Pauline Picard

[Tobacco Legislation, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

We know that the Liberal caucus is divided regarding certain aspects of the tobacco legislation.

Given that the Minister of Health does not share the view of his colleague, the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, does he still intend to maintain in his bill the tough restrictions on sponsoring by tobacco companies?

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Quebecois amendment to Bill C-70. I find it sad to have to propose an amendment to Bill C-70 to have books exempted. Taxing books is like taxing knowledge, taxing education, taxing skills.

Why is the Liberal government still taxing culture? Culture is the foundation of what we are, it is our identity, it is our roots. Culture is the Quebec culture, and it is also the Canadian culture.

In Quebec, since the introduction of the QST, all books have been exempted from the provincial sales tax, not just books acquired by literacy institutions or public libraries, but all books.

We also know the reason for maintaining the tax on books. For the information of our viewers, it is that the tax on books accounts for the greatest part of revenues generated by the GST. The government does not give a hoot about preserving our fundamental rights. The government thumbs its nose at both the Quebec culture and the Canadian culture. Its favours a system made for the rich. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, feel that it is unfair and unjust.

Our authors, the advocates of our languages and our cultures, have been critical of the fact that all cultural products are taxable. The government must promote cultural products and encourage our authors by abolishing GST on books.

I also want to speak of a political handout. In my view, Bill C-70 is a political handout. It is not a gift to Quebecers. It is something the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance gave to the maritimes. It is something worth $1 billion.

As we know, this government never gives handouts without a reason. One can rightly conclude that there is a reason behind the handout, in fact I think there are two reasons. The first one is that the Prime Minister is trying to be forgiven for having broken his famous promise to abolish the GST. Whatever the cost, the Liberals wanted an agreement with the maritimes on GST harmonization, but whatever they may say to justify their actions, we are not fooled. They say they never promised to abolish GST, but everybody heard what they said. We will not be fooled.

During the 1993 election campaign, the main thing Liberal candidates said when presenting their platform, the first thing they said, was that the GST had to go. Everybody, across Quebec and Canada, heard what they said. Now, they boldly claim they never said that; Quebecers and Canadians were mistaken, they cannot have heard such a thing since it was not written in the red book. There is something wrong here. It is an abomination. We look like ignoramuses. We have been tricked, and it is our own fault because we did not hear right. We are not that stupid. I wonder how they dare justify breaking their promise by saying that we are the ones who misunderstood.

They made a big fuss about an agreement with three maritime provinces, saying: "Look, this shows we are keeping our promises". In fact, they did nothing of the sort, the GST is still here, even though it was supposed to be killed, scrapped, abolished.

The other reason why they are giving the maritimes such a handout is the unemployment insurance reform. As we know, it has not been well received in that area. To shore up its image, the government has decided to give them a $1 billion present by harmonizing the GST. This will placate critics of the new unemployment insurance program. The Prime Minister is handing out goodies to repair his government's tarnished record, just before calling an election, as we have witnessed lately. We know elections are not far away. The government is clearly on the campaign trail:

across Quebec, even in my own riding, it is handing out presents. Before, it had no money, but suddenly there is money. "So, if you need any for your programs, let us know, we can help".

At the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec they have money. They visit the ridings and give little goodies to the agencies. Since there is an election coming, the goodie is harmonization of the GST so that people will forget about the unemployment insurance reform.

However there is something special about that gift from the federal government. Unlike what normally happens, this time the federal government will not bear the cost of this pre-election handout. It will palm it off to Quebec and the other provinces.

In Quebec alone, the people will have to spend about $250 million to cover the cost of the federal handout to the maritimes. On the whole, that gift will cost Quebec and the other provinces one billion dollars. Needless to say, given the restructuring process going on, this sum could easily have served a better purpose.

Everybody knows that the Prime Minister had promised to slash the GST. We can even say the Liberals criticized that tax long before the last election campaign.

Let me quote the minority report on the GST presented by the Liberals in November 1989, when they were still in opposition: "The Liberal members of the finance committee maintain that the goods and services tax proposed by the Tory government is bad and that no "repair job" of any kind will make it fair for taxpayers". You can find that quote on page 283 of the report.

In closing, I would like to say that Bill C-70 itself is some sort of "repair job".

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec, the status of women critic, for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-46.

In fact, the purpose of Bill C-46 is to regulate the production of records of victims of sexual assault. This bill became necessary as a result of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1995, in the O'Connor case. This was a case of sexual assault in which a man accused of sexual assault against four young girls demanded access to the school, medical and psychological records of the complainants. In a decision that was by no means unanimous, the Supreme Court declared that in certain cases, the accused should have access to the records of complainants.

We should put this debate into the context that existed at the time. For several years, victims of sexual assault had been protected by new provisions of the Criminal Code which provided that an accused person may not attack the reputation of his victim, especially the victim's sexual reputation.

You will recall that these provisions were adopted following decades of abuse of victims by the accused. The latter could, and certainly took every opportunity, to try to tarnish the credibility of their victims by publicising the sexual past of the latter. Thus the myth was maintained that a woman who was no longer a virgin deserved to be raped. Fortunately, this is now a thing of the past, thanks to a change in attitude that was long overdue.

Women gradually won their right to equality, including the right to sexual freedom. The battle has been long and hard, but we cannot take the results for granted, especially when certain judges start to air their real feelings towards women.

Women had won a certain measure of legal protection. This protection is important because it encourages women who are victims of sexual assault to lay charges. It also encourages them to persevere, once the initial charges have been laid. Legal protection also gives victims a chance to minimize, as far as possible, the impact the assault has had on them by encouraging them to seek assistance that is available in the community and from professionals.

The framework of legal protection is essential in the battle against violence towards women. That is why it is so important to have legislation that ensures the accused is entitled to a full and complete defence but also protects the victim's access to the courts.

Such access confirms men's and women's entitlement to equality. How could we talk about equality between the sexes when men could sexually assault women almost without impunity, because the women would not report the assaults for fear of having their private life made public?

If we want a society where men and women are equal we must use every means at our disposal to ensure that men and women are equally entitled to integrity and security. The best guarantee of these rights remains, despite its failings, the legal system.

On the subject of the protection of rights, I will look at the first issue of concern, that of the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.

In its preamble, the bill talks of the accused's right to a full defence and the victim's right to privacy and equality. The preamble also talks of striking a balance between these rights as far as possible.

The arguments of the parties opposing this bill rest on these words, the concept of balance. On the one hand, counsel for the defence want greater access to the victims' file, basing their request on the absolute right of the accused to a full defence. The idea behind that is that it is better to free 1,000 guilty individuals than to unfairly sentence one single innocent one.

On the other hand, according to those speaking on behalf of the traditional victims of sexual assault, i.e. women, hardly any lawsuits are instigated on the basis of false accusations of sexual assault and the right of women to privacy and to not be assaulted demands that access to records be strictly forbidden.

Where is the middle ground between these two extreme positions? How can a balance be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims? At present, it would appear that the rights of the accused are better protected. Let me explain. As we all know, the right of the accused to a full defence has been entrenched in the Constitution since 1982.

But this right was already afforded enough protection by the courts before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed. As I said earlier, it is already part of our judicial standard to protect the innocent against wrongful conviction at any cost. Indeed, especially since passage of the charter, the courts have developed a whole slew of rules and criteria to protect even better this right to a full defence.

A whole series of rulings have been made on this provision of the charter and there will likely be more still. But much less known is the right to privacy and the right to personal safety, which have not yet made it into our judicial and folk culture. Because fewer judicial decisions having a strong impact have been made on the

subject, it is wrongly viewed as less important, when in fact, both are mentioned in the charter and nowhere does it say that this right is less important.

Why is this? I think this is, unfortunately, a reflection of the lesser prominence traditionally given to women's rights. As Toronto Star journalist Michelle Landsberg has pointed out, have we ever heard of a police officer testifying at a trial and being required to disclose his medical records or sexual life in order to establish his credibility as a witness?

Why have women traditionally been subjected to such humiliation, if not because they were not given the same credibility? Yet, as this journalist noted, there is no such invasion of the victims' privacy in other criminal cases. Whenever women and sexuality are involved, our society always feels the need to impose constraints on women. Yet, their right to privacy is protected under the charter.

Now that I have raised this issue, I want to deal specifically with the justice minister's bill. The minister wants to strike a balance, but he does not provide any guidelines, any specifics as to how to achieve such a balance.

Again, at this point I am merely raising concerns. However, I wonder if, in light of the current tendency to give priority to the right to a full and complete defence, judges who will have to deal with an application for the production of records might not be involuntarily influenced, thus denying the right of the victim to privacy. We will have to take a careful look at this issue if we want to make sure that, some day, women and men are treated equally.

Another issue which raises concerns, in my opinion, is the scope of disclosure. The bill provides that the records of the plaintiff or of a witness can be the object of an application. What does this mean?

If, for example, the victim's child must testify, will the accused have access to the child's medical and therapeutic records, or to his diary? Similarly, if, as provided under the definition of "record", the content of a diary or personal journal can be produced, will the fact that a third party is mentioned as having been a sexual partner result in that person having to be involved in the process in order to protect his right to privacy?

I believe the current wording might lead to abuse and we will have to take an in-depth look at the possible impact of this legislation on third parties who are absolutely not involved in the proceedings.

Finally, I want to mention a very real concern of women's groups, namely the issue of costs. It is now clear that the O'Connor decision had a real impact on the practices of certain stakeholders. This impact varies from one organization to another, depending on their philosophy and financial resources.

In speaking with support groups for victims of sexual assault, I learned that some have simply decided not to keep files. These groups still provide assistance to victims, but no longer keep files, so that they will not have to divulge them to an accused.

The consequences of this decision are fairly major, since it is through keeping files that continuity in the assistance provided can usually be ensured, in addition to allowing the versatility that leads to better results. The consequence of this is that victims are penalized.

Other organizations, however, have decided to continue keeping files, and must therefore incur legal expenses to intervene when they receive requests to turn these files over.

We are all very aware of the cuts in funding to aid groups. I have talked about it on several occasions, as have many of my colleagues. In this era of cutbacks, how can victim assistance organizations allow themselves to spend their meagre resources on lawyers' fees? These are heartbreaking decisions to have to make. Should more women be helped, or should those already in the system be protected?

There is something wrong with a system that forces organizations that request and receive funding for victim assistance to use part of this funding, which is still inadequate, to defend victims' right to privacy.

It seems to me that the government should recognize its responsibility in this situation and include measures in the bill that will ensure that the costs of those holding files and of witnesses will be paid when they are defending the right to privacy.

In conclusion, I repeat my support in principle of Bill C-46, but on condition that the House be allowed to conduct an in-depth study of the elements that raise questions so that victims are finally granted equal rights.

I would also like to take this opportunity, at second reading, to urge the government to act in good faith and to agree to the proposals the Bloc Quebecois will be making to improve this bill.

It seems to me that, one day, we will have to stop playing petty politics when considering bills that have an impact on the most vital aspect of human beings, their integrity.

[National Forum On Health, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

This morning, the national forum on health presented its report to the federal government. The report contains no criticism of the federal government and contributes nothing to improving health care.

Does the minister understand that the national forum is just so much verbiage and that the real problems in health care are the cuts this government has made to transfer payments to the province?

[Tainted Blood, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, even today, nothing prevents similar incidents from occurring. Nothing prevents other officials from concealing or destroying documents to avoid disclosure.

Will the Prime Minister promise to amend the Access to Information Act so as to prevent any recurrences?

[Tainted Blood, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

This Liberal government was elected on a platform of transparency and good government. Nearly three and a half years after they came to the power, their record is a disgrace. Not long ago, the information commissioner severely criticized Health Canada officials who destroyed documents vital to the inquiry into the tainted blood scandal. This is outrageous.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the apologies of the Minister of Health are not enough? Does he realize that taxpayers do not want empty excuses but assurances that never again will an official be able to conceal or destroy government documents with impunity?

[Krever Commission, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us why his lawyers say Judge Krever should concentrate on developing a new blood supply system, when no one in this government waited for Judge Krever's recommendations to start negotiations with a number of provinces on setting up a new blood authority?

[Krever Commission, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

In a report the government submitted to the Krever Commission last Friday, Judge Krever's approach was qualified as repugnant and without foundation. He was also accused of looking for scapegoats to explain what happened, instead of focusing on making the blood system safer. However, the Krever commission was given a mandate to investigate the events and the shortcomings in the system which led to thousands of Canadians being infected.

Does the Prime Minister endorse the statements in the report submitted by his government to the effect that Judge Krever's attitude is repugnant and that the government is in no way to blame for the tainted blood scandal?

[Drummondville Personalities Of The Year, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the highly coveted personality of the year title granted by the Drummond chamber of commerce at the 14th business gala was awarded to two young people from Drummondville.

Marie-France Bourgeois, the first Quebecer and Canadian to get a degree in international development from Long Island College, is now working in Africa, for the United Nations World Food Program. This young woman of 33 was mandated by the UN to co-ordinate food distribution to 670,000 Hutu refugees in Tanzania. Given the highly troubled political context, she must act with efficiency and diplomacy to alleviate the plight of these people.

I also wish to congratulate Jean Guilbeault, who was also named personality of the year. He is the first Drummondville resident to be a member of the famous Snowbirds, this select team of pilots.

To those two young people who make us proud, I wish a rewarding career and may all their dreams be fulfilled.

[Krever Commission, November 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure whereby the government may shed some light on the contaminated blood scandal, as her colleague the minister of justice clearly stated.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether her government is refusing to act or whether former Prime Ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner are refusing to release the documents sought by Mr. Justice Krever?