Antoine Dubé

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to say two things in one minute. First, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry—for whom I have a lot of respect—said that, in his view, under the bill, the commissioner will be accountable to parliamentarians. That is one of the problems. I would like him to tell me that could be changed. I would be willing to make the correction. However, under the bill as it stands now, I believe the commissioner is accountable to the governor in council, that is to cabinet, through the minister concerned.

Moreover, the former Minister of Justice, who is now the Minister of Health, said that, when people talk about personal information, he wished they would do just that and not imitate the Minister of Industry who has become a promoter. The title of the bill talks about promoting electronic commerce.

That is the main purpose of the bill. It is the minister's main objective. But I say we must be careful, the real purpose of section 1 should be the protection of personal information. That is not what they are trying to do. It is something else. The government is willing to discuss that other thing, but it wants to do it in the context of the promotion of electronic commerce.

As far as personal information is concerned, I want to be protected and I want all Quebeckers and Canadians to be protected as well.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for Chambly raises very pertinent questions. He probably knew I could respond. In fact, I have a quote and I hope he will find it satisfactory.

I am referring to the 1997-98 annual report of the Quebec access to information commission. I shall skip comments on other issues, but here is what it says about privacy on the information highway.

About the CSA code proposed by the Canadian Standards Association, it says:

The commission has examined the consequences of introducing Canada-wide standards and legal principles regarding privacy on the information highway. Under the terms of a proposal submitted to the ministers responsible for setting up this highway, this protection would be based on the voluntary code of practice developed by the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA, and adopted in 1990.

It is the commission's contention that, if implemented, this proposal would represent a setback on the privacy issue in Quebec.

This contention is based on a comprehensive review of the CSA code. There is good reason to be pleased with the Canadian industry adopting such a code. This marks quite a breakthrough, stemming from an interesting analysis of the OECD guidelines on privacy.

The report goes on:

However, the CSA code does not meet the objectives of the personal information protection system established under the two Quebec laws, namely to guarantee to all citizens an impartial and fair solution to any problem or conflict that may arise with regard to the protection of this most important aspect of one's privacy.

Therefore, the Commission suggested to the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications that she remind her counterparts that Quebec has such a statutory system in place. According to the Commission, the Quebec system is the only response to the challenges of the information highway that respects the rights of citizens.

In other words, it is better to keep what one already has than to change it for something worse.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry—of which the member for Mercier is also a member—to take part in this debate at second reading.

The debate is on the bill's principle, and on this point I may well disappoint the parliamentary secretary by saying that the Bloc Quebecois totally disagrees with this bill. I will explain why.

The title of the bill represents a long and fairly complex paragraph, which I will read:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Beside me sits the member for Chambly, who has worked for a long time on the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. He was saying that there are some 200 fairly concise but complex clauses.

We must always be careful, for even a bill with a long title is easier to understand when it is a measure to enact. However, when it is an amending bill that also requires regulations—like this bill, which amends the Canada Evidence Act and the Statute Revision Act—things start to get complicated. This is one of the weaknesses of the bill.

I would not go so far as to say that the long title of Bill C-54 represents a catch-22 situation, but it does contain a sort of trap, because clause 1 contains no mention of electronic commerce.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and, in his initial arguments, he said it must be recognized that society has changed. He said that, with personal computers, we have come a long way from the era of the perforated card. The parliamentary secretary is very nice, but this is not what the bill is about.

Clause 1, which gives the short title of the bill, reads as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Earlier, when the hon. member for Chambly asked whether the commerce and sale of personal data collected by businesses would be prohibited, I listened attentively to the reply by the parliamentary secretary, but he did not answer the question.

This is another problem with this bill. It includes the usual provisions contained in an act, but the core of this particular bill is found in its schedule. That schedule is a document provided by members of the industry, who agreed on a code of discipline and are trying to apply that code to their industry on a voluntary basis.

Because journalists, editorial writers and consumer groups expressed concern about the issue, the government tried to meet their expectations and finally decided to pass a law. But, as we can see, this knee-jerk response was not adequately prepared. The government's attitude was “if legislation is necessary, so be it”. A close look shows that the core of this bill is a series of principles drafted by the private sector, by the industry concerned.

Do you think for a moment that the businesses concerned would purposely propose to the government measures that could create problems for them? Of course not! It would not be in their best interests. I am not saying there are terrible things in the bill, but there is at least that aspect. It seems to me that, as legislators, we should have a reasonable doubt and make sure that this is what everyone wants, including consumer groups and individuals.

Again, it is essential. The Privacy Act applies to everyone, even babies. They cannot read yet but, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, his grocery store uses a point system whereby some businesses know that he has a baby at home. Companies already have personal information on the baby of the hon. member opposite. They already know what kind of diapers, brand of milk or type of food are being used. They know everything.

We are talking about personal information, not only on those who know how to read, but even on those who cannot read yet. We could also mention the case of children who use computers. This is fine but we already know that confidentiality is not guaranteed.

The parliamentary secretary also said that we must have a global approach, because electronic commerce knows no boundaries. This is true. Two or three weeks ago, I had the opportunity, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, to attend an OECD meeting, here in Ottawa, on electronic commerce. I was not able to attend all the sessions, but I discussed the issue with the hon. member for Mercier, who did attend.

I read the documents and the information that were circulated at the meeting. I am not saying this is right, but it was clear from the start that the primary concern of OECD members and their finance ministers was not so much personal information as how governments could enact a tax on transactions.

Indeed, transactions ought to be taxed. That is something the GST is trying to take care of. It would appear that a great many electronic transactions might elude us because of this international dimension. This must be dealt with.

Personal information or absolute privacy does not seem to be the main concern. But it was a concern for a number of European countries, which did not think that all OECD nations were technologically advanced enough to protect personal information.

Quebeckers tend to think that everything is better elsewhere, and this may true of Canadians too: if the Americans do something, it must be good, they have such a great country. However, I have met Europeans and had discussions with them. My English is not the greatest but we managed to communicate. They told me “You are lucky in Quebec, you have excellent privacy legislation”. Excellent legislation that applies not only to government agencies but also to the private sector.

These European countries would like to model their legislation on the Quebec legislation. I would have expected, a few weeks later, that the legislation debated in this House to at least incorporate the same features as the Quebec legislation. I appreciate the international considerations involved.

In Quebec, we consider trade to be a provincial jurisdiction. As members know, while this bill deals with electronic trade, we are here to look after Quebec's interests. We may still be in the federal system, as we are not yet sovereign, but for the time being we are looking after our interests. That is only normal; nobody can blame us for that.

People from other countries, foreign parliamentarians, foreign delegates, told us in private—and one of them even had a copy of the act with him—that it was an excellent one and they hoped to get the same thing passed in their countries. This is not necessarily an easy thing to do, because some interest groups are not anxious to see things changed.

For instance, there is the fact that the core of the bill is to be found in the schedules, and that it reflects proposals by one sector concerned. I would draw to the House's attention to clause 5(2). I have read it and thought I could reassure the hon. member for Chambly, but I see it will just add to his doubts. This clause reads:

(2) The word “should”, when used in Schedule 1, indicates a recommendation and does not impose an obligation.

This caught my attention. I then turned to the schedule, and the word “should” is just about everywhere. This is not just a fluke, nor is it surprising, because this is a code of ethics they worked out amongst themselves. Would a given sector deliberately set out to cause itself problems? No, so everything is expressed with “should”. “But that it is what a recommendation is”, they counter.

Now I have seen everything. It is not often a person sees legislation that, instead of forbidding something, as the hon. member for Chambly would like, limits its language to saying “we would really like it to be this way”.

I do not think legislation like this is long for this world. It will not stand up to the rigours of life in Quebec or in Canada for very long. It needs to be a lot more substantial than it is, particularly because it is aimed at the future. If I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre correctly, he said that something had to be done, even though it is not perfect. He is candid enough to admit that, and rightly so. He said “Something had to be done”, and since they were anxious to get at it—although he did not say that—“people were calling for it, so we went ahead and drafted a bill. We did a rush job and did not do our homework”.

The party over there did not do its homework. Instead of thinking of something on its own, it let the sector concerned suggest a bill. This is not the usual way of doing things. I hope it will not become a habit with this parliament, because that would be dangerous.

Reading the objectives, one would think the bill is a complex one because it is multi-dimensional. Yes, there is an international dimension.

I will make an aside here. This morning, I was reading in the newspaper that the OECD has finally given up on making the MIA official, more or less. The question was whether this would be done within the World Trade Organization, the WTO, instead. I agree international organizations should be involved.

Yes, there are international dimensions to it, and yes this needs to be watched. At the same time, careful thought is required before an approach that will take on very broad proportions is given free rein. It would be out of the control of the countries involved. Once an agreement like the MAI is signed, it will be in place for a while. For 20 years in some cases and 10 in others.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please let me know when I have only one minute left so I can move an amendment at the end of my remarks.

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean was concerned about parliamentarians' loss of control of the powers to legislate and to control.

I think there is some truth to what he says in this case. It will take a while for all the OECD countries to reach agreement, but once they do, it will be for a long time. Why will it take a while? Because the interests of the OECD countries vary. However, they are not the poorest countries. Even the richest countries have reservations. Why? Are they about protecting the ordinary citizen internationally? Do ordinary citizens have a lobby powerful enough to raise their interests in these meetings, which may not be secret, but are nevertheless open to only a few? Parliamentarians can do that.

I cannot really agree with having the heart of a bill in the schedule and including in it a provision saying that everything not foreseen as well as changes will be decided by the commissioner with the approval of the governor in council. The governor in council, as we know, is cabinet.

This would be totally beyond the control of the members of Parliament, who are duly elected to represent the people. This is another element that gives rise to serious concerns, which oblige us to say that the bill is half-baked and has not had the full scrutiny of the people in the department. The sector concerned is being allowed to propose legislation; the usual provisions go into the bill, and we are told what is in the schedule—the standards established by the sector concerned—will have force of law.

I gave the example of the question of the member for Chambly earlier. The bill does not answer his objection since it does not specify what is prohibited. The penalties are not clearly defined either, should such a thing occur. Also, even the best legislation in the world is useless if it cannot be enforced, because it becomes mere rhetoric.

Some say “this is a modern era. We have computers and systems that allow us to do transactions and e-commerce. This is a new venture. It is high technology. It is extraordinary”. I am all for modern technology, but the privacy of personal information must be protected.

In Quebec, we have a good act that applies to every sector, including government services, businesses and even non profit organizations. Every type of organization is included. As I said earlier, it is an act which is being used as a model by European countries interested in doing the same.

My other concern is that we are dealing with commerce, which is a provincial jurisdiction. But we will monitor the situation.

The new member for Sherbrooke did not waste any time. He reviewed the bill and he thinks it makes no sense. In fact, he will tell us about it in the coming days. He also supports my motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ”That” and substituting the following:

”Bill C-54, Personal Information and Electroinic Documents Act, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.”

This was the substance of my comments.

[Davie Industries, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, because of the federal government's delay in acting on requests to secure financing for the Spirit of Columbus and Amethyst drilling platforms, on August 11, Dominion Bridge Inc. sought bankruptcy protection.

Since its current contracts are worth over $300 million, Davie Industries was granted an extension, until October 26, to meet the receiver's requirements.

Since time is of the essence for the 1,000 shipyard workers in Lévis and their families, I once again call upon the Liberal government to take action on this issue and provide its share of the financial guarantees requested by Davie Industries.

I also call upon all socio-economic stakeholders in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches areas to continue to show solidarity for the shipyard in Lévis.

[Canadian Coast Guard, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given the devastating effect of the icebreaking fees, is the minister prepared to call for a moratorium and have an impact study done immediately?

[Canadian Coast Guard, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

With his response yesterday on icebreaking, either he does not understand the matter or he could not care less.

Does he realize that the new icebreaking fee will hit port activity even harder in Quebec than elsewhere?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will answer by saying that what goes around comes around. As the hon. member knows, I have been sitting on the committee since the election held in June of last year. As regards Bill C-21, which was to be postponed for one year, the member surely remembers that the Bloc Quebecois had supported that legislation. At the time, we had reservations about the legislation and we proposed some changes. I will certainly help him remember the amendments and suggestions we proposed back then. There is a good chance we will suggest the same changes again.

It is in this spirit that I said earlier that we would support the bill on Tuesday, when the House will vote on it, because we are dealing here with the principle of the legislation.

Can one be opposed to the principle—and I ask Reform Party members to reconsider their position on this—of helping small businesses get financing? I am not talking about subsidies. I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, where the Lévis shipyard is located. Because of the huge figures involved, people are always under the impression that it is a major business. They think it is outrageous to provide assistance to such a company. But there are essentially no subsidies in the funds provided by the government. All the money is provided through loans, loan guarantees or contracts. It is somewhat similar in this case.

What in fact is being asked of the government is for it to act as guarantor, up to a ceiling of $1.5 billion, to all of the small businesses in Canada for loans negotiated with banking institutions. Everyone recognizes the expertise of the banks, as well as the caisses populaires and credit unions, for they are located in the various regions concerned, which have different problems and characteristics.

The advantage of this is that it offers small business a basic program. There are other programs more specific to certain sectors, perhaps too many in my opinion. Too much of something can sometimes be as much of a problem as too little.

I was recently in an office in Vancouver in connection with my responsibility for regional development. I saw people working away at computers to locate government programs, both provincial and federal. I asked one person how long she had been at it, and she told me it had been a week. She told me it had been two days before she finally figured out how the system worked. She commented that she had been shunted from one program to another, and how very confusing it was. It is all very fine to have computers available to give people some degree of independence, but there still have to be advisors.

Quebec now has a new structure in place which impacts on the social economy, the local employment development councils. These have enhanced the economic councils, which some regions called by another name. These still need counsellors.

It must be kept in mind that a loan program is still needed. Within the framework of this legislation, this loan program is aimed at small business. It is therefore extremely important. I do not believe such an essential issue is the right place for petty partisan politics.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-53, but something just happened here that, I think, requires clarification.

Apparently in response to a Reform motion to be disposed of next Tuesday I guess, the government House leader is proposing a kind of gag order. Because he does not agree with the Reform Party's motion to defer consideration of the bill for six months, he is proposing that we proceed immediately. That is what he said this morning.

This needs clarifying. The government House leader referred to our Standing Orders, but went on to talk about employment insurance and what not, leaving the people who are at home listening to us completely confused

Granted, Bill C-53 is not perfect. However, given the principles behind the bill, including the need for small businesses in Quebec and Canada to have access to financing, leaving these businesses in a lurch for six month cannot be justified.

Last year, through Bill C-21, approximately $1 billion in additional funding was to be provided. Now, this was a while ago, and we all know how long it takes for legislation and programs to be implemented at the federal level, especially with this government, which is quick to propose time allocation motions but is very slow when it comes to reviewing programs. I find this somewhat funny. The government House leader wants to proceed quickly when this bill is not well structured enough to meet the needs of small businesses.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to maintain funding. But we must be careful not to repeat the mistake made these past three years, when a bill was introduced each year to provide a one-year extension as well as additional funding. This year-to-year approach makes no sense.

We must at least recognize that Bill C-53 provides for the continuous operation of the small business loans program. We support this objective. It is very important, imperative, that we stop playing this game year after year, leaving our small businesses across Canada on the edge all the time.

Under this kind of management approach, the people concerned live in fear of the program being abolished or of funds running out so they rush out to the bank so they can be sure to benefit from the program. Often, projects, and this has been shown, are not always ready and are more vulnerable. They risk being rejected.

When the time comes to compensate the banks for losses, the government has a number of demands. This is what occurred in the past, because the basis was a year at a time. The auditor looked into that and noted that there was indeed a control problem and a certain lack of cost effectiveness. I think that, for the last year, the compensation figure was around $200 million. A significant figure nevertheless.

However, 95% of businesses in Canada are small. They create nearly 50% of jobs. It is the small businesses of 50 employees or fewer that use much of the manpower and are the most imaginative and creative, we have to admit. They are the most involved in economic development. That is very important.

This is why we support the bill in principle and why, Tuesday, the Bloc Quebecois will support it. We understand to some extent the arguments of the Reform Party and we understand why the Reform Party wants a six-month delay in order to better understand the situation. If we agreed to their proposal, we run the risk of depriving small business of funding for a fairly long time. We cannot agree to that.

The best approach would be for the Reform Party and the other opposition parties along with the government members to buckle down and get to work on the Standing Committee on Industry. The parliamentary secretary is here and has said that he would be receptive to changes and improvements. For once. We are not used to having the government open to change proposed by the opposition.

Generally, they tend to think the truth is exclusively on their side. We think it is better distributed than that. Often, it may be found as well on the opposition side.

We can call this a game, but we can also call it democracy. That is the way our system works. There is a bill, and a parliamentary committee is going to examine it. People with proposals for changes will be able to have their opinions listened to. Some changes will make sense and others will not. It will be up to the parliamentarians to evaluate that in committee.

The usual process is for a report to made to the House after that. Here again, the opposition parties can present amendments. Since this is a very important subject, this time it might be necessary for the government to show it is listening to the views of the public, which will also be expressed through the opposition parties.

This is what I have heard so far in the debate on this bill, and on Bill C-21 as well, not to mention the debate last year, because the government brings this up pretty well every year.

I am on the Standing Committee on Industry, and again yesterday morning we were presented with a foot-thick pile of documents and statistical studies. There are proposals for such things as seminars, symposia, endless press reviews, and groups asking to be heard. The association of independent business people, consumers, big business, all have opinions on this. Then there is all the current debate around the bank mergers. This is far from a minor issue. It is important.

At the present time, there are seven major banks, plus the caisses populaires in Quebec. As we know, the caisses populaires are extremely important in Quebec. I have some knowledge of this because their head office is in my riding. Lévis is where the Desjardins movement began in 1900. Its centennial will be coming up in two years.

My comments are very pertinent, since half of the loans granted under the old Small Business Loans Act are administered by the caisses populaires in Quebec, while the other half is administered by one of the seven major banks. This is very important.

We are indeed talking about small business and small business financing, but we are also talking about how banks operate. This is currently one of the most talked about issues at the federal level. All the parties must conduct a very thorough review of this issue. All have basic positions and principles, but the situation of financial institutions is changing so rapidly at the world level that the debate should include an assessment of the financing needs of small business. I know that the Standing Committee on Finance is looking at this issue. There is the McKay report on this.

We must take the time needed, but we must not take too much time, otherwise we would deprive our small businesses from getting the financing they need.

The bill is not perfect. It is in response to the auditor general's recommendations who, and rightly so, proposed accounting measures and controls. The auditor general did a good job. He is proposing that the government add mechanisms, that the minister have more means to control the program's effectiveness. We agree with him. However, we must not only react to this specific situation.

To rely exclusively on controls, and to implement too many of them could prevent us from benefiting from the development triggered by small business in Canada, which we truly need. The future is far from being secure and guaranteed, and major businesses—such as GM in Montreal—are slow to announce what they have in store in terms of investments, planning and direction. Meanwhile, people are left on the sidelines.

There is a major industry in my riding called Davie Industries. It has secured $300 million in contracts, but its workers face an uncertain future, because there is currently no guarantee of financing. We must take a serious look at this situation, because it involves hundreds of millions of dollars. What is involved for 95% of the businesses in Canada is $200 million that has allegedly been lost. However, they have failed to look on the profit side.

As businesses were setting up under the program and therefore creating jobs, tax money was being paid both federally and provincially. This meant additional revenues. Perhaps the program cost $200 million, but no financial studies have been done to show how much it generated for the federal and provincial departments of revenue.

There are no studies to indicate that, but I have no doubt that it brought in far more than it cost. When we talk about 50% of Canada's manpower, we are talking a lot of people. That translates into taxes too. If we do not help small business to set up and remain in operation—because a lot of them go bankrupt—and we do not provide for renewed funding, what happens? Jobs are lost.

After a period of receiving employment insurance benefits, these people find themselves without jobs. But here, I am sounding a sour note, because we realize that some 45% of people who have paid into employment insurance cannot collect benefits under the new legislation when they become unemployed. That is a scandal and the subject for another debate.

That involves money too. This sort of situation costs all taxpayers. What happens when two people are in the same situation and are not entitled to employment insurance benefits? They have to turn to social assistance. This means additional expenditures for both levels of government, since the federal government also kicks in for welfare.

I think one would have to be short-sighted to take the Reform Party's approach and try to have the bill put off for six months because it is not perfect, because it does not quite suit them, and turn a blind eye to the serious impact on the health of businesses, not to say the health of those they employ.

We cannot leave people hanging for six months, not knowing whether or not the program will be extended. If we were to go along with this measure, it would mean that, tomorrow morning, because there is still a little money left in the program—an additional $1 billion to extend it for one more year—all businesses would quickly throw projects together and rush to the financial institutions.

As I see it, there is one major problem with the bill. It guarantees the banks compensation for any losses, on condition that they move fast, because once the $1.5 billion is exhausted, they are out of luck. Everyone is scrambling, and we all know that, when there is too much haste, problems arise.

The Bloc Quebecois would have liked to see a better bill, one that incorporated the suggestions it made last year, and wishes that needs had been more accurately assessed.

An assessment of sorts is under way, it is true, and we will judge the results on their merits.

We would have liked to see more comprehensive considerations and broader consultations. We hope that, as part of the work to be done by the Standing Committee on Industry, it will be possible to carry out this consultation of the groups concerned, namely small businesses, financial institutions, the seven major banks, and the Canadian Bankers Association, as well as caisses populaires and credit unions in the rest of Canada, which operate along the same lines as financial co-operatives.

They should have a say in the matter, for the future and for the long term, so that we will not have to debate this issue in the House every year only to argue in favour of motherhood. I think that is where matters stand, but this government is going to have to listen seriously to what the public has to say and consider objectively the various proposals being made, including those from the opposition parties.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, October 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have allowed the same party two opportunities in a row to put a question to the Leader of the Government in the House.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43 to create the new Canada customs and revenue agency.

Before I start, I know I will probably not have enough time to finish my remarks. I hope to have the opportunity to continue when we next examine this bill.

I would begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for his good work. I heard his speech this morning, in which he presented a whole series of arguments. I felt the agency served some purpose, but was not relevant because a department of revenue already exists. My colleague's arguments were well founded.

Once again, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has shown how attuned he is to his constituents and to the groups concerned by these issues.

First, let us talk of the government's objectives in the 1996 throne speech. The first objective was to provide programs and services more effectively and cost efficiently through greater autonomy and flexibility. I want to focus on the words “more effectively and cost efficiently”. I think everyone agrees on “cost efficiently”. The more it brings in, the more it is in the public interest.

However, I have a few questions about the “more effectively”. The understanding is more effectively than at present. At the present time, those responsible for tax collection are employees of Revenue and Customs, in other words public servants. I am told there are about 18,000. There is a message in this. Is it being implied that the 18,000 people assigned to taxation are not efficient and are not doing their job properly so that it will be cost-effective? The government has presented this as its first objective.

This is not surprising, when one realizes that the tendency within this government is a desire to privatize. This is something to be considered per se, but what is involved is a service that is already provided. It is not a new service, but one already being provided. The agency will not be totally privatized, but it will not be covered by the legislation which governs, and will continue to govern, all other public servants at the federal level.

I do not wish to worry people needlessly. I do not even need to do so, anyway, because I have seen a letter to the hon. member for Rivière-des-Milles-Îles by the taxation employees' union. They are all worried about this. They wonder what might happen to them. Behind it all lies the fear of being shunted aside. Perhaps a number of them may be hired again by the new agency, but they do need reassurance.

The second was to improve services—and who could be against that—and to reduce the cost of administering revenue and compliance by working in conjunction with the provinces in order to eliminate duplication and overlap. The key words in this are “working in conjunction with the provinces”. The concept of “co-operation” is understood. Generally, the purpose is harmonization.

“Working in co-operation” is all very fine-sounding and is a good objective as far as it goes. But what is actually happening? When we check with each of the provinces, not just Quebec, they say they are not in agreement and that, before they sign on, they will want to give it some thought because they are not at all sure this is a good thing. How can the government get away with saying in the throne speech that it will be done in co-operation with the provinces, when the provinces are not in fact interested in working together in this context, since they are apparently going to lose their powers, especially Quebec, because Quebec has its own revenue ministry. Moreover, it is the only province that does, having had one for a very long time. In this regard, Quebec wants to keep its powers and its responsibilities.

A third objective was mentioned, which we no longer hear anything about today, but which was in the throne speech: “Strengthen the federation's effectiveness and enhance national unity by making the agency an organization responsible for providing Canadians with federal and provincial services”.

When this was first announced, it obviously resulted in some discussion here in the House and elsewhere. We in the Bloc Quebecois, and Quebeckers in general, reacted back then, and we feel no differently now. Except that we notice that the government members no longer mention this objective. But once bitten, twice shy. Just because the government no longer mentions this third objective from the throne speech does not mean it is no longer guided by it. These were statements of principle, the government's intentions and policies until the next throne speech.

This objective no doubt remains. In my opinion, it is part of the current Liberal government's plan A, because, while it is a gentle approach and not a stick, it remains a tendency of the current federal government, which tries to meddle in provincial matters and increasingly expand its control over them.

But with the creation of this agency, it is not doing so directly, but indirectly, rather as it did with the millennium scholarships. Members remember the famous millennium scholarship fund. The federal government could not do it directly, so it set up a private foundation, an agency of sorts, to do indirectly what it could not do directly.

I am no lawyer, but I know the public is discouraged from indirectly contravening legal provisions. The same is not true for the government. It sets up agencies, it takes an indirect and convoluted approach to achieve its ends. Even though it is no longer raising the issue of so called national unity, the federal government, in the end, wants to collect taxes and take over the mechanisms that bring in new revenues with an independent agency.

I am a sovereignist. I do not hide the fact. Neither do the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles or the members of the Bloc. However, we are still in the federal system. The people in the other parties, whom I respect, have another opinion. They are federalists and want to stay within the federal system. They often consult the Constitution. I too have read it. We know about the Constitution.

I also know its history and the facts surrounding it. In 1867, when Canada's Constitution was drafted and passed, those who have studied it will recall that the federal government did not collect taxes from either individuals or companies. The provincial governments did. It was during the two world wars—the 1914-18 one and the 1939-45 one—that the federal government asked the provincial governments, in the light of the exceptional circumstances, to allow it to collect income tax.

Subsequently, having tasted the pleasure of collecting taxes, the government wanted to continue. Ontario finally agreed, but Mr. Duplessis, who was then Premier of Quebec, created his own department of revenue. That is the history of the two tax returns: one for the federal government and one for Quebec. They go back to that time. However, I will have the opportunity—