Debates of Oct. 19th, 1999

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

[An hon. member]

No, he hasn't.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

My colleague, the member for Chicoutimi, has not yet been heard. I hope that he will rise and, for once, defend the interests of Quebec in the House and that he will do so in a strong voice, with his friends from the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to quote Jean-Pierre Bernier, of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. The last time I checked, that association was not exactly a supporter of the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Bernier said:

There is a constitutional issue here, since personal information, in my opinion, comes under provincial jurisdiction, under the heading “Property and Civil Rights”. Therefore, I think it would be very difficult for the federal government to pass legislation dealing exclusively with the protection of personal information. If you are able to relate personal information protection rules to an area of activity where federal authority is not in doubt, you have more chances to occupy the field, if I may put it this way.

This is rather clear, but he is not the only one who thinks so. There is also Michel Venne, a well known and respected journalist in Quebec, who works for Le Devoir , the great newspaper founded by Henri Bourassa in 1910, the motto of which is “Do what you must”. We are doing what we must by opposing this bill.

He wrote: “The justice ministers of the provinces and the territories expressed strong concerns about significant invasions of provincial and territory jurisdiction found in Bill C-54—now Bill C-6. They asked the federal government to withdraw the bill and to consult the provinces and the territories. If the resolution passed in the House of Commons in December 1995 and recognizing Quebec as a distinct society by its language, its culture and its civil code meant anything, Mr. Manley should have provided for an exclusion for Quebec in the original bill”.

This is a quote, I am reading it. According to the Standing Orders of the House, we may name a minister.

In Quebec, there is unanimity against the federal bill. Why is that? Because in Quebec, who have been at the forefront of the area for years or even decades, well before we came to this place, the Liberal government of the day, with the support of the Parti québécois, put in place its own personal data protection system in 1994.

That clearly shows that even at that time, the issue escaped partisan politics that is normal in any democratic society. However, the bill passed by the National Assembly in 1994 was only one element of the legal interest for privacy protection that already existed in Quebec.

As was pointed out earlier by my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, sections 37 to 40 of the Civil Code already cover the protection of privacy and the Civil Code on which is based all the Quebec legal system is not to be swept aside.

Not only that, but another document which has almost a constitutional value in Quebec, that is, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, also protects privacy. Thus, the Charter, which was adopted in 1974, if I remember well, and the Quebec Civil Code, which has been adopted only recently—we were governed by the Lower Canada Civil Code between 1866 and 1992 or 1993, if my memory serves me right—all demonstrated how important the protection of privacy was for the Quebec legislator.

What is this government doing? Without any consideration not only for the importance that Quebec had given to the protection of privacy but also for the unanimous opinion of Quebecers of all political colours, it has decided to interfere directly in this area. And it is doing it very awkwardly.

I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to withdraw this bill.

I hope that Quebec's members from the Liberal Party of Canada will request the same thing. I hope I will have the opportunity to hear them speaking on this issue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order passed earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the referral of Bill C-2 to the committee before second reading.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 5

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is a national children's agenda without a commitment to a national child care program? What is the practicality of a national children's agenda without any commitment or target and real program to end the poverty of children and the families they are part of? What really is the national children's agenda when there is no sign of federal dollars for meeting the basic needs of housing in our society?

These questions are front and centre and remain unanswered after hearing the Prime Minister's response to the so-called national children's agenda. I wanted to get a clear answer and ask the Prime Minister directly if he understands that the so-called children's agenda is worthless unless it includes child care, especially as the Liberal government still has not fulfilled its promise for 150,000 child care spaces made way back in 1993.

What are the answers to these questions involving the credibility and believability of the national children's agenda? All we got were excuses from the Prime Minister saying that the provinces had rejected the offers he made for child care. The Prime Minister is dead wrong. There is nothing for the provinces to reject because they were not offered any serious initiative that could be characterized as a national strategy and plan for an early childhood development program.

Where are we now? Federal New Democrats, the child care advocacy movement, the labour movement and provincial governments that are eager to see the federal government show real leadership want to see the Liberal government get beyond the platitudes of helping kids and get serious now with a national plan for child care.

Quebec is doing it and B.C. is doing it. Why is the Liberal government not moving on this?

Kids cannot wait. New Democrats are saying to the federal government that if it is serious about ending poverty, if it is serious about the health and well-being of Canada's children, if it truly believes that Canada should be the best place to live for all Canadians, then it should end the vicious attack on Canada's poor, start building housing for families who desperately need it, make sure that the child tax benefit goes to all low income families and fulfil its commitments for child care spaces.

It seems like the Liberals are torn between two paths. It is tempted by the lure of tax cuts, peddled by business elites without offering any real help to low and moderate income families. While there are others within the Liberal caucus who know that after years of crushing cuts by their own government Canadians have as a first priority a reinvestment in programs and services that will help families.

I implore the Liberals to not use the provinces as a smokescreen for their own inaction. I know B.C.'s minister responsible for child care, Mr. Moe Sihota, has gone very strongly on the record that he wants a comprehensive national plan for early childhood development and child care.

Please, do not blame the provinces. Just give us a straight answer. Will the federal government implement with the provinces a comprehensive national child care program?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates that children are the highest priority of the government. Raising the next generation of Canadians is everyone's concern and that is why we are doubling the EI period of parental leave. That is why early childhood development is a key theme in the national children's agenda.

As part of that agenda, we are committed to working jointly with our partners to develop an agreement on early childhood development by December 2000, an agreement with principles, objectives and fiscal parameters and a five year timetable for increased funding to achieve our shared objective.

We recognize that child care and indeed many services for children fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction but we have already made great strides with the provinces to improve the well-being of children. The centrepiece of our progress is the national child benefit. Thanks to the national child benefit, $2 billion will be going to modest and low income families with children by July 2000, bringing total federal assistance for families and children to almost $7 billion a year.

Through the NCB, provinces and territories are reinvesting in complementary services for children and eight provinces have already invested in child care. The member's own province of B.C. has had $80 million extra to invest in children, some of which they have chosen to invest in child care.

We, the Government of Canada, have also acted on our own through the First Nations Inuit child care program which has created or improved more than 7,000 child care spaces. Through the visions program, we are supporting research projects to improve the quality of child care across the country.

These initiatives are solid contributions to child care in Canada and the Speech from the Throne provides the potential to do much more.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, on October 14 I rose in the House and asked a question of the minister of fisheries regarding the east coast lobster crisis in relation to the Donald Marshall supreme court ruling.

I held the minister's record up for review. I pointed out the minister's record up to now: no moratorium, homes burned, businesses destroyed, neighbour fighting neighbour, 200 years of harmony between natives and non-natives jeopardized and the fear and uncertainty in this free for all continues as it does today.

I asked the question: Can we expect more of the same from this minister, no leadership, no plan and no hope of a successful resolution?

There has not been a resolution to the problem and there could have been. Today there still can be, but the leadership is lacking.

My concern comes from lobster fishermen who are eighth and tenth generation fishermen. They remind me that today we have a healthy fishery, a lucrative fishery and a good fishery because it is well managed. Fishermen exercise good custodial rights, which is what we want to see in this ruling. There is no evidence that the minister is going to insist on that.

Today in the lobster fishery we have trap limits. We have areas or zones in which fishermen can and cannot fish. They are designated areas or zones. We have a season and a limit on that season. We have a limit restricting entry into that fishery.

For many years there has been a limit on the effort in that fishery. That is one of the reasons this fishery has been very healthy and able to sustain many livelihoods over the past number of years. That is what the minister has to guarantee those people, that it will be there, that their livelihoods will not be destroyed by mismanagement of the fishery. There cannot be a wholesale entry into that fishery. They have to have some comfort from the minister as to when that will happen. That is part of the solution.

When our livelihood is threatened we react. We understandably react sometimes harshly when we feel as though our way of life is going to be destroyed. That is what the non-native fishermen are experiencing at this very moment.

We want to see leadership from the federal minister. At some point, when this is all laid to rest, the word compensation has to enter the equation. If we have a fishery with no limit on the number of entrants, in other words allowing new players into that fishery, the entire fishery will be threatened. That is what I see happening. I think everyone on this side of the House can see that happening unless the minister takes strong, decisive action.

Perhaps I could ask for another 30 seconds. I do not want to see the minister continually abdicate his responsibility—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member. As he knows, the rules are very strict for the adjournment debate.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to address an important matter in Atlantic Canada which concerns everyone in this country. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken decisive action on his short term plan as well as a long term plan that all parties will consider fair and reasonable.

Mr. James Mackenzie has been appointed as the chief federal representative to work out practical arrangements on access to fisheries resources that reflect the affirmed treaty right and that are sensitive to the interests of those who rely on the fishery for their livelihood. Mr. Mackenzie has an intimate knowledge of the maritimes and of the importance of the fishery, being from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and he has been the lead federal negotiator in comprehensive claim negotiations with the Inuit in my riding of Labrador. I have every confidence that Mr. Mackenzie can find common ground on which we can build long term strategies that will be enduring and successful.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with both commercial representatives and with aboriginal leaders in the maritimes. He met yesterday, along with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Mr. Mackenzie, with 50 aboriginal leaders. Coming out of that meeting there was agreement to address fish access immediately and there was agreement on certain elements of a process.

Many more conversations will have to take place but we are moving in the right direction. There are no easy answers but I have confidence that there is a long term solution and that constructive dialogue is the way of shaping it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)