Monique Guay

[Francophones Outside Quebec, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, three official reports from three different sources have referred to the federal government's inability to honour its commitments to francophone communities.

One of these, the Savoie report, proposed the creation over five years of a $60 million fund for francophones outside Quebec.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Would it not be time, in order to better co-ordinate programs providing support for francophone minorities threatened by assimilation, to create a secretariat with the means and the autonomy to meet these commitments?

[International Development Week, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to remind members of the House and the people of Quebec and Canada that this is International Development Week.

On this occasion, I would like to acknowledge the terrific job done by the NGOs involved in this area. Their generous dedication brings relief to and helps improve the living conditions of millions of human beings.

But can the same be said of the Government of Canada? No. Since 1993, this government has literally been draining the development assistance budget, cutting it by $617 million.

I am calling on the common sense of the Minister of International Co-operation and the Minister of Finance to take immediate steps to make international co-operation a government priority. If the government is still committed to devoting at least 0.7% of the GDP to development assistance, as it promised the UN, it should make this clear in the coming budget.

[Gm Plant In Boisbriand, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove has criticized the attitude of the Minister of Industry concerning the situation at the GM plant in Boisbriand.

According to him, “We got a far better response from Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry than from the federal Minister of Industry”.

What does the Minister of Industry have to say to workers who are concerned about the future of the GM plant in Boisbriand and need every possible assistance if their jobs are to be saved?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern and frustration that I rise today to express my indignation and my anger.

Indeed, since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has kept trying to make this government realize that the duplication of jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments costs a great deal to the various levels of government. With Bill C-43, which will create the Canada customs and revenue agency, the federal government is once again interfering, without consulting the provinces, in an area it has no business getting involved in. Clearly, this is further proof of the Prime Minister's insatiable desire to centralize everything.

But before going further, I would like members to take time to look and examine this super agency, this tax monster that the federal government wants to set up.

As per usual, since this government has made a habit of avoiding responsibility, of not facing the music and of avoiding any exchange of ideas, on June 4, one week before the House adjourned for the long summer recess, the revenue minister sneaked in Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The establishment of this tax collection monster is a project that goes back to the throne speech of February 1996, in which the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency. But already at that time, the Bloc Quebecois had opposed the establishment of such an agency.

More specifically, the agency will convert the Department of National Revenue into a semi-independent government body, with responsibility for negotiating with provinces and municipalities wishing to have it collect all taxes in Canada.

According to the Minister of National Revenue, the ministerial responsibilities and parliamentary controls will remain essentially the same. This means that the Public Service Staff Relations act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act will continue to apply. In addition, the minister says he will retain full responsibility for the administration of tax, customs and trade legislation.

In short, very little will change. So why create this agency? Why go to all this trouble, if nothing will be any different?

According to the President of the Treasury Board, and I quote:

Creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is an essential component of the government's commitment to modernize the federal public service.

I do not get it. Modernize by doing nothing. This stunt by the federal government is strangely evocative of the federal system in which we live. A huge bureaucracy, an ideology rooted in the past, with no vision: such is the federal system in which we live. The Canada customs and revenue agency is more of the same.

For the federal government, modernizing a bureaucracy boils down to privatizing public services. It means jeopardizing the jobs of 40,000 employees, or 20% of the entire federal public service, to whom framework legislation such as the Public Service Employment Act will no longer apply. Two years from now, this anti-union attitude will give the agency free rein to raise or lower employees' salaries, to hire or fire unilaterally.

Henceforth, these employees will be at the mercy of the agency's board of management. While we are on the topic, the board's 15 directors will be appointed for three years on the recommendation of the provinces, and will occupy their positions on a part time basis.

The chair, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner will be appointed by the Governor in Council for a renewable term of five years. Great jobs, these, for the party's political buddies.

This is how the government treats its employees, to say nothing of its recent treatment of the thousands of women in the Public Service with its reluctance to give them pay equity. If I were in the shoes of the 40,000 Revenue employees, I would be very much afraid. With this government, a person never knows what low blow can suddenly be delivered. Each day brings its surprises and its trip-ups, courtesy of an immoral and heartless government.

We could also speak of the employment insurance fund, or of the unemployed who have paid into it and cannot even get their own money back from a government that is literally ripping them off. I could go on and on about this.

I was absolutely astonished, when I read this bill, by the lack of accountability there will be for the agency executive. This agency is a classic example of empire-building by senior mandarins ensconced in their ivory towers in Ottawa. This is a classic example of bureaucratic empire-building.

The role and responsibilities of the commissioner of the CCRA would make him a kind of czar of taxation, a super bureaucrat invested with massive powers but more or less without any need to report to anyone.

By removing the CCRA from the daily monitoring of his office, the minister is putting himself at risk of having his bureaucrats put one over on him. The CCRA would, moreover, more or less have carte blanche over such matters as contracting out property management, equipment management, and information and technology management. With only limited outside monitoring, there would be a greater risk of patronage and abuse of authority.

This is inconceivable and unacceptable. Clauses 47 to 49 are explicit about the agency's lack of accountability. The agency submits an annual business plan to the minister for recommendation to the Treasury Board for approval. The plan would set out the objectives of the agency and its strategies to achieve them.

The minister must cause a summary of the plan to be tabled in both Houses within 15 days of his approval. Parliament has no opportunity to question the agency's decisions once they have government approval. Where is accountability? Where is the transparency in this process?

According to the minister of revenue, private enterprise and the business community will be the first to benefit from the agency, but that is far from confirmed.

Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reacted rather coolly to the massive and centralized power in the tentacles of the super agency. No less than 40% of the businesses that took part in a Public Policy Forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada indicated a lack of interest in the agency. More than two thirds of them felt that, after the new agency is established, the cost of dealing with the department as currently structured would increase or remain the same.

And what is the government opposite doing about the provinces' ability to determine their own budgetary policy? Quebec will not give in to this centralizing government. The Bloc Quebecois and its members are reasonable and responsible. They will certainly not vote in favour of this bill.

The federal Liberals' centralizing view of the affairs of state is totally unacceptable. We are in favour of a single tax collection body, but it should be Quebec's Department of Revenue, which is already collecting the GST. This department is fully accountable to Quebeckers.

For all these reasons, and for many others that I unfortunately cannot go into, because it would mean sleeping here tonight, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. What we are calling for is the withdrawal, pure and simple, of the bill and the repeal of all its clauses.

It is such a pity to see that, once again, closure is being invoked on a bill as important and as controversial as Bill C-43. Several of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, as well as colleagues from other parties, wish to speak to the bill. It is very sad to see that this government, which is introducing bills in the House, does not even have the decency to defend them.

[Semaine Québécoise Des 4-H, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of 4-H week in Quebec, last Friday marked the inauguration of the exhibition entitled “Nature in all its forms”, at the Laval Récréathèque.

Every weekend until next April, this interactive laboratory will teach young people about protecting and improving the quality of the environment. There will be teaching workshops for groups of students.

In keeping with their motto of “honour, honesty, handiness and humanity”, the Quebec 4-H clubs have been operating since 1942 to protect the forest and the environment. Through science-oriented recreational activities, they develop a respect for others, a sense of responsibility, a spirit of initiative and creativity in young people.

I would like to draw attention to the remarkable work done by the 4-H clubs in Quebec, especially those in Laval, which are working to develop good consumer practices in keeping with the principles of sustainable development.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in the House to indicate my support and that of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for Bill C-52, specifically the Senate amendment moving that lines 6 to 10, paragraph 27.1, on page 13 of the bill be replaced by the following:

Tabling of report

The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.

I am particularly proud that this amendment was the result of a Bloc Quebecois initiative. The Bloc Quebecois has always taken a keen interest in transparency and correspondingly in increasing the involvement of members of this House in the implementation of a treaty such as the one before us today, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Furthermore, the Australian parliament has already approved a provision very similar to that in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act. Thus, the report the person designated as the national authority has prepared and submitted to the minister will be tabled in that parliament.

Although this is another step in the direction of more democratic practices in our parliament, it would be a very good idea in future for this practice to become more widespread here in the House in Ottawa. Parliament should approve treaties before the government signs and ratifies them.

My colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is also the foreign affairs critic, has called upon the minister to submit this matter to the foreign affairs committee, in order to bring our treaty process in line with that of other Commonwealth countries, where a far more democratic process is in place.

The minister said he was open to examining this matter and the Bloc Quebecois will keep after him until he responds.

Now, returning to the contents of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois supports it for the values of peace and international security which it puts forward. It is an essential tool for attaining complete nuclear disarmament. For us in the Bloc Quebecois and for all parties here in this House it is important to promote, without a moment's hesitation, any legislative measure focused on those values of peace and security.

By implementing the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, Canada will now be able to contribute to the ultimate objective of the total eradication of nuclear arms. In this way we shall be helping to solve a problem caused by using energy contrary to the interests of humanity itself, abusing of a resource the peaceful applications of which have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the greater well-being of humankind.

The enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The parties signing the treaty undertake not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under their jurisdiction or control and to refrain from causing, encouraging or participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

Another important feature is the international monitoring system put in place under the treaty. The purpose of this system is to detect, locate and classify nuclear explosions. In addition, on-site inspections may be carried out under the treaty to clarify the situation following a nuclear incident.

Already the treaty has reaped positive results. A number of nuclear nations like France and the United Kingdom have made it clear that, in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, they agreed to discontinue nuclear testing. Other nuclear weapons states, such as China, the United States and Russia, have suggested that they too would discontinue nuclear testing.

That said, we cannot claim victory yet. The nuclear threat still hangs over us. We need only look at India and Pakistan, which recently conducted nuclear tests, and at some other nations with nuclear capabilities, including Israel and South Korea, two countries whose intentions are still cause for concern. These nations have yet to confirm their willingness to stop conducting nuclear tests and to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

The Bloc Quebecois, the other political parties represented in this House, as well as the people of Quebec and Canada agree that it is essential that we rid the world once and for all of all nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. It is a matter of getting our priorities in order.

As the critic for international co-operation, I see shocking statistics on human misery every day. More than 1.3 billion people are living in abject poverty, living on less than a dollar a day. Every day, 34,000 children die from malnutrition and disease. Every year, 17 million people die of infectious and parasitic diseases.

The priorities of the world and of our governments must focus on basic human needs.

Everybody on this planet has the right to proper food, shelter, care and education. Yet, since 1945, it is estimated that the world has spent a whopping $8 trillion on nuclear weapons.

Members should try to imagine what could have been done with all that money in poor countries. Even now, the gap between the rich and the poor is constantly growing wider. The time has come to put a stop to this waste and to invest where it really matters.

As a medium size military power with no nuclear weapons, how can Canada help further and promote in a tangible way the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty? Canada, through its Department of Foreign Affairs, has displayed great leadership in its crusade to ban land mines. The Bloc Quebecois wants to acknowledge the work done by the minister on this issue.

Even if Canada does not have nuclear weapons, and even if it is officially opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can it claim that it has done nothing wrong?

We can think of China, to which Canada sold Candu nuclear reactors. There is also the fact that our country allows nuclear bombers to enter its airspace and use its low level flight ranges for pilot training.

Canada is on the right track, and we are very aware of the fact, but we are also aware of the fact that it could do even more. We in the Bloc Quebecois want Canada to go even further. Does this government have the real political will to be innovative in nuclear disarmament?

This challenge concerns the international community as a whole, and Canada has a duty to take concrete action and especially not to accept the status quo. On the contrary, it must be proactive and thus help the heads of nuclear countries translate the will of the people into decisive action.

At the dawn of the 21st century, the middle powers must make these heads of state take this opportunity in the name of humanity and the planet.

The Bloc Quebecois is acutely aware of the challenge nuclear disarmament represents. We will continue in our desire to build an international community where nuclear weapons exist only in history books, so that future generations may realize the dangers of nuclear arms.

I can tell you that a sovereign Quebec will not hesitate as a new country to sign the comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty and to ensure its implementation both nationally and internationally.

With the approach of the new millennium, it is time to put an end to the scourge of nuclear weapons. This is our duty to future generations. Let us do so, to give all children on the planet the opportunity to enjoy life without the threat of nuclear arms.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at second reading of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

This bill seeks to define the legal framework for the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, so as to protect and preserve natural marine areas that are representative of the oceans and of the Great Lakes, to promote public knowledge, appreciation and enjoyment of this marine heritage, and to preserve it for future generations. The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, which is the 29th marine conservation area and which was officially established on June 12, is not included. It is not covered by the bill, because Quebec has its own legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois finds it perfectly normal and legitimate that Quebec would apply its own legislation to the marine world. After all, our province has been assuming for 15 years already its legislative responsibilities regarding the land along the Saguenay fjord and a large part of the St. Lawrence estuary.

The Bloc Quebecois has always cared a great deal about environmental protection measures. I know what I am talking about, since I was my party's critic on the environment from 1995 to 1997. The Bloc Quebecois supported the government regarding the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

That being said, my party will oppose this bill. We cannot support Bill C-48 which, instead of relying on dialogue, as was the case with the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, does just the opposite.

With this bill, the federal government is trying to unilaterally create marine conservation areas, regardless of Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly over the environment. This is the main reason the Bloc Quebecois will not support the bill.

We feel that this legislation is an unacceptable infringement by the federal government on jurisdictions that are already under Quebec's strong and effective control.

The Government of Quebec has a proven track record and it has taken measures to protect the environment, particularly the marine floor. So why does the federal government feel the urge again to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction? It is always the same old story.

I would like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to explain to me why she does not want to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a model.

By making ownership of the territory an essential condition for the creation of marine conservation areas, the federal government is behaving like a centralizing government that wants control over everything, regardless of Quebec's jurisdictions. This is no surprise coming from this government.

This kind of interference is nothing new. Paradoxically, the federal government has often used the environment as the perfect example of progressive, open and decentralized federalism.

On other occasions, this same government invoked the notion of national interest as well as international commitments stemming from the globalization of environmental issues, as if Quebec were incapable of facing this new reality on its own. Let us be serious.

Here are a few flagrant examples that show this government's bad faith and its insatiable appetite for interfering in Quebec's affairs, particularly with regard to the environment.

The first example is the implementation of the ecogovernment policy in which Ottawa totally ignored provincial powers by favouring a partnership with representatives from industry, municipalities and agriculture. It deliberately ignored Quebec's involvement.

The second example is the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which infringes in an unprecedented way on provincial responsibilities and creates considerable duplication with Quebec's legislation in this area. Now we have Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas, and there are many other examples.

Speaking of duplication, this bill tops it all. It is an unthinkable administrative mess.

Bill C-48, proposed by the Department of Canadian Heritage, will establish a new structure, the marine conservation areas, that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas. That does not take into account the overlap with the Quebec department of the environment and wildlife. What a fine example of federal bureaucratic inefficiency. Amazing.

In addition, the bill disregards Quebec's territorial integrity. We need only look at the wording of the bill. Clause 5(2) specifically provides that the minister may not establish a marine conservation area, unless he, and I quote:

—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 area of Canada.

Quebec is not for sale. Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec legislation on crown lands 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 same legislation provides that Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. It can, within this legislation, only authorize, by order, the federal government to use them under its 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.

To top it off, Heritage Canada intends to unilaterally launch three projects to establish marine conservation areas in the St. Lawrence River, its estuary and gulf, all three being areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

What justifies such arrogance on the part of this government, which claims it owns the marine floor where it wants, to establish marine conservation areas? Why does the federal government not promote bilateral agreements between the Ottawa and the Quebec government instead, so that Quebec may maintain its areas of jurisdiction?

This government loves to go it alone and show the rest of Canada that it is the one laying down the rules of the game, ignoring its own laws and those of the provinces in the process. This is another example of how unfairly Quebec is treated in this federal system.

How stupid and ironic at the same time. Not only is the federal government duplicating what the provinces do, it is also opening the door to overlap in its own court.

How can people believe and trust it, when it shows so little determination and strength in their legislation? Quebeckers will figure it out and be all the more convinced that pulling out of the federation is the right thing to do.

Bill C-48 on marine conservation areas is an unacceptable attack on a predominantly provincial jurisdiction. It will result in duplication, challenge and the subordination of provincial processes, as well as large and unnecessary expenditures and many court challenges. These are becoming more frequent in the federal system and are becoming unbearable.

Once again, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill after the federal government has made the wrong decision.

As I said at the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. On November 30, Quebeckers will make the right decision for Quebec, they will be vote for the Parti Quebecois.

[Aid To Victims Of Hurricane Mitch, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hurricane Mitch is the worst natural disaster to hit Central America. The Prime Minister must show compassion in view of this tragedy.

Since the social and economic infrastructures of Honduras, Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua have been all but destroyed, will the Prime Minister make a commitment here and now to write off these countries' debt to Canada and support the Chirac plan for a reconstruction summit?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I personally listen to my colleagues with great pleasure.

As I was saying, if a dishonest person wanted to get some credit card numbers to use it for his or her own profit, that would be perfectly possible unless protective measures are taken. That is where all the question of electronic commerce facilitation kicks in.

If I feel that my purchasing something on the Internet might reveal things I do not want to be known, such as what I am buying, how much I paid for it, what my credit card number is or other confidential information I might give, if I am not convinced it will all remain confidential and will be used for the intended purpose only, I will be very reluctant to engage in any electronic transaction. I would not do it.

Of course, if the legislation were to require businesses to take the appropriate steps to ensure that all electronic transactions are secure, confidential and protected, then we would feel much more at ease and e-commerce would blossom.

What are the two problems that can arise in terms of protection of personal information? First, there is the illegal access to the information by someone who is not entitled to see the data. Of course, none of us would like information about us to fall into the hands of people who should not have access to it. That is the first problem.

Then, there is also the misuse or illegal use of the information. Someone who should not even have had access to your information is using it to harm you or for some other illegal purposes. So, it is important to ensure that the information can only be accessed by the people who are entitled to see it, by the final recipient, and used for the purposes for which the information was made available.

In this area, Quebec has been fully protected for four years now through its Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. The bill before us today, Bill C-54, only deals with businesses. It does not extend to any other activity and has some serious deficiencies.

This is extremely important because, whether we like it or not, electronic commerce is bound to expand. It is here to stay.

We have nothing against the fact that the rest of Canada is passing legislation. It makes sense to do so. However, we want to make sure that the act in effect in Quebec will remain in effect, and we do not want yet another imbroglio after all the ones we have had in the past.

We can make a judgment on how the Canadian federation has worked in the past. We can condemn duplication. We can say that things should have been done differently. We can propose ways other than those used in the past. If there is one area where the industry does not want two levels of legislation, and does not want to get dragged into problems relating to the constitution and to the interpretation of the act, it is definitely that of electronic commerce which, in any case, will be significantly affected by the need for international agreements.

The bill opens the door to several interpretations, and it also provides a discretionary power to the governor in council. But the governor in council is really the cabinet. It is the government which, under clause 27( d ) can decide to change the application of the act, without having to go back to parliament.

That principle is not often found in legislation and, under the British tradition, is avoided as much as possible so there is no abuse of power, particularly in areas as contentious as the protection of personal information, where the government itself could be involved while having the power to change the law if it did not want it to apply in the way it was intended when it was adopted.

We can also wonder if the bill meets the expectations of consumers and of Canada's and Quebec's privacy commissioners. The respective titles of both the Quebec and the federal act are very explicit. While the Quebec act is designed to protect privacy and governs all organizations, the federal act applies only to commercial transactions. We can see right there that the ideology is totally different.

In conclusion, we, of the Bloc Quebecois, find this bill totally unacceptable because it is confused, because it uses the conditional, because its main component is a schedule and because it can be amended by the governor in council without debate. This bill will make federal-provincial relations extremely difficult for Quebec and will open the door to more federal interference.

This bill focuses on electronic commerce, giving second billing to the fundamental concept of privacy, to the protection of privacy. This bill, in its present form, gives no power whatsoever to the commissioner, has no teeth and ignores the unique experience of Quebec with regard to protecting personal information in the private sector.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, could you, please call the House to order?