Thank you for the clarifications, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to start where I left off.
These Senate amendments are a good example of the fact that what they do is often highly inefficient.
I think they could have sent the government a far clearer message about this bill. We MPs have received certain messages, and no doubt the senators have received the same ones. They originated with all the people who will have to apply this bill, or have it applied to them, at some point.
They have said nothing about them. The federalists in the other place could have dealt with flexibility, which is a catchword these days. Nearly every bill makes some reference to flexibility, this one included.
I will quote from several letters, which will show you the flexibility of the federal government.
On October 19, 1999, the minister responsible for the Quebec personal information protection act, David Cliche, and Robert Perreault—because these two ministers supervised this legislation—wrote to the Minister of Industry, warning him that legislation already existed in Quebec and not to infringe on Quebec's jurisdiction.
I will quote the second paragraph of this letter:
In fact, as ministers responsible for this matter, we have written on several occasions to express Quebec's position in this regard. Without reiterating all of our arguments, we remind you that this bill would not complement the Quebec legislation. It would duplicate it.
And the ministers sought an emergency meeting with the minister to examine the bill and make the necessary corrections or just to try to convince the minister he was off track. This was on October 19, 1999.
On November 18, 1999, the minister wrote to David Cliche and Robert Perrault to say:
I agree that we should meet, but in the short term it would be appropriate for our officials to work together to discuss the exemption that would apply to the organizations covered by the Quebec legislation and any technical issues relating to the bill.
That was his acknowledgement of receipt. On February 10, 2000, the Government of Quebec wrote Minister Manley to say “Listen, we have not met, and the bill has been passed. We have a problem. You are telling us someone is looking into this issue at the federal level and the officials should be meeting soon to discuss exemptions and the Quebec organizations to which the law will not apply”.
That is where we stand now. I heard a Liberal member mention earlier that, in Quebec, they will be exempt. Such is the flexibility of the act. Since we have our own legislation in Quebec, the federal legislation will not apply. This is false and I hope the member who said that did not say it knowingly. I dare hope he was misinformed.
As of now, the ministers concerned, both in Quebec and Ottawa, have not come to an agreement, they have not even met, because the arrogant minister across the way refused to meet the Quebec ministers to discuss the matter.
Consequently, the federal legislation will apply in Quebec. Only by order in council will some Quebec organizations be able to obtain an exemption. We will have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for every organization. The minister, the big cheese, will have total control. He will say yes or no to individual organizations, as he pleases. This is what this government calls flexibility. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.
At the industry department, this so-called but non-existent flexibility is not an isolated case. I see it in the department for which I am my party critic, namely the justice department.
Currently we are reviewing a bill on youth criminal justice to replace the Young Offenders Act. Here again, the minister told us repeatedly in the House “The flexibility is there for Quebec to keep on doing what it has been doing for the past 30 years. The Quebec model is not in danger; there is flexibility”. This is not true either. It is not true when we examine bills, whether in the case of the Department of Industry, the Department of Justice, or other departments. Flexibility is a word catchword, these days.
It is not true that there is flexibility or, if there is, it is always one-sided. Flexibility always works to the advantage of the federal government. I think this needs to be noted and, had they wanted to do something useful, the senators could have set this government straight and told it that the flexibility it refers to does not exist. But they let the opportunity pass. What is the point? What sort of work are they doing in the other place? The amendments they have submitted to us change absolutely nothing in the application of the bill.
I mentioned earlier that many people had spoken to us and I suppose they also spoke to the senators. Their comments were very revealing, and very carefully thought through as well. They had taken the time to examine the bill in depth. I have been here since 1993 and I have great admiration for those who testify before committees.
Some people are disturbed by the fact that we have been here since 1993, but we will be here for a few more years, that is until Quebecers say yes to sovereignty, particularly since we will have a clear mandate from them.