Hélène Alarie

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my kind colleague.

We have indeed had great co-operation from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in connection with scrapie, but there are two things I need to point out.

First, we cannot accept the lack of retroactivity for those sheep farmers who were the first to subscribe to the wholly federal program of a wholly federal agency, and who in so doing had the honesty and courage to, perhaps, save the Canadian sheep industry. We expect them to get the same compensation as others who will come along in future.

The second question raised by my colleague—and I am glad he raised it because that was what I was saying at the end of my speech—is that, unlike the other provinces, Quebec does not have the same measures for its farm safety-net programs, its companion programs, and does not apply them in the same way.

This is so much the case that a departmental employee—Mr. Richardson, if I remember correctly—told the committee that, even if Quebec wanted to take the famous $200 million—and Minister Julien wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to this effect—this would be impossible because the rules established with the federal government are different for Quebec than for elsewhere in Canada.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion of the member for Yorkton—Melville.

The agricultural sector in general is experiencing a major crisis and much of the blame for this lies with the federal government, which is providing the sector with increasingly less financial support. In addition, the federal government's inaction in this period of budget surplus does not help resolve the problems facing farmers.

What is the situation in the agricultural sector right now? There are crises that cannot be ignored. Let us look first at the Asian crisis, whose effects are being felt worldwide. Demand for all farm products is down, and grain and meat prices, including and primarily that of pork, are down. World demand for wheat and pork has just about evaporated.

This drop in demand means that farmers can no longer sell their products and accordingly find themselves more often than not in an income loss situation.

Income for the first half of 1998 was down by over 5% compared to the first half of 1997, which means a drop of some 7% in crops and 4% in livestock.

The figures obtained by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture indicate that net farm incomes could drop by as much as 40% this year. The Asian crisis is not an isolated event. Canada's exports of farm products for the country as a whole increased by over 65%. They reached a record level of $22.3 billion.

The agriculture and agri-food sector alone will account for nearly a third of Canada's trade balance in 1997. But a downside of this success is the increased dependency of Canadian producers on international markets to earn a living.

At the same time, we have been witnessing the federal government's withdrawal from agriculture. Since it took office, the Liberal government repeatedly cut funding and services to farm producers in Quebec, while making them foot a larger part of the bill for whatever services are still being delivered.

As a result, Quebec producers have less and less money to operate. Government support has dropped by more than 60%, from $2.8 billion in 1993 to approximately $1 billion in 1997, in spite of the fact that, under international rules, $4 billion could be made available to further support the agricultural industry.

Cost recovery fees have been imposed on no less than 42 industries over a three-year period according to Agriculture Canada's estimates. And what about privatization efforts, where, once again, the farming community, the producers have to pay for services they are entitled to and used to get for free.

In its 1996 budget, the federal government announced the elimination of all dairy subsidies. For our producers in Quebec, this represents a $107 million loss they are still suffering from.

When the Crow rate was abandoned in 1995, the government granted $3 billion in compensation to western producers, but there are no plans to compensate our producers for the loss of the dairy subsidy. Only $66 million was paid in Quebec in adjustment measures after the Crow rate was abolished.

Once again, there is a double standard in which Quebec is the big loser. In this respect, I could give you an example I have often used in this House: the scrapie crisis in Quebec. Not only have 11,000 sheep been put down—on the basis of a mere 38 screening tests, which raises serious questions—but active measures to support this industry have yet to be put in place.

Of course, the government mentioned a few measures to increase maximum compensation to $600 per animal, but this is not enough. The whole industry must get back on its feet, and all these measures must be retroactive, because the people most affected are those who got involved and who tried to solve this problem from the very beginning.

Is the government obsessed with the idea of complying with the new WTO rules? Is this why it stopped helping farmers over four years ago and why it gutted out these various farm support programs?

Let us not forget that while the American government reduced its global support for agriculture by 23% over a seven-year period, the Canadian government cut its support by 21% over three years. What do our farmers have to gain by complying with the WTO rules before their main competitors who, incidentally, often enjoy a better climate than we do?

The situation in the farming industry is such that it is now essential to reinvest in basic support structures to secure long term sustainability.

Meanwhile, what are the Americans doing? They are supporting farmers. According to the figures released by the American Farm Bureau, subsidies in 1998 will total $15.2 billion in the United States. This unfair competition raises legitimate concerns among farmers in Canada and elsewhere. While the federal government is abandoning our farmers, the U.S. government is helping their American counterparts to keep their heads above water. Faced with this unfair competition, what should our farmers do?

Are there solutions? I think there are. The first one is very simple. The government must wake up to the seriousness of the situation farmers are facing. Second, the government must sit down with the industry and its representatives to discuss better ways of at least alleviating the effects of the present crisis and, finally, other measures will also have to be taken, which will undoubtedly mean that the federal government will have to increase funding to the farming sector. We cannot stay competitive if we are at a disadvantage.

I will conclude by saying a few words about the situation in Quebec. Obviously, this issue brings home to me all the more clearly the need for the people of Quebec to attain sovereignty because, in continuing to pull out of the farming sector, the federal government has not acted in the interests of Quebec farmers, as I have shown with respect to the sheep and dairy industries.

A Quebec government that was master of its own destiny would have worked exclusively in the interests of Quebec farmers. That is what we did in the case of hogs. We sorted out the situation ourselves, as we are doing with our crop insurance, farm income stabilization insurance and CNRS programs.

Members often do not understand that these companion programs are applied differently in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. The reason for that is that my country, Quebec, takes an interest in farmers.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-54, 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.

This long awaited bill introduced by the minister does not meet the objective stated at the outset, namely to protect privacy in a technological world that challenges this fundamental right.

What we have before us is a bill whose content is to be found in a schedule, a bill that gives no real powers to the commissioner. This is a bill whose form and content will both create confusion.

It is a bill whose wording lends itself to broad interpretation, a bill that includes a provision allowing the governor in council to amend the act without any parliamentary debate and democratic consultation.

It is not likely, therefore, that the bill will meet the public's expectations, because it is too flawed.

First, most of the provisions governing protection of personal information are to be found in a schedule of the bill. Such a structure—which is unusual, to say the least—could result in a number of problems, since the schedule will have to be read in conjunction with the rest of the bill. This will only make it harder for businesses to figure out their obligations and consumers' rights.

Moreover, the schedule is merely a model code for the protection of personal information drafted by the private sector and by consumers, as a framework to protect personal information, but strictly on a voluntary basis.

The minister did not follow through on the recommendations made by consumers and the privacy commissioners, who stated that the code provides a good starting point, but needs to be reviewed and amended if it is to be included in the legislation.

This shows how anxious the minister is to see electronic commerce develop in Canada, and it also shows the priority given to economic values, rather than to social values and the right to privacy.

Second, the legislation is muddled.

The conditional is frequently used in Schedule 1, for example, “should be specified”.

We may well wonder whether the use of the conditional in Bill C-54 means that the legislation is simply making recommendations without imposing obligations, particularly since the answer is not obvious. In clause 5(2), the bill provides:

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

11.(1) An individual may file with the Commissioner a written complaint against an organization for contravening a provision of Division 1 or for not following a recommendation set out in Schedule 1.

Clearly this confusion and these contradictions will make for happy lawyers and unhappy consumers.

Clause 4.3.2 in Schedule 1, which sets out the CSA code, provides:

Organizations shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used.

I would remind you as well that Quebec is a unique model in North America for its legislation regarding the protection of personal information. It has had this legislation for four years. Like the charter of human rights, Quebec's laws consider the protection of personal information a basic right. Article 5 of the 1975 Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides that every person has a right to the respect of his or her private life.

Clearly, Bill C-54 has as its sole objective to promote electronic trade while the right to protection of privacy in the private sector is relegated to the background. Its title alone makes this clear.

Worse yet, this bill will reduce, in some cases, the rights of Quebeckers acquired under Quebec law.

Let us consider an example. Under section 17 of the Quebec legislation, an employee in a department store would be entitled to see his personal file, even if kept outside Quebec.

With Bill C-54, he would not necessarily be able to view his file, because his request would be subject to legislation that ignores the right to privacy when the access to information request is made under labour relations provisions and is not of a commercial nature.

Moreover, as I said earlier, Bill C-54 is based on a voluntary model code prepared by the CSA. Let us see what the access to information commissioners of Quebec and British Columbia think of that.

On page 15 of his Annual Report for 1997-98, the Quebec access to information commissioner says “going along with this proposal, the CSA standard, would be a step backward from the current situation in Quebec as far as protection of personal information is concerned”.

The British Columbia commissioner, David H. Flaherty, compared the BC legislation, the European Union legislation and the CSA code which is the foundation of Bill C-54. He came to the conclusion that the purpose of the CSA code is not to protect the right to privacy; that the concept of personal information is most poorly defined; that there is no reference to data banks; and that the definition of consent is evasive compared to what can be found in other legislation.

Also, the tools provided in Bill C-54 are ineffective, since the commissioner cannot issue orders. In fact, Canadians will have to go to the federal court to solve disputes, but only once the commissioner has issued his opinion.

I could go on and on about this bill, but I am running out of time. However, I support the request of my hon. colleague, our industry critic, and urge the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-54 concerning electronic commerce and personal information protection in the private sector.

The bill as it now stands will not provide consumers with the level of confidence they need to ensure the development of electronic commerce.

There are three facts that surface when one reads this bill: the bill allows the federal government to subject huge sections of the economy currently under Quebec jurisdiction to federal legislation; the bill is so confused that it could be interpreted any which way; and last, it is extremely weak, since it does not grant the federal privacy commissioner the power to issue orders.

When we think about it, we once again wonder why the federal government did not rely on the four years of positive experience Quebec has in this area.

[Sheep Production In Quebec, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the federal government is to blame. In the past, several billion dollars were retroactively given to western grain producers through ad hoc programs.

Why is it that something that was possible for western grain producers is not possible for Quebec sheep producers?

[Sheep Production In Quebec, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, in response to one of our questions, the agriculture minister hid behind legality to justify the unfair treatment given to Quebec sheep producers who are in dire straits.

How can the minister hide behind the legal aspect of the issue, while in western Canada the federal government used ad hoc programs to retroactively compensate grain producers?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member expressed his concern at the overlaps within the federal administration.

Three departments are in fact involved with the same bill. In real life, experience has shown that, when a number of departments are involved, they generally do not readily cohabit, the exercise is costly and the bureaucracy is extremely cumbersome.

I can understand the member's observations, because we can end up with a single area that is zoned in several ways.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks my colleague, the member from the Progressive Conservative Party, just made.

He seems to stand up for the fisheries in his region, but there is so much duplication in Bill C-48 between Heritage Canada's marine conservation areas, Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine and wildlife reserves that one can wonder who will have the largest jurisdiction and be able to protect fisheries the best.

He also mentioned the critical situation resulting from the miscalculation in assessing fish stocks.

Does he feel safe knowing that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the one who will be selecting the advisors and advisory committees on the management of the main resource in the Atlantic region?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the advice of my colleagues and I examined the bill. I will speak on two points of it.

First, there is not a lot of collaboration in this Bill C-48. Worse yet, and I would like my colleague's opinion on this, one of the prerequisites to the government's establishing a marine conservation area is its ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established.

My colleague was talking earlier about a coastal region and about the regions near the major Atlantic ports. There is another interesting clause in this bill, which gives the governor in council as well, on the recommendation of the transport and heritage ministers, the right to limit or prohibit transport activities in marine conservation areas.

I do not know whether he looked at that in detail, but near the ports—even if he and I both would like to see all of us live in a healthy environment—there may be a problem that needs to be considered and resolved.

[Scrapie, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has just established a program recognizing that sheep producers struggling with scrapie could lose $600 a head.

Now that the minister recognizes the amount of the loss, why is he not being fair with all producers by permitting compensation to be retroactive, which is possible under an ad hoc program, as he did for the western grain producers in crisis.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I did in previous discussions on Bill C-4, I have to admit from the outset that, as a Quebecker, it is hard for me to feel deeply concerned about Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit), because those affected are mainly the grain producers in western Canada. I will be brief, and all the more so because the remarks of my Reform colleague have set the tone of the debate on his bill.

As my party's critic for agriculture, my concern should be to examine whether most farmers or the agricultural industry as a whole can benefit from the bill before the House. In my humble opinion, the amendments in this bill deserve a good discussion.

The proposed amendment to subsection 8.1 (1) on auditing reads as follows:

8.1 (1) The accounts and records of the Board shall be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada and a report of the audit shall be made to the Board and the Minister.

This clause modifies an amendment, made by the Senate and passed by the House last June, which is included in Bill C-4. This bill, which has been enacted, provides that “Within two years after the day this section comes into force, the Auditor General of Canada may commence an audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation for such fiscal years as the Auditor General considers appropriate and a report of the audit shall be made to the Corporation and the Minister.”

There is no need to amend this clause, since such an audit is already being carried out, and the best time to undertake an audit should be left to the discretion of the auditor general. Also, the accounts are audited every year by a well-known independent accounting firm.

Subsection (2) reads as follows:

(2) The Minister shall cause the report made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the report is received by the Minister.

This is a common procedure for when such a report is made to the Minister.

The other amendments put forward by the hon. member are well-intentioned. Some people might find it normal for a board financed by farmers and whose initial price and line of credit are guaranteed by the government, to report to the minister responsible.

This ensures transparency. It would look bad if the Liberals in this House were to disagree with that. The proposed amendment would replace paragraph 9(1)( c ) and allow the minister to follow up each month on the board's:

—purchases and sales of all grain during the month and the quantities of grain then held by it, the contracts to take delivery of grain to which it is then a party, all securities then held by it and the financial result of the Board's operations.

However, these good intentions pose a great risk to the Canadian Wheat Board. To provide this information in a written report would be to tell competitors all there is to know about the board, including its sales engineering and contracts.

In today's competitive world, this might condemn to a slow death an institution that should be considered as a business or company that ought to be profitable for its investors, that is the producers and the government, basically everyone in the country. It is likely to take the wind out of its sails during future negotiations. We must bear in mind that the grain market is not an easy market and it is an extremely competitive one.

As for the proposed amendment to paragraph 9(1)( e ), it would allow the minister to get an annual report on the Canadian Wheat Board's activities.

My previous comment still holds. There is risk of disclosing the methods used for the purchase, movement and marketing of grain.

In addition, when it was introduced in November 1997, the auditor general review clause had not yet been added to Bill C-4. The legislation now in force contains this safeguard.

In closing, the Bloc Quebecois agrees, but only in principle, with this bill, as it forces the Canadian Wheat Board to be transparent in reporting its activities to the minister responsible. However, inherent to these amendments are risks that must not be overlooked.