Robert Lanctôt

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are very important NGOs that can take the money and distribute it properly.

The hon. member says that we are asking Canada to provide large sums of money and that other options must be available, but let us not forget that Canada made a commitment. It signed a document stating that it would comply with the objective of 0.7% of the GDP. Canada made a commitment to do so.

Now, out of the 22 donating countries, Canada ranks 17th. In 1995, it ranked fifth. This means that this Liberal government has reduced funding essential to developing countries.

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear such comments but, as I said earlier, we need more than words on the part of the government, we need action.

Allow me to read the text of the motion once again so members can understand that humanitarian aid is not frivolous but is necessary and vital:

That this House calls upon the Parliament to review its international aid policy with a view to substantially increasing the funds available to Canadian humanitarian aid, particularly in the context of the military interventions in Afghanistan, and to increasing the level of its aid for development to 0.7 % of GDP, as recommenced by the United Nations.

I also wish to quote paragraph 1 of the Vienna declaration and program of action on the occasion of the World Conference on Human Rights of 1993:

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their promotion and protection are the first responsibility of Governments.

It has been several years since the protection and promotion of fundamental needs of human beings were reaffirmed as the responsibility of governments but unfortunately the government has done very little in this regard. This is unacceptable.

The idea of allocating 0.7% of GDP to international aid was first raised in 1969. However, this principle was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations only in 1990. At that time, Canada voted in favour of this principle. Since then, our country's contribution, far from reaching this objective, has been reduced, from 0.48% in 1990 to 0.25% today. This is totally unacceptable. It is therefore easy to conclude that there is a wide gap between the government's intentions and its actions.

This is all the more shocking when we remember that the Prime Minister himself said in this House, on April 30, 2001, that our aid to developing countries would continue to rise. What actually did happen? The opposite, as we have just seen.

The Prime Minister also said that Canada as a country is among the best positioned to make rich countries aware of the needs of poorer countries. When will Canada itself become more aware?

There is a real concern in the country about the situation of refugees. The situation of the Afghan refugees is really tragic and something has to be done immediately. Military support is not enough in the current context. We have to ensure that innocent people are not paying for what their government has been doing, particularly because of the events that unite us in this fight against terrorism. This is in essence what Kofi Annan said in his September 27 press conference at the UN headquarters.

The United Nations takes the issue very seriously and we should do the same. We have a responsibility to help the UN, as we promised to do more than 10 years ago. We have to keep our engagement to offer humanitarian aid of 0.7% of GDP. What more evidence do we need?

The United Nations should lead the diplomatic, political and, above all, humanitarian actions since it is in a better position to evaluate the consequences of this crisis and not only the military actions.

And what is this crisis all about? There is a continuous influx of Afghan refugees in the neighbouring countries, in the wake of the military strikes. Over 2,000 Afghan refugees gathered at the Iranian border in the last couple of days, for a total of 4,000 refugees in this camp alone. The United Nations high commission for refugees is concerned for their security.

The high commission also fears that the Taliban will recruit within refugee camps. There are also grounds to believe that over 300,000 refugees are massing at the Pakistan border to escape the bombings, adding to the numbers already there.

It is worthy of note that, even before the military strikes, the Afghans were the largest refugee group in the world, surpassing by far those from Iraq, Burundi or Sierra Leone. The Afghan people are therefore in urgent need of our assistance, because the situation is only getting worse.

What are we to do? This is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing. In the absence of any clear federal policy on bilateral development assistance provided directly to foreign governments, it would be appropriate to put in place a specific plan aimed at attaining the objective of 0.7% of GDP, the target set by the UN.

Second, such a bilateral policy would ensure that funds are not misappropriated by regimes in which corruption is systematic.

Third, in the short term, we propose the injection of an additional $3 billion into international humanitarian aid.

Fourth, it is urgent to provide a positive response to the request for monetary aid from United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, for $US 585 million to deal with the Afghan crisis. It is unacceptable that Canada has so far contributed only $16 million for all humanitarian organizations. Let us keep in mind that this is the $16 million that had already been announced, not an additional $16 million. It is still the same amount. This is totally unacceptable.

Fifth, in the long term, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the root causes of the scourge of terrorism must be eliminated: poverty, despair and war. These are the real issues behind any conflict that leaves countless innocent victims in its wake.

Sixth, we must review our military objectives because destroying the organization of Osama bin Laden will merely eliminate the threat it represents. It will not eliminate terrorism, which will exist for as long as abject poverty continues to exist.

Seventh, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the federal government must review its foreign policy, which emphasizes the commercial aspect of international relations. One must realize that human rights also need to be taken into consideration.

The Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government attain the 0.7% of GDP objective, as recommended by the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and the North-South Institute. These are all organizations which can see the results of this crisis and bear witness to it.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, governments are mainly responsible for protecting the rights and freedoms of any human being. Canada, which boasts about being a rich and privileged country always willing to help poorer countries, has a duty and an obligation to take concrete financial measures in this regard.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes concrete and feasible solutions. Now it is up to the federal government to take action to honour the commitment it made 10 years ago to Quebecers, to Canadians and above all to Afghan refugees.

Not long ago, during the debate on Bill C-36, I said that I hoped the funds allocated for the fight against terrorism would not be used only for sanctions but also to fight poverty, which would help solve the terrorism problem.

Today we have an opportunity to pursue this discussion and to see to it that our words are supported by concrete actions. Bombs are not enough to curb terrorism. We also need to provide support to the innocent population and to take concrete steps within the country.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes short and long term solutions. Let us not kid ourselves, terrorism will continue to have a hold on disadvantaged nations as long as the root causes of this scourge exist and these nations remain without a voice to express their feeling of helplessness.

It is incumbent upon us to give them the tools they need to advance toward democracy, and that is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing.

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I participated in this meeting with Olympic Aid. I do not think the problem is finding out which agency or NGO could manage this money.

The problem is we have a lack of involvement, not a lack of rhetoric. All members of parliament and all those who go abroad proclaim their commitment to helping the poor and the developing countries. We should go beyond words and take action.

Olympic Aid is a group that has been in existence for a number of years. It is not a new thing. How much, exactly, did Canada contribute to this organization?

[Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since 1861, the Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille has helped blind youth. The first French language establishment of its kind in North America, today the Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille has the greatest concentration of specialized resources for the visually impaired and the blind in Quebec.

There is a great need for this kind of organization. I have a three year old child whose vision was just reassessed from low vision to blind. My family therefore needs the services of such an organization. The Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille is celebrating its 140th anniversary this year.

This organization has helped others for 140 years with rehabilitation services and other state of the art services, and now it is our turn to help it with our support. We must, like the institute, react with respect, courtesy and fairness toward our visually impaired and blind brothers, sisters, parents and children.

The Bloc Quebecois commends the Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille for its remarkable work.

[2006 Gay Games, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we were proud to learn that Montreal will be hosting the seventh Gay Games in 2006. This major international event will afford Quebec the opportunity to show off its skill in organizing a major event.

More than 24,000 participants will congregate in Montreal for this event. The Montreal region will be hosting not only the athletes but over 200,000 visitors from all over the world, with an economic and tourism impact of some $150 million.

Its selection is the result of the social, economic and sporting contribution of the gay community of Montreal and Quebec. With its highly professional presentation, the organizing committee was able to win out over all competitors' bids for the games.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the Montreal organizing committee on its exceptional submission.

Bravo and good luck to everyone.

[Highway Infrastructure, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, there was a promise that two bridges would be constructed, along with a 14 kilometre section of Highway 30. This promise has since become a mere commitment to do the work, and then a call for expressions of interest.

Could the Minister of Transport tell us what stage the request for information process has reached, and what the deadline is for completing the 14 kilometre section of Highway 30 and the two bridges? It is becoming a matter of urgency for the Montreal and Montérégie regions.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in my statement this afternoon I mentioned that we are campaigning for life without violence. This evening I am obliged to speak of the violence that does exist.

It is a bit of a paradox that we are obliged to speak of such violent things once again, and it will certainly not be the last time we will have to talk about the min the House. We speak of them not only in this House, because I am sure people who watched us yesterday and are watching us today and will watch us tomorrow will continue to speak of the events of September 11. It is part of our day to day reality and we have no choice but to speak of it.

What really bothers me is that I was born in a free country and want it to remain free. I would also like Quebec to be a free country.

Why do I speak of that? Because it annoys me that we have to pass such laws, bills that are vital but affect the balance between security and freedom. I would never have thought that we would have to speak more of security than of freedom.

I have children and I hope they will live in a free country. For us to be in a free country, our freedom must not be curtailed, and this is what concerns me. Our fundamental guarantees must remain untouched also.

We talk of the constitution. This is a major issue. We could simply talk of freedom, but we must look at the source of our freedom and what makes us a democracy, which must be properly enshrined so that we can live in a free country, on a free planet. This is something we should be able to take for granted. We saw what happened on September 11. We had no choice.

Either people are poor or they live in an undemocratic system. They have no freedom and in their lives they have a problem: they are forced to live in abject poverty. That is the word, poverty.

Poverty is why we are talking about antiterrorism legislation today. This is a pity. I hope the money spent on it will not just go to sanctions but will also reduce poverty and suffering so that we can solve the problem of terrorism.

I hope this will be discussed. There is a lot of talk about sanctions and how to stop terrorists, but is there another way to deal with this problem? Maybe this should be looked at also.

There were four objectives in the government's anti-terrorist plan when work was begun on drafting this legislation: to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians and Quebecers against terrorist acts; to provide tools for the identification, prosecution, conviction and punishment of terrorists; to ensure that the border between Canada and the United States is not taken hostage by terrorists, which would have serious repercussions on our economy, both in Canada and Quebec; and to co-operate with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and to deal with the root causes of the hatred that motivates them. Those were the four objectives.

Something will have to be done about this bill and I hope that the government will have its ears wide open, both here and in committee, that it will not go too fast and that it will listen to experts. We can hear from people who not only are experts in international law but who know a lot about terrorism.

I want the definition of terrorism to be much more precise and not as broad as what we find in the bill now.

That definition does not include a definition of a terrorist. Of course we are told that we cannot get an international consensus on what terrorism is.

The problem is that the bill only refers to terrorist activities without defining terrorism. It goes without saying that it will be difficult to do that, but we should not hurry, because what are terrorist activities?

In the bill, the definition of terrorist activity is twofold. Clause 83.01(1) reads as follows:

an act or omission committed or threatened in or outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:—

Then there is a list of ten conventions that were signed and ratified by Canada. There are also two that remain to be ratified and implemented in Canada.

Clause 83.01(1) states the following:

an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed in whole or in part—

The most important part in that clause is the expression “in whole or in part”.

The expression “in whole or in part” opens up a lot of possibilities. It is not restrictive. It leaves the door open to anything that will follow. It gives an idea of what the legislator wants to do. The legislator is the House of Commons. This expression is broad and is followed by this:

(A)...for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,

(B) ...with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada—

I skip 83.01(1) (b) (ii)(A), (B), (C) and (D) to go to the following:

(E) to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that does not involve an activity that is intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C).

It is very broad. This paragraph says in part that the organizations seem to be made up of unions or supporters. We have seen what happened at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Police officers did a good job. Some of the protesters were there but were not provoking anything. However, things happened that could even be classified as terrorist acts.

We cannot leave such a broad definition of terrorist activity in this legislation. I believe a definition of terrorism should be included, or the concept should at least be explained.

At the European Commission meeting held in September, a proposal was made to the council. Terrorist acts are said to generally affect the physical and psychological integrity of a person or group of persons, their property or their freedom, just as common law offences do. Terrorist offences go much further than that, because they undermine the political, economical and social structures of countries through violence. It is a very severe form of crime.

Moreover, we find the following proposal in a definition of a terrorist offence.

Terrorist offence deliberately committed by a person or group of persons against one or several countries, their institutions, their population, with the intention to intimidate them and to destroy or severely compromise the political, economic or social structures of those countries, in particular murder, bodily harm, kidnapping or hostage taking, blackmail, theft or robbery, unlawful seizure of governmental or state facilities—

I will spare you the rest of the list.

All that is to say that this proposal will be ratified on December 6 or 7 by the Council of the European Union.

Of course, ten minutes go by very fast and that is unfortunate. However, the bottom line is that the concepts of terrorism and terrorist activity really need to be specified.

[Violence Free Week, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic events of September 11, we can still imagine a life without violence. During violence free week, held between October 14 and 20, let us encourage children, adolescents and adults to imagine a world without violence.

To this end, we must focus all our energies and our institutions. Parliamentarians, schools, community organizations and parents must join forces to create safe, violence free living, working and recreational spaces.

I would like to draw attention to the part of the campaign directed at children. Despite the current situation, we must show children that life is possible without violence.

Violence is neither normal nor justifiable. Our children must never accept violence in their life. Let us take time together to give them the greatest gift possible: a life free of violence.

[Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the fight against terrorism involves concerted action on the part of all countries to freeze the assets of terrorists and block the sources of funds for their activities.

Does the Minister of Finance not find it a bit of a paradox that the Canadian government is involved in the fight against terrorism and is also refusing to denounce its agreement with Barbados, a renowned tax haven, facilitating the financial activities of international terrorists through Canada?

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the act to establish a body that provides administrative services to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada.

One of the key principles underlying our legal system is that of the independence of the judiciary. The courts must contemplate this principle, the purpose of which is to reinforce our free and democratic system.

The same principle applies to the courts. They must be able to exercise their mandate of interpreting laws without being subjected to undue political pressure. That is one of the purposes of this bill.

What is judicial independence? To begin with, it must not be confused with judicial impartiality. Impartiality is different from independence in that the impartiality has to do with arriving at decisions which are neutral, without prejudice, based solely on the facts presented at trial. Impartiality means that the trial judge will not hand down a ruling based on subjective impressions, but solely on the facts and the testimony presented in court.

While impartiality is exercised vis-à-vis the defendant, judicial independence is exercised vis-à-vis the executive and legislative arms of the government. Judicial independence is necessary so that pressure from the government does not interfere, or appear to interfere, with court rulings.

Should a reasonable observer be able to conclude that pressure has been brought to bear, that would be enough for there to be the appearance of interference in judicial independence. The same observer could thus conclude that judicial impartiality has been tainted through government pressure, whether or not such is the case. That is why it is important to ensure that the body which provides administrative services to courts under federal jurisdiction leaves the judicial body free of any form of interference.

Many rulings have reached this conclusion. In Tobiass v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Dueck v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the appearance of judicial independence must not be tainted.

In addition, the court held that judicial independence has an institutional aspect and a personal aspect. The supreme court emphasized that the judiciary should not only remain independent in fact, but that it should be seen to remain independent. Once again, the key test is what a reasonable observer would perceive.

This objective test means that any reasonable person must be able to conclude that judges are free to hand down decisions without any possibility of interference from the government or from other judges. That is what is important in this bill and what should be important in all the government's bills: protection against government interference.

In the preface to the Canadian Judicial Council annual report for 1996, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Antonio Lamer wrote that “the quality of their future depends on the existence of a judiciary system based on honesty, impartiality and independence”.

Honesty and impartiality are only possible when there is independence. Independence is the basic element which keeps our judiciary free of vice and interference.

For some years now, the bench has been calling for an administrative body to support the judiciary system, rather than the opposite. For some years now, the judiciary has been stressing that independence is possible only if there is an absolute appearance of impartiality and honesty. There must be a clear separation between the bench and government pressures. An organizational format would have to be put in place to truly separate the administrative and the decision making aspects.

Judicial independence requires the depoliticization of the judiciary and must clearly demonstrate that there can be no pernicious interference by government. Once again, the reasonable person criterion must be applied.

At the international congress of the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals, held in Quebec City this past June, Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé confirmed the need for judicial independence and emancipation of the courts from political power. This is evidence that this bill is more than essential.

Justice L'Heureux-Dubé made it clear that there must be an increased perception of independence, and each judge must be protected from undue pressures. These are fundamental principles that must be not just respecte, but also reinforced by the creation of an independent administrative structure.

This principle is international. At the same congress, an American, Judge Edwin L. Felter Jr., President of the National Conference of Administrative Law Judges, said:

Judiciary independence is not for the good of the judges, but for the good of the public, who expect judges to be fair and impartial, and to reach their decisions without constraint.

We confer a power of interpretation upon our judges. We must respect that power and therefore must provide them with the necessary tools to achieve those objectives. I repeat, there must be no interference of any kind in this decision making process which must be based on the facts.

The only obligation judges have toward government is to carry out their duties in a highly professional manner in keeping with their mandate.

For a judge to act in a highly professional manner, he must not be distracted from his mandate, which is to interpret the law according to the facts with which he is presented. To that end, the judiciary must also be freed up from any administrative and budgetary tasks. Any financial control over the judiciary might lend the appearance that there was interference.

As I stated earlier, we have given judges the power to interpret, and it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to provide them with the tools required to carry out this difficult task. An administrative body must therefore free judges from any restrictions and provide them with both the functional and institutional freedom needed to accomplish what they are appointed to do: hand down enlightened rulings without any interference.

One of the objectives of this bill is to enhance accountability for the use of public moneys. Once again, the notion of transparency is essential to the public's perception of our judicial system.

The criterion of accountability assures us that judges will appear more independent. The fact that it is the chief administrator who will be held accountable distances the judges from any apparent source of influence.

In short, the implementation of elements that strengthen the fundamental principles of judicial independence is seen as desirable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the courts and the entire judicial system.

Anything that helps ensure judges' freedom in ruling is desirable and necessary. Anything which helps eliminate interference or the appearance of interference is not only desirable, but essential and paramount. The government has no right to interfere here or elsewhere.

We must provide the judicial system with the necessary tools to ensure the fair and democratic protection of our rights.

All I can add at this point is that the only problem there may be with this bill is with the appointment of the chief administrator. I believe that it would be better if it were an elected position and the criteria could be established by parliament.