Pierre De Savoye

[Petitions, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Jean had to leave and, on behalf of the people who gave him this petition, I would like to present it to the House.

Taxes account for some 52 per cent of what Canadians pay for a litre of gasoline while the excise tax rose by 1.5 cents a litre in the last budget. Moreover, a parliamentary committee has recommended that this tax be further increased in the next budget. In the last 10 years, the price of gasoline has gone up by a whopping 566 per cent.

The petitioners therefore urge Parliament not to raise the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget. I am pleased to table this petition, which I think makes a lot of sense.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have heard enough of this information. I have heard that separatists are unfit to vice chair the Canadian heritage and defence committees.

I pay taxes. The people of Quebec pay taxes to Canada, up to $30 billion a year. Moreover, soldiers from my riding have given their lives in Bosnia. As long as soldiers from my riding or from Quebec are giving their time, their health and their lives for Canada, Bloc Quebecois members should be and will be able to be vice-chairs of the defence committee. They have that right and no one can take it away from any Bloc Quebecois member.

Furthermore, 400 years ago ancestors of many Bloc Quebecois members arrived in this country. They started a relationship with the autochtones. The heritage we have from sea to sea to sea is not only the one they have in the west. It is also the one we have in the east and which our ancestors have built over centuries.

Who in the House has defended culture more than the Bloc Quebecois, whether in the printing business, the CBC, Société Radio-Canada or any other subject. Culture is something we understand and have understood for centuries. My father and grandfather were from the west. They were French speaking and contributed to that heritage in French.

I believe we have a right to contribute to the defence and the promotion of Canadian heritage because a large part of it is Quebec heritage, the heritage of our ancestors.

For Quebec taxpayers, our ancestors who donated all they had to build what we have today and the soldiers from Quebec who gave their health and their lives, the member's apology should be in order.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, to start with, I would like to congratulate you on being elected to this position you are occupying this afternoon for the first time. We are doubly fortunate in that it is an Acadian and a woman who was selected to preside, at least in part, over the proceedings of this assembly.

This being said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. I assume that when he mentions that he would like the vote to take place in private, he is referring to a secret vote. However, members of Parliament are accountable to their voters. People in my riding have the right to be aware of the decisions in which I took part and to know how I voted. As soon as a vote is secret, people in my riding will no longer be able to find out how I voted and, consequently, whether I represent their interests appropriately. The whole democratic process must be transparent. Transparency requires open votes where each and every one clearly expresses his or her opinion.

If the kind of private vote my colleague is referring to was to deprive my voters, the citizens of my riding, of the ability to know how I voted, then I would say that it violates democratic principles. I would like him to clarify his position.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are just on the edge of the motion but it is an interesting debate. I will try to answer the problematic question my hon. colleague has put forward.

Whatever Ms. Legault thinks or writes are her own beliefs. I cannot read her thoughts so I will not try to do that. However, I know the specific agenda of the Quebec government and the one we are proposing. It is a partnership with Canada.

When the member talked about nationhood, the Quebec people as a whole are a people. As such they have a culture of their own, a way of seeing things of their own which does not preclude alliances with other people in Canada. I am not only talking about English Canada but also about the aboriginals.

We have to open our minds and find a way to build something that will answer the needs and the expectations of all people on this portion of the continent, not only for ourselves but for our children and the children of our children.

If I were to go any further I would certainly go beyond the nature of the motion in front of us, so I will stop now.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my colleague. However, as he well knows, the Reform Party is not muzzled within a committee. The fact that we are a vice-chair just gives us the right to ask the first question in the first 10 minutes. After that they are second. They are not really muzzled. That is the answer to item a .

On item b , I have never believed that the Reform Party should not be a vice-chair in any committee. As far as I can see, it is up to Bloc members to decide whether they can or cannot be vice-chairs. We have one member in most committees whereas the Liberals

have many members. When the vote is taken we are not the ones who decide.

Why have they favoured us? That is the right question to ask. You should find the right answer; you might be in for a surprise. Why are we preferred as a vice-chair rather than you? What have you not done right to impress them? That is the right question. It is up to you.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what I have been hearing here for a little while now is both surprising and disappointing to me. I have heard two of our friends from the Reform Party claim that, because we advocate the sovereignty of Quebec, we Bloc members do not have the interests of Canada at heart, that we want to break or destroy Canada and that we are, therefore, not making a full contribution in committee but defending only very narrow interests instead.

I take issue with such statements because every Bloc member who sits on a committee carries out competently and honestly, not only as an individual but also as a representative of our party, the Bloc Quebecois, the duties that we have been assigned as the official opposition.

In committee, members take turns examining the various witnesses who come and share their views with us. Each opposition party usually has about ten minutes to examine a witness, with the official opposition party leading off, followed by the second opposition party; then, the government party, the Liberal Party, gets to examine the witness.

Sometimes our questions complement one another, they are along the same lines. Other times, one party or another asks questions which, while going in a different direction, benefit the debate and broaden our outlook on the issues raised by the people who appear before us. But in any case, we are committed to identifying the informative parts of the evidence presented to us. Of course, we are also committed to identifying those aspects

which have an impact on our region in particular. This is true not only of Bloc members, but also of members of all parties. I have seen-and there was nothing wrong with that-members from the Toronto area represent views and argue matters that were of more particular concern to the people of their ridings. That is their duty, and it is my duty to raise issues of more pressing concern to my constituents.

When I hear Reformers claim that it is not right for me to do so, I tell myself that they have an extremely narrow view of what true democracy is all about. This concerns me; it makes me sad. I cannot accept it in this House. This is the reason why I rose today: I want to set the record straight.

Let me also say that a Bloc Quebecois member has as much right to fill the position of vice-chair as a Reformer. I have nothing against a Reform member being a vice-chair, but do not tell me that Bloc members cannot do a good job as vice-chairs because they happen to be sovereignists. I strongly object to that. This is not only totally inaccurate, it is also an insult to our integrity and to democracy itself.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in the days of the iron curtain, people strongly condemned those communist countries that prevented individuals from expressing themselves on the grounds that they held dissenting opinions. Some people were imprisoned. Thank goodness this is not the case here, but I refuse to be muzzled.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know-and so do many members here-that civilization and society thrive on the exchange of ideas. If everyone held the same views, this would still be the cave age. It is because someone, somewhere, said "We must get out of the cave" that civilization started to make progress. The Bloc's role in this House, and within the Confederation right now, is to promote an idea and put it up against other ones, in a democratic, respectful and constructive fashion.

This is why I refuse to be muzzled by Reformers, simply because we do not share the same views. I respect the fact that they do not share our views, but they should do likewise.

We have been accused of wanting to break up Canada. Nothing is further from the truth. What we have been offering and reoffering-I am bidding it once again-is a new partnership, politically and economically with the rest of Canada.

The actual political situation we live in through Confederation is outmoded and obsolete. It is very expensive and unsatisfactory from sea to sea to sea. We are offering a new vision of what the economical Canadian space could be. We want to confront it verbally and democratically with those who have other ways of seeing things. This should construct a better solution. It is not as Reform members would suggest in saying to all Canadians that we want to break up the country that they are helping the solution to be found. On the contrary, it is through constructive debate that a solution will occur.

I cannot accept the attitude of the Reform Party toward the Bloc Quebecois. The electors, the voters, the people from my riding have the same democratic values as the people from the riding of any Reform Party member. The fact that half the Quebec population thinks sovereignty is an avenue to be pursued just stresses how important this vision is and it should be respected by all members here, including my friends from the Reform Party.

From a democratic standpoint, people in my riding have the same value as those from the riding of a Reform Party member. Again, I have nothing against a Reform member being vice-chair of a committee, but I ask that we respect the integrity and honesty of Bloc members; I ask that we respect democracy.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-110 is a big mistake. It not only fails to respond to Quebec's expectations but even makes future constitutional amendments impossible, for all practical purposes. When everyone has a veto, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that on any given proposal for a constitutional amendment, there will always be one holder of a veto who will use it to block such proposals.

Although the Prime Minister hinted to the House that recognition of the distinct society concept would eventually be included in the Constitution, the veto powers he is now distributing left and right will make it impossible to make any further amendments to the Constitution. It would be a joke, if it were not so tragic. However, this is symptomatic of a far more fundamental problem.

When provinces and First Nations insist on each having a veto on any constitutional amendment, this can mean either that all parties are so pleased with the Constitution as it stands that they want to give each other assurances they will never change it, or they are showing a considerable distrust of the federal system. I am afraid the answer is obvious.

The present Constitution of Canada does not fit the economic, social and cultural realities of Canada today. The profound constitutional malaise in our societies today has many consequences for our daily lives, because of the combined impact of the federal government's legislative and spending powers.

That is why we are now saddled with an incredible deficit, why employment policies always were and still are formulated from the top down without any real regard for the provinces and why the spectre of national standards irrelevant to regional situations can only mean institutionalized chaos.

In this respect, the Quebec government's desire to establish a new partnership with the rest of Canada was and still is a unique way to start the 21st century with a process that would make for a new relationship and a new solidarity between the populations residing in the Canadian economic space. Unfortunately, traditionally federalist forces have stubbornly distorted Quebec's blueprint and made it out to be the opposite of what it really is.

Even the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few moments ago could not resist doing exactly that. The minister and this government must realize that when a majority of Quebecois voted no in the last referendum, it was in the hope that the Prime Minister would deliver on his promises.

The bill now before the House is not what was expected and is not what is needed. Therefore, no one should be surprised if in due time those who voted no shall want to reconsider through another democratic referendum.

In view of this, it is most unfortunate that the Reform Party proposes using legal force to oppose the legitimate will of the people of Quebec to reconsider democratically their future. Furthermore, it is also most unfortunate that the Reform Party has stated that shall the people of Quebec decide in favour of sovereignty, it should be denied this outcome using armed forces. Even the Prime Minister let it be known that he would object to the unfolding of this democratic process. This is intolerance and it is unacceptable in any democratic country.

Nor do we need the kind of statements that are spread around by the Liberal Party of Canada and repeated by the anglophone media, that Quebec is living on handouts from the rest of Canada and is not capable of taking full control of its tax system, legislation and international relations.

The exact opposite is true. In fact, Quebec contributes one quarter of federal revenues and also carries one-quarter of the federal debt, but unfortunately, it receives significantly less than its share of federal spending that creates jobs.

This unfortunately, but unavoidably, leads to proportionately greater unemployment insurance and social security expenditures. So that each federal transfer reduction measure wreaks even greater devastation on Quebec. This is exactly what has been happening in recent years. Per capita federal transfers in constant dollars have dropped significantly in the past few years.

This is why Quebec must take back control of its economic and tax levers at the earliest opportunity. To this end, serious and doubtless difficult negotiations will be required for the needed modernization of the constitutional framework. In the meantime, however, the very last thing we need is a bill that is both a bogus overture to Quebec and a straitjacket that will preclude any constitutional change in the future.

Traditionally, Quebec has always demanded a constitutional veto, and I repeat, constitutional, as protection against amendments to the Constitution which are contrary to its interests.

Let us take a quick look at history and remember that, in the early 1960s, the Fulton-Favreau formula arose out of a constitutional conference. It provided for a veto for the provinces on any constitutional amendment affecting their rights, powers and privileges. In 1971, the Victoria conference proposed a constitutional veto for Quebec, Ontario, two of the maritime provinces and at least two of the western provinces whose combined populations constituted a majority.

The mechanics of Bill C-110 are oddly similar to the Victoria formula, with one exception. In 1971, fourteen years ago, they were talking about a constitutional veto and not a simple legislative measure. It was the former Liberal premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, who turned down the Victoria accord, because it did not satisfy Quebecers.

Then, in 1979, the Pepin-Robarts report proposed four regional vetoes, including one for Quebec. In 1982, then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, with the help of the current Prime Minister, tore up the 1867 Constitution, replacing it with another one, without Quebec's consent. Ever since that time, there has been a crying need for a constitutional veto allowing Quebec to protect itself against amendments that would hurt its interests.

The famous Meech Lake accord, which was supposed to achieve reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of Canada after the 1982 patriation episode, would have given Quebec a veto. We know what happened next. The current Prime Minister torpedoed the accord with the help of Clyde Wells and his associates.

In 1991, Beaudoin-Edwards recommended four regional constitutional vetoes, including one for Quebec; in 1992, Beaudoin-Dobbie also recommended a constitutional veto for Quebec.

Even the Charlottetown accord, which was found clearly lacking by the vast majority of Quebecers in a referendum, would have given Quebec a veto.

As we can see, the constitutional veto demanded by Quebec is a constant political aspiration that has always been at the heart of its minimum requirements. That is why, when the Prime Minister portrayed the Constitution as a path to change and promised a veto, as he did in Montreal, Quebecers were clearly expecting a constitutional veto, since Quebec always talks about this as a minimum.

As we know, giving Quebec a constitutional veto would require the consent of the federal government and the 10 provinces. Yet, according to a recent poll, barely 10 per cent of people in the rest of Canada support a veto for Quebec. The Prime Minister must know that he is in no position to give Quebec a constitutional veto. He also knows that, as he keeps telling everyone in the rest of Canada, a legislative veto is not worth much.

That is why the government performed mental gymnastics to create the illusion that it is offering Quebec a real veto. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What the Minister of Justice is proposing to this House is not a real veto. In fact, his bill would give Quebec no constitutional protection against constitutional amendments.

Bill C-110 is not a constitutional guarantee that would ensure that Quebec will be protected in the future. You and I know that the government in place could repeal this bill at will. In fact, that is exactly what the Reform Party said it would do upon taking office. This goes to show how tenuous the protection offered by Bill C-110 would be.

The federal government has some gall to talk about a veto when in fact what it is offering Quebec is all wind, an illusion. Worse yet, it actually guarantees that no constitutional change benefiting Quebec will ever be approved, since all it will take is for another veto right holder to object to nip any reform attempt in the bud. With Bill C-110, we can be sure that the federal system will be even more impossible to change than ever before, until such time as the government grows tired of resisting and finally decides to repeal the miserable act.

What this government has come up with is at best a sort of self-censorship that is only binding on this government, if at all. In fact, with this stroke of inspiration, the Prime Minister will have managed, if only briefly, to make the Canadian federal system even more inflexible by taking the dangerous step of protecting the status quo at his own risk.

In reality, Bill C-110 is intended solely to convince Quebecers that the Prime Minister is making good on his referendum promises. No one in Quebec will be taken in, as recent surveys prove quite well.

Half of Quebecers opted for sovereignty-partnership and the rest, the majority, pinned their hopes for renewed federalism, but the bogus veto proposed by the Minister of Justice will not satisfy even his erstwhile referendum allies who, let us keep in mind, have always called for a constitutional veto for Quebec.

The federal government "knows best" attitude has been, is and will remain totally counter productive in this country.

During the debates on this bill this House has had a chance to appreciate the Prime Minister's talent for improvisation-I have chosen that term deliberately-in para-constitutional matters, by granting the province of British Columbia its own veto. But we must be well aware that adding to the number of vetoes ends up watering down their value, by diminishing the concept and thus its effect as well.

It must be realized that, although having a veto reassures each veto holder that Canada could not go against its interests constitutionally, this does not in any way make it possible for a province to go where its interests dictate. In short, it is our feeling that not only does the formula proposed by the Minister of Justice run contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, it is also contrary to the higher interests of Canada. For this reason, I and the Bloc Quebecois will be opposing passage of this bill, in accordance with the convictions of the large majority of Quebecers.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

No, we have been gagged.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 1995]

moved that Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code (facsimile advertising), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234, which I am presenting today, is aimed at preventing the transmission by facsimile of unsolicited advertising for the sale of goods or services to an individual or a company.

The concern I will be addressing applies also to electronic facsimile, electronic mail and even to Internet.

With your permission, I would like to make two points. First, this House already knows, but to let the public watching us know, this bill is not a votable item. At the outside, we will have finished talking about it within an hour, and there will be no legislative follow-up to my remarks.

However, and this is my second point, the issue I am raising is very real and therefore should be given legislative attention in the near future. In this sense, our debate this morning will get people thinking and ultimately, perhaps, as I would hope, lead to the House adopting in due course legislation that meets the need.

What need? As you know, before I became a member of this House, I had another job. I was in business and I had a fax machine. In the morning, I would collect the faxes that had arrived during the night. There were those that had come from Europe, because of the time difference, with their day starting earlier than mine. There were, however, others that had been sent locally and had nothing to do with my company's business interests. I was getting what is commonly known as electronic junk mail.

If it were only occasionally, we could ignore it; if there was only a little bit of it, we could forget about it. But it is a regular happening, and the number of pages printed-at my expense or at the expense of the businesses receiving them, because it is their paper they are printed on-is far from few.

We have to understand the forces at play. The fax machine is an inexpensive way to reach anywhere in the world very quickly. When it is used for telemarketing or advertising, anyone anywhere can flood us with advertising we do not need and more often than we want it.

This sort of thing cannot be left strictly to chance. In the area of telephony, as you will recall, overzealous telemarketing has been regulated by the CRTC. Now, companies wishing to call numbers in series must follow the regulations it has established. The situation is not the same with regard to facsimiles.

Faxes have environmental and other disadvantages. A lot of paper is used needlessly, but environmental damage is not the only problem. There are also commercial disadvantages: while your fax machine is receiving unsolicited messages about things in which you are not interested and using up reams of paper in the process, your real clients are unable to communicate with you. You yourself cannot use your own fax machine to communicate with your business interests. There is a conflict between your interests and those of the companies that want to market their products without necessarily asking for your permission beforehand.

Allow me to quote from an Industry Canada document called Privacy and the Canadian Information Highway , which deals with the intrusion of the information highway on privacy: ``Citizens may also want to be protected from unwanted communications as a result of purchasing goods on the electronic highway''. I am not talking only about faxes, but also about electronic mail and transmission through the information highway.

The document goes on to say: "Disturbances or intrusions by telemarketers or targeted advertising mail is a privacy nuisance that concerns many Canadians. There is already `junk' fax, with solicitations over our fax machines for everything from coffee service to holiday trips". Should controls target marketing schemes that result from separate or related purchases, for instance, junk E-mail that follows a purchase of a Caribbean holiday with offers for a next trip?

If so, how? What rules should govern the collection and use of information about what people buy or other personal information transactions? How should these rules be balanced with the opportunity to be made aware of goods or services that people might want and need? The problem is not only the amount of time and paper used by your fax machine in receiving messages from outside parties, but also the fact that some businesses may use your or your company's own consumption profile to transmit targeted, unsolicited ads using your own resources, and may even paralyse your own operations in the process.

There is another aspect: fraudulent advertising. A recent investigation by the Montreal Urban Community Police Department on the First Nations Investors Group uncovered an almost $500,000 rip-off of some 20 residents of the Montreal region. According to police, the suspects recruited their investors mainly through electronic advertising, in particular by sending faxes directly to management consulting firms. Swindlers sent their targets faxes painting an enticing picture of the investment opportunities.

The advertising, in the name of Venture and Financing International Corporation, claimed to offer loans at attractive rates for financing residential or commercial buildings, or 1 per cent less than the rate in effect. Without going into details, this business fraudulently collected $500,000 by using the fax numbers of a highly targeted clientele.

Other uses however may be more desirable, for example, receiving your daily newspaper by fax. It is now possible for a publisher to send his readers, his subscribers, a daily newspaper either by the information highway-on the Internet-or by straight facsimile.

In fact, we know of a publisher who has 300 subscribers at $250 each a year. Mind you, this is very clever; there are no printing fees and no distribution fees, since the printing takes place at the receiving end, on the fax, photocopier or printer of the recipient.

I recall something that happened in Calgary. A computer specialty outlet refers to fax ads that zip through its machines as annoying junk that usually goes into the garbage. In its experience at least 10 sheets a day of irrelevant news has to be sorted. That is a problem. These things have to be sorted. They cannot just be looked on as junk. It must be sorted because in between these junk mail items could be real messages for business purposes.

From this same source cited by the Calgary Herald , some companies go nuts about fax firms, complaining advertisements invade their fax machines, tie up their lines and use their paper.

Furthermore, a spokesman from AGT says the Alberta phone company has no control over what travels across the lines and bears no responsibility for its customers. In this dimension there is a problem in Calgary, but it is not the only place.

In a law firm in Toronto a late night junk fax once consumed 99 pages of a lawyer's fax paper before the machine ran out. There is an added concern here. If the machine does run out of paper, not only is the paper spoiled but the machine is incapable of receiving additional faxes that could be most important for operations. The machine had been paralyzed by an outside party the company had no business with. The law firm complained that there was no way of contacting anybody to complain.

Some advertisements arrive daily just in case they were missed the previous day and become a major headache for any business. To add to the frustration, even if the offenders can be identified there is no way the offenders can be asked to stop.

There may be some hope somehow, somewhere. The CRTC is apparently under way to get authority to restrict junk faxes this fall. We are at the end of this fall and I do not know where it is at this point. A new national telecommunications act will come into effect. The CRTC unfortunately is still in a state of considering ways to exercise that control. It is not a matter of controlling and regulations; it is a matter of having the technological means to do it.

Bell Canada, which has also received floods of complaints, asked the CRTC to be allowed to disconnect those who make an abusive use of junk faxing. Bell defines this kind of junk faxes as "unsolicited material promoting the sale of goods or services where there is no business relation between the person sending the material and the one receiving it and where this has been going on for over six months".

Bell Canada's proposal is to suspend service for five days to anyone sending junk facsimiles to the same telephone number more than twice in the same month. After suspending service for these reasons three times, the company would consider terminating service permanently.

As you can see, there is a problem. And this problem does not affect just one municipality here and there. It is from coast to coast. Telephone companies are aware of the problem, but they do not have the necessary means of coercion to act on it. The CRTC is reviewing the issue, but does not see how it could be resolved through technology alone.

So I hope that my remarks will have alerted the House to the problem, to how extensive it is and to the need to take action, not in three, four or five years, but as soon as possible. That is my wish.

[The Constitution, November 27th, 1995]

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister intends to take the advice of the Globe and Mail , which was suggesting that, to save face, all he would have to do is to offer Quebecers a symbolic recognition of the distinct society and a so-called right of veto?