Pierre Paquette

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. I am happy to see that not only can the number of loaves be multiplied, but that, in the House, the number of Liberals can be multiplied.

I was mentioning a final aspect of the bill, which we cannot support, and that is the examination of mail. I pointed out that the privacy commissioner had intervened, last spring, to criticize this. The current law permits the opening of mailings of over 30 grams in weight. Thirty grams represents a few sheets of paper. This situation, as I indicated, has already been criticized.

Instead of limiting the right of officials to conduct such examinations, the bill intends to give customs officers greater opportunities to open the mail of Canadians and Quebecers.

This amendment is found at clause 99.1 of the bill:

(4) Subsection 99(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(c.1) at any time up to the time of exportation, examine any mail that is to be exported and, subject to this section, open or cause to be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains any goods the exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under any Act of Parliament, and take samples of anything contained in such mail in reasonable amounts.

As we can see, this significantly broadens the procedure that already exists under the current act. When she testified before the Senate committee, which was looking at this specific clause, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, Mrs. Dumont, said:

We are very concerned by the provisions of Bill S-23 that seek to significantly broaden the powers of the government regarding the opening and examination of mail. More specifically, we are concerned about the erosion of the right of Canadians to privacy and of solicitor-client privilege.

So, as I mentioned at the outset, we support in principle the objectives of Bill S-23. However, we will not be able to support it at third reading, unless a number of conditions are met, particularly as regards the tabling of regulations that would allow us to get a better idea of the balance between safety and the smooth movement of goods and people, so as to be sure, upon looking at these regulations, that individuals and businesses will be treated fairly and that we have a commitment on the part of the federal government that adequate funding will be provided to the customs agency and, finally, that the provisions allowing for the opening of mail will be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, if these changes are not made, we will have no choice but to vote against Bill S-23. However, I am convinced--and the minister already seems to be receptive--that, by third reading, such regulations will have been drafted and discussed, and the most problematic aspects of the opening of mail will have been eliminated.

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have risen in the House since the resumption of parliamentary business, I wish to greet my fellow citizens of Joliette. It is because of their concerns that I intervene in the debate on Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act.

I note that the aim of Bill S-23 is to modernize customs administration. I think we should have another look at some of the objectives the minister of revenue and officials noted as underlying the amendment of the Customs Act.

The first part is intended to modernize the customs administration by providing for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada. Second, it provides for streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information.

The bill also provides for monetary penalties in respect of designated contraventions. There are a whole series of amendments to the Customs Act and to other related acts.

It is important to take another look at the objectives of the bill, because we must make sure that it meets the objectives set out by the minister and the officials. These objectives are in response to the government's commitment to modernize the management of borders, to reduce legal activities and threats to public security and to raise confidence levels of exporters and individuals travelling abroad.

Does the bill meet these objectives? This is what we would like to know. Obviously, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for international trade, I am extremely sensitive to everything that affects the flow of trade. Faster processing at the border clearly has a significant impact on our ability to export to the United States and around the world. In addition, as concerns imports, it is vital our companies be in a position to respond to customer demand and to have the resources, be they natural resources, machinery, technology or individual expertise, at the right time.

In principle, therefore, we do not oppose the bill, nor are we opposed to the desire to modernize our customs system, since the volume of transborder shipments now exceeds $500 billion and over 100 million travellers enter or leave Canada annually.

As I mentioned, we agree in principle with the bill's objectives. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting in favour of this bill at second reading.

However, I must emphasize that there are shortcomings in the bill, which must be corrected before we will give our final approval, before the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

There are four problems: the first has to do with security; the second with fair treatment of individuals and companies; the third with the resources earmarked for customs services generally; and the fourth with mail searches.

As was mentioned, the purpose of modernizing our customs system is to expedite the movement of passengers. Another purpose is to broaden accelerated licence programs, such as Canpass, so that companies identified as being low risk can take advantage of reserved border crossing lanes without having to undergo the usual questioning from customs officers.

These two programs raise some very legitimate concerns—and I think that after the events of September 11, we have a responsibility to be concerned—about security. Furthermore, what regulations will be introduced to provide a framework for putting these very laudable principles into practice?

These regulations are extremely important. I know that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot raised this point on Friday; unfortunately, the present Liberal government has a tendency to favour using statutes as blank canvases for regulations, as the Minister of National Revenue put it. The result is that parliamentarians are deprived of the full information they need to make informed decisions.

This case is no exception, since the number of regulations set out in the act is not only significant in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Clause 11.1 (3) reads as follows:

The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) prescribing classes of persons who may be authorized to present themselves in alternative manners;

(b) respecting alternative manners of presentation;

(c) respecting the requirements and conditions that are to be met before authorizations may be issued;

(d) respecting the terms and conditions of authorizations;

(e) respecting the amendment, suspension, renewal, cancellation or reinstatement of authorizations; and

(f) respecting fees or the manner of determining fees to be paid for authorizations.

As we can see, the bill sets out a principle, but we know absolutely nothing, at this point in time, about how this principle will be applied. What means will be used, what methods and criteria will determine those who stand to benefit from this privileged treatment? Will these regulations guarantee a high level of safety without compromising the steady flow of trade that we require? We do not know this.

As long as we do not know this, we cannot comment on the substance of the bill, despite the fact that we support the principle.

It is the same thing when it comes to fairness. We know that these accelerated permit programs will give the businesses that have access to these permits an advantage over their competitors. We would not like this system and these programs to become a new way to help friends of the government. We would not want people to benefit enormously from this privilege, because it is just that, a privilege, and not a right.

Once again, we need to know what criteria the government will use to determine who will be eligible for these permits, and who will not. As long as there are no regulations, we are unable to judge the substance of the bill, again, even though we agree with the objectives being pursued.

Therefore, if we do not have the regulations, we will not be able to vote for the bill at third reading. As I mentioned earlier, the minister himself described the bill as a blank canvas. We do not want a blank canvas, we want the whole picture before agreeing to support bill S-23.

Moreover, we are not the only ones to wonder about, have concerns about, this blank canvas Bill S-23 represents. For example, Bob Armstrong of the Canadian importers and exporters association, said the following before the committee:

Although we are very supportive of the concepts of the action plan, the association is not without its concerns and reservations when it comes to the implementation of the programs, such as the Administrative Monetary Penalty System, AMPS, and the Customs Self Assessment initiative, CSA. There are inequities in the proposals that we have seen so far and there is not yet an operating plan available to ascertain what the actual impact of AMPS will be. There is much verbal discussion. Everything is still in a draft format so we do not know entirely.

That is exactly our impression today.

Also appearing before the committee was the president of the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, who said:

There is still work to be done. We must see the proposed regulations. We must better understand the systems changes that will be used to monitor infractions and performance.

That, I think, summarizes very well what we are asking of the minister and the government. We need regulations so that we may have a debate that is not only calm, but also democratic. Having only half or one-quarter of the information will not let us get a proper idea of the effects of this bill.

So, in order to have a clearer idea of the balance between security and fluidity of exchanges, between equity and fluidity, we want to see these regulations.

There was a third element, which I had mentioned at the start, in addition to security and equity: the government's commitment to injecting the necessary resources. Regardless of what the minister and the government may feel, reorganization of the system, using new technologies and pertinent information must not put us in a position where we cannot take advantage of savings in injecting new financial and human resources in order to ensure that our borders are indeed being respected, and our regulations and legislation as well.

Again, we are not the only ones to think so and I am quoting Bob Armstrong, the President of the Canadian importers and exporters association, who said:

Above all, what the Canadian business world expects from a customs action plan is accuracy, simplicity and profitability.

We feel that these goals will be achieved in the long term but, unfortunately, because of the lack of funding, this could take longer than the agency thinks. This is our other message. We hope that in the future the Government of Canada will provide adequate funding to its customs agency, so that its productivity can be as high as possible.

We should get a commitment from both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue that the necessary resources to implement the act--which we hope will be improved on--will indeed be provided to ensure the administration of this legislation and the safety of Canadians and Quebecers.

One last thing I mentioned at the beginning, along with safety, fairness and the providing of the necessary resources, is the opening of mail. This is not something new. We cannot support this part of the bill. Last spring, when it was learned that employees at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency were opening mail, it created an uproar in our democratic society, and rightly so. At the time, the privacy commissioner even made the following comment:

The fact remains that the opening up and the reading of mail without a legal warrant or consent are violations of privacy and are most disturbing.

Canada is a free and democratic country in which the opening up of our mail by the government is an extremely strong symbolism. Therefore it must be used only with the greatest—

[North American Free Trade Agreement, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister met with his Mexican and American counterparts on May 8, and chapter 11 was to be discussed. Moreover, the NAFTA commission will meet at the end of July and this item is on the agenda.

Could the minister tell us which changes he will propose to settle this issue once and for all?

[North American Free Trade Agreement, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, chapter 11 of NAFTA on investments is to be discussed by the three countries in July.

The Prime Minister has already stated that chapter 11 of NAFTA does not pose a problem, while the Minister for International Trade is concerned about it. As we know, transnational corporations are making all kinds of representations to have this chapter maintained.

Does the minister realize that the interpretation given to chapter 11 jeopardizes the governments' ability to act, which means that it is urgent to limit its scope?

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Americas is one more illustration of why Quebec must become sovereign.

Who would not agree that our values and our institutions would be better defended by representatives from Quebec than by the federal government in negotiations for the free trade area of the Americas?

What jurisdiction does the federal government have to negotiate anything directly or indirectly related to language, culture, health, education or labour? How can the government in Ottawa defend Quebec's culture, when it daily denies the existence of that culture? What sort of effort will it put into seeing that our unique approach to the management of farming is not endangered?

The sovereignty of Quebec, the sixth largest economic power in the Americas, will give us access to the negotiating tables of the free trade area of the Americas. This will make it possible for us to make our choices and to build alliances so that the agreement benefits the Quebec people and the other peoples of the Americas.

The sovereignty of Quebec is the only way.

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have much need of empty successes like that one. We still do not have the texts.

Does the minister realize that, at the rate things are going, the texts will be out of date before we get them? As long as people are still waiting, the public debate cannot take place.

Is the minister prepared to commit to providing all updates as they are made available? Is he prepared to commit to that?

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is still patting himself on the back about his supposed diplomatic success in Buenos Aires in getting the texts of the free trade area of the Americas negotiations made public.

Buenos Aires dates back some two months, and the Quebec City summit was six weeks ago now. Yet we are still waiting on those texts.

Unless he can provide us with the texts, can the minister explain to us what is going on?

[Free Trade Area Of The Americas, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, over three months ago, the Minister for International Trade told this House that he hoped the basic texts used in the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas would be made public.

Upon his return from Buenos Aires, close to two months ago, he announced triumphantly that he had obtained the authorization of the other ministers to release the texts. We are still waiting for the basic texts to be made public.

My question to the Minister for International Trade is simple: When will the texts be made public? The minister must realize that we want these texts before the deadline for negotiations.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

This is a very important matter for me. I have been interested in it for a number of years, because I sit on the board of the Greater Montreal United Way. We manage assistance for agencies providing help to refugees and immigrants. We know that each is treated in much the same way. Often problems related to the arrival of refugees impact the way we look at immigration.

As my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, legislation adapted to the new realities of Canada and Quebec and the world as a whole is most welcome. The environment has hugely changed the pressures of population movements that are a part of globalization. It is not said often enough, but the arrival in numbers not only in Canada but in all western countries of persons from southern countries is part of the globalization process we speak of daily.

This is an extremely important bill. It is also a bill that calls on the most fundamental values shared by Quebecers and Canadians and that reflects a commitment to international solidarity.

All members will agree that our primary concern with this bill must be to show extreme generosity toward those who, for reasons having to do with their political opinion, sexual orientation or religion, must leave their country to save their lives and those of their loved ones.

This commitment to international solidarity must transcend our concerns when we review Bill C-11. This is particularly important for Quebec and Quebecers, because, as we know Quebec welcomes more than its fair share of refugees on a per capita basis, and we are proud of that.

At the same time, we must, as members representing Quebec's interests, remind this House that there are major costs involved. Quebec must pay some $80 million to provide the necessary assistance to refugees even though this is a federal jurisdiction.

In this respect, Motion No. 9, to which the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred and which was moved by the hon. member for Laval Centre, is an absolute priority for us.

Indeed, the system must be much more efficient, not only for administrative reasons, but also for reasons that relate to international solidarity and to which I referred. We need to create the proper environment to make the system much more efficient.

This brings me to a third point. When we talk about efficiency, we must think about the rigour with which we should deal with refugee and immigration issues in general, to admit to Canada and Quebec people who not only have refugee status, but who also meet immigration requirements. We must be able to prevent undesirables from entering Canada and Quebec. This rigour must not mean that the federal government can get around providing appropriate resources to administer the act.

Motion No. 9 deals with this issue.

The proposed legislation could be extremely rigorous, extremely comprehensive with respect to this obligation to show solidarity, this obligation to ensure the safety of residents of Canada and of Quebec, but the government's primary concern in introducing Bill C-11 must not be to make this bill as repressive as possible in order to keep refugees out of Canada and to try to economize on the necessary resources.

In this regard, I think it is extremely important to remind the federal government, the Liberal government, that additional resources are needed to implement any legislation, although I do agree that this legislation must be rigorously enforced.

There is one final point I wish to make before looking at the individual motions. It is clear that the government's wish to introduce this bill is also motivated by a certain pressure from our neighbours to the south, whose view of this obligation to show solidarity towards refugees perhaps differs from that of Canadians and Quebecers.

I would not want decisions taken in the House to be coloured by this desire to comply with our American neighbours, as has unfortunately been the case in various connections in recent months.

In fact, we have noticed a certain anxiousness on the part of the government to comply with pressures that had less to do with public opinion in Canada or in Quebec than they had to do with public opinion in the United States or with what the U.S. government wanted. The missile defence shield, the energy agreement, and so forth, are just a few examples that come to mind.

I therefore think it extremely important that our concerns not be allowed to overshadow our obligation to show solidarity, that the necessary resources be made available to enforce the legislation, and that the toughness of the legislation reflect our values and needs, not those of our neighbours to the south.

It is in that context that the Bloc Quebecois views Motion No. 5, for example, as extremely important in order to better define what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. As we have mentioned already, we feel that section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act would be a good basis for defining what is a threat to the security of Canada.

In that law, the definition includes espionage, sabotage, activities detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of the threat of acts of serious violence and activities intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

It is clear that those activities would indeed constitute threats to the security of Canada. However, it is also clear that people who defend causes in their countries, who protest or show their disagreement with policy directions, who are doing it democratically whenever possible and with a will to resolve problems peacefully, should not be covered by that definition. In our opinion, the universal charter of human rights should be respected in the spirit of the legislation.

Therefore, we feel that a much clearer and more specific definition of the concept of threat to the security of Canada is absolutely necessary for this legislation to be applied to the fullest extent, but without arbitrariness and most of all without injustice toward people who, in all good faith, defend a cause with which we sometimes are in agreement.

In the same spirit, while we agree with the motion and the amendment to more clearly define through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act the concept of threat against the security of Canada, we disagree with the idea that the Security Intelligence Review Committee would be the organization that should make recommendations to this effect. We question the appropriateness of involving the SIRC review committee in this regard.

I would like to focus mostly on Motion No. 7, proposed by my colleague from Laval Centre. Its purpose is to maintain a level of appeal for people who have been refused refugee status or admission into Canada on grounds of serious crime, security, violation of human rights or organized crime.

As we know, the present act provides for two stages. When the adjudication division takes expulsion proceedings, an appeal division can hear the arguments that the refugee or the permanent resident might make to challenge the decision. In our opinion, it is very important that this level of appeal be maintained. In this sense, clause 64 of the bill must be removed entirely. Once again, I feel that through clause 64 the government is trying to hide the lack of resources to apply the bill that will eventually be passed by invoking administrative reasons and removing a level of appeal.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois hopes that Bill C-11 will be amended to respond to the real values of Quebecers and Canadians.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this debate and to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I believe this motion should get the support of every member in the House. I would like to read it again in order to put the debate in the right perspective. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should call a federal-provincial first ministers' conference for the purpose of reapportioning the tax base among the federal and provincial governments through the transfer of tax points.

I think the situation is excessively simple and it is also excessively dramatic. As it was pointed out already, and I think this should be stressed again, needs are currently under provincial responsibility, like health, post-secondary education and social services as a whole. All these responsibilities are at the provincial level, whereas money is at the federal level, in Ottawa. It is a situation that has to be corrected.

The strongest evidence that the money is in Ottawa is the fact that between 1993 and 2001 federal revenues have increased by 53% while federal spending decreased by 3%. Meanwhile, in Quebec program spending increased by 16%. I think these numbers illustrate quite well the situation where needs are growing in Quebec with a 16% increase in spending, while revenues are increasing and spending is decreasing at the federal level.

This allows the federal government to accumulate surpluses that are becoming indecent. From 1996 until now, there have been $60 billion in unforeseen, hidden surpluses. Over the years, the Minister of Finance has erred by 130% to 400%. Can the government pretend that such errors are inadvertent? I do not think so. This is a federal government strategy to undemocratically divert part of the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians in order to use them for other purposes than those that were announced.

The government has $60 billion in hidden surpluses since 1996. These are systematic, deliberate errors. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has done some calculations and has correctly identified the surpluses over the last years, something the Minister of Finance was unable to do.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whom I congratulate for his excellent work, had forecasted $60 billion in hidden surpluses. He now tells us that in the next four years $90 billion in surpluses will go into the federal government's coffers. What for? To pay off the debt.

This is the most undemocratic action since the passage of the so-called “clarity” bill, Bill C-20 tabled by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who wants to lock in the Quebec people and their right to collectively choose their future. In my opinion, after passage of Bill C-20, the most undemocratic thing the federal government has done is certainly diverting its surplus towards paying off the debt.

Why? Because the Liberal government got elected on the promise that 50% of the surplus would be used to cut taxes and reduce the debt and the other 50% would be devoted to all programs, particularly those under provincial jurisdiction.

Then we saw some low, despicable electioneering. The Liberals went through the campaign saying that this is how they would split the surplus, opposing their approach to the approach of other parties like the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance was proposing further tax cuts. The Liberals wanted to appear progressive, but in fact they chose to repay the debt without any public debate and they deceived the public.

I think this discredits the Liberal government and, unfortunately, the whole of politics. I think we must condemn such an undemocratic act and the conference we are proposing would be the opportunity for a real public debate where we could determine exactly what the surplus should be applied to.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is not against paying down the debt. However, when we pay down a good part of the debt with hidden surpluses, without any public debate, in a way that is detrimental to the quality of public services, especially provincial ones, there is a big problem.

In this regard, I remind hon. members that the Minister of Finance greatly paid down the debt with concealed surpluses, in a way that was detrimental to health. This has been said before but it warrants repeating. A few years ago, the federal government funded 50% of all health spending in Quebec; it paid 50 cents on the dollar. Today, its share is only 14 cents on the dollar. At the same time, the federal government still wants to impose national standards on us.

As for post-secondary education, the level of transfer payments is at a 30-year low. Yet the liberals are telling us that investment in education is the Canadian way. What a lie. Over the past few years, federal transfer payments for post-secondary education have gone from 12.5% to 8.3%. That is reality. It is not just words, but reality.

A third element consists in the wholesale paying down of the debt with the concealed surplus, while refusing to restore transfer payments to the provinces to their 1993 level, a time when federal public finances were in a sorry state. This means that today federal transfer payments for program funding in Quebec have gone from their 1990 level of 20% down to 13%. This is a real problem.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have a solution for resolving this problem of fiscal imbalance. As has been said, this is a problem that goes back in history. During World War II, the provinces did indeed give up this source of revenue in order to contribute to the war effort. This is a situation we now need to remedy.

It is clear to the Bloc Quebecois that the best solution is Quebec sovereignty. With Quebec sovereignty, we would repatriate all of our taxes, make collective decisions and avoid the anti-democratic situation in which we find ourselves at the present time within the Canadian federal system, this systematic lack of democracy. The best example of this is the way the employment insurance fund surplus has been diverted and the way the surplus that came from all taxpayers has also been diverted.

Quebec sovereignty is therefore the choice that should be made here, but until that time it seems to us that for the good of Quebec and for all the provinces as well, all members of this House should agree with this motion. The government must sit down with the provinces in order to reapportion the tax bases and transfer tax points, which would become the property of the provinces, so that they may assume their responsibilities in the areas of health, education and all the social services.

That has already been mentioned. Historically speaking, all Quebec premiers, regardless of their position on the national issue, called for the re-establishment of a fiscal balance, be it Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, senior, Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Robert Bourassa, René Lévesque, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Daniel Johnson Jr., Jacques Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard.

All these premiers wanted to rectify a situation that may be explained historically witch dates from the second world war. The federal government has systematically fought the desire of Quebec and the provinces to return to the situation that existed prior to the second world war.

To this, I must add an element in the debate, which I think will be picked up by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. This fiscal imbalance exists in the context of a social union, something that is extremely dangerous for the future of Quebec, because the other provinces have legitimized the federal government's intervention in Quebec's jurisdictions.

Quebec refused to sign the social union—which we agree with entirely—but in the context of fiscal imbalance, the provinces see their jurisdictions threatened.

The most amusing illustration of that perhaps was the millennium scholarships, in which the federal government did everything possible to ensure a little maple leaf appeared on the cheques.

It seems to me that the motion proposed by the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière speaks for itself. Nevertheless, I would like to move the following amendment to the main motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “conference” the following: “, as soon as possible,”.

I think the situation is pressing. It is dramatic.

The federal government must call this conference. All the provincial premiers are calling for it.