Pierre De Savoye

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Reform Party member.

However, I do not think that the expression global warming really tells the public what is at stake here. It would be more appropriate to talk about climate destabilization. This is what causes the flooding, ice storms and tornadoes that destroy crops and towns, and that kill people.

The government has not met the challenge—in fact there is not even any mention of that challenge in the throne speech—of dealing with the climate destabilization we are currently witnessing. How can we ensure that people will be able to face the various problems that this destabilization will generate?

I would like to hear the comments of the Reform Party member on this aspect of the issue.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has known since at least last March that it must appoint a new CEO of the CBC, the most important cultural institution in Canada and in Quebec.

But, since that time, the position has been filled only on an acting basis, apparently because the Prime Minister is under political pressure.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the minister agree that, for the good of the CBC, it is imperative that a transparent selection process be put in place to pick this important cultural steward and that competence be the sole criterion?

[Jean-Louis Millette, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Quebec lost one of its greatest artists, actor Jean-Louis Millette, who had raised his art to the heights of intensity. Everything Jean-Louis Millette undertook grew to significant proportions reflecting his talent.

He approached each work with integrity, generosity and humanity. Humble and simple, he served the author, charmed the public, and was respected by his colleagues. His talent universally acclaimed, he moved us in the theatre, on television and in film.

The emotion he left us will survive him. The emotion he shared with children, through his Paillasson character, is forever in our hearts. While an actor's work is essentially ephemeral, Jean-Louis Millette's interpretations remain.

We thank you, Jean-Louis Millette, for all the joy you brought us.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, June 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to this issue because it so happens that I spent most of my career working in the field of computer science and I know these things.

When Quebec was preparing its legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector, I even had the opportunity to appear before the commission that held hearings on that subject in Quebec. Therefore, I am very comfortable talking about this issue.

First of all, let us see what this bill does and what it does not do.

Here, today, I heard comments that led me to believe that some members do not clearly see the limits of this bill. It is aimed at promoting electronic commerce, as stated in the title.

However, in promoting electronic commerce, it also deals with the protection of personal information in commercial transactions. It must be understood that all personal information that is not related to a commercial transaction is not protected under the bill before us.

It must also be understood that this bill simply does not apply to any foreign transaction, commercial or other. A few moments ago, our colleague from the Reform Party told us about his clock that does not have to be set. Since the transaction was made with an American company, the bill simply does not apply. This bill does not apply to transactions made outside the country, only to the ones made within Canada's borders.

This being said, the bill does not apply either to the protection of information on health or on any other activity that we may enter into, unless it involves a business transaction. This bill will not apply to government information either. However, we will see later that the government will have all powers to access our personal information, even of a commercial nature.

In fact, this bill has three major flaws. The first one is that, since its purpose is to promote e-commerce, it does not offer real protection for personal information. It is clear from the bill that there is no obligation on the part of businesses to let clients know how they will use the information they collect.

There is no easy recourse for the consumer or the owner of that personal information, you, me, or anybody for that matter. It will not be easy for anybody to find out who has what information, to check if the information is exact and to have the records amended if it is not.

When they talk about a law that will put us on an equal footing with the European Union, I consider, frankly, that the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry leaves a lot to be desired. It is quite weak compared to the legislation passed in Quebec five years ago.

That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are so concerned. This federal legislation will conflict with Quebec legislation, which is sound and well put together, and will destroy the benefits people in Quebec have been enjoying for five years.

The first problem with this legislation is that it is incomplete. It does not really protect personal information. It certainly does not protect the individual who could be wronged by the use of that information, however accurate or wrong the information be.

The second problem with this legislation is that it conflicts directly with Quebec legislation. Commerce, among other things, comes under the Civil Code. The Civil Code of Quebec is different from the legal system in the rest of Canada. Thus, commerce is a prerogative covered by Quebec legislation and the bill before us is in conflict with it.

So much so that, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, it must be expected that constitutional challenges will be launched by corporations and individuals who will feel wronged by the situation.

If I had advice to give to law students, I would tell them to undertake some research, a thesis or a master's degree on Bill C-54. Then they could rest assured of collecting good fees for many years. This will be a real gold mine, quite literally a Klondike for lawyers, unless of course the House and the minister change their minds and the bill is never passed.

This is my fondest wish. This would save a lot of people a lot of money. It would provide much better protection for Quebecers' interests and the Quebec legislation might even apply throughout Canada, which would be good protection for Canadians who deserve to be treated as well as Quebecers.

This bill will create an unbearable situation for Quebec businesses. Let us suppose I run a business. My transactions will now be subject to two acts, the Quebec act, according to which I have to do this or that, and the federal act, which says something else. If the two acts do not conflict with each other, I will still have to multiply my efforts, which will cost me money and time, but I will be able to abide by both pieces of legislation.

However, when the two acts conflict with each other, and there will be such instances, I will have to choose between breaking the Quebec law or breaking the federal law.

The House and the Minister of Industry have no right to create such a dilemma for businesses; namely, to decide which law to obey. This is unacceptable.

By acting without consulting the provinces, and Quebec in particular, the Minister of Industry failed to carry out his duty to ensure that taxpayers, businesses and individuals are not placed in a situation where they have to choose between one act and another without knowing which one must prevail.

This is why I can assure members that there are people who, in such circumstances, will go all the way to the supreme court to get a clear answer. What will be the outcome? Since the Constitution states clearly that those issues are under provincial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada will disallow the industry minister's bill, which will have been nothing but a loss of valuable time.

I said that there are three problems here. The third one came to my attention this afternoon when I was going through my notes and a few documents, some of which are from the Library of Parliament. I had not realized up to now how extensive the government's power to collect personal information from businesses will be.

Big brother is looming. Listen to this. The first amendment moved by the minister will allow an organization to disclose personal information to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, indicated its lawful authority to obtain the information and its suspicions.

Members will remember that, not too long ago, Canada Customs gave the Department of Human Resources Development a copy of its tapes so that the department could go on a fishing expedition to identify people who went abroad while receiving EI benefits, and have them pay back those benefits. That is what we are facing with this bill.

The impact could be enormous. If the government now has the right to ask businesses for information, to sort and collate data, then no one can hide from the watchful eye of the government any longer.

For all these reasons the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill, while hoping that it will die on the order paper.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to this bill entitled Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

I had the privilege—and I say privilege because it was quite an experience, as you will soon understand—to be associated with the standing committee on the environment, through my colleague, the member for Jonquière. Since she was snowed under with work, she asked me on a few occasions if I could replace her.

Being a member of the standing committee on natural resources, you will understand that there is a certain relationship between the work of these two committees with regard to the environment. It is with pleasure that I took part in the work of the standing committee on the environment.

I will say from the outset that I see two kinds of problems with this bill. The first problem is excessive centralization on the part of the federal government in an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal state, the provinces and the state of Quebec. The second problem concerns the intrinsic quality of the bill.

We can ask ourselves a couple of questions. Is this a good, solid and reliable bill with predictable consequences on the environment, businesses and society? Have the various measures been properly harmonized?

I will first talk about this issue regarding the quality of the bill. As you know and as several of my colleagues mentioned, it was an awesome task for the committee. Indeed hundreds of amendments were introduced in committee.

My background is computer science. I am used to studying issues in a structured and orderly manner, carefully analysing all the consequences. I must say that to my amazement we went from one amendment to the next in a helter-skelter way. It was crazy, not stark crazy, but crazy enough.

I am smiling now, but there was nothing funny in all that. The two and a half to three hours we spent skipping from one amendment to the next was the most foolish experience I have ever had. Either the officials, the experts who should or could have explained things to us, were not prepared to give us the necessary information or someone somewhere was not really willing to discuss these amendments. So for two and a half or three hours, we merely went through all the amendments without really studying them because we were not prepared.

At the end of these three hours, nothing had been accomplished. Worse yet, we managed to strike down an amendment we had agreed on at a previous meeting. We were going backward.

I realize these issues are complex. The bill touches on a great many areas. It touches on land, water and air. It deals with all kinds of pollutants, gaseous, liquid, solid, radioactive, living or inert pollutants. It touches on energy issues. It touches on shipping, road transportation. It touches on everything.

In this respect one can admire the scope and the extent of concerns this bill is trying to answer. Believe me, I cannot say the bill does not raise the important environmental protection issues we must deal with.

This is not where the problem lies. The problem is that they are being badly addressed. I am going to say something now that may be a bit heavy-handed, but I feel it is very much to the point.

I do not believe there is anyone in this House, in any department, or in any of the specialized consulting firms, who is in a position to tell us straight out all the ins and outs of this bill, what the consequences will be, and what the good and bad effects.

According to my perceptions, this is a highly complex bill, and one which has not, unfortunately, received all the careful attention it ought to have had in committee. Not because my fellow MPs were not prepared to put the effort into it, but simply because the work was carried out, directed, supervised and disturbed in such a way that it was not possible to do a proper, reliable job.

I believe I said this in committee, and I will repeat it here: if a plane had been designed the way this bill was, no member of this House and no public servant would dare set foot in it. It would be too risky.

This is my perception of the situation we find ourselves in with this bill I repeat, the environment is something precious. This bill addresses areas that must be of great concern to us, without resolving them. This is where the danger lies in passing it.

The second important issue is the overcentralizing done by the federal government through this legislation.

The minister, the cabinet, the government and the public servants here in Ottawa will enjoy tremendous powers. They will be the sole masters of a ship whose operating capability we do not know. The problem is that they are taking us on board with them. It would not be so bad if we could get off.

When two levels of government, that is a federal and a provincial government, in this case Quebec, since this is where I live, share responsibilities regarding the environment, it is a good thing for them to co-ordinate their efforts. Bill C-32 could have the same effect as a steamroller.

Everything is provided in this bill so that the federal government can have the upper hand regarding the environment. In the context of globalization, Canada must, as a country, ratify a number of international agreements and must therefore have the powers to implement such agreements on its own territory. However, the federal government does it against the will of all those involved, by passing a bill that will give it such powers.

In Canada as we know it, there are big and small provinces, rich and not so rich provinces, provinces that would like Ottawa to take responsibilities on their behalf and others that prefer to assume these responsibilities themselves.

The bill does not respect that principle. This is why the Bloc Quebecois cannot support it. The environment would be much better served and protected by those directly concerned. Then, arrangements could be made with our neighbours.

In short, the bill must be rejected for two reasons. First, it is bad legislation. Second, it does not respect the way the federation should work under the Constitution.

[Statistics Canada, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during a recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Industry, the chief statistician, Ivan Fellegi, said that, when a certain number of people say they are of an ethnic origin not on the agency's list, that ethnic origin is then added.

But by caving in to the “Call me Canadian” political lobby and listing Canadian as an ethnic origin, Statistics Canada has sabotaged the usefulness of the ethnic origin question and wasted taxpayers' money.

Many scientists, including the Association des démographes du Québec, have asked the organization to go back to the 1991 census proposal.

Statistics Canada must put this right. Its reputation as a scientific agency hangs in the balance. Otherwise, by turning the census into a political operation, this federal agency will lose its credibility.

[Office Of Energy Efficiency, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, who gave us the “Guide for the perfect Liberal woman candidate”, are at it again.

Indeed, the Office of Energy Efficiency has put out a practical guide for reducing automobile energy consumption. But the guide comes in two versions, one for general readership, and a simplified and less complicated version, which is oddly enough called Auto$mart Guide for women drivers.

How can the Minister of Natural Resources explain that this simplified guide has been prepared solely for—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to clearly understand what the bill before us, which deals with young offenders, involves. It is important to clearly understand why this bill, if it is passed, would have an effect that is just the opposite of what is intended.

I want to mention a number of things that are obvious to me but which, unfortunately, are not understood by some members of this House, including, it seems, the Minister of Justice.

Teenagers are young people who must receive a proper education to behave properly in society. Threatening them with imprisonment and other repressive measures is not the way to instill in them the values that are necessary for proper behaviour in society.

Some Reform Party members related horror stories about young people committing absolutely horrendous crimes. But, for heaven's sake, when these young people were born, they were normal babies who should have been able to develop and eventually make a contribution to society.

Something went wrong somewhere. These children did not get the education they should have received. They were not made aware of the human, moral and societal values that would have allowed them to be productive members of society.

Looking at this bill before us, one realizes that this is not a bill that will provide young people with a better set of values. It is a not a bill that will help them fit better into society.

It is a bill that will have the opposite effect: putting them into the prison setting. It will put them in contact with hardened criminals and expose them to exactly the opposite of the moral values we would like them to adopt. In fact, it will turn them into hardened criminals.

These children, young people, adolescents we refer to are not aliens from another planet. They are our children, the children we have raised and educated, or the children we have not raised, not educated, not trained in how to live properly in society.

Engineers have to be trained. Doctors have to be trained. A person can take courses to learn carpentry or car repair. Unfortunately, good parenting is not something one learns in school. There are no diplomas for parenting.

Most of us manage to do a pretty good job at it, I would venture to say. Proof of that lies in the vast majority of young people who will take over from us and of whom we have every reason to feel proud. Unfortunately, not all parents are as successful.

Perhaps they themselves have physical or mental health problems. Perhaps they have financial difficulties, ones with which this government's policies might have something to do. Maybe they have a work related problem. But these parents who, at a given point, need support to ensure that their children can be, to use the common phraseology, well brought up, are not getting that support, nor are their children, unfortunately, in many cases. And then we wonder why some of these young people go wrong.

I repeat that a young person's first real crime is not the horrendous offence too often described by Reform members. Often, it is something simple, elementary, a sort of alarm that goes off, meaning “Take care of me, I have a problem”. However, if the parents are unable to deal with that sign, the young person will get involved in more and more serious situations, that could end in a most deplorable offence.

In Quebec, under the existing legislation on young offenders, we have taken a preventive approach. For more than 20 years now, when a child is in difficulty, and the school system or the neighbours or even the parents notice, resources are available for intervention and prevention. This approach works.

Let us look at the statistics. Quebec has the lowest rate of juvenile crime. It is very low, a lot lower than a number of years ago, and the rate of repeats is also very low. In short, we have a formula that works.

Even in the rest of Canada, the level of juvenile crime is on the decline. Canada too has a formula that works, not as well as that of Quebec, because it has not invested the same money as Quebec in prevention, but things are moving in the right direction.

English has the expression “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. Right now, with the Reform Party, members are doing exactly the opposite. They are taking something that is working and scrapping it, so to speak, for something more repressive.

Obviously, any young person who is disturbed or in distress will not hesitate to commit a heinous crime just because it might carry a tougher sentence or he might be tried in adult court.

In fact, there are two or three possible scenarios. He could care less. He is upset and will commit the crime without checking the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act for the severity of the penalties and whether or not he will be tried in adult court. Unfortunately, he has lost his head and it is too late now.

The other possible scenario is that the young person will see the prospect of being treated like an adult as reflecting glory on him. And so, in order to be treated like an adult, he does something that makes no sense at all.

Quebec's approach is to prevent the young person from committing a crime by helping him to be a full member of society when he is experiencing difficulty or psychological distress. The Reform Party's approach is to let him commit the crime, but then punish him with extraordinary brutality, just to show others how spiteful people can be.

Parents are not spiteful; they are kind. We in this House represent the parents of Quebec and of Canada. We must show our children kindness, not spite.

The minister should withdraw this bill. But if she is bent on imposing it on the rest of Canada—heaven help them, their children deserve better—then she should at least respect Quebec's experience, which is conclusive. She should simply spell out in the bill that the legislation does not apply to Quebec.

It is obvious that Quebec cannot let Canada force it to mistreat its children. We will not stand for it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-71 this afternoon. This is a bill which addresses certain of the provisions contained in the 1999 budget.

A number of areas are involved; in fact, the bill has nine parts. In the next few minutes, I would like to address one of them in particular, which concerns tax arrangements between the federal and provincial governments.

As we know, the federal government collects taxes, lots of taxes. Not just personal or corporate income taxes. There is also indirect taxation, the sales tax, the famous GST. As well, through employment insurance, it collects another large amount, far in excess of what is needed to operate the employment insurance program.

In fact, when one sees all the tax and employment insurance collected by the federal government, one quickly realizes that the totals far exceed the budgetary requirements resulting from the federal government's responsibilities.

This is, moreover, what prompts the federal government to habitually and repeatedly, I am tempted to say sneakily, interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The federal government spends money where it has no right to even be involved, instead of the provincial governments whose responsibilities these areas are.

The consequences are obvious. Individuals and corporations are being taxed excessively. Workers pay some 35% or 35% too much in contributions to employment insurance. In all this, we can draw a simple conclusion: the federal government should reduce its tax bases.

It is also clear that, in the agreements on transfers between the federal and the provincial governments, the federal government gives them money so they may assume their responsibilities in the areas of health, higher education and social services.

Very simply, what we realize is that, with one hand, the federal government recovers its money and, with the other, it gives it out, to a limited extent, to the provincial governments so they may assume their responsibilities.

There is only one justification for this approach, that of redistributing to the less fortunate provinces money collected from taxpayers in the more fortunate provinces so that each province may fully carry out the responsibilities under its jurisdiction in the areas of education, health care and social services.

This may have been the case in the past, but it is no longer so. In fact, in the budget brought down in February by the Minister of Finance, the concept of a redistribution according to need was dropped. Redistribution is now according to the number of individuals living in each province. That is what they call per capita redistribution.

If the money is given to each province on a per capita basis and not based on its relative wealth, then the federal government no longer has any reason to collect from taxpayers money it will give them back anyway.

Since health, education and social services come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, it would be much better to let the provinces themselves adjust their taxes according to their needs, instead of watching the federal government act like a Mr. Know it all and take it all and then try to redistribute the money.

About two weeks ago, I attended the Bloc Quebecois general council, in Rivière-du-Loup. We talked about tax issues, among other things. We discussed the Canada social transfer, which is of course mentioned in the 1999 budget, since the government just changed its nature by redistributing the money under an equalization system.

In one of our workshops, it was suggested that Quebec should let Ottawa deal with the Canada social transfer and opt out of it, but be compensated by getting the full amount of the goods and services tax. The GST revenues are more or less equivalent to the Canada social transfer. In other words, under that arrangement, Quebec would neither win nor lose from a financial point of view.

However, both sides would win in that the duplication of the tax collection process would be eliminated. In Quebec, rather than collecting both the GST and the TVQ, there would be only a single collection, and the total amount collected would remain in Quebec.

As we saw this morning, we often hear comments to the effect that Quebec benefits from the Canada social transfer and similar money transfers between the federal government and our province. This issue would become a moot point. It would no longer apply, since Quebec would no longer benefit—if you will—from the Canada social transfer, since it would get an equivalent amount through the GST.

But there is more. It will be recalled that, when the federal government implemented universal medicare just over 20 years ago, it agreed to share the cost with each province. But, over the years, the federal government has reneged on this arrangement, with the result that it now pays just over 10% of provincial health expenses.

The big problem with the federal government is that its promises are never good for very long. In fact, Ottawa's share of social transfer payments has dwindled over the years.

There is no denying that, if Quebec were to opt out of the CHST and keep the whole GST, it would be safe from further erosion of the CHST by the federal government because it would control its own GST.

There are a good many advantages to the formula put forward in Rivière-du-Loup during the Bloc Quebecois' general council. The first is that it eliminates double taxation from the outset. Taxes would be collected once in Quebec, and remain there. The Government of Quebec could then adjust the amount collected to keep pace with its socioeconomic and cultural needs.

The other advantage is that Quebec would be safe from the federal government's policy changes. The federal government would be able to play around all it wants with provincial transfer payments. Quebec would not have to worry because it will have opted out.

There are many who claim that transfers are a good deal for Quebec when, as they know very well, a per capita CHST would mean disgracefully disproportionate spending by the federal government on goods and services, and research and development. A per capita transfer would mean a 6%, 7%, or 8% increase in federal spending in Quebec, which is not what it is getting.

I see that my time is up. I could go on and on.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, many many years ago, I got my first job after studying engineering at Laval University.

It was at the Lauzon shipyard, which was called at the time Davie Shipbuilding. I worked there for several months as an electrical draughtsman. At the time, more than 1,000 people worked in the shipyard. There were ships everywhere. Some were in dry docks—there was the small dry dock and the big dry dock—and some were on slipways. Shipbuilding at the time was a flourishing business.

Vickers in Montreal, another shipyard in Sorel and Davie in Lauzon all had a lot of work, building lakers for private companies and ships for the military.

How did the government reduce such a flourishing industry to what it is today, absolutely nothing? What went wrong?