Maurice Bernier

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his presentation. He demonstrated the weaknesses of the UI "reform" plan in such an eloquent manner that government members had to blush, if Liberal members can blush at all.

In the few moments at my disposal, I would like to make some comments about the government's attitude regarding this reform and especially that of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Twice today the minister showed quite well how he feels about this reform. First, when he took part in the debate, this morning, he offered his philosophy on the reform, which can be summarized this way: "Finally, yes, this bill must be improved upon; so, if someone has suggestions to this end, they should make them." As if, as Minister of Human Resources Development, he was not responsible for this issue and did not himself have to propose amendments to the bill.

He also said during his presentation that, due to his long experience both at the provincial and federal levels of government, he was aware of the needs of the people. So, acting as a know-it-all, if I may say so, the minister tells us on the one hand that he is aware of the needs of the people and, on the other hand, that he wants us to come up with some good ideas, that he might take them into consideration.

What is worse, though, is the attitude that the minister showed and reiterated during the question period, when the hon. member for Mercier reminded him of what he said only a few hours ago when he criticized the demonstrations being held and a union representative in particular. He named individuals, which is rather uncommon on the part of a minister, saying: "These individuals who come from New Brunswick, from my own area, are troublemakers. They like to use their Sunday afternoon to create problems for the government. These people do not know what to do on Sunday afternoon, so they look for demonstrations to go to". He added in the House: "The President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bob White, who earns more money than I, was also there as a political agitator. He is only interested in rousing the public against the government. He is not interested at all in helping ordinary folk."

If I had had the chance to ask him when he made that comment in the House, I would have asked the minister, who is an elected representative-just like Bob White is-whom he was speaking for. Was he speaking for the banks, which made exorbitantly high profits last year and will be making even higher profits in the coming year? Whom is the Minister of Human Resources Development talking for?

We must ask that question because he is the one who will give its soul to that reform. If he is convinced that the UI beneficiaries, the people who protest against his so-called UI reform, are people who have nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon or who are loafers,

do you really believe that his reform will benefit the workers? To ask the question is to answer it.

People who listen to us, those who heard the minister will understand that this is a big joke, that the government's only objective is to claw back the money to reduce its deficit. There are very simple calculations to be made and I challenge the minister to prove that they are false. With the measures already taken in past years the government can cash every year a UI surplus of $5 billion to reduce its deficit, and we agree with that. But it takes that money directly in the pockets of the unemployed while, it is worth repeating, banks alone register profits exceeding $5 billion. What should be done to improve the UI reform? To ask the question is to answer it.

Instead of criticizing the union leaders and the thousands of people in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Maritimes and all over Quebec and Ontario who demonstrated against his reform, I would prefer to see the minister restrain himself and propose amendments which would make the bill more acceptable.

[Tribute To Dominique Bilodeau, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, at the 15th ceremony for the Eastern Townships sports awards, Dominique Bilodeau, a 16-year old athlete from Lac-Mégantic, was awarded the Victor de la Révélation sportive for 1995, after winning three gold medals in track and field, during the Quebec Games which were held in the Eastern Townships last summer.

On behalf of all my colleagues in this House, I want to pay tribute to that young person.

I should also mention the unfailing support of her whole family and the exceptional work of her volunteer coach, André Garon, a teacher from Coleraine and a personal friend of the hon. member for Frontenac.

Remember that name, Dominique Bilodeau. She has a promising future, thanks to her immnese talent, her boundless energy and her unwavering determination. She makes not only her city but her whole community proud.

Bravo, Dominique.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, since this is my first speech since you became Acting Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment.

I would like to share my colleague from St. Boniface's optimism regarding the budget. Unfortunately, like all government members, our colleague from St. Boniface merely watched the finance minister's show in this House yesterday and let himself be hypnotized by the minister's oratorical performance.

What government members failed to do is read between the lines; it is one thing to listen to or read the budget speech and quite another to appreciate or analyze the impact of this budget.

I will take the hon. member for St. Boniface's own example, because I want to give him the chance to repent and perhaps correct what he said in this House a few minutes ago-I will take his own example, student assistance. I will get to my question in a minute if you allow me to continue.

Regarding student assistance, the hon. member reminded us that the budget sets aside $375 million over three years for student summer employment. This is a panacea, the find of the century.

The hon. member fails to mention that, as a result of the cuts to the Canada social transfer that were announced last year, which for Quebec alone amounted to $600 million last year and $1.2 billion for the coming year, Quebec's finance minister will probably have to raise tuition fees by a significant amount.

The few additional jobs that will be created for our students-and I am happy for them-will not be enough to compensate for the increase in tuition fees. That is one consequence of this budget.

I could go on for several minutes on this, but I will give the hon. member for St. Boniface a chance to immediately repent in this House in front of all his colleagues. I will get back to this later.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for his comments. It is refreshing to hear comments such as those made by the Reform member, particularly given the fact that, in the last few minutes, we had to listen to the whining of the Deputy Prime Minister, who keeps harping about the same old things when giving her vision of Canada's future, but mostly its past.

I would rather hear comments such as those just made by the Reform Party member. It goes without saying that I do not share his view on Canada's future, but we, sovereignists, recognize the greatness of Canada and of the Canadian people. Our views differ in that we also recognize ourselves, Quebecers, as a people, and feel that we have the right to control our destiny and have our own country.

It is my belief that, once both Canadians and Quebecers have established themselves as peoples, it will be easier to create links that will unite us instead of dividing us.

This is what I understood from the hon. member's comments, and again I want to congratulate him on his speech.

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the bill tabled in this House by our colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, which is aimed at protecting the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves obtained from certain corporations.

This is a very important issue in the world in which we live, an issue that, too often, is not taken seriously but that has major consequences in people's lives.

It is no secret that just about any personal information is now available for all kinds of purposes to almost any individual or corporation wishing to obtain this information. In the business world, everyone knows that our personal credit records can be put under the microscope by all kinds of institutions interested in digging into our past. Everyone also knows that, more often than not, information on our lifestyles and consumption patterns falls into the hands of all kinds of individuals and corporations whose goals may be questionable, without most governments being concerned about it.

In this regard, I say right off the bat that although the bill tabled by our Reform colleague does not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James just pointed out, meet all our expectations with respect to this problem, it places it in the public domain and urges the federal government, which so far has been negligent in this area, to examine the problem and, hopefully, come up with more restrictive legislation in the near future.

What I also like about our Reform colleague's initiative is that he refers to the Quebec legislation. In introducing his bill, he referred to the fact that, in 1994, Quebec enacted legislation to protect personal information not only from public institutions but also from private enterprise. This legislation was Bill 68, which, as I mentioned, was enacted in 1994.

I said earlier that Bill C-315 is quite commendable as far as its goals are concerned, but that it has flaws that should be pointed out. First of all, the bill refers to the sale of information. Any federally registered company wishing to sell information on a group of individuals would have to notify each of these individuals of its intention and of the personal information in its possession, and to

obtain his or her consent. Never can we in any way prevent companies from providing information or exchanging lists, provided the lists are not actually sold.

So, there is some kind of a loophole there that should be looked at and plugged if at all possible. There is also, as I said earlier, the requirement to send a notice concerning the sale of any list of individuals. But, even if this bill is passed, nothing will stop companies from selling information on one individual at a time.

These two examples show that there are deficiencies in the bill put forward by our friend from the Reform Party, deficiencies that must not be overlooked. As the hon. member from the Liberal Party suggested earlier, perhaps in a future bill we can take all of this into account and come up with ways to prevent this kind of problems.

Another point I wanted to raise is the small fines for non-compliance. The bill provides for fines of $5,000 to $10,000. I was listening to the hon. member from the Reform Party who spoke before me talk about the huge profits generated by the sale of this kind of information. It stands to reason that imposing such small fines is not likely to discourage companies from breaking the law. We should therefore make sure that fines are much larger, stiffer.

Another deficiency of this bill concerns the type of personal information covered by the act. A full list, a rather long list in fact, can be found in clause 2 of the bill. Again, it is not quite complete.

The problem in making a list is that you can forget to include major elements. I would like to point out that there is no mention, in this list, of political affiliation. I gather that this information is not considered personal in nature. Criminal record, work experience, place of birth, sexual orientation and mother tongue are not included or listed either in clause 2 of the bill, while I would think this information as strictly personal information that needs to be protected under a bill like this one.

To conclude, as I said at the outset, although the bill contains major deficiencies, it at least has the merit of being a first. It is a step in the right direction, as the first piece of legislation introduced by the federal government to protect personal information.

This debate is also an opportunity to alert the public to the real danger of not having legislation on the subject. In a way, as limited as its scope may be, it is difficult not to support this bill.

I would like to point out, since our colleague from the Reform Party referred to the Quebec legislation, that the latter is much more meaningful and precise. I would hope that when this act, if passed of course, is amended in the future, we should be able to refer to the Quebec legislation to ensure that personal information is better protected.

This goes to show, once again, if you do not mind my saying so without a trace of parochial spirit, that in many areas like this one, Quebec's know-how can easily be exported. People are welcome to refer to our legislation; they will not be disappointed.

I will close on this, just adding that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Ottawa-Centre to sit down and go back to sleep, like he did the night of the referendum, since he obviously did not listen until the end to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition, who will become Quebec's Premier, say that he would respect the results of the October 30 referendum by making sure to deal with the problems facing Quebec, that is, public finance, he also said that the federal government was expected to act and to propose real changes.

So, what do we have here? I said it earlier: trickery and deceit. The next time we will talk about the Constitution in Quebec, it will be about Quebec's Constitution in an impending referendum.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate, since I feel it is important to establish the government's intentions in tabling Bill C-110. It is not my intention in the next few minutes to react to the interpretation of history given by the Liberal member who just spoke. I would simply advise him to do some sorting out of his historical reference books. Drawing a comparison between Louisiana and Quebec is not only nonsensical but an insult to the reality of Quebec.

What I would like to do instead is talk about Bill C-110 and the veto.

To begin with, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this morning, when reference is made to the right of veto, this generally means a procedure or rule that is a key element in a constitution. With such a rule, changes of a constitutional nature cannot be made without the agreement of one part. In the case of concern to us here, the case of Canada, what is involved is a part of Canada without the agreement of a certain number of provinces plus the federal government.

This is, therefore, an important measure. So important that, over the past 20 or 25 years, the federalists have discussed among themselves on a number of occasions the necessity of arriving at a formula for amending the Constitution which would include this famous right of veto. Naturally, there was the Victoria charter, which referred to a regional veto, a bit like Bill C-110. The Pepin-Roberts Commission referred to a regional veto as well, but one supported by a Canada-wide referendum in which a majority would be required in each of the four or five regions of Canada.

The 1982 Constitutional Act, the one that governs us at present, assigns to each Canadian province the right of veto in several areas for amending the Constitution and the institutions, among other things. The Meech Lake accord also contains the same right of veto. The Beaudoin-Edwards committee spoke of a regional veto. So did the Charlottetown accord.

What I would like to point out with this reminder is that the right of veto has always figured prominently in Canadian political discussion, in the political speeches of federalists, sincere ones, who wanted to improve Canada and Quebec's situation. Never, however, have we been able to reach an agreement that would respect the rights of both Quebecers and Canadians. Never.

That is why the Trudeau government accorded the right of veto to all provinces in 1982, in desperation, and this is how the situation stands now.

So, if we want this right of veto to mean anything, there must be constitutional changes. Because he could not do so-and not because the Leader of the Opposition may eventually go to Quebec City, but because he could not convince the anglophone provinces to agree-the Prime Minister, reacting to the results of the referendum on October 30, decided to table a bill in the House that has no constitutional significance, a bill that will force the present government to take certain criteria into account before it proposes constitutional change, if it really wants to, because it can amend its bill at any time.

However, as the Prime Minister has already said he does not intend to make any proposals so long as the nasty separatists are in power in Quebec, the bill will never be implemented in any case.

This is where I want to point out the intention of the government and, particularly, of the Prime Minister. This bill is nothing more than a hoax. I would even describe it as skulduggery, because it is misleading Quebecers by implying that the right of veto is a guarantee of Quebec's future constitutional rights.

This is wrong, absolutely wrong, because, in the same breath, most of the speakers on the government side have made a point of saying in their speeches-the Prime Minister first and then the Minister of Justice this morning in tabling his bill-that the bill changes nothing in the existing formula, in other words, it is the constitutional status quo.

Quebecers must understand that the government and the Prime Minister are simply trying to waste time in this House with this hasty bill that has no effect.

Some will say I am being hard on the Prime Minister. With your permission, I would like to turn to what the Prime Minister has said in the past.

Let us look first at his speech in 1990 as he was preparing to enter the Liberal Party leadership race. The current Prime Minister, who was then a leadership candidate, said, right here in Ottawa, to University of Ottawa students, that, as a candidate to the Liberal Party leadership and future head of the Canadian government, he was opposed to any form of veto, for any province. He basically said that a province wishing to oppose constitutional changes could do it if it had a veto. He did not specifically mentioned Quebec, but he was certainly thinking about that province, since Quebec has always been the one asking for such changes.

In addition to a veto power, the concept of distinct society is supposedly recognized in the motion tabled in this House.

Again, this is a big joke. The Prime Minister is trying to make Quebecers, but particularly Canadians, believe that he recognizes the principle of distinct society. Yet, during the referendum campaign, he ridiculed that principle by making an analogy to his own linguistic skills. He said: "There is no need to put the distinct society principle in the Constitution. Everyone knows that I am distinct. Just listen to me speak English".

At the time, the leader of the Action démocratique condemned the Prime Minister's comments, saying that it was contemptuous of Quebecers to make such an analogy between the notion of distinct society and one's ability, or lack of, to speak English, in this case the Prime Minister himself.

This is what the Prime Minister thinks of the distinct society and the right of veto. Today, because it tabled a bill and a motion on the concept of distinct society, the government would like Quebec members to applaud and say: "Mr. Speaker, the issue is finally settled. Quebec is now recognized as a distinct society and it has a veto power. Let us move on to other matters".

No. Quebecers are not fooled by all this. They are fully aware of the federal government's deceit in tabling this bill and this motion, and they will react strongly. In that sense, the Leader of the Opposition who, in a few months, will lead the Quebec government, was right, is right and will be right to say no to such trickery and deceit.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine the opportunity to finish his speech, since I realized from his reaction that he wished to have a few more minutes. So, the fact that we are now moving into comments will certainly allow him to continue.

However, I would like to make a few remarks concerning his speech because, as he rightly mentioned, what the member tried to do during the few minutes that he spoke was to tell us how English Canada-even though our colleague from St. Boniface does not want us to use that expression-loves us and how it recognizes the importance of the French fact, since he emphasized that several Canadians are now taking French courses, which is a fact and a good thing.

It is also well known that Quebec is where we find the greatest number of people who can speak both languages, French and English. On an individual basis, everybody recognizes the importance of speaking both French and English. I will add that, in Europe, it is not two languages that most people speak, but three, four and even more, and sometimes very complicated languages, much more complicated than French and English.

Having said that, and with all due respect for our colleagues opposite, that does not solve in any way the political situation in Canada. That does not solve the political and constitutional problem that that federalists have been struggling with for many decades, and trying to solve in all kinds of ways. It is important to point this out because, every time government members stand up in this House, they tell us that it is the separatists who are preventing constitutional changes. At the present time, that is the only argument that they are using to say that, unfortunately, they cannot change the Constitution. The Prime Minister, almost with tears in his eyes, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, with her crocodile tears, tell us: we cannot bring about constitutional changes. The Leader of the Opposition, who will become Quebec's Premier, said right away that he did not want any changes.

That is the whole debate in a nutshell. Even though I recognize the facts raised by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning the importance of the French aspect, I wish that he would speak a little more substantively about the bill itself.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think that our hon. friend from St. Boniface has said enough for now. He will have an opportunity, during questions and comments, to expand on his thoughts concerning the bill before us.

I have a comment for him. Then, I will give him the opportunity to respond to my comment.

I listened very carefully to what our colleague from St. Boniface said. More often than not, in fact I should say usually, he takes things seriously. Having held important functions in Manitoba, he is familiar with the meaning of the words and concepts we are dealing with and he can fully grasp them and deal with them. He must know what this bill we are debating means and how far-reaching it is.

Indeed, I am surprised, to put it mildly, that he is adding so much confusion to the debate. One thing is sure-he said so himself several times in his remarks, both in French and in English-the bill before us does not change anything at all. What we have here is the status quo, no change. If this bill does not change anything, why table it in this House? I will go into this further later today.

You will probably be amazed to hear what has prompted the government to put this bill forward at this point in time. But what I want to emphasize right now is the element of confusion introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface in his remarks by insisting and suggesting that this bill will actually change something and that a lot noise of noise can now be made around Quebec's new right of veto on any future constitutional change. That is wrong.

At the same time, he says the bill does not change anything, that what we have here is the status quo, that the good people of English Canada, outside Quebec, have nothing to worry about, because there will be no change. Supposedly, all they are doing, the only impact this bill will have will be to give the federal government a new set of rules to go by, under which it will try to determine if the changes it contemplates would garner the support of a number of provinces or certain regions of Quebec and Canada. That is what he is telling us, but basically what he is saying is that there will be no change.

I would personally like the hon. member for St. Boniface to tell us which part of his remarks we are to believe. Which part should we give credence to? The part where he tells Quebecers: "You will have your veto"? Or the one intended for people outside Quebec, which says: "Nothing will change"?

Could the hon. member clarify?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

The past is the key to the future.