Robert Lanctôt

[Highway Infrastructure, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding and all of Montérégie are disappointed by the evasive comments made by the federal Minister of Transport regarding highway 30.

He recently announced that the agreement to extend would be ratified soon. However, we learned that he was still at the stage of all kinds of studies. When this government says soon, it most certainly does not mean soon, and that is disappointing.

Already, back in January 2001, the federal Minister of Transport said that highway 30 was a priority. Apparently the word priority does not mean anything for this government. In the end, all the federal Minister of Transport is trying to do is appease the people of Montérégie and put off indefinitely signing the memorandum of understanding with the Government of Quebec, which has been ready for a long time now.

The residents of Montérégie have been waiting for this highway for a long time now. The words soon and as soon as possible and priority no longer mean anything, and this is cannot go on. How long will it take for a priority to become a reality?

[Government Contracts, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we see that very clearly. As long as the investigation is limited to the administration of the program, the sponsorship scandals are presented as mere administrative errors. However, there was a political will behind it all. This was confirmed by Chuck Guité and Alain Richard.

When will the government allow the truth to be known by authorizing an inquiry that is public, and more importantly, independent of the government?

[Government Contracts, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services just tabled the report on the internal administrative investigation by his department into the sponsorships scandal.

How can the minister say that a public inquiry is not necessary for this affair, when the description of the mandate very clearly shows that the investigation was limited to administrative aspects of the program and did not touch in any way on the political involvement of the government?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Today we heard a ridiculous answer regarding this ridiculous situation. We are calling for a public inquiry that would be transparent and independent to look into all the problems associated with the sponsorship program. We heard the comments made by the former vice-president of Groupaction on a Montreal television station. Now we are being told that these matters are the subject of a police inquiry, which will become a judicial inquiry.

However, a police and judicial inquiry is not a political inquiry. The RCMP's mandate will not be changed to transform this police inquiry into a political inquiry. If a conflict of interest does exist, then we are not talking about a political inquiry, but about a police and judicial inquiry.

The problem is this. When there start to be serious connections, the only way for the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada to realize how complex and strong the connections are between the politicians and these communications firms is to simply and immediately set up a public, independent and transparent inquiry. Every time we raise this issue, we are told “A police investigation is under way”.

Let us not forget, as I mentioned earlier, that there were irregularities in 130 contracts. That is the figure we have? Again, the internal report prepared by Public Works and Government Services was not made public.

In other words, we are dealing with the same people who carried out the internal investigation in 2000, and nothing has happened. The opposition, especially the Bloc Quebecois, and even the media had to carry out their own investigations before the government decided to act.

The people watching us have seen several heads roll. I will not go over the list of ministers who were brought down. Another minister was linked to this issue and he cannot tell us that he is not aware of the situation. When we started to ask questions after his appointment, we gave him enough time to look into this. But all he is doing right now is referring the contracts to the RCMP and setting up internal investigations.

Yesterday, the day before and last week, we heard from the vice-president of Groupaction and from Mr. Charles Guité that the Prime Minister's office was involved. This speaks for itself.

We need a public, independent and transparent inquiry. Only then will the people of Quebec and of Canada find out what really happened.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the most recent throne speech.

The throne speech we heard is not only very disappointing, it is also a rehash and it is redundant. There is nothing new in it for the public. In fact, it does not even propose a vision. After the previous throne speech, I was very disappointed. This time, I am not discouraged, but rather annoyed.

The previous throne speech was remarkable because its obvious lack of vision, but this one does not fare any better. The government not only forgot but it categorically refused to take concrete and long term measures to help all Canadians. It is sad to see that, with this speech, the government has once again managed to overlook the imperative needs of Canadians and Quebeckers.

There was reference in the speech to the fact that we live in uncertain times. This government had a duty to reassure the public, but it did just the opposite. There is nothing new and, more importantly, nothing to reassure us. In fact, the main theme of this speech is that the timeframe is extended. Everything is being postponed. Why make a commitment? This is the true redundancy in this throne speech.

The public is well aware of the reason why everything is being postponed. This government cannot even manage and govern the way it should, because of an internal leadership crisis. We now know that the Prime Minister will resign. Has the leadership race begun, yes or no? We see that the race is on right here in front of us, in this chamber.

The speech indicates that the federal government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and Quebeckers. For several months now, we have seen that the attempt to ensure our protection has been detrimental to our freedom and our democracy.

I am annoyed by the fact that, in this speech, the government is not proposing anything better than continuing on the same path of denying rights and freedoms.

They only talk about the priorities we can afford. But the Liberals were elected because of the commitments they made on those so-called priorities. What are we to conclude? That their commitments were nothing but empty words? How can a government that passes itself off as strong and successful back away from its promises? I think the government missed a unique opportunity to make good on its commitments and promises. We should not underestimate the public. We have to respect the people and meet their expectations and their needs.

We can only conclude that the government has no real governance program, no real vision in terms of public affairs management. For instance, an internal investigation carried out at Public Works and Government Services showed some wrongdoing in most large contracts awarded to communications firms. However, the report that could shed, for us and for the population, some light on this situation has yet to be tabled.

I do want to remind the House that 13 contracts were referred to the RCMP for criminal investigation. Also, indications of wrongdoing were found in at least 130 contracts awarded by the department, that is 20% of all contracts awarded under the sponsorship program. It is important, however, to point out that these 130 contracts accounted for 80% of the value of all the sponsorships during the three year period under investigation. Imagine that. There is a problem, there was some wrongdoing in 20% of the contracts. But that 20% accounted for 80% of all the money handed out under the program.

From the beginning of this story, each new piece of information has given us one more reason to doubt the transparency of this government and has confirmed that the Bloc Quebecois is right about the need to hold an independent public inquiry.

Today again, during oral question period, it has come out, in connection with questions asked by myself, that a former Groupaction vice-president has finally opened Pandora's box. This is all connected to the statement by Mr. Guité that there is a political connection between these communication companies and the government. It is necessary for the government to immediately launch an independent public inquiry into this sponsorship program.

The people of Quebec are entitled to know what went on. In the coming months, we will continue to call for an independent public inquiry in order to get to the bottom of this.

There is one other truly shameful example. As I have said, I cannot help but regret the total absence of any commitment on the part of the Liberal government to keeping its promises. In the last campaign, the government made a great deal of its promise to build two bridges in connection with highway 30. Unfortunately, that promise quickly turned into a mere commitment to do the work.

Still today, they are saying that it is a priority, that something will be done soon. Last week, the MInister of Transport responded to our query by saying that it is currently carrying out environmental studies. Signature of a memorandum of agreement with Quebec is far from a reality, although Quebec has been ready to sign since January 2001.

When will this government come up with the necessary funds to keep its promise to finish highway 30 and build those bridges?

There is no longer any doubt about it, the government has no intention of investing in Quebec, as promised two years ago. It is, therefore, up to the Bloc Quebecois to keep after the government about following through on its promises. That is what we have done so far and what we will continue to do, for as long as it takes.

The Bloc Quebecois has questioned the government about this on numerous occasions, and every time we have been given evasive answers.

In the House on October 1 of this year, the Minister of Transport told us there would soon be an agreement with the government of Quebec and the private sector. He did not, however, specify the timeframe nor the intention of signing the agreement in question. I can well understand how confused the public must be hearing such double-speak, and I can understand as well that some people are getting bitter about this backing down.

One day, the government tells us that the extension of highway 30 and the building of two bridges are priorities, but the next day, it is a total void. Who can we trust? Certainly not this government. Certainly not those who have reduced this promise to a work commitment, and certainly not those who have so casually put aside the development of a region and the development of all of Quebec as a a priority. It is incredible that they make such promises and fail to keep them. We hear that environmental studies have just begun. In Quebec City, we are ready. I ask the federal government to put some money in.

I remember very well that, in the last throne speech, the strategic infrastructure fund was created. We know where the government got the money. The money was taken from the surplus. We know that, in March 2002, there was a surplus of almost $10 billion. Until the last minute, we asked that money be put into the strategic infrastructure fund to finalize highway 30, but none was.

My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is also still waiting for money from the fund to finalize highway 185. This is a matter that should not be forgotten. However, to come back to highway 30, the promise that was made should not be forgotten either.

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that Groupaction has apparently contacted former employees and forbidden them from revealing anything to anyone, or in short, has imposed the code of silence.

Is this not additional proof that only a public and independent inquiry will shed light on this and get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandals?

[Government Contracts, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a former vice-president of Groupaction appeared on television in Montreal yesterday to denounce the close political ties between that company and the government.

Who is investigating the political responsibilities in the sponsorship program scandals? No one. Is this not just one more reason to initiate an independent public inquiry into this entire affair?

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Unbelievable.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could seek the unanimous approval of the House so that I might finish my comments.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to share with it the Bloc Quebecois position on the amendment proposed by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance concerning exclusion of Bill C-15B from the first session of the 37th Parliament.

I must begin by making it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of concrete and appropriate measures against the scourge of animal cruelty. This is a serious problem and one that merits our full attention and consideration.

This is a problem that has been with us far too long and one we have a duty as parliamentarians within a democratic system to address and to come up with the appropriate remedial measures for.

I stress the term “appropriate”, because this is the basis of our opposition to this animal cruelty bill. I must point out that the Bloc Quebecois also agrees with the amendment proposed by the Alliance, since its effect would be to set aside this bill, with its serious problems relating to gun control.

With respect to cruelty to animals, I want to say again: this refers to acts of extreme violence deliberately committed against creatures unable to defend themselves and win recognition of their rights.

Although the intention of Bill C-15B is good on the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois opposes it for two main reasons. First, because of the lack of protection for legitimate activities involving animals, and second, because important powers are being taken away from the chief firearms officer, who currently reports to the Quebec government.

In the last Parliament, an amendment to the bill was put forward requiring that the bill be referred back to committee for detailed consideration of clause 8. Therein lies the crux of our opposition. Clause 8 sets out how the bill will be applied, and its flaws are too big to be ignored.

One of our main objections to Bill C-15B is the disgraceful lack of explicit defences—I stress the word explicit—for legitimate activities relating to animal husbandry.

We want to stress that the clause in Bill C-15B concerning firearms would benefit from a thorough review as well. As far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, that part of the bill is actually a camouflaged decrease of the powers of the chief firearms officer, who currently reports to the Quebec government.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the creation of a new section in the Criminal Code, which would institute an innovative concept, the object of which would be to completely change the concept of what an animal is. This way, an animal would no longer be considered as property, but rather as an entity specifically mentioned in the Criminal Code.

However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to any change to the Criminal Code that would have a significant negative impact on all those who are involved in a totally legitimate way in animal husbandry, hunting or scientific and medical research.

Such an amendment is very important, because the application of the Criminal Code will be forever altered. It goes without saying that such a change in perception must not be detrimental to what is already in place. And this what we fear will happen if Bill C-15B is reintroduced without a thorough and in-depth analysis. All this because of the current wording of the bill. It is obvious that we will no longer look at animals in the same way as before and that we will no longer treat them like before.

We support the amendment to the extent that it will have the effect of revisiting Bill C-15B and amending it thoroughly when it is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, while seriously taking into account all aspects of the proposed changes.

So, the proposed changes must not have the effect of radically and forever changing the lives of those who have been involved for many years in animal husbandry or scientific research, among other activities.

We are asking the government to recognize that an in-depth review of clause 8 of the bill is essential in terms of its form, but particularly its substance. We are asking for the explicit addition, in the new part V.1 of the Criminal Code, of the defences provided under section 429 of the Criminal Code.

Section 429 includes the defences called “colour of right” or legal justification or excuse. These defences are specifically mentioned in that section, but they are not included in the new part V.1.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the urgency of the tragic situation that keeps recurring daily. In proposing this amendment, parliamentarians are asking for an in-depth review of the bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that it is essential to closely review clause 8 of the bill, because that provision is considered to be the cornerstone of the criteria for protecting legitimate activities involving animals, including animal husbandry, hunting and scientific and medical research.

Bill C-15B caused quite a controversy from the outset. We all received correspondence from constituents asking us to support the bill. I had the opportunity to present the Bloc Quebecois' position and people said they supported it. Basically, the Bloc Quebecois believes that animals must be protected, while acknowledging the legitimate activities related to the animal industry.

We repeat that we stand for increased protection for animals. However, we also support specific protections for those who work in the animal industry. Under its present form, Bill C-15B displays a flagrant lack of respect, when it comes to the legitimate practises of the animal industry as a whole.

We cannot support the bill with its current wording, because of this unacceptable and unfortunate flaw. For this reason, we believe it is preferable to review and amend Bill C-15B.

We base this on the fact that there are currently explicit means of defence for activities related to the animal industry. These means are found in section 429 of the Criminal Code.

Section 429 of the Criminal Code protects those who raise livestock, hunters, the animal industry and researchers. Our problem with it is that these protections are not included in the new part V.1 of the Criminal Code.

The primary purpose of this bill should have been to increase penalties for any reprehensible and violent activity involving animals. In the case of a cruel offence, the penalty should be serious enough for those who committed it, and serious enough to deter anyone contemplating such vile behaviour. But this is not the case with Bill C-15B, because it lumps all violent actions together, whether or not cruelty is involved.

Officials from the Department of Justice told us in committee that the government's intent was not to deprive those who take part in legitimate breeding, hunting or research activities of the protection to which they are entitled. How can this be the case when the current protection that is specifically laid out in section 429 of the Criminal Code is not included in clause 8 of the bill?

We have some serious questions about what the officials from the Department of Justice have to say. Their information is so ambiguous as to end up being contradictory, which is the main reason for our disagreement.

It is all very well to tell us that the legal experts have covered all the bases, but we have serious doubts about that. If indeed everything were covered, why not include the protection currently given to legitimate activities in the new bill? In other words, why refuse to include explicitly the rights set out in section 429 of the Criminal Code in the new section V.1 of the code? No one can give any coherent answer to this, not even in committee, because the very structure of the bill is totally at odds with the government's intention to protect legitimate activities.

This makes no sense. Once again, I ask why the specific and explicit defences set out in Criminal Code section 429 are not being repeated here? Once again, it is important to state that these are not reproduced in the new part V.1 of the Criminal Code, not even implicitly, regardless of what the justice department may think.

Section 429 applies only to sections 430 through 446 of the Criminal Code. The government claims we can quite simply apply the general defences of section 8 of the Criminal Code, in other words common law defences. If this were the case, why would the legislator have specified, “legal justification, excuse or colour of right” in subsection 429? Why would the legislator have specifically and explicitly set these defences out in section 429 if common law defences were implicit for such offences? Let us get serious here. The Minister of Justice tells us he considers that section 8 of the criminal code, that is common law defences, could apply to all legal, legitimate activities involving animals. Why then is he refusing to include them explicitly, if they are already there in section 429?

Why not include what has been there for a very long time? One of the first principles one learns in law is that the legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. Everyone in the legal profession knows that. If the legislator has made provision to apply section 429 to certain sections, that means it does not apply to the entire Criminal Code. Thus, if the legislator has deliberately specified that these protections will apply only to certain specific sections, and not to the code as whole, it is because that is what was intended.

The Bloc Quebecois moved amendments to correct this situation, but they were all rejected in committee during the last session. What an unfortunate thing.

The Bloc Quebecois repeatedly tried to reconcile stakeholders' demands, but a majority of committee members rejected the idea. I should point out that this was rejected by the majority only when the time came to vote.

When stakeholders from the animal industry appeared before the committee, those who support protection for animals against cruelty showed respect. All the stakeholders from the animal industry want protection against cruelty to animals. However, they want to keep their defence rights, which are truly specific and which were included in section 429.

Again, these rights are the colour of right, the legal excuse and the legal justification. These rights are explicitly provided under that section. Why not take them and include them in the new part V.1? This is where we have a problem. This is why not just the Bloc Quebecois but the whole animal industry fears that frivolous suits could be launched, even in the case of sporting activities.

I can think of activities such as hunting with hounds and the roue du roi. The hunting season is on, right now. These are activities in which hunters have engaged for a long time. However, there will no longer be any specific defences, if this bill is passed. We will have to rely on implicit defences that are based strictly on common law defences.

Therefore, let us be serious. If the government really means it when it says that the purpose of Bill C-15B is to not adversely affect the animal industry, then it must review clause 8 again and take into account the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice.

The Minister of Justice must realize this, because during the last session, I asked him questions on this issue and he was never able to explain why he did not want to include explicit defences. He would only say, “We rely on the implicit nature of clause 8 for common law defences”. But I will explain something truly ridiculous that happened during the meetings of that committee.

Amendment No. 1 was adopted and it was even proposed by the government, following my representations. Clause 8, dealing with common law defences, was explicitly included. The government felt that it would appropriate to explicitly include clause 8, which deals with general means of defence for the entire Criminal Code. This is done explicitly for clause 8 of the Criminal Code, but not for the means of defence provided in section 429. We definitely have doubts about how serious the government is and about the motives behind Bill C-15B.

This is why, unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice by to vote against this bill, whose ultimate purpose should be to protect animals against cruelty, not to adversely affect the animal industry. We tabled amendments to correct this situation, but they were all rejected in committee.

As we have been saying since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois supports the creation of a new part in the Criminal Code to include a new definition of what an animal is. The idea is to give animals a new definition and new legal protection.

However, it is unacceptable that this should be done without respecting the defences that are currently available to the whole animal industry. The decision not to include the existing defences is very worrisome, particularly for that industry.

It is important to point out that we currently have the necessary tools such that offenders could be punished, while breeders, hunters and researchers could be protected. But this is obviously not a priority for the government.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois should be accepted. I agree with the amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance to the effect that Bill C-15B should not be reinstated at the stage at which it was during the last session. This bill must be reviewed. We must take a serious look at all its implications for the animal industry.

I am not saying that we should not add new clauses or that we should not protect animals against cruelty. The Bloc Quebecois wants to preserve the provisions dealing with animal cruelty, but this must not be done at the expense of the whole animal industry.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the amendment, because it would send a clear message to the government that it is imperative to review the contents of Bill C-15B. We are of the view that not including the defences found in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code in the new part V.1 will have the effect of depriving those who legally kill or cause pain to animals of the protection they are currently afforded.

Section 429 of the Criminal Code is clear. It says that legal justification or excuse and colour of right constitute specific protection for whoever takes part in a legitimate and legal activity. It is therefore essential to include these specific safeguards in the provisions of new part V.1 of the Criminal Code.

According to the evidence given by Department of Justice officials in committee, subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code should apply.

They said that defences of legal justification or excuse or colour of right are implicit in section 8. Why not include them explicitly in the bill as the entire animal industry is requesting?

These protections are not implicit, because they must be made explicit. We insist on this request. The means of defence currently laid out in section 429 of the Criminal Code must be specified in the new part V.1.

So, if I may conclude--