federal programs, the federal
government has once again decided to send the bill to the provinces and limits its action to tabling yet another report.
Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I realize it is not important for the party in power to listen to the question because their answers never make sense.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us what concrete and substantial legislative measures his government has taken since the referendum to tackle what he calls the real problems of Canadians?
Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is that while they were creating jobs in the rest of Canada, Quebec was becoming the poorest province in Canada with its unemployed workers and its people living below the poverty line.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us-
Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
While travelling in New Zealand yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that his government's main concern is to deal with what he calls "the real problems of Canadians". Yet, federal ministers are unable to name a single major legislative measure taken by their government, simply because there has not been any. Instead of taking action, they are creating yet another committee.
Here is my question. While Canadians are faced with a growing poverty problem as the federal government keeps postponing reforms that will supposedly put the unemployed back to work, how can the government claim that setting up another ministerial committee will meet the real economic needs of Canadians?
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act November 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, when I had to break off my speech yesterday to let the House proceed with the Orders of the Day, I was discussing the actual impact of Bill C-88 and, more particularly, clause 9 of the bill.
The wording of clause 9 allows for a very broad interpretation. For instance, the federal government would be able to intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when it is not a party to the dispute.
Although the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of free trade and, in fact, we cannot do otherwise but support this concept, when a clause like this one gives the federal government sweeping powers, we must object to adopting the bill as tabled, or at least to the wording of clause 9. In fact, this clause could lend itself to two very different interpretations.
One interpretation could result in the federal government's giving itself powers, because of its obligation under the agreement to have the option to impose retaliatory measures, in the event and only in the event it becomes an aggrieved party. We believe clause 9 does not provide this. In fact, the first part of clause 9 reads as follows:
(1) For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order,-
So the federal government may intervene and impose a variety of measures, which I will not read in their entirety, but will simply summarize: suspend rights or privileges, modify the application of any federal law; extend the application of any federal law to a province or take any other measure it considers necessary.
As it stands, we could interpret the meaning. In the case where a party is found to be in the wrong, under the terms of article 1710 of the agreement, the federal government, whether it is a party to the dispute or not, will be entitled to impose retaliatory measures against the party in question. As we saw yesterday, the parties may be a province, the federal government or any third party with close ties to either the province or the federal government.
We also pointed out yesterday that, because of its spending power, the federal government was already meddling in many areas or activities that are strictly provincial in jurisdiction and already had considerable latitude because of the way the parties were defined. Because of the considerable latitude it already enjoys under the definition of "federal government", it would be superfluous to add more here and permit the federal government to intervene even when it is not an aggrieved party. We believe this interpretation is contrary to the intent of the agreement.
The agreement does not, in fact, provide that the federal government may impose retaliatory measures against an injuring party. It could do so only if it was recognized as an injured party in this dispute.
The second possible interpretation of this provision, and the one with which we might agree, is that if the federal government wanted to retaliate against a party at fault pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement, it could do so only as the injured party in the dispute.
If this is what this provision means, we might agree. However, since the wording may be ambiguous and leave room for interpretation, we would like to clarify this paragraph by amending it so that if the federal government is recognized as a party injured by a measure imposed by another party in violation of the agreement, the governor in council may, by order and pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement, take the measures as listed in clause 9. This is our first comment regarding clause 9.
Another point I wish to raise is that the range of retaliatory measures of which the federal government may avail itself pursuant to clause 9 of the bill is much too broad.
By giving itself the power to modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the province, to extend the application of any federal law to the province, or to take any other measure deemed necessary, the federal government is granting itself inordinate retaliatory powers that may affect the entire population of a province. The problem is that the federal government's legislative power affects all Canadians and that it already imposes laws on the provinces. These powers are denied to the provinces and we think in this case that, once again, this article could allow the federal government to impose its will on the provinces.
The federal government's retaliatory powers should be strictly limited to the trade areas already defined in the agreement. So, if we agreed on these restrictions, the federal government could no longer retaliate in social areas and go after the Canada social transfer, for example.
For the Bloc Quebecois, this is another way of looking at this article, which we regard as very important.
Finally, I would like to point out another controversial aspect of this bill. Clause 14 of this bill deals with the powers of appointment.
The governor in council may, by order, appoint any person to fill any position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the governor in council, for carrying out the purposes of the agreement.
Again, as in many other areas, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that these appointments should be ratified by the House of Commons instead of simply requiring an order of the governor in council. As in the case of appointments to several important boards, which are ratified by the House of Commons, we feel that-in this case involving billions of dollars in interprovincial trade subject to this act, this agreement-it is very important that all appointments be made public and subject to some scrutiny by the House. In fact, we ask that these appointments be made or suggested by the governor, but that they be systematically ratified by the House of Commons.
Those are the three points I wanted to raise with respect to clause 9.
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act November 1st, 1995
Madam Speaker, Bill C-88 deals with internal trade in Canada. The bill frequently refers to the Agreement on Internal Trade, which includes several hundreds, and even thousands of articles. Since Bill C-88 expressly refers to the agreement, it makes sense to give an overview of the bill and of the agreement itself.
The agreement includes six major parts: a general section on the major application principles; a section reaffirming constitutional rights; a section dealing with the definition of rules and general obligations; a section on the specific rules for the eleven sectors affected by the agreement; a section dealing with dispute settlement procedures; and, lastly, a section on exceptions.
The agreement is based on three general principles. The first one provides for similar treatment of persons, goods and services, regardless of their origin in Canada. The second principle concerns the harmonization of standards and regulations, so as to eliminate certain practices which could impede internal trade in our country. The third general principle provides that we must ensure the free movement of persons, goods and capital.
The articles of the agreement to which Bill C-88 refers are essentially those relating to the dispute settlement process. Articles 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 deal with the establishment, mandate and membership of the Committee on internal trade and its secretariat. The committee must, among other things, supervise the implementation of the agreement and facilitate the settlement of disputes.
Article 1705 is of particular interest. It concerns the appointment of a panel when disputes arise. The parties to a dispute may, after a period of mediation and conciliation, ask that a panel be established. This five-member panel must rule on the validity of the dispute and on the retaliation measures the aggrieved party is entitled to take. This article defines the phrase "one of the parties". According to the agreement, "a party" is a province or territory, or the federal government itself. The parties may act on behalf of natural or artificial persons, provided there is a direct and substantial link with them.
In the case of the provinces, it is said that a link exists with a person if this person resides in the province and if the losses suffered have economic consequences for the province. In the case of the federal government, a link is supposed to exist with a person if this person is federally incorporated or if it does business in an area of activity under federal jurisdiction. In this regard, we feel that the bill is very, even excessively, generous because, as we know, the federal government has a tendency to get involved in all areas of activity, and even to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Since, in this case, the federal government may be regarded as one of the parties and may even represent a person doing business in an area of activity under federal jurisdiction, we must proceed with caution. Otherwise, the federal government could become involved in all spheres of society, according to the proposed definition of its own role.
It must be clearly understood that the decisions of the special group are not binding, of course, but it does determine whether the measures in dispute are indeed contrary to the wording of the agreement and if they have caused prejudice.
In addition, the Committee must make recommendations to facilitate settlement of the dispute. And if the party concerned by the complaint does not comply with the recommendations of the special group, then Article 1710 applies, which sets out the sanctions which may be imposed upon the party affected by the complaint.
But the true scope of the bill is as follows: the primary objective of the bill is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. The Bloc has always been in favour of the liberalization of trade. The proof of this is that the Bloc and all other Quebec politicians, in particular the members of the Parti Québécois, had defended NAFTA. However, even if we agree in principle and support the principle behind this bill, we cannot accept the wording of clause 9 which permits a far broader interpretation, which might allow the government in Ottawa to intervene and impose retaliatory measures even when not a party to the dispute.
The federal government could interfere because it is said that each time a third party has some connection with the federal government or with an activity under federal jurisdiction-and as I was just saying, we are familiar with the federal propensity to horn in in all areas-then the federal level could be all-pervasive. This clause is far too broad for us to support.
According to the terms of the agreement, still in reference to this clause, the federal government shall equip itself with the possibility of imposing retaliatory measures where it might be the injured party. The wording of clause 9 of the bill, however, leads us to voice two serious objections.
The first is to the text, which reads in the first sentence of clause 9 as follows:
For the purpose of suspending benefits, or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following-
So here clause 9 of the bill allows the Governor in Council to "suspend rights and privileges granted to the province, modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to the province, extend the application of any federal law to the province or take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary".
Referendum Campaign October 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the alliances the hon. Leader of the Opposition was talking about were the alliances René Lévesque had had with the other provincial ministers before the night of the long knives. This is the sort of alliance the Leader of the Opposition was alluding to.
How does the minister explain that federal government managers were informed by telephone that they should allow their employees to go to Montreal after they signed an insurance form. Even this leave is paid by the government.
Referendum Campaign October 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.
The director general of elections for Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, criticized those offering paid holidays or lower priced tickets for demonstrations in connection with the referendum debate. According to him, it is making a mockery of the Referendum Act, it is a real expression of contempt. He went on to say that this sort of behaviour encourages civil disobedience.
How could the federal government itself contravene the Quebec Referendum Act by allowing subtle arrangements to be made for its employees to be away from work in order to go to a demonstration in Montreal without loss of salary?