Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1998

Personal Information And Electronic Documents Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The chief government whip has requested the vote be deferred until the end of Government Orders tomorrow. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas, and more specifically to the amendment now before the House, which calls on the government to go back to the drawing board, to put it simply.

This piece of legislation has a laudable purpose. However, the means to implement it are appalling, and that is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to go back to the drawing board.

This bill, whose purpose is to define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, including eight in Quebec, each representative of the ecosystems identified so far in Quebec and in Canada, follows up an international commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this research, undertaken at the instigation of the World Conservation Union. It supports the environmental approach underlying this bill. However, the Bloc wants to forcefully state its disagreement with the means used.

The Bloc Quebecois wonders why the federal government did not draw on the agreement reached on the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park in Quebec, which called for the cooperation, on an equal footing, of two governments in their respective jurisdiction and which even led to Quebec passing a legislation similar to the federal law, showing the respectful cooperation on the part of both governments.

The Bloc Quebecois was totally in agreement and urged adoption of this bill because it is the way to proceed where shared jurisdictions are concerned. Quebec is willing to co-operate, as it has shown with phase III of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, but for the bill to state as a prerequisite for the federal government's involvement in the management of marine conservation areas that title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation areas be vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada is unacceptable.

This means that, instead of co-operating to ensure that in difficult circumstances, riparian communities take part in the preservation of those marine areas in the river, in the gulf and in the estuary, the federal government is saying that this land must belong to it, or else.

For it, the implementation of the international agreement, its commitments are more important than the fact that this land that would become federal is most definitely located in Quebec waters.

It is a change from what we hear constantly repeated here, for example in the flattering record the Prime Minister presents and the progress he supposedly made in his relations with provinces, including Quebec. This government action is possible only if the concerned aquatic territory in Quebec is declared federal.

This is an authoritarian and disrespectful way of acting that, ultimately, would not be efficient. How can one imagine that not only coastal populations but also every stakeholder in Quebec will co-operate if this bill becomes law? We hope very much that it will be withdrawn and reworked. How can anyone imagine that it could lead to a co-operation of various governments instead of creating an institutionalized conflict due to the federal government's arrogant attitude, saying there will be work only if the marine conservation areas are federally owned?

This bill contains other major problems. Overlapping is one that can certainly not be overlooked. This time, overlapping jurisdictions would not be provincial and federal governments, but different federal departments. This could be pretty funny. I hope the Royal Air Farce will examine this issue. They could also look into other matters, there are lots to choose from.

There are three federal bodies. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has marine protected areas and regulations. There is Environment Canada, which has marine wildlife reserves and regulations. Finally, there is Heritage Canada, which has marine conservation areas and its own regulations.

One would think that these three federal organizations would talk to each other, would find a way to co-operate with the provinces, including Quebec, particularly since this is going on at a difficult time for people in the maritime provinces. Indeed, the coastal communities who rely on marine resources, on fish, are very disturbed and live in fear, if not in poverty.

How can we expect to have the freedom of mind that is necessary to look at the ecosystem from these various perspectives if the workers who have lost their jobs do not know what their status will be in two or five years? More importantly, these people do not know if they will have resources to live on. The fact that they live in such insecurity is evidence that something is wrong.

Three federal organizations are looking after the ecosystem and the fishery, but what about the men and women who need to earn a living, who are faced with an employment insurance reform whose effects are being felt more and more? As we know, things will get even worse in the spring, but these people are already experiencing the adverse effects of the employment insurance reform, at a time when the government has an enormous surplus, which makes it all the more painful for them.

There is overlap among the federal departments, which, through numerous consultations with the public and departmental interventions, can do nothing but foment exasperation and anger. The context needed for these commitments by Canada is the total opposite.

We share these commitments, but we say that if the government is serious, if it wants to progress, it will have to create, with the provinces, the conditions that will enable stakeholders and the public to become involved in a task that will fall to them in the end.

It is good news to hear that the St. Lawrence is not as polluted as we thought. That is what a study revealed two weeks ago. It is good news, but we know that our problems are not over and that the protection of ecosystems and marine areas requires public involvement.

I cannot help but underline how shocking it is to see that, far from honouring its commitment in this regard, the federal government persists in acting in a unilateral and authoritarian way toward the provinces, particularly Quebec, so it can put the word “Canada” on every little marine area, instead of collaborating with Quebec and creating the conditions required to work with the public.

Despite all its sweet talk to Quebeckers, with Bill C-54, this government actually decides when the Quebec legislation will prevail and, with Bill C-48, it says it will not become involved in the conservation of marine areas unless its ownership is recognized.

This is the mark not of a centralizing government but of a government which denies the very existence of the provinces, which wants to take over the areas under their jurisdiction. In doing so, the government wastes not only money but also energy and hinders the co-operation needed.

This government sang the praises of renewed federalism. If there is a new way to make federalism evolve, it will be found in these bills because we rely not on the press releases which supposedly explain the meaning of the bills, but on the text of the bill itself. It is our responsibility. Indeed, whatever a minister may say about his intentions, he will have to act according to the law.

Our responsibility is not to say “My God, the minister has good intentions and would never do such a thing”. We cannot do that because the minister may change his mind anyway, even if he had the intentions which he said he had. We cannot do that because this government could decide otherwise. The government may change and, anyway, legislation is interpreted not according to news releases but according to what is written in the act itself.

We know that the supreme court, particularly in the two successive decisions from Justice Laskin and Justice Dickson in a case whose name I hope I can remember before the end of my speech, is interpreting provincial jurisdictions in a way that is increasingly eroding them. Our responsibility is to ensure that, if governments have other intentions, they spell them out in their legislation.

This is why, for both Bill C-54 and Bill C-48, if ministers have in mind something other than what appears in the legislation, we ask them to withdraw and rewrite them. We know that even with amendments the spirit of a bill will not change. Our amendments were rejected often enough for us to know that, in the future, to change the spirit of the bill, we must ask that the bill be withdrawn and rewritten in such a way that the interpretation given will really be the one used in enforcement of the legislation, and not only in the news releases.

I urge my colleagues opposite to read the bills drafted by their government instead of just relying on the news releases. They will understand why we are against Bills C-54 and C-48. What matters is the text.

I remember instances where the Minister of Finance introduced new wording for his budget implementation bill, telling us that the original text should have read that way. These things do occur. The Minister of Finance did so and, in so doing, he confirmed that we were right in our interpretation. However, it took some reporters to understood it the same way we did.

Unfortunately, all bills do not get the same attention from reporters in the House who are simply not enough to cover everything that is going on here. We sincerely regret it because we could certainly see changes in behaviours and different ways of writing if the public understood better what is happening. We cannot say that a text means one thing when in fact it means the opposite. This is true of bill C-54 and it is also true of the spirit of Bill C-48.

I suggest that the minister go back to the drawing board and I can assure her that, as was the case with the development of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the Bloc critic concerned, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, will do her share.

In light of the intensity of her speech, I am sure she will. However, if she does not agree with the bill, it would be a lot more difficult to support it and to enforce it afterwards, a situation that I hope will never happen.

At this point, we are still confident because we believe in the set goal, but we are forced to realize that we were often disappointed. This is in fact the reason why bills C-54 and C-48 reaffirm the necessity for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is only recently that I have become interested in this bill. There are some aspects that I understand, some that I do not. I will ask my colleague to shed some light on this for me.

I believe that the bottom of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf are within Quebec's jurisdiction. I believe that the British North America Act clearly states that the bottom belongs to Quebec and is within its jurisdiction. Even if it wanted to, Quebec could not sell it to anyone, let alone the federal government.

Yet, if I understand correctly, the purpose of the bill before us is to have the federal government take over these areas in the river and in the gulf, on the grounds that they are wildlife conservation areas, which contain shellfish, plants and algae it wants to protect. And in a way expropriate from Quebec.

I believe this is unconstitutional. I believe that the federal government has no right to do so. Why then is it proposing legislation that clashes directly with the Constitution?

I would like my colleague to shed some light on this for me.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will agree with me that I am not the greatest expert on this bill. What I understand is what I read.

This issue of expropriation is not mentioned. However, it is clearly stipulated that the schedule cannot include the names of marines areas. Clause 5(2) reads as follows “An amendment to Schedule 1 may be made only if the Governor in Council is satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada—”

This can be interpreted to mean that the federal government is reserving the right to force any province to transfer an area in the river, the gulf or the estuary. Otherwise, the area in question could not be included as part of the action taken to comply with the international agreement.

There is something in that logic that does not ring true. As I said, it does sound arrogant and even somewhat mean, because we have made our support for compliance with this international agreement known. However, we will not be able to support it if we have to give up the title to some areas, which is something we do not have the authority to do, anyway. Quebec does not have the right to transfer these titles to the Canadian government.

Once again, this is a very strange piece of legislation, which is why we are asking the minister to withdraw the bill and allow the committee to reconsider the issue.

[The Speaker]

There will be six minutes left for questions and comments when we will resume after question period. It being almost 2 o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members so that we can have a little more time afterwards.

Ron Gaudet

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ron Gaudet, President of the Greater Moncton Economic Commission, who was recently named economic developer of the year by the Economic Development Association of Canada, a 400 member association.

As president and CEO of the Greater Moncton Economic Commission for the past four years, Mr. Gaudet has seen our region through some difficult times and has played a major role in revitalizing our economy.

Under Mr. Gaudet's presidency the greater Moncton area was named one of the ten best cities in Canada in which to do business for three years in a row.

Mr. Gaudet has greatly contributed to the economic growth of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. On behalf of the people of the Greater Moncton area, I thank him for his dedication to the economic development of our community.

On behalf of the people of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe I congratulate Ron on his much deserved reward and thank him for his dedication to the development of our community.

Agriculture

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are facing a cash crisis and although there are many factors contributing to their financial plight, the greatest challenge faced by our farming communities is to overcome Liberal arrogance, apathy and inaction.

With world commodity levels bottoming out, it is obvious that Canadian farmers are suffering the ill effects of the Asian flu. For example, first estimates for 1998 suggest that the drop in farm income will be 40% across Canada with the worst hitting the prairie provinces.

Yet in their time of need Canadian farmers hear too little too late from the Liberals. The weak willed government simply restates that regular income stabilization schemes like NISA and crop insurance will pull farm families through.

The government has abandoned farmers, abandoned those who put food on our tables and therefore abandoned an essential element of Canada, our farming communities. It is time for Canadian answers and action, not indifference and denial from the government.

Women's History Month

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the National Art Centre's production of The Bush Ladies: Life in the Backwoods of Upper Canada was a fine contribution to Women's History Month.

This show stitches together the written witness of four Canadian pioneer women, Catharine Parr Traill, Susana Moodie and Anne Langton, who all lived in Peterborough riding, and Anna Jameson.

Their record of life in Upper Canada is a tribute to their cohorts and an inspiration for all Canadians.

Catherine Parr Traill, a writer and botanist, is the most famous of them. Her book The Backwoods of Canada is a literary and scientific account of her first three years in Canada. Her sister, Susana Moodie, is best known for her book Roughing it in the Bush .

Peterborough's tradition as a home for literary women has continued through talented authors like Margaret Laurence and recent winners of governor general's awards.

Each summer this tradition is celebrated by the Literary Festival of the Village of Lakefield which I encourage all members to attend next year.

The contributions to our country of these four special women were most worthy.

Abortion

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the outrage of many North Americans concerning the brutal and senseless shootings of Canadian abortion providers and the recent murder of American Dr. Barnett Slepian.

There have been four shootings in the last five years in Canada and the U.S., all occurring on or close to Remembrance Day.

Since 1997 the RCMP has been co-ordinating a national task force which is investigating the shootings. This task force includes members from the Hamilton-Wentworth, Vancouver and Winnipeg police forces as well as the RCMP, and now the FBI.

The Department of Justice's resources are being made available to the task force as are the services of the Canadian Police Information Centre and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Chief Kenneth Robertson and the international task force for providing advice and assistance to physicians who are concerned for their safety.

Police believe there is someone out there who can provide information. They are urged to call the task force through their local police department.

Gala De L'Adisq

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to join with all Canadians in heartily congratulating all of Quebec's artists who participated in yesterday's 20th anniversary gala for the Association du disque et de l'industrie du spectacle québécois.

All this talent on a single stage speaks eloquently of the excellence of their work. The prizes awarded these artists is undeniable proof of the public's appreciation.

Congratulations to Kevin Parent and Bruno Pelletier, who each won three Félix awards.

Congratulations to the groups Dubmatique and Lili Fatale, fine representatives of the next generation of musicians in Quebec.

Congratulations as well to renowned performers Linda Lemay, Lara Fabian and, of course, Céline Dion, who hosted the evening with panache.

And congratulations to all the others who, for lack of time, I cannot name.

Canada may rightly be proud of these musical talents and the recognition they are given by their fellow citizens and by audiences worldwide.

Impaired Driving

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the launch of MADD Canada's annual Red Ribbon Campaign against impaired driving.

Impaired driving kills almost 2,000 and injures nearly 100,000 Canadians every year.

Impaired driving is a senseless tragedy as well as a 100% preventable crime. I salute Mothers Against Drunk Drivers for their tireless work.

I also salute my colleagues in the Reform Party for their fight against impaired driving. As a result of this fight, for the first time in 13 years the justice committee must now take steps to strengthen the laws that prohibit impaired driving, this senseless crime.

It is incumbent on every member of parliament to join this fight. I plead for their support to pressure the government to take leadership against impaired driving.

Election Campaign In Quebec

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, come November 30, Quebeckers will be expressing loud and clear their love for Quebec, a Quebec within Canada.

On November 30, Quebeckers will say in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate the scorn in the words of the acting PQ premier, Lucien Bouchard, who said that Jean Charest did not like Quebec.

On November 30, Quebeckers will vote Liberal because they have had enough of referendums, which have cost more than $400 million to date. They have had it with talk of separation and the words of Lucien Bouchard, who says Canada is Quebec's arch-enemy.

On November 30, Quebeckers will vote for Jean Charest, because they know Canadian federalism will be improved with him and, in Abitibi-Est, with Lionel Brochu.

Quebec Premier

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the premier of Quebec accused the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party of not loving Quebec.

In doing so, Lucien Bouchard is insulting all Quebeckers who do not share his views. In fact, with this statement he is finally putting thoughts he has had for some time into words. The sovereignist leader is cultivating division by insulting all those who believe Quebec should remain within Canada.

The PQ leader has decided to stir up dissent—let him go ahead and do so!

Quebeckers will have a chance on November 30 to give him a frank answer by voting Liberal, by backing Jean Charest.

United Alternative

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last May the Leader of the Opposition invited supporters of different federal and provincial parties to come together at a national assembly to discuss forming a united alternative to Liberal misgovernment.

A poll released just today adds strength to this initiative by offering proof that Canadians want a strong united alternative to the top down, tax and spend, soft on crime, Ottawa knows best mentality of this increasingly arrogant government.

According to the National Post -Compass survey, 36% of Canadians would vote for a united alternative for fiscal and social responsibility, democratic accountability and strengthened unity through rebalanced powers. Add to this base another 30% of Canadians who say they will consider voting for a national alternative that shares their values and this spells big trouble for the Liberals who won the last election with only 38% of the vote and lost it in nine out of ten provinces.

That is why I wish once again to extend to all Canadians, especially my friends in the Conservative caucus, an invitation to join like-minded Canadians in helping to shape a broad political movement that can govern Canada leading into the 21st century.