Bernard Bigras

[Federal-Provincial Conferences, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the federal Liberals' claims, since 1994 the Parti Quebecois government has been an active and faithful participant in federal-provincial meetings, far more so than the 1990-94 Liberal government.

The Bourassa and Johnson governments, in fact, attended only 53% of these meetings, while the Parizeau and Bouchard governments have attended 83%.

The empty chair policy is but a myth; the government of Quebec staunchly defends the interests of Quebec and its traditional demands. The specialist in non-presence is Jean Charest, he who is incapable of committing to the Calgary Declaration.

Along with his federal Liberal ally, Jean Charest, who is passing himself off as the saviour of Quebec, has nothing but hot air to offer the people of Quebec. This coming November 30, all of Quebec will let him know that this is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the federal and provincial governments together negotiated a harmonization agreement with the Government of Quebec, an agreement Quebec did not sign. Why did it not sign? Quite simply because the federal government refused to recognize that the environment was under Quebec's jurisdiction.

So long as the harmonization agreement and the bills—and I am thinking, for example, of Bill C-32, which is currently being examined and which changes the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as the CEPA—interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, Quebec will reject such bills.

So, Quebec is clear, we will not sign a harmonization agreement so long as the federal government will not give this recognition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-48 at second reading.

This federal bill entitled an Act respecting marine conservation areas is aimed at establishing 28 marine conservation areas representative of various ecosystems in Canada. As we all know the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill because it is covered by its own legislation.

I stress that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment. I should know since I was in charge of this issue for over a year. Also, as I recall the Bloc Quebecois supported the establishment of the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park. I remember it well. I believe this must be very clear; there is a difference between the bill and the marine park.

We are opposed to Bill C-48 respecting the establishment of marine conservation areas because, instead of relying on dialogue, as in the case of the marine park, the federal government wants to impose marine conservation areas, regardless of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of its own territory and of the environment.

Moreover Canadian Heritage is proposing to put in place new structures, marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. Simply put, the federal government is using three departments to infringe upon areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

What is more, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the federal government on this, as it has done for phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.

Why then is the federal government behaving once again as if Quebec did not exist with regard to this issue, proposing a national project that does not take into account Quebeckers' wishes concerning environmental protection?

I am asking this question while knowing this approach by the federal government is increasingly commonplace. Since the Prime Minister became convinced he met Quebec's traditional demands, his government has been introducing one centralizing bill after another.

We have, in fact, several objections. In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed on an act to create the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. The two pieces of legislation resulted in the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area. Allow me to explain the main features of the legislation.

The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without any transfer of territory. The two governments will continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The park includes only marine areas and covers 1,138 square kilometres.

In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by the Quebec and federal governments 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 the two governments, at least once every seven years.

By means of regulations under their respective legislation, 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.

This first partnership initiative should have served as a model to the federal government for the creation of other marine conservation areas. There is also one other example to follow, Phase III of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, of which I shall now speak.

On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Quebec and of Canada 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.

Third, this phase III follows the two previous ones in which both governments invested over $300 million.

There is something which should concern everyone in Quebec. It is the fact that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. If I may, I would like to mention six factors which show that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec.

First, 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. Clause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can establish a marine conservation area:

—only if he is satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in Right of Canada, excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Third, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, applies 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.

In addition, this legislation provides that 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 to 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.

Why is Heritage Canada now arrogantly demanding ownership of the ocean floor in order to create marine conservation areas, rather than allowing bilateral agreements between Quebec City and Ottawa that would let Quebec maintain its jurisdiction?

The answer is that this is the new approach to federal-provincial relations. This is what they did with the millennium scholarships. It is what they want to do with new health programs and the new young offenders legislation. It is what they are doing with the personal information protection bill. And they are doing it today with this marine conservation areas bill.

This Liberal government has decided to put Quebec in its place and that is why it is ignoring the promising experience of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54. As I told this House previously, this bill is about a fundamental value in our society, namely the protection of privacy.

It has an impact beyond this chamber. This morning, there was an article in Le Devoir entitled “Increasing Pressure for the Protection of Consumers' Privacy”. It discusses the threats to our privacy and the need for consumers to be informed of their rights.

It also discusses the bill we are debating today, emphasizing that the federal legislation will be imposed on any province that has not passed its own legislation in this respect within three years.

The need for a bill protecting personal information and privacy is not new. Most provinces have already passed such legislation. The federal government is the one dragging its feet when it comes to taking its responsibilities and introducing a bill governing federally regulated businesses.

In fact, we expected this government to draw on existing provincial legislation to bring forward a bill that is coherent, effective, clear and in harmony with provincial jurisdictions. Unfortunately for all Quebeckers and Canadians, this bill is wide off the mark.

Instead of protecting privacy as it should, this bill only protects the right of large private businesses to make profits with as few restrictions as possible. This is unacceptable. The federal government must go back to the drawing board as soon as possible. It must introduce a bill that really deals with the protection of privacy.

If it is not yet convinced of the urgency of the situation, it should contact the president of the Quebec Commission d'accès à l'information, Paul-André Comeau. It will see that the Quebec government receives 2,000 calls each month from people concerned with the protection of their privacy.

The Liberal Party is fuelling the cynicism against politicians by using this empty and confused initiative to try to convince our fellow citizens that it is concerned with the protection of privacy. But it does not say it introduced a bill that is simply in favour of commerce, a bill that is only based on voluntary compliance by businesses as far as protection of privacy is concerned.

This bill is full of loopholes. It leaves many sectors without any protection. This bill is filled with ifs and whens and shoulds. This means the government says to large businesses they should, if possible, be concerned with the privacy of their clients. I insist on the word should because this is exactly what we have in this bill.

This situation is unacceptable. First of all, I would like to stress the fundamental nature of the right to privacy. Others have spoken of this before me, but I am returning to it because, with this bill, the Liberal Party is putting the right to make a profit before the right to privacy.

The experts equate the right to privacy with other human rights such as the right to equality and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 50 years ago and to which Canada was a signatory, states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. It also states as follows:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms also impacts on the protection of privacy, even though this is not specifically in the charter. In Quebec, as members are aware, this right to privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975. There is nothing ambiguous about section 5, which says, and I quote:

1. Every person has a right to the respect of his or her privacy.

This right is also recognized in Quebec's Civil Code, and my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is very knowledgeable in the law, can tell us that I am right. This right is indeed recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled “Respect of Reputation and Privacy”, and I quote:

1. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.

It is crystal clear: respect of privacy is a fundamental right that is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada and in Quebec. It is wrong for the federal government to introduce a bill that does not protect this fundamental right.

As mentioned in the article published this morning in Le Devoir , the situation in Quebec in this regard is particularly exemplary. The Government of Quebec is the only government in North America that has passed legislation protecting personal information in the public and private sectors.

Furthermore, many experts say that Quebec's law, which applies to the private sector, is one of the best in the world. It is a lot better than the federal bill that applies to the public sector only.

It is surprising in this context that the government did not draw on Quebec's legislation. It would have achieved two objectives at once. First of all it would have ensured consumers would have top-notch protection. It would also have avoided all the inevitable loopholes and pitfalls of unharmonized federal and provincial legislation.

This leads us to believe that the real objective of this bill is not the protection of privacy, but a vague exercise in public relations. The government would like to use this bill to show that it responds to the public's concerns. This, however, is totally false.

The bill does not meet the expectations of the people of Quebec who want their privacy protected. Instead, it serves commercial interests.

Even Canada's privacy commissioner notes that the working document proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of Justice focuses more on commerce than on protecting privacy.

In conclusion, one simply needs to compare the titles of the two acts. Quebec's act is entitled “An Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector”, whereas the convoluted title of the federal act reads as follows:

An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances—

The Quebec act is clearly more strict and more comprehensive, in terms of its format, definitions, clarity and because of the power of order given to the commissioner. It is for these reasons that we categorically reject Bill C-54.

The federal government refused to follow the example of the Quebec act, even though it is recognized as a model in this area. This does not come as a surprise, because Quebec's act is aimed primarily at protecting citizens, whereas the federal government's bill is essentially intended to please big corporations.

[Millenium Scholarship Foundation, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said a consensus had to be achieved before he could act. In Quebec, there is a strong consensus against the millennium scholarships. Quebec wants to be able to opt out with full compensation.

If the Prime Minister is serous, what is he waiting for to act?

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is the whole issue of the surpluses. I know that I do not have much time to answer, but I will try to do it quickly.

Employers and employees contribute every year to a program, but cannot get benefits. For us, that is unacceptable. In the past, before the reform, more than 75% of young unemployed people could claim UI benefits.

I will conclude with a question: What percentage of young unemployed can now claim EI benefits under the new system? Only 25%.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

I hear the members opposite reacting to my words; clearly they do not come from regions hard hit by unemployment.

They are certainly not from the regions excluded, whose constituents are excluded, by the plan. In this regard, I agree entirely with what the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said. Many people in my riding have told me of the pitiful state of this plan.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her questions. Her questions are always well founded.

I remember last week's debate on APEC. The question was very much to the point, and it enabled me to inform the House of the Canadian federation on APEC.

Yes indeed we are getting calls at the office. Why? Because this government must understand immediately that the employment insurance reform and the new employment insurance legislation serve to exclude and to discriminate against young people and women, in particular. The Bloc Quebecois considers it unacceptable to have contributions paid into a plan that denies benefits. I think this must be said loud and clear.

It is as if we had paid insurance premiums, but were told “We will not pay you”, after a fire in the house. That is unacceptable. It is an exclusion clause and a discriminatory clause that affects not only young people and women, but entire regions and thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is never easy to speak after hearing remarks as eloquent as the ones made by my colleague from Quebec. I will nevertheless try to clarify the motion before us today.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the important issue of employment insurance reform. For more than two years, we have been questioning the Minister of Human Resources Development about the steady decline in the number of unemployed workers who qualify for EI benefits.

All this time the minister claims to be concerned by this tragic situation, but does not do a thing to change it. Once again, the minister is full of good intentions, but does not act on them. It is always the same thing on the government side: all talk and very little action.

Worse yet, this government is trying to divert—and that is a rather strong word—the $7 billion it has taken—not to say “stolen”, for I do not want to use unparliamentary language, although the choice of words is still important—from workers and employers to spend as it pleases. This money does not belong to the government but to Canadian workers and employers.

As my colleague from Quebec said very eloquently a moment ago, the motion before us today concerns specifically an urgently needed amendment to the employment insurance plan. It must be recalled that this motion by the Conservative Party reads as follows: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue with the Employment Insurance Small Weeks Adjustment Projects and amend the legislation in order to make the adjustment projects a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act.”

As my colleagues have already said, we in the Bloc Quebecois support this motion. We have in fact been calling for essentially the same thing for quite some time. My colleague has said that a number of bills have been introduced on this side of the House, but, unfortunately, the government has repeatedly ignored them.

Last December, we introduced Bill C-296, one of whose clauses provided a method for resolving the problem of the small weeks. Unfortunately, once again, the government has refused to deal with it. The opposition has therefore been obliged to use an opposition day. Yet again, the government is rejecting both the recommendations of the Conservative Party and Bill C-296, which the minister should frequently refer to. The Liberal government must pass this amendment as quickly as possible in order to repair one of the many inequities it has caused with its reform.

I will first explain what the small weeks adjustment projects are. Then I will explain why it is vital to make these pilot projects into a standard that will be universally applied. Finally, I will explain how the government is trying to hide behind a commissioned analysis in order to justify its inaction in this matter.

Currently, the Employment Insurance Act includes a new method for calculating benefits, which penalizes claimants by calculating a lower benefit amount. This method also discourages people from working who might otherwise be working a limited number of hours and weeks. This problem particularly affects high unemployment areas and some categories of workers, mainly the young and the women.

We believe however that this motion is not explicit enough, since it does not specify if the areas involved would only be those where pilot projects are currently under way or all the areas in Canada. Under the current EI system, only 21 administrative regions out of 54 are affected by the lumping or exclusion of the small weeks. We are convinced that the new formula, whether it be the lumping or the exclusion of the small weeks, should apply throughout Canada.

But first, I want to say that the government must act quickly because the small weeks pilot projects are coming to an end on November 15. As we all know, the purpose of these projects was to reduce some of the disincentives and devastating effects of the Employment Insurance Act. In fact, the new legislation unfairly penalizes those who agree to work small weeks, where they earn less than $150.

I think it is also important to mention, because it not only affects the formula, that these projects were to pacify the employers who were complaining about being unable to find employees ready to work small weeks. So, for some time now, some workers have agreed to work small weeks, because they thought the program would be renewed. The minister has to set things straight right away and tell us what he intends to do with these projects. If not, he would be penalizing these workers whom he has kept in the dark, without telling them what he was going to do.

Let me remind the House where this program to reduce the effects of the federal government's drastic cuts in the EI program comes from.

On March 5, 1997, barely two months after the coming into force of his new program, the Minister of Human Resources Development had to announce adjustment projects to mollify employers and workers in areas where unemployment rates were very high, including eastern Quebec and the maritimes. This admission of failure was the sign of his lack of vision and understanding of the impacts of a reform crafted mainly to save billions of dollars at the expense of the unemployed.

The main problem, already mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois, is the disincentive to work. A worker who accepts to work a few hours a week for a while, combining small and big workweeks, will probably be penalized financially the next time he puts in a claim. This is due to the new way benefits are calculated.

Suppose a worker in eastern Quebec works 20 big weeks at $450 a week, and six small weeks at $60, for a total of 26 weeks and an income of $9,360. Now he will have to make do on $198 a week.

Before the reform, he would have been entitled to $248 a week, and to $245 under the pilot project. In Quebec, 13.7%, that is nearly 14%, of people who lost their job have worked at least one small week. This rate is much higher in the maritimes and eastern Quebec. It is 24% in eastern Quebec and in the Chicoutimi—Jonquière area.

There are reportedly 25,000 persons in this situation in Montreal, which represents 11.8%. Women are more likely to be in this group: 22.7% compared to 5.5% of men. Young people are also affected: 17.2%, or almost 18 of young people under age 30, as opposed to 8% of people over age 30.

I think these figures are self-explanatory. The federal government has tightened EI eligibility criteria to such an extent that it is making young people and women pay for the debt with premiums they pay to protect themselves from unemployment. This misappropriation of funds is unacceptable and the government must agree now with today's motion.

[Millennium Scholarships, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister contends that all is settled with respect to the federal government's spending power and Quebec's right to opt out.

But this is the Prime Minister who wants to celebrate the new millennium by infringing upon Quebec's jurisdiction over education, with his millennium scholarships.

When he goes door to door, how will the Minister of Human Resources Development justify this new interference in education with the millennium scholarships, which no one in Quebec wants?