Pierre Paquette

[Taxation, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, all parties in the National Assembly agree and recognize that the needs are in Quebec while the money is in Ottawa. In this context, it is impossible to reduce income taxes any more without putting service to the public at risk.

Is the federal government finally going to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance and agree to discussions in good faith, in order to arrive at an equitable sharing of resources with Quebec and the other provinces?

[Taxation, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, following the release of the Séguin report, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the fiscal imbalance was a myth, that there was no such thing. But his statement is not borne out in fact and is contradicted by most experts in the matter.

Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not be wiser to open his mind to the reality of a fiscal imbalance and recognize that major changes need to be made to the existing system?

[Taxation, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a broad consensus in Quebec on the existence of a fiscal imbalance between the federal government and Quebec.

Why will the federal government not admit that there is a fiscal imbalance and that it absolutely must be corrected?

[Free Trade Agreements, April 3rd, 2003]

moved:

Motion M-391

That, in the opinion of this House, any free trade agreement entered into by Canada, whether bilateral or multilateral, must include rules for the protection of foreign investments which do not violate the ability of parliamentary and government institutions to act, particularly on behalf of the common good, and must exclude any investor-state redress provisions and consequently, the Canadian government must enter into negotiations with its American and Mexican partners with a view to bringing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in line with the aforementioned principles.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move Motion No. 391, which calls on the Government of Canada to no longer negotiate a certain number of things in free trade agreements, whether bilateral, that is between Canada and another country, or multilateral, for example, within the current negotiation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas or the World Trade Organization.

This motion calls on the Government of Canada to no longer negotiate rules for the protection of foreign investments that would violate the ability of parliamentary and government institutions to act on behalf of the common good and in the public interest.

I will read it so that everyone can understand what this debate is about:

That, in the opinion of this House, any free trade agreement entered into by Canada, whether bilateral or multilateral, must include rules for the protection of foreign investments which do not violate the ability of parliamentary and government institutions to act, particularly on behalf of the common good, and must exclude any investor-state redress provisions and consequently, the Canadian government must enter into negotiations with its American and Mexican partners with a view to bringing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in line with the aforementioned principles.

As I was saying, not only do we want, through this motion, to urge the Canadian government in the future to not negotiate provisions that violate public interest or the ability of parliamentaryand government institutions to act, particularly on behalf of this public interest and the common good, but we also want the Canadian government to ban agreements including investor-state redressprovisions. I will have the opportunity to come back to this point during my presentation.

Finally, further to the opinion provided to the government by the House, we consider it appropriate for the Canadian government toenter into negotiations with its American and Mexican partnerswith a view to bringing the North American Free TradeAgreement into line with the aforementionedprinciples, particularly in Chapter 11, which provides for the protection of foreign investments. For Canada, this would obviously involve investments by Mexico and the United States. For the United States, it would involve foreign investments by the other two partners, and so on for Mexico.

I remind the House that direct foreign investments have become the biggest challenge of current negotiations, with respect to both the FTAA and the WTO.

Each year, nearly $4,000 billion US is directly invested abroad by the various countries. Of course, the vast majority of these investments come from Northern or developed countries, around the world.

As for Canada, every year, $430 billion are directly invested abroad by Canadian companies and individuals.

The negotiation of rules for the protection of foreign investments has become a major issue. Let us take, for instance, the last meeting of the Ministers for International Trade held in Doha. Nobody, including our own international trade minister, expected specific discussions over the issue of investments. Before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the minister told us that, in terms of investments, he did not expect anything to come out of the meeting in Doha.

Suprisingly, the Ministers for International Trade agreed to begin discussions about the provisions for the protection of investments that could be included in the World Trade Organization agreement.

Therefore, we have to be very clear on the issue of protecting investments. We have a problem with the model currently included in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The House should make it clear that it is against using the current NAFTA model in the upcoming negotiations on the protection of investments.

There are at least three issues that need to be raised about chapter 11 of NAFTA. The first is the notion of expropriation, which is much too broad and would now include direct expropriation, meaning that if a firm has assets abroad that a level of government needs to expropriate for some reason, compensation will be granted, which is only normal.

Not only does direct expropriation now give rise to compensation, but if memory serves, with section 1110 of chapter 11, the concept of expropriation now extends to loss of profits, which are referred to as indirect expropriations.

For example, during a temporary Canadian government moratorium, the American company SD Myers, which was supposed to receive PCBs from Canada for destruction by burning, claimed it had been dispossessed of an economic activity and thus deprived of profits. It went before a special NAFTA chapter 11 tribunal and was awarded $6 million in compensation. This was not for activities carried out, but for activities it could have carried out, had it not been for the Canadian regulations.

In our opinion, this concept of indirect expropriation is abusive and we should revert to the concept of expropriation of actual assets.

The second problematical element in NAFTA's chapter 11 is the expanded concept of investment. Lending agencies are now also considered investors under the provisions of NAFTA and those relating to the protection of investments.

We might find ourselves in a very strange situation where a bank could loan money to a Canadian, an American or a Mexican company. While that company might not feel that it has been harmed in any way following the enforcement of this new legislation or of new regulations, the bank that has loaned the money could, under chapter 11, challenge the government decision and seek some compensation under the agreement.

Finally, the third problem is with the investor-state redress provisions that allow foreign companies recourse not available to domestic companies. These foreign companies can bring the governments before the special courts--as I have mentioned in the case of SD Myers--something a first nations company cannot do. I think it is totally unfair to put the public and private interests on the same footing. Which is why I think we should eliminate the investor-state redress provisions.

Also, the special courts set up under NAFTA are not transparent enough, as was recognized by the Minister for International Trade.

So far, there have been just over 20 suits filed by companies, either in Canada, the United States or Mexico. I think it is important to mention that almost half of these suits have involved environmental issues.

Since we have just signed the Kyoto protocol, we will soon be looking at the implementation phase. Well, chapter 11 of NAFTA could very well become, in the hands, for instance, of American companies--need I remind the House that the United States has not signed the Kyoto protocol--a weapon against any new initiative the Canadian government or the provinces might want to take.

As I said earlier, these provisions would not prevent governments from taking any action, but they would allow companies to seek compensation. Therefore, Canada and Quebec would have to pay to be able to uphold their international commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

I mentioned that there were some 20 suits. As for Canada, I can point out a few. In the case of Ethyl Corporation, there was an out of court settlement that cost Canadian taxpayers $13 million; SD Myers—I mentioned it earlier—cost $6 million; there was Pope & Talbot, which challenged an agreement that Canada had signed with the United States and which provided for quotas. It felt it had been penalized by this agreement. Indeed, the Americans forced us to sign it because they were challenging, as they are doing now, our forestry management in the case of the softwood lumber industry.

UPS is currently suing the Canadian government. Last December, the Canadian government lost the first level of appeal because it claimed that the grievance filed by UPS did not come under chapter 11, but under another chapter of NAFTA. However, the court decided that it had jurisdiction.

There are also Sun Belt Water and Crompton Corporation which are suing or want to sue the Canadian government under chapter 11. There are other cases in the United States. There are also some in Mexico.

Thus, on the whole, the existence of this chapter 11 in NAFTA and in other bilateral agreements signed by Canada raises a problem of governance and democracy.

When democratic bodies, elected representatives, be it Parliament or the government, make decisions, it seems to me that these decisions must have precedence over private interests. However, NAFTA, specially chapter 11, gives equal importance to private interests and the public interest, the common good, the common interest.

Even if in general the best interest of multinationals or foreign firms operating in a country coincides with the common good and the public interest, it is not necessarily true all the time. This is why we believe we must have foreign investment protection clauses that give precedence to the public interest.

The second matter at issue, after this matter of governance and democracy, has to do with other NAFTA provisions. Some in particular, under chapter 12, which deals with trade and services, are putting pressure on our public services in Canada and Quebec.

I mentioned UPS a moment ago. This shows that private businesses and multinationals can use NAFTA provisions to challenge, for instance, Canada Post's monopoly, claiming unfair competition with regard to courier services. That is what UPS has done.

As for health care, it is clear that the current agreements are protecting our health care system as it stands now, but are preventing its expansion. In this regard, it is worth noting that several studies done for the Romanow Commission showed the dangers posed by chapter 11 of NAFTA in particular.

I am referring to, for instance, study No. 32, conducted by Richard Ouellet, of Laval University, entitled “The Effects of International Trade Agreements on Canadian Health Measures: Options for Canada with a View to the Upcoming Trade Negotiations”. Mr. Ouellet talked about potential major risks for our health care system.

Another study entitled “How will International Trade Agreements Affect Canadian Health Care?” was conducted by Mr. Jon R. Johnson. It is study No. 22. It is even more clear.

I will quote a short paragraph from page 29.

The single provision in all the trade liberalizing agreements that has the most negative potential impact on Canada's public health care is NAFTA Article 1110. If this provision and the accompanying investor/state dispute settlement procedures had existed in the 1960s, the public health care system in its present form would never have come into existence.

This is the article on expropriation and compensation that I was talking about earlier.

This is extremely worrisome, and it seems to us that this House should tell the government that the whole chapter 11 should be reviewed and that, in the future, we should not include similar provisions in the agreements that we sign.

Unfortunately, I notice that Canada has signed 18 agreements with southern countries that include chapters on the protection of investments that are similar to NAFTA's model.

So, as I mentioned, we must reject this approach and redirect it with our partners. Currently, when there is a dispute at the World Trade Organization, it is dealt with between states. It is not Bombardier or EMBRAER that sues the Brazilian government or the Canadian government. It is the Canadian government and the Brazilian government that represent the interests of their respective companies.

In the FTA, which preceded NAFTA, chapter 19 included a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism. As for the FTAA and the WTO, the Minister for International Trade has always told us that it was out of the question to have an investment protection model similar to the one found in chapter 11.

In the proposals that it just tabled as part of the WTO negotiations, the European Union announced that it categorically rejects the investor-state dispute settlement procedure. Finally, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs also rejected it last spring.

For all these reasons, we must go back to a foreign investment protection mechanism that gives priority to the common good, that tightens up the definitions of expropriation and investment, and that prohibits the investor-state dispute settlement procedure and goes back to a state-to-state mechanism.

For all these reasons, I am convinced that the vast majority of members in this House will support motion M-391.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Churchill for her initiative. As my colleague, the member for Laurentides already said, the Bloc Quebecois supports Motion No. 197, which I will read again for the benefit of those who are listening.

Motion No. 197 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

We believe that this is a simple question of justice. Why should victims of accidents at work and occupational illnesses be punished when they have already been victimized by negligence in the workplace? Under the CPP, workers can already subtract 15% of their employment period as leave. This makes it possible to increase the average earnings and the pension that will be collected at retirement.

However, for many workers who have a workplace accident or an occupational illness, this period is not enough. I think that in the interest of justice we must rectify this situation that currently exists in the Canada pension plan and render justice to those who, as I already mentioned, have already been punished because of poor working conditions.

The attitude of the government and the parliamentary secretary, in his comments, is completely unacceptable. The Liberal government is acting as though people who have workplace accidents or occupational illnesses are responsible for their own plight. The government is penalizing them again by refusing to recognize workers' compensation payments as though they were employment income.

In Quebec, there has been consensus among employers, the government and workers and their organizations since 1920 that the employer is responsible for workplace accidents and occupational illnesses. People who have workplace accidents and occupational illnesses are not responsible for their accident or their illness. It is the employer.

It is up to the employer to pay and that is how it has been since 1920 in Quebec. People who have workplace accidents and occupational illnesses are not punished because they suffered as the result of problems in their workplace, in terms of workplace health and safety.

But this is not the only social program where the federal government believes that the victims are responsible for their situation. Just as the Canada pension plan penalizes injured workers or workers with an occupational illness, employment insurance penalizes people laid off by their employer due to an economic downturn—be it in the company, the industry or the whole economy—by imposing a waiting period, as if they were responsible for what has happened to them. The same backwards attitude applies to both this situation and the Canada pension plan.

As a result, the federal government is encouraging prejudice against injured workers or workers with an occupational illness. The government inundates us with propaganda and is constantly telling us that discrimination is a no-no. It is guilty of discrimination in this case, as in the case of the unemployed.

It is essential, therefore, that the federal government fix this situation if it wants to do more than just pay lip service, to prove that injured workers and those with occupational illnesses are not responsible for their situation and, therefore, should not be penalized with regard to their pension under the pretext that they have suffered as a result of a workplace accident or an occupational illness.

The reason given—which was unfortunately taken up by the hon. member for the Canadian Alliance—is that this will increase premiums. This is the first time I have seen the federal government worry about the effects of a payroll tax on employment.

For a number of years now, with regard to employment insurance premiums, we—not just the Bloc Quebecois, but Quebec employers and unions—have been telling the government that the premium rate is much too high. The federal government has never reacted. I know that the Minister of Finance likes to boast that the rate has been lowered ten times already. Yes, it has been lowered ten times, but it is still too high.

When the actuary did an assessment of the premium rate needed to ensure employment insurance coverage, he told us that it would take $1.75 per $100 of insurable earnings. Currently, the government is still taking $2.10, and the Minister of Finance announced in his budget that he was going to lower it to $1.98.

Even at $1.98, the government is still collecting too much to ask from workers and employers in employment insurance premiums.

Employment insurance premiums need to be lowered to correspond to the coverage in the plan. We know that out of ten workers who contribute, four are eligible for benefits and six are not, because of extremely strict rules imposed by this government. Let us lower employment insurance premiums and, if necessary, increase CPP contributions to do justice to people who are victims of workplace accidents or occupational illness.

The same argument is being made to us that was made 10 or 15 years ago when we were told that pay equity for women was unattainable. We were told that, in theory, this discrimination was unjustifiable, but that there was no money to do anything about it. That is what employers are telling us and today the federal government is saying the same thing. Unfortunately, the Canadian Alliance is stuck in its backward mentality.

If we had listened to the federal government and used the arguments it is using today, we would not have gotten anywhere in the pay equity situation. It really dug in its heels, just as it is doing now in this and other situations.

If the federal government is sincere in its concern that an increase on payroll taxes or on contributions may have a negative impact on employment, it must, since it has the means to do so, lower EI contributions to do justice to those who are injured while at work and to those who suffer from occupational diseases.

The government is using another argument that is just as unjustifiable when it says that self-employed workers may feel left out. One does not justify an injustice with another injustice. It is true that self-employed workers should be covered when it comes to social insurance. It is true that the government should be more innovative.

In Quebec, Pauline Marois set an example in her most recent budget by granting a tax credit for parental leave to self-employed workers.

However, the federal government says that it would not be fair to self-employed workers to include injured or sick people, since they themselves are not covered. There is an injustice here, but the government will create another one by penalizing those who are injured at work or who suffer from an occupational disease. This reasoning is faulty.

I am extremely disappointed to hear the parliamentary secretary say, “We think that the initiative of the hon. member for Churchill is a good one, but she is going about this the wrong way”. Let the parliamentary secretary suggest other ways to achieve the same objectives.

Until proven otherwise, the motion by the hon. member for Churchill is the right way to correct the injustice done to those who are injured while at work and to victims of occupational diseases. I am convinced that this fair measure would cost very little to Canadian society, and nothing to Quebec society, since we are not affected by this discriminatory and unfair situation.

The parliamentary secretary also claims that the Supreme Court issued a ruling to that effect. In Canada, do we live, as a number of people think, in a democracy run by judges, or is it elected representatives who are responsible for lawmaking? I do hope that it is still this Parliament, this House that has the last word regarding the vision and the structures that we want for our society, particularly at the legislative level.

When it suits its needs, the federal government does not hesitate to retroactively amend an act.

I give the example of school bus transportation. We will get to examine ways and means motions. In one instance, with respect to school bus transportation, the federal government changed the rules after losing in court. It decided this change would be deemed to have come into effect on December 17, 1990. It does not bother the government when it comes to grabbing money that is intended for school boards in Quebec and Ontario.

Do not make us laugh. If the federal government were serious about wanting to correct this injustice, it could correct it; instead, it is hiding behind the courts. I hope that it will be equally consistent in the ways and means motion and remove the GST retroactivity for school boards.

None of the arguments we have heard from the government side hold water. Simply put, in this case, as with the guaranteed income supplement and the tax credit for persons with disabilities, this Liberal federal government does not care about the people. This is a heartless government.

Like all hon. members in this House, I hope, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of the motion put forward by the hon. member.

[Tobacco Farmers, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges has just ended a 25-year partnership with the flue-cured tobacco farmers of Quebec, citing reasons of climate. Oddly, Ontario tobacco farmers are stuck with a 50 million pound surplus of tobacco that they are trying to dispose of at a lower price. Some 97% of Quebec's flue-cured tobacco farmers are located in the Lanaudière area. I am extremely concerned.

Can the Minister of Agriculture implement an alternate enterprise program immediately in order to help these farmers, who now have to find a new livelihood?

[Taxation, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that this retroactive measure is an extremely serious infringement of the rule of law and the authority of a judgment, which probably constitutes a precedent in the Canadian parliamentary system?

[Taxation, February 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in his budget the Minister of Finance announced his intention to retroactively change the provisions of the Excise Tax Act with regard to school transportation.

Even worse, the minister could establish a new rate for school boards despite all the court decisions handed down since December 21, 2001.

Does the minister agree that his proposed change will completely set aside judgments in the school boards' favour on the issue of GST rebates for school transportation?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure as well to take part in this debate on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. In his presentation earlier, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the bill is the result of work done by the Standing Committee on Industry, which reviewed the legislation from spring 2001. He is right about this.

However, he forgot to mention that the reason the Prime Minister set out an eight-point plan in the throne speech is that, after eight years of Liberal government, there were problems of perception—real or imagined—in public opinion concerning ethics within this government. This negative perception had repercussions and continues to have repercussions on all parliamentary institutions and is even proving an obstacle to Canadian democracy.

Something had to be done. I do not need to get into all the cases, such as Groupaction, Everest or Mr. Gagliano's departure for Denmark. I would like to point that even today, during oral question period, some concerns were raised by the opposition parties about the ethics of some prominent government members.

There is also this backdrop. It is not just the work done in committee that should be raised, but also the Prime Minister's desire, at the end of his reign, to perhaps leave behind a much more positive legacy—this was mentioned earlier—than Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did at the end of his second mandate.

The Prime Minister therefore decided to something. He announced it in the throne speech to give us the impression he was leaving behind a decent legacy when it came to ethics. I still wonder, as do many members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties, why he waited so long. Why did he wait until the end of his political career, especially his career as Prime Minister of Canada, to respond not only to the demands of the opposition members, but of all Canadians and Quebeckers.

It is unfortunate—and I think this has been mentioned by many of my colleagues in previous debates—but why wait so long to do so little? Take, for instance, the case of the ethics counsellor. When the Minister of Finance phoned the president of the CIBC about the Ottawa Senators, the ethics counsellor, who is always appointed by the Prime Minister, said there was no ethical problem.

Again recently the Minister of Finance had some pre-leadership meetings while on his pre-budget tour. Once again, the ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister said there was no ethical problem.

Clearly, this matter is not addressed directly in Bill C-15. It does not go far enough. I would remind hon. members that, in the throne speech, the Prime Minister centred his plan on ethics around three points: changing the legislation on lobbyists, which we are dealing with at present; creating an independent ethics commissioner position, which the opposition parties have long been calling for; and a code of ethics for MPs.

Since we are discussing the Lobbyist Registration Act, I would remind hon. members that this bill was enacted in 1989 to establish a framework, which has since that time has governed those who lobby the Government of Canada, whether paid consultants, employees of a business, or people from an NGO.

After passage in 1989, the act was amended in 1996 and 2001. Today we have another amendment before us. The government told us when introducing the bill—if memory serves, that was on October 23, 2002—that it was intended mainly to provide a clearer formulation of what lobbying is.

The second intent of the bill was to strengthen the enforcement of the Lobbyists Registration Act and simplify requirements for the registration and strengthened requirements for revoking registration through a single registration process for both corporations and non-profit organizations. That is what was presented to us as being the basis of this fundamental amendment as far as ethical problems in Parliament and in government are concerned.

We have, of course, already indicated that the amendments are not substantial enough to respond to all of the concerns raised by both the general public and the opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois in particular.

Where we particularly fault the Lobbyist Registration Act is that the concept of intensity of lobbying has been dropped from it. The amendments do not give us any idea about the intensity of the lobbying of the government or of individuals in responsible positions. For example, what amount do the lobbyists receive in fees, and what are the positions of the people they lobby?

In its desire to be positive and constructive, the Bloc Quebecois presented, in a June 2001 dissenting report on the Lobbyists Registration Act, a number of principles to retain in the event of a substantial reform of the act, which has not been the case. As I was saying, these principles were not retained by the committee and were also not retained during the legislative reform. This tells us that not only is Bill C-15 not substantially different from existing legislation, but furthermore there are no real improvements to transparency.

I want to refresh the House's memory on a number of the Bloc Quebecois' proposals and how they relate to the substance of the bill before us. At the same time, I will tell the House what the Quebec government and the National Assembly passed concerning ethics and lobbying. I am certain that the House will notice that Quebec's legislation goes much further than the federal legislation.

In its June 2001 report, the Bloc Quebecois had proposed, for example, that lobbyists disclose meetings with public servants and ministers. There are no such provisions in the bill before us. So, lobbyists are not required to disclose their meetings with public servants and ministers.

In Quebec's legislation, when lobbyists file their return, they must divulge the nature of the duties of the person with whom they communicated or intend to communicate, as well as the institution where this individual works. As you know, under the current federal legislation, only the name of the department or the government organization must be disclosed, but at no time are lobbyists obliged—in either the act or the bill—to disclose the names of public servants or ministers with whom they have met.

In our opinion, this first principle should have been included in Bill C-15 and was not only forgotten but completely rejected. As a result, this bill does not meet the expectation of transparency that, in theory, the government seems to hold dear.

The second principle we had suggested in the June 2001 report is disclosure by lobbyists of amounts for lobbying campaigns.

That brings me back to the principle I referred to earlier. We believe that it is important for the public to know how intensely the government and people in position of power are being lobbied. I think everyone would agree that there is a huge difference between a $2,000 and a $2 million lobby.

For the public to truly understand the scope of these lobbies, lobbyists should be required to disclose the money they spent on their lobbying activities. As I said, there is no mention of that in the bill.

The third principle mentioned in our report of June 2001 is that in-house lobbyists should disclose their professional fees and wages. Again, there is no mention of that in the bill. People in Canada and in Quebec are kept in the dark about the intensity of the lobbying activities.

Under Quebec's legislation on lobbying, consultant lobbyists must disclose all the money they receive for their lobbying activities according to various brackets, like $10,000 and less, from $10,000 to $50,000, and so on.

As you can tell, a lobbyist getting $40,000 in fees is not doing his job with the same intensity as a lobbyist fetching $400,000 in fees. Any lobbyist paid $400,000 would be considered more important by the public. If any group, association or business decides that it would be better to spend that much money to retain or even hire a lobbyist, then I think the public has a right to know.

In Quebec's legislation, without divulging the exact fees, we give the public a range of fees through reports, which allows the public to have an idea of the value both of the lobbyist and the lobbying campaign. We see that nothing is provided in Bill C-15 for this third principle.

We had also suggested that any sort of conditional payments be banned. Let us assume that I am being hired to obtain a sponsorship from the federal government and that I will receive 25% of the amount of that sponsorship. We have seen this in the previous sponsorship program. Nothing is provided in the bill about this. We think that this is deplorable. This mainly penalizes small organizations that need sponsorships.

In the last few months, major changes have been made to the sponsorship program. These organizations can now deal directly with the government, and this is desirable. However, the fact still remains that Bill C-15 should have banned this practice outright. As members will see, this ban is provided in the Quebec legislation.

The Quebec legislation says, and I quote:

No consultant lobbyist or corporate lobbyist may carry out their activities in exchange for a fee conditional on getting a result or subject to the degree of success of their activities.

The government could have listened to our proposals, could have included in the bill the provisions that exist in Quebec and could have ensured that the public and the organizations that are dealing with the federal government are protected from certain lobbyists.

The fifth principle that we had stated in the June 2001 report dealt with the divulging by consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists of corresponding positions and periods of employment within the federal public service. We think that it is extremely important that the public be informed of the fact that a lobbyist has worked within the federal public service.

We should force lobbyists to divulge the position they held, if they held one in the federal public service, and for how long they did.

We believe the same should apply to federal political parties as well as to unpaid management positions in federal political parties.

Personally, I was the vice president of the Bloc Quebecois for a few years. Should I ever become a lobbyist here, in Ottawa—which is highly unlikely because I have no desire to be a lobbyist—I would have to disclose that I held this office, even though I was not paid for it. I would be required to inform both the registrar and the public of this fact, because it changes things.

As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, we know that our high standards of ethics place us above suspicion. But it is a different story for a party that was returned to office too often during the last century, as the distinctions between political activities and administrative activities may not be all that clear in people's minds.

Whether such and such a lobbyist once held a position in a federal political party is something the public should be made aware of.

Similarly, the public should be made aware of the number of hours of volunteer work performed, in excess of 40 hours per year. Whether this volunteer work was for a party, a leadership candidate for a party, or a riding association, any significant political activity, be it volunteer or not, should indeed be included in the report submitted by lobbyists.

Of course, the mandates as elected representatives at the federal level should be included in this report, as well as the election campaigns they took part in, including unsuccessful ones, and how much they contributed to the various federal political parties and candidates.

We think it is extremely important that the public have access to all this information, to be able to assess, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the intensity of the lobbying carried out by this organization or that individual. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill about that.

This week, an amendment was adopted against the wishes of the Prime Minister and of a number of cabinet members. It is a step in the right direction, but is definitely not enough to meet the expectations of the Bloc Quebecois, and, more importantly, the expectations of the people of Canada and Quebec.

If we compare it with Quebec's legislation, we can see how embryonic Bill C-15 really is and how it brings only very minor changes to the current legislation, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

In Quebec, consultant lobbyists are required to disclose, in their initial return, the nature and the duration of any public office they may have held in the two years preceding the date of their commitment to their client. These are extremely strict rules. As for in-house lobbyists employed by corporations and organizations, they also have to disclose the nature and the duration of any public office they may have held in the two years preceding their hiring by the corporation or organization.

That is the kind of big picture that would allow Canadians and Quebeckers to measure the intensity of lobbying activities.

As I was saying, this week, the Bloc Quebecois supported an amendment put forward by a Liberal member. However, that does not change a thing to the fundamental nature of this bill, which is too embryonic to deserve our support and the support of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Finally, in its June 2001 report, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a sixth principle, which read as follows:

That the Code for Public Office Holders be made a statutory instrument, and that the Code be revised by a committee of the House of Commons to safeguard against abuses. For example, the post-employment cooling-off period for holders of public office, discussed by the Committee, would become subject to penalty in the event of violation.

One would have thought that the code of conduct for public office holders would be a statutory instrument that would lead to penalties. There is nothing to that effect in Bill C-15.

So, contrary to what the government has maintained, Bill C-15 can, symbolically, seem like a step in the right direction. However, upon closer examination of what is and is not in the bill, it is clear that this is only a facade intended to let the current Prime Minister give the impression as he finishes his reign that he wanted to do something about ethics.

For all these reasons, as at first and second readings, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-15.

Before I conclude, I would like to expand somewhat on that thought. Of course, in talking about lobbying and ethics, we are talking about democracy and the process by which parliamentarians, especially members, work. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to spend as much time debating the framework in which lobbyists operate.

I greatly respect the work they do. This is not about criticizing them. Lobbying is not a crime, far from it. We all agree on that.

However, I think we should, as parliamentarians, spend as much, if not more time thinking about ways to better reflect the concerns of those who do not have a voice. Again, quite rightly, we are trying to provide a framework for the work of professionals who are the spokespeople for interests or interest groups or companies. They are able to be heard by parliamentarians, the government and the Prime Minister.

How can we ensure that people who do not have the opportunity to use lobbyists—because they are individuals or groups who do not have the means that companies or major lobby groups have in Canada or Quebec—have the same equal access to parliamentarians, the government and the Prime Minister? I really wonder about this.

I look at the role that banks can play and the place they occupy in the debate about mergers, for instance. I think it is great that we can hear their concerns and that they can defend their interests in committee and in all aspects of life on Parliament Hill; I think this is entirely acceptable. This is not a problem.

However, I am concerned about the clients and workers of these banks, who have little say in committees and with all parliamentarians, and are not part of the debate. I am sure that any bank CEO has a lot more influence than a petition by 10,000 consumers complaining that low cost accounts are inaccessible to most of the population.

I feel this needs to be considered. It is just as, if not more important than the discussions surrounding Bill C-15, especially since the bill does not respond to the public's expectations or our expectations and our proposals to the committee.

For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-15.

[Banking Institutions, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there have been over 200 consumer complaints in the past six months in metropolitan Montreal alone. If a person does not have a bank account, it is impossible to cash cheques and to have access to direct deposit. It is also very hard to pay rent or get paid.

Does the minster intend to amend his planned regulations so that people can have ready and normal access to basic banking services regardless of their social and financial situation?