Benoît Sauvageau

[Cable Broadcasting Industry, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before I put my question, I would like to say that there should be and there can be transparency when people are aware of current political affairs. This is not always obvious to the other side.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Rogers Communications is poised to take over the Maclean Hunter Group. This blockbuster transaction will create a virtual monopoly in the cable broadcasting industry, a situation which raises some important questions as to the level of competition within this industry.

My question is this: Does the Prime Minister recognize that this takeover will create a monopoly in the field of cable broadcasting and that this situation will adversely affect rates and the variety of information available to consumers?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Mr. Collenette if we are bothering him, but we do have to speak up from time to time in the House.

First of all, I want to get back to something my hon. colleague from Simcoe North said. Throughout his presentation, he kept repeating that his government had delivered on its promises and had followed through on its red book plan, and so on. In their red book-as you can see, I have read it because I am familiar with the lies it contains-, the Liberals promised to convert military bases into peacekeeping training and staging centres. A program is like a contract and when one fails to meet the terms of a contract, one must pay a penalty.

The Liberals did not promise to close military bases. They promised to convert them into peacekeeping training and staging centres. So, what did the government do? It closed some bases and consolidated others. As a result, jobs have been lost.

I would like to ask the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the government gave any thought at all to the cost of redeploying thousands of military personnel who will have to be moved and reassigned? Did it give any thought at all to number of direct and indirect jobs that would be lost as a result of base closures? The government talks about job creation, but what I see are job losses.

In an editorial, Lise Bissonnette stated the following: "In five years, once the dust has settled, DND will not even have saved $1 billion. Not even $1 billion after five years. The figure will be more like $850 million. However, for the communities in which the designated bases are located, economic activity will grind to a halt. Everyone will feel the effects: the corner store, the movie theatre, the school and the restaurant. Activity will come to a standstill because direct and indirect jobs will be lost". That is the first part of my question.

The second part has to do with the promises you made. Did you promise during the election campaign to tax the elderly? Did you promise during the election campaign to penalize the unemployed? Did you promise during the election campaign to extend the wage freeze in the public service? Did you promise during the election campaign to close military bases? These are my questions, Mr. Speaker.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Unfortunately, there are only a couple of minutes left, Madam Speaker, and I think I could do a 20-minute speech because I am so frustrated from hearing what I just heard. I will try to be calm and precise and to ask the hon. member opposite for a precise answer.

On the first opposition day, we had a debate on a special committee to review every item of government spending and to save not millions but billions of dollars. The Liberals were against that committee to save money and to avoid duplication in the mandates of committees, as they said at the time. They are now offering us the same thing in a defence committee, not the same thing but a real duplication with enormous costs on reports we already have and answers we already know, with senators, probably to assess the relevance of their duties and to occupy them to a certain extent, since they have nothing to do, with 16 members, 14 on this committee. I am sorry but I would like some clarifications on the relevance of this committee, an approximation of costs, and I would like to know why you were opposed to a committee to save not millions but billions of dollars where now you are proposing to spend money.

In conclusion, I would suggest that you keep your red book introduction for the next campaign, if there is one, to the effect that voters no longer trust politicians because, with behaviour such as this, they will continue to distrust them.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

My first question to the hon. member is this: Is it a plebiscite or a referendum that was held in Prince Edward Island?

Is the hon. member's disappointment that great because we support this proposal? Would he like it better if we opposed it? He talks about petty politics and so on, and he seems deeply disappointed. I get the impression he feels that way because we support this proposal. I am right?

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to my hon. colleague opposite-he often refers to us as being opposite-and two questions.

First of all, I found his preliminary remarks mean. He said: "I for one will say something interesting". It is too bad for the minister who, I feel, said interesting things, too bad for the Leader of the Official Opposition and too bad for the other speakers. It was indeed interesting. Congratulations.

I would also like to express disagreement with what he said about the relevancy of our remarks, and I would like to remind him of the Constitution Act, 1791, which established the foundation for the system of parliamentary representation. The people who elected Reform Party members, or you or us in the Bloc Quebecois, know very well that the relevancy of the remarks we have to make in this House depends only on our opinion. On that point also I disagree with my hon. colleague.

I would like to put a question to him. One of his colleagues spoke of a plebiscite in the case of Prince Edward Island, whereas the minister spoke of a referendum. With regard to the referendum, this is the term you used, and we used the term you brought into the debate.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as stated by my colleague, my remarks were not directly linked to that part of the Bill that amends the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and deals with necessary force.

My comments were aimed at coastal fisheries protection, as he pointed out, and I took that opportunity to highlight our amendment stating that at no time should human lives be jeopardized when disabling or boarding a vessel. If indeed there is illegal fishing, we must find a way to disable the vessel, make the necessary arrest and bring it to port, without ever putting any lives in danger.

My colleague, the Solicitor General critic, spoke earlier on the part of the bill dealing with the Criminal Code, and I will add that I am in total agreement with what he said. I will therefore refrain from making any comments on the Criminal Code, having chosen to address instead the issue of coastal fisheries protection.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (force), tabled for first reading on February 4, 1994.

I would like to start by emphasizing the need for providing a framework for the use of force, as indicated in the Criminal Code. There are two concepts in clause 1 of this bill that seem rather ambiguous.

The first concept with which we have a problem is that of reasonable grounds. What are reasonable grounds? Do they depend on an individual's personal judgment? Good question.

Two recent incidences are a good illustration of what I mean, and I am thinking of the Richard Barnabé case, where the police may have acted on what it felt were reasonable grounds, in a situation that did not necessarily warrant such action, and the case of three residents of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon who were accused of illegal fishing in Canadian waters, a case which fortunately had no serious consequences. The interpretation of reasonable grounds is therefore rather puzzling.

The second concept we would like to see clarified, as it applies to the fisheries situation, is the interpretation of necessary force. Again, the individual's personal judgment is supposed to guide him in the use of force to the extent that he judges necessary. However, a stressful situation may affect one's judgment.

As Hegel wrote when considering the principles of the philosophy of law, what is reasonable is real and what is real is reasonable. Hence this request for clarification of the concepts of reasonable grounds and necessary force.

We in the Bloc Quebecois would also appreciate some explanation of the use of the term "désemparé" in the bill itself. The Petit Larousse illustré 1994 gives the following definition of the term, as it applies to the fisheries: "Qui ne peut plus manoeuvrer, par suite d'avaries". ["The state of being disabled, of being unable to manoeuvre, as a result of damage."] This definition of the term as used in Bill C-8 would seem incomplete in the case of human lives.

The importance of the precision takes a whole new meaning when you consider that the same clause says: "-intended or... likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm-" In the Bloc Quebecois we believe that human lives should never be endangered by the decision of a single individual responsible for enforcing the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. We accept the principle of the use of force, but we must adapt it to the field of fisheries.

Our amendment is intended to limit the use of force, in order to avoid any dangerous situation that could lead to an escalation of violence.

The wording of our amendment bears some resemblance with a recommendation of a report from the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs, chaired by the Hon. Arnold Malone, and tabled in November 1990.

The recommendation said, and I quote, "-that research be conducted as a high priority into methods of stopping unco-operative boats on the high seas without endangering human life". What happened to that recommendation already four years old?

Second, I would like to stress the importance of attacking at the source the problem of poaching. But we must face the fact that we will not be able to do it alone, without the help of other countries. Negotiation efforts must be pursued with the international community.

If fishing outside the 200-mile limit hinders reproduction of fish stocks, the amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act will not solve the problem. Canada cannot legislate over international areas. Accordingly, negotiation remains the only possible avenue, hence the necessity of involving the Department of External Affairs.

Therefore, the Bloc considers that the solution is to be found primarily in negotiated multilateral agreements providing for compliance measures by various interested parties. The Concordia incident proves that that kind of situation cannot be solved by the use of force but by precise and clear agreements between various interested parties.

It should be recalled that in that precise case, there was no agreement in force between two sovereign countries, namely Canada and the United States. The ridiculously timid penalty given the master and owner of the Concordia shows the regulations' flaws. The fact is that Canada has to show clearly that it is determined to defend vigorously its sovereignty over Canadian waters. Now, as far as the concept of sovereignty is concerned, members from the Bloc Quebecois could most likely advise the Canadian government on the definition of that concept, even if it deals with Canadian waters, because we have some experience in that area.

Still, if only multilateral agreements had to be negotiated, we could possibly find a solution to the problem in a very short period of time. But no, once more we are confronted with a problem of overlapping-we are sorry if we always seem to come back to that issue but that is part of the problem-not federal-provincial overlapping but, as I mentioned in my first speech on environment, overlapping within the federal government itself. As a matter of fact, three departments could not agree on a single solution regarding the environment.

As for fisheries, and in particular in the present bill, four departments are trying to find a solution to a single problem which is, I admit, a big one.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in this instance, the Department of Justice are all working to find a solution to the problem.

This conflict between the various federal bodies goes back a long way. In fact, the same aforementioned report about maritime sovereignty, drafted under the chairmanship of the Hon. Arnold Malone and tabled in 1990, made this recommendation: "The Committee recommends that the government institute a program of regularly exercising interdepartmental coordination procedures, particularly for emergency situations, with a view to identifying problems and reducing necessary consultation time. Such exercises should include all responsible individuals and their alternates". This way, there would be no seven and a half hour delay before an emergency decision could be taken, as was the case in the Concordia incident.

Any amendment would be useless if the various federal departments are not even able to co-ordinate their action, so this is a critical factor.

In conclusion, we concur with the bill provided the amendment suggested by the Bloc is agreed to. I say again that I believe in a strict control regarding the use of force, as prescribed in the Criminal Code.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote two sentences from the red book and then you can fulfil your duties. "Cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process is at an all-time high". There are 15 seconds remianing. "Therefore, the government is proposing to-

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about the speech of the hon. member opposite. The question and comment period is over. He should be making his own speech instead of commenting mine. Is that not so?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have only two minutes left. I could meet with the member to explain the position of Quebec sovereigntists to him; unfortunately, unless and until Quebec is a sovereign country, we are part of Canada. Again, unfortunately, I am disappointed to see a Canadian sitting in Parliament who does not know Quebec's position. Personally I am very disappointed and sorry too about the position of my colleague on the other side of the House.

I would also have liked him to speak on the subject of today's debate, namely an item-by-item committee. We are also showing our good will, in that as long as we are in this House, we would like it to work as well as possible. I invite him to discuss it with me after, because in two minutes, I cannot explain Quebec's position to him, but I will be pleased to do so.