Bernard Bigras

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-55 put forward by my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party.

Bill C-55 has been discussed a lot over the last few weeks. The more we look at that bill, the more we get into debate and the more we realize that we, on this side of the House, were right to speak up and oppose the bill.

From day to day, reports from international organizations are showing that there are countries, that we will name later on, and Canada is among them, that have abused a number of powers to violate freedom of speech and individual freedom.

This debate on Bill C-55 today comes at the right time because, a few days ago, Amnesty International published a rather revealing report on the measures taken by some countries with regard to the situationsince September 11. Some countries have made adjustments following that situation, but often at the expense of what is the most essential in a civilized society and a democratic society. I am referring here to human rights and freedom.

Amnesty International's report tells us that countries such as Great Britain, Canada and others have used special measures that show a total disregard for individual freedoms and human rights. Canada is on that list of countries. Some have said that Canada could even be regarded as a totalitarian country, if one looks at the essence of the bill before us. I am saying this without any fear of being judged since it is the privacy commissioner who said nearly a month ago, on May 2, with regard to Bill C-55, “Some measures are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

This opinion expressed by the commissioner regarding Bill C-55 is important. A country that claims to be a champion of rights and freedoms is using situations like the one we have been experienced since September 11 as an excuse to impose coercive measures. It is a sad thing. We know that this country wants the international community to believe that it has the utmost respect for human rights.

Tuesday, we will debate a motion that I have brought forward. It will be votable, as decided by the sub-committee on private members' business. This motion asks the Government of Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

I am making a point of indicating that we will have this debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday. I remind members that, during the first hour of debate, the government rejected the arguments presented by the Bloc Quebecois and Amnesty International, even though we had gathered 75,000 signatures of Canadians on a petition asking the government to ratify the convention.

Why I am saying that it is crucial that we ratify these conventions to protect human rights? It is so that the measures we take within our borders do not violate individual freedoms.

For many years now, Canada has behaved much too much like its neighbour to the south. For example, nine out of 34 countries--let us say 34 and not 35 because we will not include Cuba--have not ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and two of those nine are Canada and the United States.

There is a good reason why this morning, an editorial in Le Devoir , reminded us that Canada has been refusing for many years to sign these conventions. Let me quote the article by Serge Truffaut published in Le Devoir this morning. The title of his editorial was “Security vs. freedom”.

At the end, he says:

For good measure, Canada has also developed a complete series of measures. The Canadian branch of Amnesty International said it was concerned about the policies on refugees and the cowardly concurrence of Ottawa with the judicial status given to prisoners of war by the United States. Most of all, Amnesty International stresses the fact that eleven years after becoming a member of the Organization of American States, Canada has still not signed one of the six regional treaties on human rights.

On the international stage, the Prime Minister boasts about being an advocate of human rights; Canada is about to become part of the free trade area of the Americas; therefore, I think that we should respect fundamental human rights.

Too many countries are still going this way, which is, to me, totally unacceptable. That is why this morning, as my hon. colleague from Champlain said, Michel C. Auger, among others, felt compelled to speak out about the deplorable current situation in Canada.

By the way, Canada is not the only country going this way. There are, naturally, our neighbours to the south and Great Britain, which are taking coercitive measures that violate freedoms.

In his editorial this morning, Michel C. Auger says the following—and I will read only the introduction:

National security and the fight against terrorism are becoming, just about everywhere in the world, the best excuses to violate fundamental rights.

In his article, he alluded to Amnesty International's report, and he added:

This is a warped sort of logic, as if we were saying that the best way to guarantee freedoms was to restrict them.

Since I have only one minute left, I want to add that we must have a global vision of the situation relating to the events of September 11 and we must go beyond these events. We must establish a real balance in Canada between freedom and security, but Canada has yet to understand that.

There is still time, since we are still considering Bill C-55, to take measures to fully reach this fundamental objective which is, obviously, to guarantee the national security of Canada while respecting individual freedoms and fundamental rights.

[National Wildlife Areas, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since 1986, the Lake St. Francis National Wildlife Area has provided residents from the region with an opportunity to enjoy their natural heritage thanks to a management plan. The wildlife area has no federal employees and relies entirely on dedicated volunteers, but they are running out of steam. The Commissioner of the Environment said that the $102,000 provided by the federal government for the operation of Quebec's eight wildlife areas falls well short of what is required.

What measures does the minister have in mind to provide additional resources for the national wildlife areas?

[Excise Act, 2001, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in this debate on Bill C-47. As it has been often mentioned, the purpose of the bill is to modernize the Excise Act. We are in a situation where all the provisions contained in the Excise Act, which Bill C-47 is supposed to replace, are included in this bill, except anything that has to do with beer.

This is important for what I will call the microbrewery industry. Microbreweries are the pride of several regions in Quebec. As my colleagues pointed out, these beers often have a different taste that has a regional character. These industries employ men and women from every region in Canada, but also from every region in Quebec.

Microbreweries are often symbols of the regions of Quebec. They are employers, they are a driving force for economic development and they are the symbol of a region. They offer consumers a product that is different from those offered by the big Canadian brewers.

The situation in which we find ourselves leads us to the conclusion that a market is developing, resulting in these microbreweries being subjected to unfair competition by other brewers. I will explain.

The beer produced by microbreweries often has to compete against so-called imported beers. Under the current taxation system, the big breweries, like Labatt, enjoy preferential treatment, a preferential tax rate, compared to the microbreweries.

The preferential rate is based on the tax rate. In Canada, there is a charge of 28¢ on Canadian beer. The rate in the U.S. is about the same, except that they have a preferential rate for microbreweries. They consider that a small business does not have the same organizational or financial structure as the big breweries. So, the preferential rate in the U.S. is only 9¢ a bottle, compared to 28¢ in Canada.

Since the tax rate for microbreweries in the U.S. is 19¢ lower than it is in Canada, it is clear that our microbreweries are the victims of unfair competition. Not only is the difference between the tax rate unfair, but microbreweries are far from being defined the same way in Canada and in the U.S.

For instance, to be considered as microbreweries, Canadian breweries have to produce 300,000 hectolitres, compared to almost 1 million hectolitres for U.S. breweries. So, the definition in itself paves the way for the unfair competition Quebec and Canadian microbreweries are victims of.

I have just mentioned the tax rate on one bottle of beer, but if we do the math, we see that for 24 bottles sold in a grocery store, the Canadian government gets $4.09, and the U.S. get $1.12, for a huge difference of $2.90 on a case of 24, which would explain why several of our microbreweries had to close their doors in the last few months and years.

Several regions in Quebec have been hurt by the loss of these small companies that can be competitive if they are given a bit of a tax break, something this bill is not doing.

In the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot alone, two microbreweries have had to shut down since 1997. We have also lost microbreweries in Saint-Eustache, Baie-Saint-Paul, Montreal and Cap-Chat. Microbreweries, which have, in recent years, become ambassadors abroad for various regions of Quebec and Canada, promote regional development, in terms of growth and symbol. Therefore, these closures were major losses.

We are speaking on behalf of microbrewers, but I want to stress that the Bloc Quebecois did not fight this battle in recent weeks and months only for Quebec microbrewers. We were pleased to see that, just last week, the Canadian Alliance joined forces with the Bloc Quebecois to condemn the current federal preferential system.

We saw Canadian Alliance members ask questions in the House of Commons. It is not because the situation necessarily affects Quebec microbrewers; it is because they realized that microbreweries were in trouble in other Canadian provinces.

Here are some figures. Seven microbreweries have shut down in British Columbia, five in Alberta, one in Manitoba and one in Nova Scotia, for a grand total of more than 38 microbreweries that had to stop operating in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, in part because of the current system.

This means there are only some 40 microbreweries left in Canada. Close to half of the microbrewers had to shut down in recent years, thus leaving the market to the big breweries, such as Labatt. The result is that Quebec and Canadian consumers have only two choices: they can either drink Canadian beer brewed by a big brewery, or imported beer.

Knowing consumers, they will often choose beer from a microbrewery over imported beer, because they like local products.

We hope that the government will listen and will propose provisions to boost these driving forces of the Quebec and Canadian economy.

[Kyoto Protocol, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, now the Minister of Natural Resources is adding his voice to that of the Minister of Industy in this mad rush to defend the oil lobby. Not only does the Minister of Industry want Canada to shirk its environmental and international responsibilities, but the Minister of Natural Resources goes still further by saying that plan B would have to be adopted instead of Kyoto.

Will the minister admit that this is just one more confirmation that Canada is reneging on its intention to ratify the Kyoto protocol?

[Kyoto Protocol, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is now becoming the mouthpiece of the oil lobby against the Kyoto protocol. On the one hand, he is undermining the agreement from within, by recommending that his colleagues not support ratification, and on the other, he is undermining it from without, by demanding fossil fuel export credits, totally contrary to the logic of the protocol.

Is the minister's new approach not just one more indication of the government's intention to reconsider ratification of the Kyoto protocol and the Bonn and Marrakech agreements?

[Kyoto Protocol, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to his cabinet colleagues in April, the Minister of Industry proposed abandoning the Kyoto Protocol for the immediate future, proposing instead a made-in-Canada approach that is more and more in line with the position recommended by the United States.

Is this letter from the Minister of Industry not just one more sign that the government's real intentions are, in the end, not to ratify Kyoto in 2002, despite the Prime Minister's personal commitment to do so?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I said it earlier. You did not hear me. I told the member for Bourassa that I have a lot of respect for Lucien Bouchard because he at least was consistent. He did cross the floor of the House because he had certain beliefs. He did not act out of political opportunism.

I could keep on quoting the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. For instance, on April 7, 2000, he said and I quote, “This is why I am saying that this government has no economic or social agenda”.

I will stop here to get back to the subject matter of the bill, because I am convinced that this is what people in Quebec and Canada are expecting of us. They do not expect us to criticize those who are supposed to represent voters. They want us to deal with issues they believe are a priority.

Therefore, I am very happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-55, which replaces the now defunct Bill C-42, which we did criticize and about which we raised several concerns regarding its various provisions.

First, if we look at only one aspect of the bill, the controlled access military zones, we must admit the government heeded the advice of the Bloc Quebecois, which was asking for significant changes to the provisions contained in Bill C-42. Bill C-55 is proof the government accepted the Bloc's arguments and tightened the criteria to create controlled access military zones.

However, several aspects of the bill, as they currently stand, seem to us rather unsatisfacatory, namely those dealing with controlled access military zones, as I mentioned, interim orders and intelligence gathering.

Concerning controlled access military zones, we regret that the minister still retains discretionary power to intervene. It is still the minister who has the authority to designate controlled access military zones, the same minister who forgot to inform his government about the prisoners of war.

We find it rather odd and particularly dangerous to give the minister in charge discretionary power to designate controlled access military zones.

For instance, following the decision by the minister regarding taking prisoners during the recent events in Afghanistan, we believe that discretionary power should not be given to the minister alone.

We also worry about what will happen in Quebec. Contrary to what the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord would have us believe, we have never suggested in this House that the bill could extend to the whole Quebec territory.

He should read all the remarks my colleagues have made on Bill C-55. We are not suggesting that this bill could turn the entirety of Quebec into a controlled access military zone. But the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord must admit that certain areas, environments and lands could become military zones.

I have just listened to questions asked in this House about the Quebec national assembly. The member who mentioned the risk that the area around the national assembly be designated a controlled access military zone is not a Bloc Quebecois member.

There is an undeniable danger, and all the more so because military zones are designated at the discretion of the minister, and nothing in the bill provides that the approval of the Quebec government is needed. Therefore, Quebec's approval is not always required for the designation of controlled access military zones in Quebec.

As I said before, not only are a lot of powers in the hands of a single man, pursuant to the discretionary power stipulated in the bill before the House, but there is nothing to ensure that provinces will be consulted when such zones are established.

In areas not under federal jurisdiction and where the designated area is not on crown lands but somewhere in Quebec, we would like the government of Quebec and the rest of the provinces to give their approval beforehand.

The discretionary power to determine the size of these military zones has not changed much. It is still left to the discretion of the minister.

Bills C-42 and C-55 have something in common. The criteria for the designation of these military zones are again left at the discretion of the minister. That is rather worrisome.

Another matter of concern, and maybe the most important aspect of the bill that I will address, is that the government will not allow any action for damage by reason only of the designation of acontrolled access military zone or the implementationof measures to enforce the designation.

Since the Speaker is indicating that I only have two minutes left, I will conclude.

This is a serious issue. The Privacy Commissioner told us so. He said, and I quote “Some practices are similar to those that exist in totalitarian states”.

I shall therefore table an amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-55, seconded by the hon. member for Laval Centre.

I move:

That the amendment be modified by adding after the word “principles“ the following:

“that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are”.

I am therefore pleased to table this amendment to the amendment.

I close with my wishes for a thorough reflection on this, and for the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord to come on side with the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in order to lend this bill greater transparency and greater protection for the public.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-55. Although I am not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in the House, my speech will be a responsible one, unlike his. In principle, he should be quite familiar with the bill and should have addressed the substance of it. Instead, all he has done is to resort to a kind of political demagoguery in order to attack the work the Bloc Quebecois is doing in the House.

I have no need to be lectured by the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I have here a list of three pages of statements made by that member when he was on this side of the floor, and took it upon himself to assess the government on the other. I will quote from a few of them. This is a particularly strong one. Quoting the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord:

In Quebec, we have been putting up with that for 30 years from the former Prime Minister and the current one.

This was on March 20, 2000 in the House of Commons. Today, we have the hon. member on the other side of the floor.

If we want to see public confidence in politicians restored, all members of this House must have a bit of gumption and a bit of consistency.

[The Environment, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the measures taken by the federal government are totally inadequate, as shown by the 20% increase in Canadian emissions.

Since the minister refuses to set a deadline, will the government at least pledge to take immediate action, until the Kyoto protocol is ratified, so that Canada can immediately begin intensifying the reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions? Would the minister agree to increase Canadian investments in renewable energies?

[The Environment, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while European Union countries managed, in the year 2000, to reduce by 3.5% their greenhouse gas emissions, compared to their 1990 level, Canada increased its emissions by 20%. This is a dismal failure on the part of the Canadian government. Each day that goes by is used by the government to justify its failure.

Does the Minister of the Environment agree that his government's inaction and lack of leadership will end up being very costly for Canadians?