We would miss her.
Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers December 3rd, 1998
We would miss her.
Division No. 298 December 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. I support the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague from Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, who is asking the government to withdraw this pointless piece of legislation.
The government should realize that this bill to set up an agency for the collection of all taxes in Canada is dead in the water, because the underlying principle on which the establishment of this agency is based, namely the signing of administrative tax agreements with the provinces, has yet to be applied in practice.
When the bill was introduced, not a single agreement or even a letter of intent had been signed with any of the provinces. So how do you justify a bill that obviously reflects the government's wishful thinking and the centralizing vision it is trying to ram down the throats of the provinces?
This bill only reflects the centralizing vision of the Chrétien government, and we can never say often enough that, for the federal Liberals, rationalization means duplication and, ironically, harmonization means interference. Did the people in Canada and in Quebec ask for such an agency? To ask the question is to answer it.
Besides being totally out of touch with people's real needs, the government is trying, with this bill, to stretch its tentacles beyond the provincial governments to municipal and local administrations.
Moreover, what can we say about a government that delegates such a fundamental responsibility as collecting and administering taxes paid by corporate and individual taxpayers? Who will ensure that taxpayers' rights are protected? Who will ensure that personal information remains confidential?
In this age of computer information and centralization of personal and financial data, people fear for their privacy, and rightly so. The agency as proposed would have a personal and financial data bank that should be of concern to taxpayers. They should be able to expect their government to protect access to this information.
With this bill the government is abdicating its responsibilities toward taxpayers. Even though the government claims the agency will be accountable to elected representatives, the fact is this new structure would become an entity difficult to get around and to control.
It may seem advantageous for the revenue minister to hide behind the agency to avoid giving a quick answer to embarrassing questions by members of parliament, but the taxpayers and the members of the Bloc Quebecois only see further delays in answering questions and more hurdles between problems and solutions. Moreover, the revenue minister himself should be leery of this new superstructure which might be beyond his control.
I would like someone to explain where the so-called savings used to justify the new agency are going to come from. First, one further layer of bureaucracy is added in the form of an appointed management board which will require time, money and staff. Furthermore, senior executives will be entirely free to pay themselves salaries comparable to those of executives in the private sector. Finally, providing free services to provinces who want to harmonize their program with the federal income tax program will automatically bring an increase and certainly not a decrease in the agency's costs.
Therefore I ask where it is expected that there will be savings. It seems quite obvious to me that if there are any savings, there will certainly be made at the expense of frontline workers.
As a matter of fact, 20% of public servants will no longer come under the Public Service Employment Act. Clause 30(1) shows the government's true intentions, which are barely hidden. It says:
And this is where the section becomes interesting: d ) personnel management, including the determination of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.
Clause 54 tells us even more. It says:
(2) No collective agreements may deal with matters governed by the staffing program.
The anti-union nature of this bill is quite obvious.
With this bill, the government shows that it is incapable of being a good employer, doubly so. It introduces a bill that threatens the job security of one-fifth of the public service, and after having shamefully delayed for many years dealing with the pay equity issue. This government has proven that it prefers strong-arm tactics to crush employees' collective demands.
I should point out that in my riding the union at the Taxation Data Centre in Jonquière represents 1,200 workers. Over the last several years, and with the spectre of this new agency looming since 1996, employees and local management have had to deal with a series of unbelievable adjustments, drastic budget cuts, a reorganisation of services between various taxation centres, the use of a large part of their operating budget to avoid the Y2K bug, while implementing costly new technologies requiring less human involvement.
All this turmoil has required superhuman efforts to minimise the impact on jobs. So far, they have managed pretty well to avoid serious problems. The Taxation Data Centre still has an excellent reputation as regards the performance of its employees.
In a region like ours, where unemployment is high, every job counts. What will be the impact of the establishment of this new agency, and how many jobs will be lost in the next two years? Perhaps no job will be lost. However, if there is little or no impact on jobs, then should we not conclude that, in order to save money, we will have to cut services to the public or impose user fees? Indeed, the agency will have the authority to establish user fees for the services which are useful to the users.
Therefore, this measure could mean user fees for individuals or small businesses, and that for the privilege of paying their taxes. This takes the cake.
If the federal government really wants to reduce overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments, really wants to reduce costs for businesses, taxpayers and governments, then we agree. In Quebec we already have our revenue department which collects provincial taxes and, since 1992, the federal GST.
As I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, I urge the government to withdraw this bill which will not save any money or simplify tax administration but will reduce parliamentary control over tax collection and administration, at the same time as threatening job security and working conditions for 40,000 employees.
Fresh Water November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment plans to expand the mandate of the international joint commission to all waterways and groundwater on both sides of the Canada-US border.
Since she did not answer my question the day before yesterday, I will ask again: does the minister realize that her project could constitute a new instance of federal government interference in an area that has always belonged to the provinces?
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas, provides for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas in Canada.
This raises many serious questions on several issues including the division of powers regarding the environment—harmonization with the provinces—territorial integrity, the overlap among federal departments and the so-called consultations carried out by the government. I will go over each of these issues and explain why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill.
As the Bloc Quebecois environment critic, I can say that my party is in favour of any environmental protection measure that is efficient. However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-48. Instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its territory and of the environment.
Moreover, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. In short, the federal government is splitting responsibilities among three of its departments so it can meddle in an area that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec.
On a different note, Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established.
Subclause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can establish a marine conservation area only if he:
—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, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.
I remind the House that subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.
In addition, this legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it can do within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction. However, the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to the bill, marine conservation areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III” which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned, and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.
The St. Lawrence Marine Park is a good model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
This legislation led to the establishment of Canada's first marine conservation area, and one of the main features of this legislation is the fact that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any land changing hands. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities.
The park is made up entirely of marine areas. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.
In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by the federal and provincial ministers.
This committee's mandate is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly by the two governments, at least once every seven years.
Any exploration, use or development of resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries.
By means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and of Canada will be able to determine measures for protecting the park's ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public. More specifically, they will be able to define how each category of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.
This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas.
By refusing to take the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as an example, the federal government is acting as a centralizing government that wants to control everything, regardless of acknowledged areas of jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the legislation establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows the Quebec government is embarking on initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also open to working with the federal government, as evidenced by the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.
The involvement of several federal departments in environmental issues is a new trend that leads us to believe the government is trying to weaken the Department of the Environment.
With this bill, the federal government intends to establish marine conservation areas through Heritage Canada, marine protected areas through Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and marine wildlife reserves through Environment Canada. This means that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks these different designations create a jurisdictional duplication problem that would be solved if the federal government designated one entity to oversee the objectives pursued by the various departments.
By taking three separate initiatives with very similar objectives, the federal government is creating jurisdictional duplication which will result in confusion among the coastal populations concerned and frictions not only between the federal government and the Quebec government, but also within the federal government.
To show the severity of the problem, the Government of Quebec has refused to take part in the implementation of marine protected areas under the Oceans Act because it believes the federal government is not respecting Quebec's jurisdictions.
Coastal populations, environmental organizations, all stakeholders must be invited to take part in the consultation process to express their views. However, that is not the way it is done in reality. We know the bogus consultation process conducted by Heritage Canada on the establishment of marine conservation areas was a failure, as was the one conducted by Fisheries and Oceans on the establishment of marine protected areas.
A background document was sent by Heritage Canada to 3,000 groups across Canada. Less than ten of them responded by sending a letter, and about fifty simply returned the reply coupon included in the document. Of those responses, only one was in French.
In view of this, it is impossible to talk about meaningful consultation. How can the government introduce a bill that supposedly has the support of all stakeholders if it is not aware of their concerns? This leads us to think that this was empty and unfounded consultation.
We suspect, moreover, that the organizations consulted were preselected. By way of example, had the ZIPs, zones d'intervention prioritaire, and the CREs, the conseils régionaux de l'environnement, been consulted, we could have benefited from all their expertise. In fact, some 30% of these organizations were consulted, and that is totally unacceptable.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill for the following reasons.
Instead of focusing on co-operation, as in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government fails to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over it own territory and in environmental matters. Therefore, there is encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected marine areas.
For all these reasons, and for a number of others, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.
Drinking Water November 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the federal government plans to expand the mandate of the Joint International Commission to all waterways and groundwater on both sides of the Canada-US border.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Since Quebec wishes to develop a water policy, does the minister realize that her project could constitute a new instance of federal government interference in an area that has always belonged to the provinces?
National Child Day November 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the Canadian government designated November 20 as national child day, to commemorate two major events in the history of the United Nations, namely the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, in 1958, and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1989.
On this day, my thoughts are with the children who suffer from hardship, violence and hunger. We do not have the right to betray these fragile human beings, nor do we have the right to betray their distressed parents, who can no longer meet their most basic needs.
Yet, this government continues to turn its back on poverty by contributing, through its political choices, to increasing the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. Instead of indexing its tax system, this government prefers to underhandedly take money from the poor.
Let us hope that this child day will arouse the conscience of a government more concerned about its visibility than about putting children and their parents—
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-53 and to support the amendments brought forward by the member for Mercier. These amendments are aimed at making the act more responsive to the real needs of small and medium size businesses.
Even though the Bloc Quebecois is extremely disappointed with this so-called review of the Small Business Loans Act, we do not for one minute think that the SBLA should disappear. On the contrary. However, we want the government to be more attentive to the needs of small and medium size businesses in reviewing the act.
The truth is that small businesses are extremely important. Statistics reveal that large businesses no longer are and will no longer be the main creators of jobs. Small businesses will give opportunities to those who want to become their own boss and to succeed in a field in which they chose to specialize to create their own job and to create other jobs for people who may join their small business.
With my colleague from Mercier and several members of the Bloc Quebecois, I took part in a poll of small and medium size businesses in my riding because we know how important this act can be for them. It is a matter of life and death. We asked the interviewees very specific questions and the response rate shows beyond any doubt that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mercier indicates exactly where the small businesses stand right now and what they need in order to survive and if possible expand, and hence create jobs.
In answer to the first question, 90% of the small businesses responding stated that they find it very hard to get financing at a reasonable cost. Several of them added, and I quote:
More and more often, we have to put up not only our own assets but those of our spouse. Our own recognizance is not enough. Banks often charge small businesses higher fees. Since the banks do not make a lot of profit on personal loans, they hike up the service fees that are not legislated. To increase the term of a loan from five to eight years does not make any sense.
Not enough financing is in some ways worse than no financing at all, because the business cannot develop and expand as it could or as it should.
The second question was used to find out if the Small Business Loans Act was well known. And 55% of the respondents indicated that they did not know the legislation very well and 45% knew about it, but the vast majority, more than 90% of the respondents, thought the legislation could be enhanced. I would like to quote some of the comments made most frequently: get rid of capital tax; there are so many criteria to have access to financing and to qualify that, in the end, we would not need it.
On the fourth question, 95% of respondents felt that loans should be given for working capital and not only for equipment and assets and real property. The pilot projects will provide a good opportunity to establish the options in this area.
The last question for heads of SMBs read “From your experience and according to your staff, would it be easier to develop SMBs if they had ready access at reasonable cost to management advice?” The answer was 98% affirmative. Also “In your experience, would there be fewer bankruptcies?” Ninety-five per cent said yes.
For these very eloquent reasons supported by a very enlightening poll in addition to arguments my colleagues have made, we tabled the amendments to improve Bill C-53 for SMBs, that is, to make it serve them, employment and productivity better.
We want the good news for these businesses to be not just the extension of the small business loans program, but its extension and its improvement. The aim of our amendments is to respond to the shortcomings we and the SMB managers have noted.
Semaine Mondiale De La Marionnette November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, la Semaine mondiale de la marionnette, or world puppet week, an important event that is held every two years in Jonquière, was richly honoured recently when it won nearly a quarter of the La touche magique prizes at the 1998 Sommet des festivals et attractions du Québec. The prizes were won in the category of posters and printed material, and a special jury prize was awarded in the television advertising category.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to pay tribute to the work of Jocelyn Robert, the director general of la Semaine mondiale de la marionnette, and of his close assistants: Sonia Lamontagne, who has been responsible for festival communications since 1994, the Groupe Vision Design and its graphic artist, Marc Gauthier, who designed the 1998 image, and Sébastien Pilote, who produced the TV advertising.
The awards won by the Semaine mondiale de la marionnette testify to the quality and dynamism of this organization in the riding of Jonquière. Its successes—
The Environment November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we had to wait until the Minister of the Environment was actually at the Kyoto conference on greenhouse gases before we learned what Canada's position was.
Now the minister is leaving for Buenos Aires and this is her last day in the House before her departure.
Would the minister be good enough to tell the House what she will be saying, on behalf of Canada, at the meeting in Buenos Aires?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the federal government must be really ashamed of its bill on personal information protection in the commercial sector to have decided late yesterday afternoon, in spite of parliamentary tradition, to put it on the order of the day for second reading today.
The government thus hoped to avoid a real public debate on its bill. For those who do not know about parliamentary conventions, I recall that on Mondays and Fridays half the members are not in the House so that they can have a little time to meet with their constituents. That is why parties usually agree on the coming business so that the members interested in the matters on the order of the day can be here to discuss them. But yesterday, the government unilaterally changed the order of the day.
I partly understand it. If I were in the industry minister's place, I would be ashamed of the tricks he pulled to make us believe that personal information will be protected in this country. Before introducing this bill, the government should have recalled that a parliamentary committee had looked into the issue of personal information in a technologically changing world.
I quote from the committee report:
We do not believe that Canadians want ground rules to protect only their informational privacy—
As is the case in the bill under consideration, which only protects personal information inasmuch as it is collected, used or disclosed in the context of a commercial transaction.
I resume the quotation:
—leaving the rest of their privacy rights to languish in a lawless frontier.
In its report entitled “Privacy: Where do we draw the line?”, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities also wrote, and I quote:
Privacy is one of the most comprehensive of all human rights—broad, ambitious and valued around the world.
Traditionally understood as the “right to be left alone” in this technological age, privacy has taken on new dimensions. To experts, privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body. To the average Canadian, privacy is a question of power—the ability to control one's personal information and to remain anonymous by choice.
It goes on:
As a human right, privacy belongs to everyone. The Members of this Committee have listened to as many voices across this country as possible. Canadians have never approved of peeping Toms or unauthorized wire-tapping, and our criminal laws reflect this. We know now that this same disapproval extends, for example, to hidden video cameras in the workplace, genetic testing for insurance purposes—
Under the subtitle “Privacy as a Commodity”, the committee writes on page 10:
—the use of technology not only affects individuals; it also has an impact on the commercial activity of the community as a whole. Many townhall participants feared that privacy has become a commodity that people are prepared to trade off for either a better level of service or product or the minimization of penalties.
Paul-André Comeau, the Privacy Commissioner of Quebec, warned against a debate about privacy that focused solely on the commercial value of information. This was, he said, “the slippery slope we are lured onto by the new technologies in their attempt at putting a dollar figure to each piece of information.”
It is onto this very slope that the Minister of Industry is luring us with his bill aimed at protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in the course of commercial activities.
The committee then quotes Darrell Evans, on page 21 of its report. I will do the same, as a bit of philosophy will not hurt this government, which has focused exclusively on trade and its own visibility:
I think the vanishing of privacy would be a victory of materialism over the human spirit. I find it very hard to picture what kind of room there would be for creativity on the part of human beings in such a world. I feel the virtual bars closing in faster and faster in a world like that.
We are constantly told it is a more secure world, of course, a more efficient world, a world that catches fraud much better, but to me, that is the victory of bureaucracy over human creativity. An old phrase comes to mind here, that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing—
What is our goal in all this? What do we seek for individuals in this? We want to put individuals in a place of causation rather than being a complete effect of technologies and of a gradual erosion of their privacy. If we are to maintain human freedom, I think that's what we have to do.
But, when Human Resources Development and Canada Customs match their records to check the forms completed by all travellers entering Canada to make sure no EI claimant has left the country while receiving benefits, the federal government itself violates human rights and privacy by wrongly placing under suspicion all Canadians and Quebeckers who have left the country until they have proven their innocence.
The Bloc Quebecois will follow closely the proceedings currently before the Federal Court in the matter of the Canadian government vs the privacy commissioner.
The House committee also suggested some fundamental principles that should guide the government in its bill on personal information protection:
Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy: physical privacy; privacy of personal information; freedom from surveillance; privacy of personal communications; privacy of personal space.
Everyone is guaranteed that: these privacy rights will be respected by others adopting whatever protective measures are most appropriate to do so; violations of these privacy rights, unless justifiable according to the exceptions principle—will be subject to proper redress.
Among the basic duties owed to others to ensure their privacy rights, the committee included:
The duty to secure meaningful consent; the duty to take all the steps necessary to adequately respect others' privacy rights—the duty to be accountable; the duty to be transparent; the duty to use and provide access to privacy enhancing technologies.
Finally, the committee recognized the following rights for citizens:
Everyone is the rightful owner of their personal information, no matter where it is held, and this right is inalienable. Everyone is entitled to expect and enjoy anonymity, unless the need to identify individuals is reasonably justified.
To fully understand the scope of the problem, I would now like to quote Justice Gérald La Forest, of the supreme court:
We can only be sure of being free from surveillance today if we retire to our basements, cloak our windows, turn out the lights and remain absolutely quiet.
The legislation that the Minister for Industry is proposing today for the protection of personal information that is collected for the purpose of commercial transactions is not a legislation aimed at protecting the privacy of Canadians.
The Quebec government passed similar legislation in 1994 to uphold the right to privacy of Quebecers guaranteed by the Quebec charter of rights.
All of the Canadian privacy commissioners and consumers associations have pointed out to the minister how important it is to have strong national legislation on the protection of privacy, as this legislation will serve as a model for English speaking provinces that do not yet have a law for the protection of privacy in the private sector.
By being so permissive, the Minister for Industry has shown how sensitive he is to the business lobby which, in any case, finances the Liberal Party's election fund.
I will conclude by reading the following extract of the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec's access to information commissioner:
The Commission examined the consequences of the adoption in the Canadian federation as a whole of legal standards and principles to regulate the protection of personal information on the information highway. Under the terms of a project that were conveyed to the ministers responsible for the implementation of the information highway, protection would be provided within the framework of the voluntary code developed by the Canadian Standards Association.