Pierre De Savoye

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean and Bloc Quebecois critic on native affairs, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 entitled An Act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

This bill has two parts. The first concerns the agreement reached with the Norway House Cree Nation on the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land. The second provides for measures to facilitate the settlement of claims by the creation of reserves in Manitoba or by the addition of lands to existing reserves. Let us discuss the first part.

This part concerns the main agreement on implementation signed in 1997 by Canada, Manitoba and the Norway House Cree Nation. In the early 1970s, the latter was affected by a flood caused by the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Nelson and Churchill rivers and by changes to Lake Winnipeg.

The 1997 agreement settles the obligations of the federal government under the 1977 Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement between the federal and Manitoba governments, Manitoba Hydro and the northern flood committee, on behalf of the first nations of Cross Lake, York Factory and Nelson House, and the Norway House and Split Lake Cree nations.

The 1997 agreement terminates the Norway House Cree Nation's claims regarding obligations unfulfilled by certain parties to the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement.

The flood agreement signed in 1977 was designed to remedy the adverse effects of the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill River diversion projects, which had resulted in approximately 12,000 acres of first nations' reserve land in northern Manitoba being flooded, as well as another 525,000 acres of non-reserve land that was used by the first nations affected.

In other words, the purpose of the agreement was to compensate the first nations affected by Manitoba Hydro work. While nicely described by then Indian affairs minister Warren Allmand as a charter of rights and benefits for those affected, the fact remains that the agreement was a precondition to any work.

Indeed, people's lives cannot be disrupted without at least compensating the communities for the significant changes imposed on them by hydroelectric projects. The extensive damage caused by the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill River diversion projects completely changed the traditional way of life of the bordering communities.

We must bear in mind that more than 1,200 Cree people who lived alongside or near the affected areas were faced with an entirely new environment overnight. The Norway House Cree had always hunted and fished. They had to learn new ways and adjust to a totally different way of life. In particular, because of excessive water pollution, there were serious problems with fishing and with drinking water.

Members can imagine what an odd “charter of rights and benefits” this is for the Norway House Cree.

As well, although the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement called for programs and compensation to make up for unfavourable outcomes, the roles and responsibilities of the parties still had to be clearly defined. Because of this, there were delays in the project and in the meeting of common obligations, such as adding land to the reserves, as well as arrangements to promote employment opportunities for the communities and environmental monitoring.

Implementation was not making any progress, and the parties could not reach agreement. In short, the spirit of co-operation was very much absent. More than 20 years passed without any clear definition of the mechanisms. For far too long, all sorts of dispute resolution approaches were resorted to, rather than giving preference to a co-operative and co-ordinated approach.

The four parties, in a desire to enhance the efficiency and reduce the costs of this undertaking, resumed negotiations in order to settle the claims and better define the obligations.

The four parties therefore negotiated a basic proposal to settle the outstanding land claims and the unfulfilled obligations. This proposal served as a starting point for negotiations with each first nation.

With the help of this proposal, negotiations were successful with four of the five first nations. As a result, the minister of Indian affairs signed implementation agreements with the Split Lake Cree First Nation in June 1992, the York Factory First Nation in January 1996, the Nelson House First Nation in March 1996, and the Norway House First Nation in December 1997.

A law is now required to provide for the comprehensive implementation of the provisions of the main Norway House Cree Nation agreement.

The first part of Bill C-56 will permit the lands provided within the framework of this agreement to be exempt from the provisions of the Indian Act. This will also permit the Norway House Cree Nation to use them for economic development purposes without administrative intervention by the minister of Indian affairs.

Under Bill C-56, the money due under the implementation agreement will be administered by a first nation's trust and not by the crown under the meaning of the Indian Act. Bill C-56 provides that all claims may be processed under the 1997 agreement exclusively.

Finally, this legislation provides recourse to Manitoba arbitration legislation in the event of a dispute between the parties to the implementation agreement.

In the first part, we consider these elements satisfactory and necessary to the implementation of the agreement.

We will now discuss the second part of Bill C-56, which concerns the federal government's commitments in the Framework Agreement, Treaty Land Entitlement, Manitoba. This part has broader scope than that of the framework agreement or of the first part of the bill. It will facilitate the implementation of all territorial claim settlements in Manitoba in which the government agrees to expand the size of a first nation reserve with, of course, the agreement of the first nation.

Under Bill C-56, the minister of Indian affairs may set aside lands as a reserve and the first nations will be able to create or accept the interests of third parties earlier in the reserve creation process than is currently possible.

This type of agreement is not new. There are in fact already a number of agreements in existence to settle claims in Manitoba providing for the expansion of first nation reserves.

The first, and most significant, is the one that concerns treaty land entitlement, which the federal government has not fully honoured. In other words, it has not granted enough land.

This is a major issue for the Manitoba first nations that signed or approved Treaties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 between 1871 and 1910. Each of these treaties provided that reserve land would be allotted to first nations by the federal government according to the size of each family.

While the majority of first nations in Manitoba were assigned the land they were entitled to under these treaties, 26 nations were not assigned land.

In most cases, the problem arises from an inaccurate enumeration of members of the first nation or from insufficient land allocation. Efforts made to remedy this problem in the 1970s and 1980s were hampered by disputes on issues such as the availability, size and suitability of unused crown land.

The province's public interest requirements regarding new reserve land and the applicable area assessment method now required to meet the obligations set out in the treaties also hamper the settlement of claims.

Seven of the Manitoba first nations affected, who conducted separate negotiations, reached specific settlements regarding their land entitlements arising from treaties signed with Canada between 1994 and 1996. As a result, the federal government is required to add more than 170,000 acres to existing reserve land. It must also pay in excess of $51 million in financial compensation to the first nations affected.

As for Manitoba, its main obligation is to set aside 100,000 acres of unused public land—out of a total of 170,000 acres—as reserve land, which represents some $9 million.

On May 29, 1997, Canada, Manitoba and the Treaty Land and Entitlement Committee representing 19 other Manitoba first nations from among the 26 first nations that did not obtain lands under treaties, signed the framework agreement on land rights arising out of those treaties. These 19 first nations obtained reserves in excess of 1 million acres in all, but this still represents less than 1% of all of the land base in Manitoba.

For the federal government, the total cost of this settlement and implementation of the framework agreement relating to the 19 first nations is in the order of $98.8 million over 15 years, starting with the date of signature, May 29, 1997.

Other settlements in Manitoba which could come under this bill are the agreements with the Brokenhead and Sapotaweyak first nations, to whom the federal government must pay total compensation of $404,883 and provide lands with a total area of close to 213 acres for expansion of their reserves.

The Bloc Quebecois, via its aboriginal affairs critic, did not oppose the bill on the Split Lake first nation settlement, which was given royal assent on December 15, 1994. Nor did the Bloc Quebecois oppose the agreements with the York Factory and Nelson House first nations, which were both given royal assent in April 1997.

The Bloc Quebecois is, therefore, in favour of the underlying principles behind this bill. So, at first glance, we see no litigious or confusing clauses.

However, the Bloc Quebecois has serious reservations about the process the Norway House Cree Nation will follow in approving this agreement. In the Globe and Mail of January 30, we learned that the federal government had approved a second referendum on this agreement, a referendum we consider undemocratic, to say the least. Let me explain.

After the initial referendum on the matter of the Norway House agreement failed to pass by five votes on July 29, 1997, the Minister of Indian Affairs agreed to another referendum but changed the rules beforehand. First, a problem with the voters' list was cited. This was reviewed, because native people living off the reserve had apparently voted in the first referendum.

Under the new rules, only native people living on the reserve could vote. The voting system had been developed by the federal government and published in a guide book.

For the second vote on the matter, the federal government also offered $1,000 to each voter supporting the agreement. We can understand that the approximately 5,000 native persons living at Norway House, who have a hard time making ends meet, were not going to spit on this money. On the contrary, it was manna from heaven just before the holidays. It seems that the federal government simply bought votes.

I would point out to this House that the second referendum, with the vote buying scandal, was held, believe it or not, at the very moment the federal government was asking the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of Quebec's unilateral separation from Canada. Rather ironic, is it not?

Obviously this sort of practice raises some questions. For example, what is the relationship between the federal government and the native peoples? Is vote buying common practice? Is this how the Minister of Indian Affairs consults the native peoples in this country?

How can we trust the federal government in the future, when we know that the Department of Indian Affairs supported such an unjust operation?

In the light of the role of the federal government in this obviously undemocratic referendum process, how can it then turn around and try to give Quebec lessons on the democratic consultation of its people and the interpretation of the results?

Whatever the case, while the Bloc Quebecois does not oppose this bill in principle, rest assured that our native affairs critic will be questioning the witnesses appearing before the standing committee on this highly irregular event sullying Bill C-56.

[Public Finances, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, year after year, the Bloc Quebecois has shown how the government is hiding the reality of public finances from the public.

Once again this year, our prediction of a budget surplus of $12 to $15 billion for 1998-99 is more realistic than the zero surplus announced by the Minister of Finance.

In fact, according to the latest financial review six months into this fiscal year, the surplus accumulated by the federal government has already reached $10.4 billion. The credibility of the Minister of Finance is getting pretty thin.

The government claims to be holding pre-budget consultations, but these are based on inaccurate information. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is maintaining his cuts in health and employment insurance, while secretly using the huge surplus just to pay down the debt. The people will be the judge of this.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are doing our duty as any other member.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this excellent question. He has given an example of exactly the right kind of situation.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a project that is working out just fine. It has been designed and developed thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian and Quebec governments. Both levels of government have passed mirror legislation to create that park. It has been a real success. That is a good approach, but the Canadian government does not seem inclined to use it again.

If it had been a disaster, I think the government would use that approach again, but since it was a resounding success, it does not want to. It does not want to copy what has been done in the past. It is designing a new system to which the Quebec government is not a party, in which it is not involved as an actor or a negotiating party. Quite differently, the feds are just intruding, and that is what is wrong.

When something is working just fine and we have a good approach, when we find the right move and the right procedure, with respect for the jurisdictions of both levels of government, co-operation and harmony, why not use the same approach? We have a good model. My colleague told us he is proud of that achievement. All of us are.

We have a good model, but they will not follow it anymore. They refuse. They are designing a new one, in which they will be trampling on Quebec jurisdictions and, through three departments, impose legislation on the marine floor in Quebec without asking for any permission, without negotiating any agreement, without asking any question. They make themselves at home.

But the Canadian government is not at home in an area of exclusive Quebec jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution.

Once again, we are going to oppose most vigorously this federal encroachment in an area that, constitutionally, is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is this: there is a river bed along the St. Lawrence and a seabed in the gulf. Shellfish and plant life can be found there.

Questions will be asked: to whom do the shellfish and the plant life belong? Does Fisheries and Oceans have jurisdiction? Is this a heritage issue? Should the environment minister determine whether the river bed and seabed where the plant life and the shellfish are to be found is contaminated or in good condition? All this is done on Quebec's territory.

In other words, it is as if I were at home, on my property, and someone came to tell me how things must be done. Is my lawn in good condition? Are the ants developing well? Am I taking good care of the environment? All this, without asking my permission, without talking with me, without trying to reach an agreement, without trying to have a dialogue, without trying to agree on terms and conditions, without taking my own concerns into consideration.

What we have here an invasion of territory through legislation. There is no physical invasion, just legislative invasion. This is not the first occurrence. Let us look at the millennium scholarships, an extraordinary example.

We know that, in Quebec, there has been a sound policy on scholarships for the last 35 years. This is why Quebec students have the smallest debt load in Canada, about $11,000 per person; for the rest of Canada, it is $25,000.

Quebec made some good societal choices about thirty years before Canada did. Now, Canada takes a part of our money, about $600 to $700 million from Quebec, and puts it in the millennium scholarship fund to provide us with something we already had but that the rest of Canada did not have.

We often face this situation: the federal government invades our jurisdictions, duplicates the efforts, walks all over us without any concern for what it is destroying. With an attitude such as this, I am increasingly proud to be a sovereignist and increasingly anxious for our people to say yes.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-48.

This bill is entitled “An Act respecting marine conservation areas”, and its purpose is to provide a legal framework for the creation of 28 marine conservation areas representative of each of the Canadian ecosystems. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but is not governed this legislation since it has its own legislation.

Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada to the World Conservation Union Conference held in Montreal in 1996. At that time, as in 1994, the union passed resolutions asking all coastal nations to act quickly to put in place conservation measures for marine areas.

The year 1998 was designated the International Year of the Ocean by the United Nations. Among the most important initiatives to mark this event we should mention the World Exposition in Lisbon, Portugal and the signing of the Ocean Charter, prepared by UNESCO, in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.

The creation of marine conservation areas fulfills the objectives of many international forums and documents like the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1991 report entitled “Caring for the Earth”, prepared by the IUCN, which is the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is financed in part by the Government of Quebec.

Of course the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds the government that it supported the legislation creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is also pursuing initiatives to protect the environment and sea floors in particular.

The Quebec government is also open to working together with the federal government, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.

However, the Bloc Quebecois has to object to the bill before us for a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government wants to create marine conservation areas regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the environment.

Second, Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will simply duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves. In a nutshell, believe it or not, the federal government has found a way to divide itself into three components to better invade Quebec's jurisdictions.

At this stage, I would like to elaborate on our objections to this bill. First, let us look at the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, which is a model. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This legislation led to the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area, and one of the main features of this legislation is the fact that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any land changing hands. Both governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The legislation also states that the park is made up entirely of marine areas. It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement between the two governments, provided there is joint public consultation in that regard.

In addition, in order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly by both governments, at least once every seven years.

As well, any exploration, utilization or development of resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park boundaries.

Finally, by means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and of Canada will be able to determine measures for protecting the park's ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public. More specifically, they will be able to define how each category of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.

The Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas.

Another model it could have followed is Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan. On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan, representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally by both levels of government.

One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to 120,000 hectares. Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both governments invested over $300 million.

Let us now examine Bill C-48, which unfortunately fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the conservation area will be established. This land, let it not be forgotten, belongs to Quebec.

Subsection 5(2) of the bill stipulates that the minister may not create a marine conservation area unless “satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada”—this of course being the Queen of England—excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”. A highly complicated way of putting it.

It must be noted that section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867 recognizes that the administration and sale of lands in the public domain are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the 1867 Constitution says that Quebec is the exclusive owner of its territory. There is a kind of contradiction here. As I asked earlier, is what we are dealing with here expropriation in disguise?

Moreover, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies—and I invite the public to listen carefully, as well as this House—to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence River, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.

I am not making this up. It is there, clearly written. Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. I repeat, Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it can do within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in connection with matters under federal jurisdiction

However, the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.

According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan, phase III”, which was signed by all federal and provincial departments concerned and which provides for an investment of $250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities relating to the St. Lawrence River.

Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of permitting bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

I would like to say a word about environmental matters in the context of shared jurisdictions. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.

Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal government has control over the following areas:

1. —the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say:

2. Navigation and Shipping.

3. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals.

4. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

5. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces.

Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the following sections of the British North America Act of 1867:

1. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

2. the Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;

3. Property and Civil Rights in the Province;

4. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

Section 92A(1) is also interesting.

92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;

(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.

Therefore, Quebec's Act Respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife specifies the role to be played by the Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife. Section 2 reads as follows:

1. The Minister of the Environment and Fauna ensures the conservation and development of wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to appoint conservation officers.

By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model and by making title to the territory an essential condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.

Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration itself. Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it intends to create marine protected areas. Through the Department of the Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves. This means that a single site could find itself protected under more than one category.

The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill. It is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity; establish a representative system of marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine areas; provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.

As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it is proposing the establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January 1997, the purpose of marine conservation areas is described as follows:

These zones are established to ensure the conservation of commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats, unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any other marine resource.

In both cases, we are told that local people will have a significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many information or organization meetings local people will be invited to, serving bureaucracy instead of democracy.

As for Environment Canada, it is proposing to establish marine conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine reserves, expanding the concept of the national wildlife sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 nautical mile limit. These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but require a different set of regulations.

Under these various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and natural marine reserves. The same territory could, according to Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and subject to various regulations. Welcome, folks, to the complex world of Government of Canada bureaucracy.

The minutes prepared by the Fisheries and Oceans officials following the consultation meetings on marine protection areas held by the department in Quebec, in June 1998, state, and I quote:

There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas—The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.

The Bloc Quebecois shares the views of those who participated in these meetings and feels that this is bureaucratic overkill that will not serve the public's interest, in the end. The existence of an interdepartmental committee of these various departments is no reassurance.

We know from experience that having a number of departments involved in the same project makes it difficult for them to work together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. The government would have been better advised to have a single department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating their respective responsibilities.

As we can see there is confusion but there is more. The bill provides that each federal department will retain jurisdiction over its own marine conservation areas. However, when the Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate it may, in co-operation with the department concerned, adopt regulations regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the existing provisions.

In this case, the change agreed to between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the department concerned takes precedence over other regulations under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the Aeronautics Act.

Briefly, I would like to add this. Consultations were held. Of all the answers given by participants and obtained by the department, only one was in French. As we do not have access to the names and addresses of respondents because this information is confidential in accordance with the Act respecting the protection of personal information, we can only conclude that Quebec did not have the opportunity to take part in consultations.

I say this, the Bloc Quebecois, on behalf of the population of Quebec, will stoutly defend the right to territorial integrity.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is only recently that I have become interested in this bill. There are some aspects that I understand, some that I do not. I will ask my colleague to shed some light on this for me.

I believe that the bottom of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf are within Quebec's jurisdiction. I believe that the British North America Act clearly states that the bottom belongs to Quebec and is within its jurisdiction. Even if it wanted to, Quebec could not sell it to anyone, let alone the federal government.

Yet, if I understand correctly, the purpose of the bill before us is to have the federal government take over these areas in the river and in the gulf, on the grounds that they are wildlife conservation areas, which contain shellfish, plants and algae it wants to protect. And in a way expropriate from Quebec.

I believe this is unconstitutional. I believe that the federal government has no right to do so. Why then is it proposing legislation that clashes directly with the Constitution?

I would like my colleague to shed some light on this for me.

[Personal Information And Electronic Documents Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we are continuing a very important debate on Bill C-54, the purpose of which is to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information.

It will be recalled that the government introduced this bill last week, and everyone in this House, except the Bloc Quebecois, seemed to expect it to move rapidly along, like a hot knife through butter, more or less. Fortunately, that was not how things went. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois pointed out some of the shortcomings and serious problems in Bill C-54, and once the House was aware of these, it was able to engage in a more thorough debate.

The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to have been able to make a highly significant contribution to this examination, one which is all the more significant because we are well placed to judge the enormous shortcomings in the bill, since we in Quebec have legislation for the protection of personal information in the private sector. That legislation has been in place for the past four years and has proven itself.

There is always room for improvement in any legislation, of course, but ours is a serious act, one with muscle, one that is useful in defending people against intrusion into their private lives.

The bill we have before us now, however, unfortunately lacks muscle. It is a bill without sufficient regulations and provisions to really protect the public. All that it does contain is a number of precautions and covers, very often in the conditional, things that should be done, with no obligation to comply. People can opt out. Where e-commerce is concerned, merely having a few obligations is really very weak.

That is not the worse thing, however. In some ways, this bill is undermining what Quebec has so wisely accomplished. We in Quebec find ourselves trying to move ahead up an escalator, while the federal government is trying to make us go back down. The bill is a serious step backwards.

I will give a few examples. Paragraph 5(2) of the Privacy Act, which governs the public sector, provides that:

5.(2) A government institution shall inform any individual from whom the institution collects personal information about the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected.

This is the legislation governing the public sector, federal institutions. Now, this government is going to treat the private sector differently.

Clause 4.2.3 of the schedule to Bill C-54 reads as follows:

4.2.3 The identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected—

Clause 4.2.5 of the schedule provides that:

4.2.5 Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.

Here we have two conditionals, two clauses in the schedule that are not obligatory and easily ignored. The identified purposes should be specified to the individual. They should be, but if they are not, it is not a serious matter.

What kind of legislation is this? The bill says “should”but failure to do so is not serious. Who will comply? Nobody, obviously.

Later on, the bill says:

Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected.

It says “should be able to explain”. This is wishful thinking. If the person is unable to explain, too bad. The public will provide information but will not know for what purpose. There is no obligation to explain. The public is not entitled to know.

The person should be able to explain, but may not be able to or does not feel like explaining and, whoops, the law becomes null and void.

These are two simple and clear examples, but they show that this law lacks vigour and teeth. It renders no service to the public. It is essentially a useless law.

However, there is worse. Bill C-54, in some cases, will restrict the rights of Quebeckers, rights they enjoy under provincial legislation. Under the Quebec law, someone working for Eaton's in Montreal is entitled to see his personnel records, even if they are kept in Toronto. Section 17 of the Quebec legislation provides for this.

Under Bill C-54, this same employee in Montreal will now no longer have access to his records, because Bill C-54 makes no provision for the right to privacy in connection with a request for access under labour relations laws or when, in any case, the request for access is not of a commercial nature.

Quebec spent a lot of money on parliamentary commissions, hearings, receiving memorandums and legislation that is solid and respects individuals' right to privacy. It cost money. Today, and for a week now, what have we been doing? We have been trying to save Quebec, because the federal minister is trying to undermine what it has done.

In other words, I am being paid at the moment not to improve the situation, but to prevent its deterioration. If Quebec were a sovereign state, if it made its own laws—in fact it already has a law to protect personal information—I would not be here trying to defend its legislation. Federalism is not just a question of profitability and non-profitability. It is also a matter of respect for the decisions made by citizens, in a legitimate and democratic fashion.

This bill will undermine a Quebec initiative, an important right for its citizens, in this era of telecommunications and at a time when electronic commerce is expanding. This makes no sense, but I have no choice. In fact, this is not the only bill that puts us in such a situation.

For example, I can think of the young offenders bill, which was introduced by the Minister of Justice and which includes measures that are totally opposite to Quebec's successful initiatives. Sometimes, we Quebeckers look at what is going on and it makes us feel sad. However, when we get here, we feel much better.

There are some things that we in Quebec do very well. The protection of personal information is ensured in a very adequate manner. The same is true regarding the rehabilitation of our young offenders. It is in Quebec that the youth crime rate is lowest and that rehabilitation measures are most successful.

It is so because, for over 25 years now, we have had a youth protection branch that has constantly been improving and providing really useful services. But the federal Minister of Justice introduced a bill whose content contradicts Quebec's successful initiatives, a bill which will lead us to the abyss where the other provinces already are when it comes to young offenders.

Again, I am looking forward to the day when Quebec becomes a sovereign state so we will no longer have to try to save what is working well in Quebec and prevent Ottawa from imposing lower standards. Indeed, Quebec's sovereignty looks more and more like the solution for our province.

[Division No. 247, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, on June 4, 1998, one week before the summer recess, the Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43 to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

This bill stems from the Speech from the Throne delivered in February 1996, when the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency. Initially, this agency will essentially be the existing Department of Revenue turned into an agency operating almost at arm's length from the government, whose mandate will be to negotiate with the interested provinces and municipalities an arrangement for the collection of all taxes in Canada.

Do the members of this House realize that the bill before us basically provides for two things? First, concentrating under one single organization the collection of all federal, provincial or municipal taxes. While there is no mention of it in here, it is very clear that school taxes, gasoline taxes and liquor taxes may also be administered by this agency.

So, the first point to consider is the centralization of all tax collection operations in the hands of a single organization. The second different but equally important point we must bear in mind is the creation of an agency.

This means that the Minister of Revenue, who has been responsible so far for what was going on in his department, will now devolve to a quasi-independent agency the responsibility to collect all taxes.

In this House, when we question a minister about the actions of a government agency, the minister will often hide behind the fact that the agency is independent, competent, self-regulated, and thus enjoys his or her full confidence. In the end, we do not get an answer.

The fact is that this House, which is made up of democratically and individually elected members, can no longer get a minister to account for an agency from which he is removing himself. This is precisely the situation that is proposed in the bill, with the creation of an agency.

It is one thing to centralize the collection of taxes in the hands of a single organization, so as to avoid duplication and reduce costs. Incidentally, Quebec's Department of Revenue—Quebec being the only Canadian province to have its own revenue department—is already collecting the GST for the federal government. This, of course, reduces costs, since the GST is collected at the same time as the Quebec sales tax.

However, while we may achieve economies of scale by concentrating tax collection in the hands of a single organization, to give that responsibility to an agency is a very different matter and one that should be considered much more carefully.

With an agency, the minister is not involved in the ongoing operations of the organization. Take, for example, the CRTC and various other federal agencies. Whenever something happens with these organizations, the minister tells the House “This agency, this entity, can self-regulate. It has investigative tools. In short, it will ensure transparency”. But that transparency is never there.

I will mention two cases where there were problems. One is the Somalia inquiry. A commission was set up and was going to take care of everything. Yet, as we know, in the end the commissioners themselves said they had not been able to find the whole truth, as we wanted them to do.

Then there was the tainted blood issue and the Krever commission. I clearly remember asking a question in this House to the then Minister of Health, who replied gently and kindly “The issue is in the hands of the commission. The commission will get to the bottom of this”. As we now know, the commission was never able to get to the bottom of the issue.

Here, the government wants to create an agency that will once again operate at arm's length from the minister, with the result that, when asked about it, the minister will simply say “The agency is looking after all this”. In my opinion, we must oppose the establishment of such an agency.

Let us now go back to the issue of concentrating the collection of all our taxes in the hands of a single organization.

It is true that, on the face of it, this should result in savings. If this is the case, why not give the Quebec Minister of Revenue the responsibility for collecting all taxes in Quebec? The Quebec Minister of Revenue would then, as he already does with the GST, give the money to the federal revenue minister. Already, this would result in significant savings.

Where I start not being able to follow is when a body is created which would collect taxes not only at the federal level, not only at the level of Quebec or the provinces, but also at the municipal level, even the school board level, taxes on alcohol, on cigarettes, on gasoline. In short, it would be a monster with tentacles reaching everywhere, up to and including the taxpayer's pockets, and worse still, able to keep track of what taxpayers are doing.

Here we no longer have just a body for collecting taxes, but one that also collects information, a lot of information, collective and individual, from sea to sea.

There is a danger here. I appeal to this House to consider the fact that, even if it were economically advantageous to give one single body the right to collect everything considered taxes, both direct and indirect, and any other kind as well, would it be socially acceptable to allow a single body like this one to have all this information concentrated in one place?

I say no. When one body has powers this wide, economic considerations can no longer apply. The consideration that must take precedence is respect of the individual, and of privacy.

Second, the very fact that the minister hands over to an agency powers that are allocated to him by the law is, to my mind, an unacceptable contradiction. An agency cannot be allowed into the pockets of taxpayers to collect taxes which have been determined by this House. This is the minister's responsibility, and one he cannot easily slough off.

In the minute remaining to me, I would like to point out that 20% of federal public servants work for Revenue Canada at the present time. It is my impression that the secret intention, the hidden agenda behind all this is to put 20% of federal employees into an agency where they will no longer be covered by the Public Service Employment Act. This is totally unacceptable. If that is the hidden desire of the government, it is totally evil.

I understand that my time is up, and I thank you for your attention. I hope the House will dump this bill.

[Division No. 247, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, even though I do not really believe it is a point of order. I was just preparing to take part in the debate, but if my colleague from the Liberal Party is before me, however, I will defer to him. You are the boss, Mr. Speaker.