Yvan Bernier

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague opposite to repeat part of her speech. I want to be absolutely sure that I understood the interpreter.

When she says that catches by native fishers represent approximately 1% of commercial catches, is she not contradicting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who says that we must ensure conservation of our stocks? One percent is nothing.

I would like to know if she is contradicting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and if the problem is more of a management problem. How will the fishing be done—that is the problem we have with non native fishers—and, particularly, who will be doing it? That is the problem.

[Special Debate, October 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party says we must try to develop a viable and sustainable fishing industry. Could she give her opinion on the most recent international agreement that Canada signed this summer? I am speaking of the UN fishing agreement. Article 5 of that agreement provides that the signatories pledge to develop and to maintain a sustainable and cost-effective fishery.

My problem here is that Canada must now deal with a requirement from the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that we must guarantee adequate livelihood to aboriginal people. However, we still do not know what is meant by a cost-effective and, more importantly, a sustainable fishery, in the language and vocabulary used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Sustainable has to do with the proposed fishing gear, but will it be viable?

What is the expected level of cost-effectiveness, particularly in the context being dictated at the UN by all the countries of the world, including France, the United States, England and so on, and without subsidy? What will this “without subsidy” mean? What do the words “viable” and “cost-effective” currently mean?

Right now, we are asking Gaspé Peninsula fishers to share their resources with aboriginal people. If the court forces them to do it, they will do it, but they will also share their misery. In the wintertime, they have to rely on employment insurance.

How are we going to define the terms “viable” and “cost-effective”? Is the NDP prepared to team up with us to put pressure on the Liberal government to force them to develop that definition? We need it not only to solve the aboriginal crisis, but also to ensure sustainability in the fisheries of eastern Canada.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition from the residents of the Magdalen Islands.

The signatories are opposed to what they term discriminatory measures in the Atlantic groundfish strategy, particularly the early retirement program.

In their petition they claim that the TAGS measures adopted by the Department of Human Resources Development are insufficient and not adapted to the needs of workers in the fishing industry. They also claim that they were not consulted before the program was implemented, particularly on the early retirement component.

They are therefore calling upon the government to give consideration in the post-TAGS program to people who turned 55 after December 31, 1998.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, June 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois in explaining to members opposite and to Canadians and Quebecers who are listening to us through electronic means why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-54.

I remind those who just joined us—and I am thinking of children just back from school, particularly in the Gaspé Peninsula—that Bill C-54 seeks to promote electronic commerce, but it does so at the expense of our right to privacy.

What is the right to privacy? It means that strangers have no right to obtain information concerning my private life without my consent as an individual or a member of my family.

For Canadians, and particularly for Quebecers, the right to privacy is already provided for in the Quebec charter. I am not ashamed to say that this was done under the Liberal government that legislated in that area in 1994. Quebec was the only state in North America to have legislation aimed at protecting personal information in the private sector.

Why is it important to have this type of legislation? In e-commerce, where everything goes so fast in this computer age, information is easily available. In the past, it took time to gather information from huge registers. Now, with a diskette, one just has to press a few keys on a keyboard to transfer information regarding the lives of thousands of people instantly. That is why it is very important to legislate in that area.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois opposed to the federal bill? I will give a brief historic overview. As I mentioned earlier, in 1994 Quebec passed an act to protect itself in this regard, and it also has a privacy commissioner. The act has been tested. Numerous cases have been brought forward and we can be proud of the way the act operates.

Nevertheless, the federal government took an initiative in June 1998. It brought together in Fredericton all of the provincial ministers responsible for the electronic highway to examine the advisability of passing legislation to protect private information in the private sector.

Last fall, on September 21, 1998, the federal Minister of Industry sent a bill to his provincial counterparts and asked for their comments. However, without waiting for an answer, on October 1, 1998 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-54 in the House of Commons.

What is it that happened during the week of September 21 to October 1 to lead the federal minister to decide to speed up the enactment of the legislation? I do not know. Why are we coming back to this bill at this stage, during the last few weeks of sittings? Why the rush? I do not know.

However, I would like, if I may, to suggest how the House could have made better use of its time.

The fishing industry, the auditor general and all parties in this House have unanimously asked the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to introduce framework legislation so we will know how the fisheries will be managed in the future.

The Bloc Quebecois made a similar suggestion at the outset, in 1993, when I began in politics. The issue was also raised in section 19 of a report of the standing committee on fisheries, which asked the department to review its management methods. The auditor general himself, who is completely independent and neutral, and who most of all is not a member of the Bloc—and no one can say whether he is a Conservative or a Liberal—also asked in 1997 for the introduction of framework legislation for the future management of the fisheries. Nothing has been done.

Again this spring the auditor general, while examining another area of fisheries—the first time, in 1997, it was groundfish and this time it was shellfish—repeated the same thing “I find the same management principles that might have caused the groundfish collapse in the shellfish industry”. He called on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to act to define this framework legislation.

Just this afternoon, in the House, the chair of the standing committee tabled a unanimous report—the five parties in the House are in agreement—asking the department to introduce framework legislation.

When I note that all parties are unanimously asking that legislation be introduced, contrary to what I see concerning Bill C-54, on which there was no consultation with the provinces, which did not receive the approval of all parties in the House and which the federal government is trying to have passed at the last minute, in the last days of sittings, I wonder who is making us run around in circles.

I am here, full of goodwill. I gave my assistance and my support, along with my colleagues from other parties, to the bringing forward of a bill. This was done unanimously. The government is not listening. I see the stubbornness of the Minister of Industry, who wants to have his bill on personal information protection passed. It is poorly drafted, from a legal point of view, and I will come back to this later . I wonder what he is really trying to protect.

I have already explained why the Bloc Quebecois is giving this bill so much attention. We already have our own law in Quebec. We are in the House of Commons, where matters of federal jurisdiction are discussed. The Bloc Quebecois is pointing out that this legislation interferes with provincial jurisdiction as it is written in the Constitution of 1867. The provinces have jurisdiction over personal information by virtue of the powers the 1867 Constitution confers upon them in the area of property and civil law.

All experts consulted by the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged that privacy of information is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Why is the federal government so obstinately intent on meddling in this?

I am not very familiar with the legislative framework of the other provinces. However, if the purpose of Bill C-54 was to stir up some of the provinces to get them to bring their legislation up to date with what the Quebec provincial legislation is already doing, a good meeting and a reminder would have sufficed. Trampling heavily into provincial areas of jurisdiction at this point, when the House's time could have been better used to pass fisheries legislation which everyone in this House wanted to see passed, is just making parliament go around in circles and is a waste of MPs' valuable time. The ministers in the other provinces are not prepared to be pushed around either.

[Fisheries, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says “by the end of the month”, but it would appear that the groundfish have arrived ahead of the minister.

I would, nevertheless, like to add that this same minister, who has just said that his fishing plan will, all being well, be tabled by the end of the month, is currently buying back groundfish licences.

On what basis is he buying them back, since at the moment, nobody yet knows what approach he will take in fishing this year? Does he know where he is headed in the licence buyback and does he know where he is headed with fishing in the future?

[Fisheries, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans delayed revealing his groundfish plan, thereby creating the problems experienced in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

This year, we are approaching June, and the department has yet to reveal its fishing plan.

Did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not learn his lesson last year? And if he did, why is he not acting and making public his fishing plan for the season, which is to start shortly?

[Petitions, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House a petition signed by close to 1,000 residents of the Magdalen Islands.

The petition is about the fishery restructuring and adjustment measures put in place in June by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The petitioners submit that these measures are not geared to the needs of fisheries workers, and that over 800 residents of the Magdalen Islands will be affected by the moratorium. They feel that this change has a major negative impact on their community.

They are therefore asking the government to review the restructuring measures and to adjust these measures to the specific needs of the Magdalen Islands.

[Fisheries, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is spending millions of dollars to buy back groundfish permits, he is issuing new ones for crab and shrimp in Newfoundland, which means that there is a wholesale conversion of fishers from groundfish to shellfish.

How can the minister explain that he is stepping up shellfish capacity without even a study on the quantities available?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

You are indicating that I have only 30 seconds left. In such a short time, there is no other way I can describe somebody who takes something that does not belong to him. It is still stealing.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to rise in the House after oral question period to make a speech, but I will take advantage of the fact that there are many members present right now, especially on the government benches, to share my thoughts on the infamous Bill C-78.

First, this bill is highway robbery. The government is trying to put its hands on $30 billion stolen from various civil service pension funds, and would have us believe it is doing so after due consultation and negotiation. This is bogus, and I want to say this while everybody, or nearly everybody, is still here.

Why is the government trying to do this kind of thing in today's economy, especially after four years of negotiations with the three groups involved? We are talking about the RCMP, the federal public service and the Canadian forces. Thirty billion dollars will be taken from these people.

Negotiations went on for four years, and the President of the Treasury Board even said these discussions were encouraging. He went as far as to say that these consultations could lead to a partnership that would implement, within the public service, the concept of a management board independent from the government. That statement was made in February 1998 by the President of the Treasury Board.

We have before us today Bill C-78, which totally ignores the discussions that went on for four years as well as the nice words of the President of the Treasury Board. I think the government is showing us its true face. We are seeing the insatiable appetite of the Minister of Finance, who wants to put his fiscal house in order at the expense of these workers.

It is easy to understand. The government has taken everything away from fishers and from victims of the lack of jobs, those people who used to be eligible to some unemployment insurance benefits, now known as employment insurance benefits. It has taken $20 billion from that program. Where to go from here? Wherever there is a little bit of money left. It is now turn to its own workers and alienating them. It will steal $30 billion from its own employees' pension funds.

It may seem somewhat odd that a Bloc member rise in this House on a principle and ask the government to come back to its declaration of intent of February 1998 with respect to developing a partnership with its employees. It may seem unusual because some people contend that all we want to do is to leave and slam the door behind us. I wish people would at least remember that, while the Bloc Quebecois was represented in this place, they were men and women of their word. We would wish that, when an issue arises, it be discussed openly, and not behind closed doors.

I am happy to see that my comments today are waking up members across the way. However it is unfortunate that we have to rise our voices from time to time. I can do it and I will do it.

What I find even more horrendous is the similarities between what is being done today and what was done to those who rely on the financial support provided through the employment insurance. They were robbed of $20 billion and now the same thing is going to happen to others.

If, at least, the government said it was going to use that money for equalization purposes, or take a part of that money so that less money has to be taken out of the employment insurance fund. Public servants are fortunate enough to have a job; financial support should be provided to those who fall victim to the lack of job opportunities, or at the very least the money should be used to reduce workers' contributions and to create new catalysts to revitalize the economy in severely affected regions.

We hear speculation that the finance minister will use it to pay down the accumulated deficit. That would be nice, but can someone tell me what good it would do to pay $30 billion on a debt now reaching some $600 billion? Especially since, according to the documentation I have received, these payments would be spread over a period of 15 years. I am a bit skeptical about this whole thing.

The second question we should ask ourselves—and I am not saying that it should not be done—is: How will the payments be calculated or estimated so that they have as little impact as possible on the exchange rate? We know full well that when the finance minister turns on the tap to pay off accumulated debts we owe to other countries, the next morning, Canadians will realize that they have not only been paying toward this debt, but they will continue to pay, because the exchange rate is dropping and they will have to pay more for imported goods.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the President of the Treasury Board to redeem himself, to face up to the Minister of Finance, who seems to carry more weight than him within the Cabinet, and to come to an agreement with the three groups concerned. An agreement should be negotiated with the public service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian forces.

Otherwise, what signal would we be sending out to Canadian corporations? If the Canadian government sets an example by taking money out of the public service pension plan, what will prevent Canadian corporations from doing the same with the accumulated surpluses in the pension plans of their own employees? This is the example it is about to set. It could be hazardous.

There have been lawsuits. I will let my colleague from Saint-Jean elaborate on that. But we will recall that that is precisely what the Singer Company did. The case is still before the courts, but I have yet to see the Minister of Human Resources Development put pressure on the company and tell it “You were caught helping yourself to your employees' pension fund”. Apparently, the case has not yet been settled. With Bill C-78, the President of Treasury Board is legitimizing a $30 billion robbery.

When I was knee-high to a grasshopper, whenever a kid from the neighbourhood was caught stealing candy from the pot at the convenience store—sometimes the general merchant would keep in a corner the extra candies he could not find place for on the shelves—that kid was called thief.

Today, a man who may have done the same thing as a kid—because we were all kids at one point—is stealing $30 billion and we call him Mister Minister. Furthermore, we are expected to say “Thank you very much”.

What Canadians should do now is pay very close attention to what the President of the Treasury Board is doing. They should monitor the adoption process of this bill. Of course we cannot put pressure on a government between elections. I hope however that people will remember who turned the tap off, who stole $30 billion, who gave such a bad example to Canadian businesses, which will no doubt feel free to help themselves to the private pension funds of their employees.

We should keep an eye on that—