Benoît Sauvageau

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish us good luck in this new session.

Like my colleagues, I am pleased, following the excellent work done by the member for Mercier on Bill C-54 in the previous session, to support the work of my colleague from Témiscamingue, which I am sure will be just as excellent, on this new bill now referred to as Bill C-6.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches, and a particular remark made by one of my colleagues led me to slightly change my introduction to talk to you about a motion.

I had forgotten to mention it in my speech. I think the motion has been adopted in early 1996 by the government party. It said that the government in its politics and decisions, should take into account the fact that Quebec is a society distinct from other Canadian provinces, motion we opposed to, need I remind you.

At the time, we opposed the motion not because of non recognition but because of the pathetic aspect of the motion or its role.

We have an outright proof of the unfounded grounds and the lack of seriousness of a parliamentary motion when such a serious subject is discussed. And the government does not take into account this same motion in the application or analysis of the bill before us.

My voters were saying “Why did the Bloc Quebecois vote against this motion, since you were being recognized.” I gave them an example and please allow me to give you the example I used with my fellow citizens, who, by the way, were laughing a lot, to illustrate the role or importance of a motion. I expressed it in the following way: When we entered the House of Commons in 1993, several members had little or no experience. We passed two bills. In 1994 or 1995, legislation was passed recognizing hockey as Canada's national sport. I myself had always thought that was the case, but they had just found it out, so we voted hockey to be the national sport.

Then somebody realized that a group had been left out, and everyone must always be thought of. The aboriginal people had been forgotten, so a national sport had to be found that included them. The motion was therefore changed to read that hockey was the national winter sport, and that a summer one would be determined later.

If people do not know, the summer sport of Canadians is lacrosse. That is what the motion passed in this House states. A motion is something very important.

The following year, I was the critic for amateur sport, and I got a call from the national lacrosse team, informing me that their budget had been cut to zero.

The government had just passed a motion that this was our country's national sport. They came up with that in 1994 or 1995. I am not familiar with the statistics on participation to this sport, but in my riding I know they are relatively low. The people that play this sport are not percentages. There are few people practicing this sport. The very same year, the budget of the national team was reduced to zero.

If you want to know what a motion is worth, I have two examples: that of national sport and that of Bill C-6. In both instances, a motion was passed. I think that the Prime Minister does not perhaps recall having voted on it. However, we can see the consideration that is accorded a motion when it is time for decisions to be made.

That said, I return to Bill C-6. Often, in cavalier fashion, the government thinks, when a bill is analyzed, that we are wicked separatists and do so from a separatist standpoint. As a result, it covers its ears and does not bother to listen. It prefers to read other things, like “Awake”, perhaps.

So, in this presentation, I will draw not on a Bloc Quebecois document, but on a document by the Quebec Access to Information Commission. Even though the word “Quebec” is part of its name, the commission is not dangerous. It analyzed Bill C-54—now, Bill C-6.

I know that my colleagues have used a lot of documents and committee briefs to present another vision, another aspect of Quebec's unanimous objection to this bill.

I remind members that the title and the intent of the bill are based on the constitutional power of the federal government to establish a climate of trust among Canadians in the way industry gathers, uses and transmits personal information to allow e-commerce to flourish. This sector is indeed growing vigorously and must be protected.

However, a little further along—and I will repeat the name of the group—the Quebec Access to Information Commission has said, and I quote, even if it is a bit long, but I have to quote it: “For nearly five years now, the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector affords all Quebecers a means of protecting personal information, has proven its mettle and its usefulness”.

I read on:

Based on Quebec's constitutional powers in the area of property and civil rights, Quebec's act is meant to complement Quebec's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its Civil Code. Quebec's legislation, which includes an act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information, shows how important privacy is to the lawmaker.

Further it says:

The Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector Act does not apply only to commercial activities, but also to personal information likely to be gathered, used or disclosed through electronic means.

What the Commission d'accès à l'information explained in its brief was that, on the basis of Quebec's constitutional powers, its Civil Code, its values and customs, and also, as my colleagues explained earlier, Quebec's experience with an act which has been working well for five years, it was saying no, as we are doing now, to Bill C-54, the current Bill C-6.

Why? Because clauses 4 and 27(2) of the bill define the scope of the future federal legislation and provide that organizations or activities might be exempted from federal rules regarding the protection of personal information.

As the commission understands it, the federal legislation will apply to businesses based in Quebec or to part of their activities, unless an exemption is granted by the governor in council, which is not very likely.

Even if an order was made for a Quebec business operating outside of Quebec, the federal legislation would automatically apply to 28% of Quebec businesses involved in electronic commerce with other Canadian provinces.

Further on in its submission, the Commission d'accès à l'information said:

Moreover, several Quebec businesses will certainly be forced to apply both the federal and the provincial legislation at the same time, unless they have no commercial activities or none of the personal information they have is collected, used or disclosed outside Quebec.

This would limit many Quebec businesses which are open to electronic commerce but would have no contact with businesses outside Quebec.

It clearly states:

We have to oppose this proposal because every business in Quebec will have to deal with two jurisdictions, while the Quebec jurisdiction that has been existing for five years is in keeping with the standards of the OECD that were put forward by industrialized countries experimenting with electronic commerce means, even though Quebec has been demonstrating and applying them well for the past five years.

All witnesses who came before the committee, on which the hon. member for Mercier, who has now been replaced by the member for Témiscamingue, sat, have been able to show this.

In conclusion, in its submission, the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information said:

To avoid any confusion and to ensure that Quebecers can still enjoy a comprehensive protection of personal information system, the commission submits that Bill C-54—

This is actually Bill C-6, which was designated as C-54 at the time.

—should be amended to explicitly provide that the federal act will not apply to businesses subject to the act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector.

I was made to understand, while following the debate on this issue, that this amendment was rejected by the Minister of Industry and by the government.

That is why we are simply asking for the withdrawal of Bill C-6, so we can go back to square one and put in place a more credible legislation.

[World Trade Organization, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that the government intends to abandon the principle of cultural exception—for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I repeat that that was cultural exception—at the next WTO negotiations. This confirms what Quebec feared, namely that it cannot count on others to defend its special character.

Does the current Minister for International Trade not think that this is one more reason that Quebec should have a spot at the WTO negotiations?

[World Trade Organization, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the 1995 referendum, this government passed a distinct society resolution. If it wants to do more than pay lip service to this resolution, now is its golden opportunity.

My question is for the current Minister for International Trade. Does the minister intend to give Quebec a spot on the World Trade Organization delegation?

[Jean-François Legault, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 1997, Jean-François Legault, a 14 year old resident of the municipality of Mascouche, saved his father from certain death, an action for which he recently received the Governor General's medal of bravery and the Quebec National Assembly's citation for citizenship.

When an explosion threw his father into his garage, Jean-François risked his life to extinguish the flames enveloping the man and drag him out of the inferno, despite the intense heat and smoke.

Mr. Legault hovered between life and death for 48 hours and was kept in the burn ward of Montreal's Hôtel-Dieu hospital for six months. Today, he is continuing his rehabilitation.

I say “Bravo”, to Jean-François and thanks for that example of courage.

[Asbestos, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told us that Quebec will be briefed every evening on the progress of negotiations.

He ought to realize that by evening it will be too late for us to tell the federal government what other arguments it ought to have used to defend us.

Is this the best way to defend the interests of Quebec, briefing us in the evening after the cases have already been argued?

[Asbestos, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had the nerve to claim that Quebec would be less well served if it were present at the table with the federal government. Yet it is Quebec that prepared the entire case. Even the minister acknowledges that.

Is the minister aware that the federal government's position of excluding Quebec from defending its asbestos, when we are the second ranking producer in the world, is not based on any logic, has no connection with any WTO requirement and is purely doctrinaire?

[Asbestos, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is true but it is an on-site presence we want.

Whether it be the presence of British Columbia to defend the case of Pacific salmon or that of Quebec to defend asbestos, does the federal government not understand that its chances of success increase considerably with the co-operation of those who are really concerned and best informed in the matter?

[Asbestos, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for everyone, including the federal government, the expert on asbestos is Quebec. This is so true that federal officials were constantly drawing on this expertise as they prepared the file.

How does the Prime Minister explain the need to draw on Quebec resources in the preparation of the file, but the fact that their presence at the WTO is considered to serve no purpose? Would it not be a further guarantee of success?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, especially to motions in Group No. 6. It is for me a great privilege to be able to discuss the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I wish, at the outset, to add my voice to those of my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois in congratulating our critic, the member for Jonquière who has worked so hard on this bill since October. She has listened patiently and attentively to the many witnesses and lobby groups who came before the committee to express their views on the legislation.

Indeed the environmental protection act is constantly undergoing revisions since changes in ways of production, technological progress and the evolution of all that surrounds us warrant a constant review of the legislation.

That is why I wish to pay tribute to the member for Jonquière for the work she has accomplished on this bill.

As my colleagues clearly explained, we cannot support the government's proposals in Bill C-32 because the federal government's approach of environmental issues, which are eminently contentious due to the jurisdiction the federal and the provinces share in this area, and the basic idea of this bill introduced by our friends across the way show that for them provinces are negligible players when it comes to taking decisions about the environment.

I have had the opportunity of sitting on the environment and sustainable development committee. Almost every day during the hearings, the federal government seemed to say: “You know, environment is so important that it transcends boundaries. So, we cannot let the provinces manage environmental issues, because they are too important”.

What the government is saying in a roundabout way is: we can let the provinces deal with the unimportant stuff, but it is up to the federal government to take care of important matters.

We find the Liberal government's idea of leaving the less important issues to the provinces and of taking care of the environment itself, since this is important, totally acceptable.

True, the environment is important. However, the provinces—and I will prove it to the House a little later on—are quite capable of promoting environmental standards and sustainable development initiatives involving the use of non-renewable and renewable resources.

If we follow the Liberal government's idea to its logical conclusion, when it says that the environment transcends boundaries, which means that the provinces are unable to assume their duties in their areas of jurisdiction, why would the federal government want to get involved?

If environmental issues transcend boundaries, and we only have to think about acid rain, we should let the Americans set our environmental standards. If the environment transcends boundaries, let us urge some other government or international agency to address them.

Yes, the environment transcends boundaries, but national governments like the provincial government of Quebec must play their role to defend and protect future generations and provide them with a healthy and sustainable environment.

In Bill C-32, Canadians are told that the federal government should legislate more for all jurisdictions because it knows best. It is often said that what goes around comes around. Let us look at the federal government's record, in particular what it did in Kyoto. It came up with a half-baked position at the very last minute. My colleague for Rosemont who was our party's critic for the environment at the time urged the minister to make her position known before she left. We got an answer just the day before she left for Kyoto. That was blatant improvisation.

We should also consider what happened after the Rio de Janeiro summit. We had a PC government then, followed by a Liberal government. For most of the commitments signed in Rio de Janeiro, at the notorious earth summit, neither the timetable nor the agenda have been respected.

The committee reviewed the role of all federal departments as far as the protection of the environment was concerned. It was concluded that the federal government should first clean up its own house. We are being told that the provinces are not up to their task of protecting the environment. However, at the federal level, oftentimes the environment department does not even know what the natural resources department is doing.

If one looks at what goes on in the Department of Industry or even in the Department of Transport, for example what goes on in airports with the use of toxic substances that are then discarded, if one looks at what goes on in the Department of Agriculture where there is virtually no legislation with regard to pesticides, each department has its own string to pull. But these strings are all entangled, and the Minister of the Environment cannot even find the beginning of a solution to environmental problems.

On one hand, the rhetoric is good, but on the other hand, we see actions that are totally inconsistent. To prove what I just said, I will give the example of an international conference on mercury where the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment publicly contradicted each other on this subject in front of experts and other people who were in attendance.

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment went to an international conference without developing a common position. Can we think that the idea of giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over environmental matters because they are important is justified when we see this kind of behaviour at an international conference?

According to the report from the environment commissioner, Brian Emmett, federal officials have said, after examining the reports submitted by businesses pursuant to the protocol on the reduction and elimination of toxic substances, that they believe more than 75% of reported reductions are false or misleading. Seventy-five per cent of the information contained in the reports on the elimination of toxic substances is false. And the federal government wants us to trust it. It wants us to believe it will pass definitive legislation on the environment.

Now, looking at what this same commissioner of the environment, Mr. Emmett, told the federal government about protection from toxic substances, how he accused it of shirking its responsibilities on toxic substances, we can see how we are entitled to question turning some elements of provincial jurisdiction over the environment over to the federal government.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a huge piece of legislation encompassing everything to do with environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada.

This bill needs intelligent amendment and improvement, so as to respect provincial jurisdictions and not to give the federal government more power, broader jurisdiction.

In order to address some of the inconsistencies in the federal and provincial legislation on the environment, I would like to quote an environmental expert, Pierre Béland, if I recall his name correctly. He sat on the Great Lakes Commission until very recently. He told us this “If a whale gets into problems in the middle of the St. Lawrence, it is under federal jurisdiction. If the same injured whale beaches itself, then it is under provincial jurisdiction, because the shores are provincial. But, if this injured beached whale dies, then it falls back under federal jurisdiction because it then comes under the federal legislation on endangered species”.

How can anyone make informed decisions on the environment when everything depends on the time of day, the wind direction, the temperature, and what not?

I believe that the party in power must do its homework, take into consideration the amendments presented by the opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois included, and improve Bill C-32. Otherwise, as we have said, we are going to have to vote against it.

[Publishing Industry, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have no commitment from the American government on the future subsidy program. We know such a program would be likely to infringe upon our international commitments regardless of what the minister says.

Is the cultural agreement of the century, of which the Minister of Canadian Heritage is so proud, not rather the first serious breach in the position of general cultural exemption which the government has always defended in international trade negotiations?