Pierre De Savoye

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment is quite relevant. We can pass all the legislation we want. That is quite easy. We can discuss bills, pass them, and say they should be enforced. But if officials are deprived of the financial and material resources and the infrastructure they need, they will not be able to enforce the legislation adequately.

The fact is that the environment has not been a priority for this government, despite all it can say. We have to admit Kyoto has not been the resounding success Canada could have shared in as a full partner. It got involved at the last minute and played a lacklustre role, which comes as no surprise, since we do not meet our environmental goals, particularly concerning greenhouse gas emissions. We are well behind our stated objectives.

I hope that we will someday stop dragging our feet. Quebec wants to go ahead and does not want to be restricted by a federal bureaucracy that has not served its interests too well, generally. Quebec has already all it takes to assume full responsibility in this area.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I can well understand the concerns of my hon. colleague. His concerns are healthy and justified. If we use such reasoning, however, are we to conclude that, because acid rain from the United States will affect Quebec's lakes, trees and farms, the Canadian legislation should also look to seeing that the United States does its duty properly? But no, we understand very well that some states will not take their responsibilities seriously enough.

Then steps will have to be taken to encourage them to do so, as Quebec and Canada have done with our American neighbours, in order to raise their awareness of such things as their acid gas emissions which are carried onto Quebec territory by a combination of winds, clouds and rain. Like it or not, the prevailing winds carry acid rain to Quebec. Our maple syrup producers have had problems, as their trees were affected. Our lakes have suffered, and lime has had to be added to allow fish to live in them.

Quebec and Canada have made representations to the Americans, who have seen to it that corrective measures have been put in place. There is much still to be done, mind you, but at least they have finally taken their duty as a government to heart. I am sure that a province like Ontario, rich and responsible as it is, is in a position to shoulder responsibility, provided it knows that no one else is going to.

You will note that Quebec does not necessarily want exclusive control over environmental issues on its territory. It wants greater power, a priority. It does, however, admit that pooled efforts, a partnership with the rest of Canada, since we must call a spade a spade, would be highly desirable. As a matter of fact, such partnership should eventually apply to every NAFTA country in order to have uniform environmental standards so that all industries and businesses are equally respectful of the environment, and provide for environmental impacts in their production costs, thus enabling them to sell their products at competitive prices while respecting the environment.

In short what we are talking about here is bringing environmental responsibilities closer to the decision making centres that are in the best position to assume them. Ottawa will not be able to tell Mexico how to deal with its environmental problems. Mexicans will be able to do it themselves. We must talk, in a respectful manner, and, in this regard, Quebec with its environment ministry and the necessary infrastructure to protect the environment is in a very good position to play an important role. Essentially, this is what Mr. Bégin, the Quebec minister said, and this is what I have ever so humbly repeated.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak this afternoon to Bill C-32, a bill that aims to prevent pollution and protect the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

We will recall that, on December 15, 1995, the Liberal government proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the government's response to the fifth report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.

This report set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the federal government's main legislative measure on environmental protection.

The Bloc's position on this report was as follows: most of the recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the federal government in environmental protection matters. I quote what the Bloc said at the time:

The Bloc Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and contends that the environment would be better served if responsibility for its protection were given to one level of government only. The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude significant agreements with national and international partners and have indicated their desire to find solutions to environmental challenges and to contribute actively to sustainable development.

Bill C-32 was introduced at first reading on March 12, 1998. It is designed to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This bill, formerly Bill C-74, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament, provides for a five year review, and time has already expired. I also remind the House that this is a promise contained in the Liberal red book.

With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national objective. This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Among other changes are provisions to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements with respect to substances that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health have determined to be toxic. The list of these substances is very extensive.

The bill provides new powers for investigators and new mechanisms for the resolution of a contravention. It also specifies criteria for courts to consider for sentencing. In addition, like the provinces and territories, aboriginal governments are provided the right of representation on the national advisory committee.

While, in theory, Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces, in reality, this bill does not delegate any power to any province, including Quebec, which, of course, is contrary to what true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government should be.

Bill C-32 is designed to reinforce the federal government's supremacy with regard to environmental protection. Therefore, this bill opens the door to a duplication of federal and provincial powers. On this subject, the government even dares to hide behind the last ruling concerning the environment made by Ottawa's very own leaning tower of Pisa, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.

This leaning tower of Pisa considered a case involving Hydro-Quebec. I remind the House that this case has always been challenged by Quebec and that all the various courts who heard the case, including the Quebec Court of Appeal, concluded that the federal order was not valid. Only the Supreme Court of Canada, this leaning tower of Pisa, in its vision of unity, overruled the rulings made by Quebec courts.

Bill C-32 contains a number of new items. For example, it replaces the federal-provincial committee provided for in the current legislation with a new national advisory committee. This committee is made up of a representative from Environment Canada, one from Health Canada, one from each province and territory and up to six native representatives.

It will advise both federal ministers on the development of regulations, the management of toxic substances and other issues of mutual interest. The provinces will advise the federal minister through this national advisory committee. In fact, the bill provides for co-operation agreements on such activities as inspections, investigations and the gathering of information for monitoring purposes.

The bill includes provisions for native governments, which will enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as the provincial and territorial governments, including the right to sign administrative work-sharing agreements and equivalency agreements with the federal government. Native governments will also have to be consulted over environmental issues affecting their territory. Up to six representatives will sit on the national advisory committee.

The bill also provides for better public participation and better protection for those who report violations of the law. These individuals will be able to take part in the decision making process by submitting to the environment minister comments or notices of objection following some decisions and to ask the minister to investigate alleged violations of the act.

These individuals can ask that their names not be disclosed. The legislation will protect employees who report violations of the federal legislation. Under the bill, individuals will be able to bring action for damage to the environment when the federal government is not enforcing the legislation.

With regard to public information, the law will no longer be limited to data published in the Canada Gazette . The law will create a new public registry containing all the environmental information published under the act such as rulings and regulations. This registry will supplement the National Pollutant Release Inventory set up in 1993.

As for prevention of pollution, it will become a national goal. The bill creates the authority to request pollution prevention plans in respect of substances listed as toxic under the act. Courts will be able to request pollution prevention plans or emergency environmental plans and research on the environmentally friendly use and elimination of the substances involved in the alleged offence.

The new act also creates a national pollution prevention information clearing house, which will enable the industry to share its expertise and technical know-how with respect to pollution prevention activities. Moreover, the new act provides for the setting up of a reward program recognizing the industry's voluntary efforts to prevent pollution.

With regard to biotechnological products, the bill creates a federal safety net and the authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of biotechnology for environmental purposes.

Regarding clean water, the bill seeks to protect the marine environment from land-based or airborne sources of pollution. It is also aimed at limiting what can be disposed of at sea by listing harmless materials; people wishing to carry out disposals at sea will have to prove it is the best solution possible and that what is to be disposed of in such a manner cannot be reused or recycled.

The federal government feels that the bill will allow co-operation with the United States and other countries in order to prevent or limit transborder marine pollution.

Bill C-32 will also increase the power of the government to regulate fuels and fuel additives. Imported fuels and fuels crossing provincial and territorial boundaries will have to meet certain requirements. The bill will give the government the authority to establish national fuels marks, thereby identifying those that meet the environmental criteria.

As far as international air pollution is concerned, the government wants to treat other countries the way Canada itself is treated. Should a country not give Canada rights similar to those granted to that country by Canada, the federal minister may intervene in the event of international air pollution.

To protect the atmosphere, Bill C-32 provides for the establishment of national marks for emissions meeting the standards. It contains provisions to limit emissions from motor vehicles in general, including pleasure craft, construction equipment, farm machinery, snow blowers and lawn mowers.

Also, the bill gives the federal government more control over the transborder movement of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, including household garbage.

I would now like to deal with this bill in regard to the environmental harmonization agreement, which is a crucial issue.

I would like to remind the House of certain facts. On January 29, 1998, Quebec refused to sign the environmental harmonization agreement proposed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. During the meeting of the council, Quebec environment minister Paul Bégin refused to sign the agreement until the federal government agreed to meet the conditions set by Quebec.

Those conditions include recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the provinces by the Constitution, the firm commitment by the federal government to pass the legislative amendments required, and of course the adoption by Quebec and the federal government of a bilateral agreement on environmental assessments.

I would like to quote from the January 29, 1998 press release by the Quebec Minister of the Environment:

Minister Bégin also stressed that the declared intentions of the federal government as to the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which review would lead to a significant increase in federal powers, contravene the spirit and objectives of the environmental harmonization negotiation process, particularly that of preventing duplication and intergovernmental disputes.

This position of Minister Bégin reinforced the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting report of December 1997. I will remind the House that, in its dissenting report, the Bloc Quebecois opposed the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development regarding environmental harmonization.

Hon. members will recall that on November 20, 1996, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed in principle with the Canada-wide environmental harmonization agreement and with two subsidiary agreements on inspections and standards.

The subsidiary agreement on environmental assessments was negotiated during the winter of 1997. This agreement was to enhance environmental protection in a sustainable development context, while respecting each government's jurisdiction, in a more effective way. It was to have contained the general principles to be implemented more specifically through subsidiary agreements.

The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between the federal and provincial governments when it would serve to eliminate administrative and legislative overlap and duplication between two levels of government. We therefore supported environmental harmonization so long as it did not serve to screen the federal government's continued meddling in provincial jurisdictions.

Harmonization must recognize the provinces' exclusive or at least primary jurisdiction in areas accorded them under the Constitution. The spirit of harmonization should be felt on the amendments the government will make to existing legislation.

The committee also made a number of recommendations. I will refer to a number of them.

The committee first recommended that ratification of the agreement and the three subsidiary agreements be postponed, first until all documents—the agreement and the 10 subsidiary agreements proposed—were available so the public would have a real opportunity to contribute and, second, until the committee's concerns and recommendations had been fully considered.

As we can see, there is already a little problem there. As for Recommendation No. 5, the committee recommended that the consensus requirement in the agreement and subsidiary agreements be replaced with a two-thirds majority vote.

With respect to these two recommendations, the Bloc Quebecois said it believed it was premature for the federal government and the provinces to endorse the harmonization agreement and subsidiary agreements and for the committee to report to the House of Commons because we had not had the opportunity to observe any real desire on the part of the Liberal government to harmonize with the other provinces.

The Bloc Quebecois expressed the opinion that it might be better to wait until the endangered species bill, the fisheries bill and the Canadian environmental protection legislation had been introduced. The Bloc Quebecois added that we would be able to fully assess the harmonization agreement when considering these bills.

Before considering any new subsidiary agreements, the Bloc Quebecois indicated it might be best for the federal government and the provinces to deal first with the three existing agreements on environmental assessment, inspection and standards. In addition, we proposed that the agreements be ratified by a unanimous vote instead of a two-thirds majority vote.

I would also like to touch on Recommendation No. 9. The committee recommended that a provision be included in the environmental assessment agreement stating that it will not require any changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The subsidiary agreement should also specify that the objectives and requirements of the environmental assessment should meet the strictest standards and should meet or exceed the prescribed objectives and requirements.

This recommendation was contrary to the principles of the general agreement, which states that governments may change their respective legislation as required.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois believed that only the Quebec environmental assessment process should be applied in Quebec. The federal government's willingness to achieve harmonization was supposed to be reflected in the legislation, and we considered that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption, did not reflect this spirit of legislative harmonization between the federal government and the provinces. On the contrary, we thought it was another intrusion by the federal government in an area under provincial jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois was of the opinion that several recommendations in the Liberal majority report were contrary to Quebec's historic positions in the area of federal-provincial harmonization and that recent interference by the federal government did not respect the spirit of the accord.

What the Bloc Quebecois deplores is that the federal government refuses to transpose in the legislation its good intentions with regard to environmental harmonization and chooses instead to hide behind the centralizing screen of our own leaning tower of Pisa, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois, although very concerned with environmental issues, cannot support this bill.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Taxes are important. Everyone pays them, or at least everyone should. Of course, no one has to pay more than the law requires but, at the same time, the law should require that everyone make a just and reasonable effort.

Bill C-28 is a complex bill. It contains hundreds of clauses. It affects all sorts of provisions. It is a bill that, by and large, is in the public interest.

Unfortunately, it contains one clause, just one, that we have a problem with and that is clause 241. Others before me have pointed this out, and I am going to look at it as well. Between you and me, we are not going to pull any punches.

The situation is this: in accordance with his role and responsibility, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill. He sponsored it. The Minister of Finance must be above all suspicion. There should never be a situation in which anyone could think that the Minister of Finance was trying to use legislation to derive personal benefit.

And I most certainly want to believe that the Minister of Finance is above any suspicion, and is not trying to derive any such benefit.

But there is a problem with clause 241. The Minister of Finance owns Canada Steamship Lines. This is a large company, and the Minister of Finance is fortunate indeed to be the sole owner of this major company.

He put the company into a trust so as not to be able to intervene directly in its affairs and derive any benefit. That is all very well. It is indeed the normal and expected procedure to follow.

However, the Minister of Finance knows full well that the trustee of the Canada Steamship Lines, the company he owns, has not sold the shares to buy some woodlot. He did not sell the shares to buy a bus company. The Minister of Finance knows very well that he is still, through the trustee, the owner of his shipping company.

Companies with ships registered offshore stand to benefit financially from section 241, through a tax reduction. The Minister of Finance, through his trustee, is very much aware of the fact that his fleet is partially or totally registered offshore. The minister or his trustee used to his advantage some of the provisions already in the legislation, under which ships registered offshore somehow have less tax payable here in Canada.

I still find it a little strange that the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of taxing all Quebeckers and all Canadians, corporations and citizens, would shelter his company through existing fiscal provisions. It may be ludicrous, but it is legal.

Where the plot thickens is when section 241 is amended to allow shipping companies that meet specific criteria, just as that of the Minister of Finance does—to enjoy additional tax benefits.

Mind you, there are not that many shipping companies in Canada. If section 241 was giving some tax benefit to convenience stores and if the finance minister happened to own one, through a trust company, I would say that he will indeed get some benefit, but that so many store owners will get it too that he has certainly not done this just for his own sake.

I am not suggesting here that the finance minister has done this just for himself. But it does look kind of odd, and even more so because since the beginning of February, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the finance minister, in a respectful way, with courtesy but also with determination, to clear up all manner of doubt on the risk of conflict of interest as far as section 241 is concerned.

We never got an answer from him. The Prime Minister himself jumped to his feet to tell us he trusts his finance minister. I should hope so. We should not expect anything less.

But you have to agree with me that this is not good enough to make Canadians believe everything is just fine. If the rules in our code of ethics provided that a minister should avoid all conflict of interest situations or that he should have the confidence of the Prime Minister, it would be all right because that is what the rules say.

But the real code of ethics does not say that. It says that a minister should avoid not only actual but also apparent conflicts of interest. That is the rule. What does the Prime Minister's confidence in his finance minister have to do with this? It is all very fine for him to trust his minister, but it would be much better if everybody could trust him.

Why does the finance minister refuse to shed light on this? Why does he not give us all the facts? Why does he hide behind the Prime Minister? Why does he not give all the information to the House and the media?

We have a problem. We asked that clause 241 be withdrawn from the bill, which would have allowed us to pass the rest of the bill with much less reluctance and then to deal with clause 241 on its merits. But this was all put in the same package. The Liberals put in the whole cake something that looks like a rotten fruit. Do they think I will eat this cake? Do they think that the Bloc Quebecois will eat this cake?

We will have to vote against the whole bill because of these few lines that let the worst suspicions hang over the finance minister. Perhaps he has a good explanation. The Prime Minister may be right to have confidence in his finance minister, but why not give us the evidence to support this confidence? In the absence of such evidence, all bets are off, not only for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, not only for the opposition members, but also for the members opposite, and especially for the people of Quebec and Canada.

As we all know, this kind of thing erodes people's confidence in the government machinery, in Parliament itself. Why are the Prime Minister and the finance minister not taking the opportunity today in this House to clarify the situation and restore confidence?

I will not be able to vote in favour of the bill before us because of the potentially rotten fruit in this cake poisoned by clause 241. I will not be able to vote in support of this bill, but I strongly hope that the finance minister will shed some light on the issue.

If he does not, the confidence that the people have in Parliament will be eroded and it will be the finance minister's fault.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the members who spoke before me and raised specific issues relating to the budget measures. I want to present a more global view of the measures proposed in the 1998-99 budget.

My comments will be based on the fact that last year, as members will recall, the Bloc Quebecois said that the budget for the year now ending underestimated certain revenues, and that by the end of the fiscal year the Minister of Finance would end up, as is the case today, with sizable surpluses.

At the time, as members will certainly recall, the Minister of Finance said the Bloc Quebecois had not done its homework, that its predictions would not come true, and that there would be a deficit of some magnitude.

Surprise, surprise, the Bloc Quebecois was right. The Minister of Finance managed to get more revenues than anticipated, with the result that the deficit became that much smaller. However, taxpayers also saw their income get smaller, because the additional money was taken from their pockets by the government.

This year, it feels like we are watching the same scenario again. It is like the sequel to last year's scenario. Once again, the Minister of Finance will not divulge the true revenues that can be anticipated in the new fiscal year that begins tomorrow. This brings me to some important considerations if the government is to treat Canadian taxpayers with respect. After all, they are the ones who provide the government's revenues.

The problem is that if the government collects more money than it needs, then it is overtaxing Canadians. This is the sort of situation we are currently in. It was not the case last year. Revenues were higher than expected, but expenses were greater than the expected, or even actual, revenues.

According to the budget measures proposed, next year's deficit is supposed to be zero, which means that any excess revenue will amount to a surplus. If only a few dollars are involved, for heaven's sake, we are hardly going to claim taxpayers have been overtaxed. But we are not talking about a few dollars here, we are talking about billions.

If we look at a 24-month period, we are talking in the order of between $20 and $30 billion. A huge sum. Especially since the Minister of Finance is not declaring it. As a member in this House I am concerned, because the budget measures have to be approved by this House. We are debating the fiscal year before us in order to reach a conclusion through a vote.

But if what we are debating is incomplete, when will we debate the use of these potential surpluses we expect will materialize? Our expectation is all the stronger because the same situation occurred last year, and we were right.

What we are debating now and will vote on is not the whole of the budget, which will be managed next year. I fear, and I do not think I am alone, that revenues in the order of several billion dollars, indeed tens of billions of dollars, will be beyond the reach of the democratic control exercised by the members of this House. The government is making arrangements to use the money as it pleases. Will it pay off the debt with it? I wish it would, but I do not think that is what will happen.

The Minister of Finance was quite clear in his budget announcements. He will apply to paying down the debt at most $3 billion, an amount he has set aside in a contingency fund. If there are contingencies, then this amount will not be available and the debt will not be paid down, while billions in extra revenues accumulate.

If any money is applied to the debt, at the rate of $3 billion a year, I can tell you that it is going to take 200 years to pay it off. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

But I want to get back to what I wanted to say. What will the Minister of Finance do with extra revenues during the fiscal year starting tomorrow morning? There is nothing in the bill about that. In fact, the Minister of Finance, who is a Liberal, has been very conservative; he has taken a liberal approach to spending and a conservative approach to revenues. Well, we are used to seeing people change colours overnight. It seems to be a real fad lately.

Here we have the finance minister, who is conservative with revenues, telling us that revenues will match expenditures exactly. But in fact, we know—we can tell and foresee—that he will have perhaps $10 billion, between $8 billion and $12 billion, at the end of fiscal year 1998-99. Where will this money go? Who will be responsible for deciding what it should be allocated to? The members of this House perhaps? Certainly not. There is nothing about that in these budget provisions.

It will most likely be covered in an addendum to operating expenditures, indicating that the amounts were used for this or that purpose, or else a fund will be established to carry forward the amount for God knows what new project.

My point is that, with this budget, with the measures we are debating here, the Minister of Finance is hiding several billion dollars, the use of which cannot be debated democratically. And democracy is something we care very much about.

I will conclude by saying that the Minister of Finance lacks transparency here and is failing his duty.

[World Water Day And World Meteorological Day, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that water, air and climate are the keys to life on this planet Earth.

Since we have just celebrated World Water Day and World Meteorological Day, there is no better occasion for reminding all the people of Canada and of Quebec of the importance of protecting our water and our air in order to protect our climate and our lives.

Everything in the air ends up in the water eventually: acid rain, carbon dioxide, heat. Everything in the air affects climate as well. Our factories, our automobiles, our waste disposal sites all emit heat-retaining gases which are turning our planet into a giant greenhouse. This appears to result in such things as floods and ice storms.

It is therefore the responsibility of governments, as well as each and every one of us, to do their part to reduce atmospheric gases. Our lives are at stake.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to question the government on the asbestos issue, asking the government why it was not showing more haste in lodging with the World Trade Organization a complaint about France's ban on the use of asbestos on French territory.

The answer I was given was definitely insufficient, and that is why, this evening, I am giving the government the opportunity to make up for it by clearly stating its position.

Let us briefly review the facts. First, a commission of the European Council recently recommended that asbestos be banned throughout Europe, in all European countries.

Needless to say that the consequences of such a ban would adversely affect our asbestos industries, particularly those in Quebec.

In addition, last week, we learned that the federal government would rather go the diplomatic way and that it had signed with five other asbestos producing countries, namely Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, a memorandum stating the merits of this substance.

What I find somewhat strange and regrettable at the same time is the fact that, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for natural resources, to this day, I still have not received any document explaining what this document signed with five other producing countries is all about. Therefore, I welcome all the more this opportunity, tonight, to ask that the government provide us with information, so that we know exactly what is going on.

Members will recall that, last week, Belgian reporters toured the Bell mine in Quebec. Here is what they had to say. Peter Van Dooran said “Either the Belgian people are crazy to be afraid of asbestos or the people working in this mine are.” Obviously, they were impressed by what they saw. We have a good case on the asbestos issue.

I will also quote what a departmental official said: “The issue is not whether or not Canada will file a complaint before the WTO, but when”.

Finally, I will conclude with a quote from another Belgian journalist, who said: “Three or four years ago, asbestos was not an issue in Belgium, but Canada's representations are one year too late”.

The federal government dragged its feet on the Pacific salmon issue and on the Atlantic cod issue, and it has imposed quotas on softwood lumber. Canada has shown a flagrant lack of courage. It would be possible to go before the WTO. The smallest countries in the world will be respected through the mechanisms put in place by the WTO. If Quebec were a sovereign state, we would have gone before the WTO a long time ago to ensure that our asbestos is protected.

I am looking forward to hearing what the government has to say on this subject.

[Liberal Party Of Canada Convention, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada's convention last weekend was an odd event.

I am not talking about the Prime Minister's Bill Clinton imitation with a rendition of “Love me Tender” on the trombone, but about the shadow of the Conservative Party's leader hovering over the proceedings all weekend.

We all know that the Conservative leader's best volleys have been against the Liberal Party of Canada. There is something not quite right about all these Liberal ministers unconditionally supporting the Conservative leader as the replacement for Daniel Johnson in Quebec City.

The member for Sherbrooke will undoubtedly make a good valet for the federal government in Quebec City. The Liberals should not be too hasty to break out the champagne however. The Conservative leader promised 40 seats in Quebec during the last federal election. He delivered five. And it is certainly not by becoming a Liberal that a Conservative—

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are talking about a serious matter.

This afternoon we are talking about something that concerns us all, that concerns you personally as well, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about respect for democracy in the House. We are talking about your ability to lead the House to conclusions. And we are talking about respect for this ability as it relates to the institution of the Parliament of Canada.

A few moments ago, our Liberal Party colleague referred to remarks made by the member for Rimouski—Mitis with respect to the large number of Canadian flags she saw in Nagano. The remarks made at the time were respectful of the institution and the flag and all they evoke.

What we saw on Thursday, two weeks ago, and I was in the House, profoundly shocked me. I feel that a country's flag is something sacred. It is more than just a piece of fabric, more than just colours. It is something that represents a people. I respect the flag of Quebec, I respect the flag of Canada, and I respect national flags.

National anthems also have a sacred character and, in my view, may not be used whenever and however people wish. It would be ill viewed, as I think everyone here would agree, if a student were to stand up in the middle of a class and begin singing the national anthem or waving flags in the name of freedom of expression. There is a time and a place for everything.

What happened here, two weeks ago, upset me precisely because we used a flag, the Canadian flag, and a national anthem, O Canada, at an inappropriate time.

During oral question period, the time allocated to hon. members for putting their questions and to ministers for answering them is quite limited, and you see to it, Mr. Speaker, that we keep things rolling. The disruption that occurred during our proceedings meant that some hon. members who could have asked questions did not have time to do so, and that the ministers did not have time to answer them. I know as you do, Mr. Speaker, that the House cannot operate properly under such circumstances.

After the incident, Mr. Speaker, you said—I was there—that you would take the matter under advisement and that you would get back to the House. In the meantime, some hon. members have questioned your eventual decision.

Mr. Speaker, once you have made the decision, anyone who disagrees with it will be free to say so. But until you make a decision, it is our duty to give you the time you need to ponder the issue and make the necessary consultations, and to put our trust in you.

You have my confidence and I think you also have the confidence of the vast majority of the members of this House. However, some have allowed themselves, publicly and openly, not in private conversations but in front of the media, to question the decision that you will make. Worse still, they indicated that they would withdraw their confidence in you should your ruling not be what they think it should be.

This is totally unacceptable. Such behaviour jeopardizes the democratic institutions that are Parliament and the House of Commons. If I speak freely here this afternoon, it is because I know that hon. members, whether or not they agree with my comments, will listen and let me exercise the right to speak that is mine since I was elected through a democratic process.

Hon. members also know that I do the same when you recognize them, Mr. Speaker. They enjoy the same freedom of speech, because they were also elected through a democratic process. I respect your authority because we collectively decided that you, our fellow member of Parliament, would ensure that the debates take place in a climate of respect that is conducive, hopefully, to the best possible outcome, and, more importantly, that is consistent with democracy.

I listened to some members, and sometimes I just cannot believe my ears. Whatever happened to respect for democracy among those of our colleagues who are trying to influence your decision, to kill debate, and to put a lid on the issues, instead of allowing a debate that would lead to a solution?

I do not know what your decision will be. I will anxiously wait for it, like many of us here. However, I do know that if your decision is made within the rules of our parliamentary system, it will get the support of a majority of members of this House, as are all decisions made in this fashion. We are bound by a democratic pact and this is why I will accept your decision, whatever it is.

If I had the authority to do so, I would apologize to you on behalf of the members of other parties who more or less threatened you. I do not have this authority, but it makes me very sad to see certain members show such disrespect for you.

Since I feel this is a fundamental issue, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion before us.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding, between the words “referred” and “to the Standing Committee”, the word:

“immediately”.

[Oil Industry, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Given that the Government of Quebec already treats the large oil companies and many independents equally with respect to road tax, unlike the federal government when it comes to excise tax, will the Minister of National Revenue agree to follow Quebec's example and allow independent distributors to charge excise tax as well?