Philippe Paré

[Privilege, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I came back yesterday from a trip to Denmark where I attended a meeting of the InterParliamentary Union. While I was away from Quebec, I was told that a Reform Party member had wrongly claimed to the media that my wife's expenses had been paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

I want to formally inform the House that my wife met all her travelling expenses, including those for transportation and accommodation in Copenhagen.

[Air Transportation, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel that his department's bilingualism policy should require that radar control services be available in both official languages throughout Canada, and particularly in provinces with large francophone communities, such as Ontario and New Brunswick?

[Air Transportation, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

For months, the Minister of Transport's replies to questions on air traffic have focused exclusively on the concept of safety. This week, he added bilingualism to his department's concerns in the management of air navigation in Canada. But the minister's bilingualism does not even seem to apply to all of Quebec.

Will the minister acknowledge, once and for all, that the portion of Quebec not served in French at this time could receive such service from the Quebec City terminal control unit, which the minister stubbornly wants to shut down next month?

[Cuba, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois was pleased to hear that the government had decided to allow CIDA to restore assistance to the people of Cuba. This decision reflects the will of Quebecers and Canadians to help Cubans and shows once again that they are prepared to give generously to the poorest of countries where help is urgently needed.

Non-governmental and humanitarian relief organizations, which must be commended for their excellent work, will have access to CIDA funds to carry out projects to help Cubans affected by food shortage among other things. The Cuban government must however be reminded of our commitment to human rights and democracy, which forms the very basis of our identity on the international scene, as a gesture of solidarity with those who suffer and fight for their democratic rights.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada changed the route for seaplanes using the Lac Saint-Augustin base. This new route is very inconvenient for residents of the Jouvence area in my riding. Accordingly, the petitioners ask Transport Canada to review its decision of April 28.

[Radar Control, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister justify that two areas in Quebec are not adequately served in French from the control unit in Quebec City, which could provide this service in French?

[Radar Control, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. There are two areas in Quebec, namely the North Shore and the Magdalen Islands, where airport control services in French are only available after an 8 to 15 minute delay, because they come under the jurisdiction of the Moncton control unit, which provides regular services in English only. Both these areas could be adequately served by the Quebec City radar control unit which the government is going to close down.

My question is this: How can the minister, who claims to be concerned with air safety, justify his statement to the effect that bilingual services can be provided from a bilingual province such as New Brunswick just as well as from anywhere else in Quebec, when the regular service provided from Moncton is only in English?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act gives us a chance to reflect on the state of our democracy. Since the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet empire was dismantled, we have seen some major attempts at democratization, by countries which for decades had lived under the yoke of a totalitarian state.

Against this background, we are sometimes tempted to idealize our own political system and give it virtues that do not, however, stand up to close scrutiny. There are also those who, rather simplistically, tend to confuse democracy with universal suffrage. I do not deny the fact that the electoral process is ultimately a symbol of democracy, but, with Alexis de Tocqueville, I want to point out that democracy means far more.

During the last federal election campaign, the Liberal Party announced it would work on enhancing the credibility of parliamentarians and wanted to give them a code of ethics. So what happened? Since the beginning of the 35th Parliament, the government has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what it pledged to do.

A few examples. Before the Standing Committee on Human Resources had even started its consultations and studies on the reform of health and social security programs, the government announced in its February 22 budget, without involving parliamentarians or the Canadian public, a number of draconian cuts in unemployment insurance totalling more than $5 billion. Did the government receive a democratic mandate from the people, in this case?

Without the consent of opposition members democratically elected to the House of Commons, the government, by the sheer force of its majority, imposed the presence of non-elected senators on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Does this not show contempt for the democratic process? Before the Special Joint Committee responsible for reviewing Canada's foreign policy had even started its activities, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that from now on, development assistance would no longer be conditional on a country's respect for human rights.

Did the government receive a mandate from the people to that effect? Hardly, if the objections of Canadian stakeholders in the international development sector are any indication. I am thinking in particular of the tens of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers who spend their time and their energies so that NGOs from Canada and Quebec can provide humanitarian aid to the poorest in the world. I am also thinking of the close relationships forged with people in developing countries, relationships that are formed around the concepts of viable development, democratic development and respect for human rights.

In its Bill C-22, dealing with the cancellation of the contract to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto Airport, the government refuses to make full disclosure of all the dirty tricks surrounding the signing of this privatization contract. It refuses to force the main players in this affair to come before the Standing Committee on Transport.

In clause 10 of this bill, for example, the government gives itself the power to compensate friends of the federal system for services rendered before cancellation. Is our democracy such a good example? Where is this wonderful openness announced by the Liberals? Unfortunately, there is not much more openness in this bill.

For weeks and months, the government, through strategic planning or lack of ideas, reduced the legislative program to very little. The government is taking months and months to develop legislation, but very often it is introduced only the day before consideration in the House, which was the case with this bill. Can we really talk about making parliamentarians more responsible? Do you think that the democratic process is well served by such shortsightedness, such meanness?

In our parliamentary system, opposition parties are part and parcel of the democratic process. Should a government concerned about democratic principles not make a minimum of effort so that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, an expression dear to federalists, can play its role efficiently?

The bill amending the Lobbyists Registration Act is at the heart of the debate on democracy, since the activities of these professionals are always the very opposite of the democratic process. Let us keep in mind that in a democratic society the long-standing principle of one man, or woman, one vote is the cornerstone of democracy. By definition, lobbyists are constantly trying to influence the political power in order to obtain privileges or special favours for a particular individual or group. It is their raison d'être.

We may tolerate this practice as a necessary evil, but we cannot accept the lack of transparency which too often accompanies it. The present bill, aimed at bringing transparency to the practice of lobbying in Canada, is broadly based on the commitments contained in the Liberal red book. Originally, the provisions of the bill were supposed to be much more stringent that any existing legislation. However, if we look at it more closely it falls short of the commitments made by the Liberals during the last election campaign and does not meet citizens' expectations concerning the promised reform.

Of course, some elements of the bill are in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois' ideas on this issue. It appears that some amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act match the recommendations made by the Commons committee.

According to the bill, the Governor in Council designates the ethics counsellor who, among other things, has to develop a code of conduct. The ethics counsellor is also mandated to investigate alleged violations. However, the ethics counsellor is designated by order of the Governor in Council. Why is the ethics counsellor not accountable to Parliament, instead of just the Prime Minister?

Also, the bill seems to have diluted other important demands made by the Bloc Quebecois. For example, lobbyists are only required to disclose the name of the government department or institution they will be lobbying and not the amount of money they will be spending on their activities, if such activities are subject to an investigation.

Moreover, the code of conduct to be developed by the ethics counsellor will not be a statutory instrument. With this provision, the government significantly reduces the impact of the code.

Political actions of members sitting in this House are very often offset by the cynicism many voters feel towards the politicians whom they do not trust any more. For too long now, they have heard politicians make promises and do the exact opposite. Interdependence is not something you have to take into account only at the international level. All elected members

are affected by the statements and the actions of all politicians. That is why, in my view, this bill does not go far enough.

Finally, I want to say that, since lobbying is not available to everyone, because there will always be honest citizens who refuse to resort to such influence networks and others who cannot afford such services, it undermines the principle of democracy.

Consequently, the Bloc will co-operate in the effort to improve this bill which does not even come close to the people's expectations or the Liberal promises.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the amendment that the Bloc is proposing in order to eliminate that clause. On May 9, the federal Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his Bill C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill and I support the amendment on the outright elimination of clause 14(7).

This bill as worded is as if the government wanted to eliminate 30 years of history. The hon. member for Mercier was saying earlier that the Canadian act has been in effect since 1964. Quebec has given itself its own system, but with this bill, it is as if that system did not exist. It is a kind of negation of history.

We must remember that education is recognized by the Canadian Constitution as an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has long been assuming certain powers in that sector, such as student financial assistance. In order to be able to interfere in the education sector, it refers to its spending authority. It is ironical that a government with an accumulated debt of more that $500 billion and an estimated annual deficit of almost $40 billion, is behaving as if it was on top of it. Because it has spending authority, it says: "Let us spend". Whether or not it is able to spend does not make any difference; it just spends money.

The height of irresponsibility in the bill is that the government, with revenues that it does not have, is preparing to put even further into debt the young people that it wants to train. If this is not the perfect example of what can be called a vicious circle, then I do not know what it is. The government spends money that it does not have and asks the so-called beneficiaries to foot the bill without knowing whether it can create jobs for them!

Until now, provincial governments which, like the Quebec government, managed their own student financial assistance program could almost automatically exercise their right to opt out of the federal program and receive an alternative payment. This system worked relatively well for all. However, with the new bill introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the rules are completely different.

The provinces will not be able to exercise as easily their opting out right. This bill provides unacceptable new procedures with which provincial governments will have to comply if they want to exercise their opting out right and receive alternative payments. I refer here to clause 14(7) of the bill.

We feel that this bill is, as my colleagues from Levis and Mercier mentioned before, a centralizing measure which threatens the provincial autonomy recognized in the Canadian Constitution, by giving the Minister of Human Resources Development too much power. One wonders if the government is not seeking, through this bill, to create its own Department of Education and to impose national education standards.

Speaking of national standards, it is important to recall the basic, recurring problem in this area. The federal government imposes standards, then-invoking a lack of financial resources or other excuses-gradually withdraws while maintaining the standards.

To prove that, I will simply remind you that as far as established programs financing is concerned, including post-secondary education, in 1977-78, federal funding amounted to 48 per cent of the funds required for cost-shared programs, while in 1994-95, they will only amount to 32 per cent. If the federal government pays only 32 per cent, it means that someone else will have to pay the difference and it will be the provincial governments. Even so, they will have to comply with the national standards.

Let me give you another example. I would like to talk about the changes that occurred in the revenues of the government of Quebec between 1984 and the projections for 1998. In 1984, federal transfers accounted for 28 per cent of the Quebec budget, while in 1998, they are expected to account for only 15 per cent. There again, the people of Quebec will have to pay.

That way of doing things and imposing national standards takes away responsibility from the provincial governments which are elected governments and which are much closer to the people than the federal government.

That way of doing things shows that local needs are ignored. Much has been said about the major differences between the various regions of Canada, but national standards do not take those differences into account at all. The bill that we are debating is just like the others. It assumes that as far as student loans and education are concerned, the needs are exactly the same in Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia.

Finally, these national standards infringe upon democracy because people in the provinces have elected members to provincial legislatures, they have placed their confidence in them and given them powers, and the introduction of national standards will eventually erode an important part of provincial responsibility.

In fact, clause 14 provides that, in order to receive alternative payments, a provincial government will have to satisfy, not inform but satisfy, the minister, I quote: "by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial student financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect as the plan established by this Act".

This is totally unacceptable and I wonder, if the Supreme Court were to study this intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction, it would not decide in favour of the arguments presented by the Official Opposition.

It is unacceptable that provincial governments would have to justify their student financial assistance plans to the federal Minister of Human Resources Development since education is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction.

In the context we all know very well, where a large proportion of Quebecers are against the federal system, one could say the central government is doing all it can to provoke a general outcry. This seems due to a very questionable sense of politics; it is hard to say if it is pure stupidity or provocation.

This whole question is particularly important for Quebec because it is crucial that Quebecers manage their own education system.

Let me conclude by saying that Quebec's record in this regard shows that Quebec has acted responsibly in setting up such a system. We must also keep in mind that education is a vital instrument for cultural and linguistic development. Quebec cannot afford not to be in control of this sphere of activity. Our French-language universities are shining brightly. They are almost everywhere and their vitality leaves no doubt. You can find graduates of French-language universities in every sector. I think we set a remarkable example for the rest of Canada. While developing its French-language universities, Quebec was generous enough-I think the word is exact-to allow its anglophone minority to have its own universities. No other province did such a thing, except New Brunswick with Moncton University. Everywhere else, francophones must make do with bilingual universities. We know the results.

[Rwanda, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are dismayed, repulsed and made to feel helpless by television pictures and reports out of Rwanda. The discovery of a mass grave where close to 20,000 men, women and children were murdered in a convent near the Tanzanian border has shocked people all over the world.

This lunacy must stop. The international community can no longer stand by and watch this venting of hatred, this systematic genocide that is increasing daily and reflects the worst aspects of human nature.

The Rwandan situation is critical, and political decision makers must take the necessary steps to put to an end this carnage, which historians in the next century will find difficult to explain. In the midst of all the vicissitudes facing the peoples of Africa, the killing of Rwandan citizens merely because they are who they are is quite simply shameful. It is time to do something about it.