Pauline Picard

[Raw Milk Cheese, June 3rd, 1996]

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

During the hearings of the travelling committee set up by the Department of Health to review its rules on raw milk, physicians who happen to be public health experts questioned the risk analysis made by the Department, considering it as incomplete.

How can the Minister justify having gotten involved in this business without having the complete analyses allowing him to do so?

[The Late Carl Gillis, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned of the tragic accident that claimed the life of Carl Gillis. I did not have the pleasure of knowing him personally, but I am told that he was a good man, a generous individual who shared his joie de vivre and was loved by all who knew him.

His untimely death forces us to stop and reflect on safety in sports. To the Minister of Health, his parents, his family, and his friends, the Bloc Quebecois and I extend our most heartfelt condolences.

[Child Find, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for several years now the month of May has been the month of the green ribbon of hope campaign sponsored by Child Find.

It is with sadness that I draw attention to this campaign, but at the same time I am convinced of the need to take action to combat this problem, terrible as it is. Tens of thousands of children go missing every year. Whether they just run away or are abducted by a stranger or a parent, the fact remains that, in all these cases, children are lost, which is unacceptable.

To combat this scourge, Child Find takes positive steps at various levels, such as establishing contact and information networks to help in the actual search for missing children and developing public education and training programs.

This year, the month of May is dedicated to awareness as well as fund raising. I urge everyone to support this organization.

[Referendum On Funding For Abortions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Motion M-91 put forward by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville.

Abortion has long been a matter of concern to the people of Quebec and Canada. It is a very sensitive issue that brings into play profound and very different convictions on individual rights, social responsibility and moral standards. It also raises questions on the place of women in our society. For all these reasons, abortion could easily become a divisive issue.

This, however, does not mean that the issue of abortion must be ignored. Unfortunately, too many governments, lacking the courage or the political will to take their responsibilities in sensitive matters, go for the easy way out and bury their heads in the sand.

At that level, the motion put forward by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville at least has the merit of trying to move the issue forward. The motion reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which would require that a binding, national referendum be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

The idea of asking Canadians to settle the matter is quite democratic and may seem interesting at first sight. It would be nice to see the Liberal government be as democratic toward the men and women of Quebec who want to make Quebec a sovereign country. These people will undoubtedly remind them of this in the next election.

To get back to Motion M-91, one must go beyond mere appearances and wonder whether a referendum is really the best way to settle this matter. After thinking about this and reading the documentation available, I can only conclude that a referendum is not the way to go, for several reasons.

First of all, there is a vast consensus within the public in favour of free choice; that is a well known fact. An Environics poll dated June 29, 1992, indicated that 79 per cent of Canadians agreed that the decision to abort is one that should be made by each woman, in consultation with her doctor. In Quebec, 80 per cent of respondents also agreed with this statement. Considering that, every year, more and more people support freedom of choice, we have every reason to believe that these numbers are at least as high, if not higher, today.

I therefore think that holding a referendum on this issue is unnecessary. It is up to us, as elected members, to act accordingly.

The public is not the only one in favour of free choice. Year after year, decision after decision, the courts reaffirm the legality of abortion. An often used argument concerns the rights of the mother to be. On August 8, 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that no presumed rights of the foetus or the father existed or should take precedence over a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body.

This kind of thinking on the part of the courts is observed worldwide. In the United States, in England or wherever, it is

becoming increasingly obvious that the only arguments against abortion that may hold up are moral in nature.

The motion before us today also raises a totally different issue, concerning jurisdiction over matters of abortion. Under section 92(7) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the establishment, maintenance and managements of health care institutions come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We can never stress this point enough. In addition, the courts have vested in provincial legislatures extensive jurisdiction over public health matters of a merely local or private nature, in accordance with section 92(16).

Regulatory control of all professions, and health care professions in particular, also fall under the provinces' jurisdiction over property and civil rights, in accordance with section 92(13) of the aforementioned act.

For these reasons, which leave no doubt as to the fact that Quebec and the other provinces have jurisdiction over health, the federal court of appeal ruled, in 1983, that the general issue of abortion comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial authorities.

Therefore, we wonder why it should be necessary to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions, as proposed in the motion moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

Let us be clear: health comes under provincial jurisdiction. It is only because it acted in a roundabout way that the federal government managed to get involved in this sector, thanks to its spending power. Of course, eligibility for federal funding depended on certain conditions being met. We all know the story very well.

Upon reading the motion moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, one also wonders about the appropriateness of holding a referendum at the same time as a general election. The themes, the stakes and the whole dynamic surrounding an election are many and varied, and are not necessarily given the same weight.

Imagine for a moment that the motion is passed, that the government enacts a law, and that a referendum is held in Canada and in Quebec on federal funding for abortions. What do we do with the results? How do we interpret them?

For example, if a majority is in favour of federal funding for abortions, which conditions should apply? Who can perform these abortions? Where? When? How? For what reasons can a woman get an abortion? Who ultimately makes the decision? All these questions remain unanswered because the current wording of Motion M-91 only deals with the financial issue.

By contrast, if a majority opposes federal funding, does it mean these people are opposed to abortion? Not necessarily. People may be in favour of abortion, but opposed to its funding.

In conclusion, the motion before us raises more questions than it answers. Given the costs of a referendum, we seriously wonder about the appropriateness of the wording of Motion M-91, not to mention that we would first have to ask the Prime Minister to tell us which percentage, in his opinion, would be required, since he seems to be in the process of redefining democracy.

The issue of abortion is much too important for women and for society in general to be treated as a mere funding issue, particularly through a referendum to be held at the same time as a federal election. For all these reasons, and for other ones, I cannot support Motion M-91.

[Criminal Code, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-205. The purpose of this bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, is to prevent a convicted offender from benefiting from his crime by creating a work, a book or a video for example, describing part or all of the crime. This bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.

According to the popular saying, crime does not pay. Yet, an individual convicted of an offence could now benefit from his crime. I agree, for several reasons, with the hon. member for Scarborough West that it is unacceptable and immoral for anyone to profit from his or her crime.

First of all, profiting from one's crime in this case is no more acceptable than letting a thief keep the money it has stolen or a drug dealer keep the proceeds of his trafficking. Under this new measure, conviction for an indictable offence, that is to say a major crime, will automatically entail the forfeiture of the intellectual proceeds of crime, namely royalties on the story.

Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime is ordered by the courts as a matter of normal practice. This bill merely extends the power to seize in order to prevent a person who has committed a crime to get rich as a result. Not only would the offender be deprived of any profit gained from the creation of a work based on the offence, but so would a member of his family or a person dependent on him. Otherwise, the offender might be tempted to create a work that would benefit the members of his family.

The term "family" should be defined so as to include the father, the mother, the children, the brothers and sisters, the current spouse, and the spouse at the time the offence was committed, even in case of a divorce. However, the term "family" should exclude the victim of the criminal act, even if that person is a member of the family of the offender.

Why should the victim, even if a member of the family, not be allowed to tell what he or she went through and gain from it? Publishing a book can be a legitimate means of expressing oneself and sharing one's experience with the public.

It would be too bad to punish victims, when we are taking all sorts of steps to encourage them to speak out against crime and to testify in the courts. It could be of benefit to everyone to hear what they have been through.

Everyone remembers the Lortie affair, the corporal in the Canadian army who fired a gun within the Quebec National Assembly. His ex-wife has just put out a book about the events surrounding the slaughter committed by her then husband.

The bill before us does not apply to this situation, becauseMrs. Lortie is publishing her book without the participation of her ex-husband. The French text of the bill, for once, is an improvement on the English and reveals clearly the intentions of the member for Scarborough West.

The English text would gain in clarity if the words "from him" were added after "collaboration or cooperation", in order to clearly indicate that the copyright would be confiscated only if the author of the crime either wrote or contributed to the work.

Therefore, family members would be to benefit from the work based on the offence if the author of the crime is not involved in the creation of the work. I therefore support this bill, first of all to prevent the author of a crime or the members of his family from gaining any advantage from it, but also because the proposed measure constitutes a measure of additional protection for the victims. This is an excellent measure for ensuring that victims or witnesses may testify against the author of a crime without losing anonymity.

Why do so many people not speak out? Very often, they fear publicity, fear having their names and what they experienced made public. Without the amendment proposed today, all other sections of the Criminal Code aimed at facilitating the laying of charges and testimony by victims and witnesses during a criminal trial are pointless. If the author of the crime can reveal victims' and witnesses' names, relate in detail what he did to them and how they reacted, do the victims and witnesses have any protection? They have been tricked.

They co-operated with the police, they testified in court. They were led to believe their anonymity was protected by hearings in camera or by a ban on publication. Then, once a conviction has been obtained, the author of the crime writes a book and reveals all. This is how they become victims a second time. We can assume the private life of victims is totally unprotected without this measure.

This bill is in keeping with provisions already made and with others under consideration, all with the aim of encouraging victims of criminal acts to identify their aggressors and helping them testify in court.

The Reform Party introduced a motion in this House on April 29 to have a Canadian declaration of victims' rights proclaimed. We held that it was a provincial matter, but that the federal government could, secondarily, legislate victims' rights under the Criminal Code. The measure proposed today is such an example. We hope it will receive the support of the House.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

They do not like to hear that, do they?

[Figure Skating, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House to recognize the determination and relentless hard work of Josiane Fréchette, from Sainte-Perpétue-de-Drummond.

Josiane is a brilliant figure skater. She won a gold medal in the Canadian championship, Atlantic division, pre-novice level, and she came first in the short program, novice level, in an international invitation competition, the Residential City Cup, which was held in the Netherlands this year.

Having been selected by the Quebec figure skating federation for the fourth year in a row, Josiane will attend a provincial figure skating seminar.

Thank you, Josiane, for giving those around you this example of faith and perseverance. Our hearts are with you.

Quebec has another reason to be proud of its young people.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-12. However, I would have preferred to give my views on a bill that would really address unemployment problems everywhere in Canada and in Quebec. A bill that would have proposed concrete measures to stimulate employment and thus have given back hope to thousands of people who are desperately trying to enter or re-enter the work force.

Let me tell you that I am always a little surprised, since we have been debating this reform for such a long time, to hear colleagues from the other side of the House extol the virtues of this reform, when everybody in Quebec and Canada is protesting daily to condemn the perverse effects of this reform.

So, let me say that I do not understand these members of Parliament who represent the people, the constituents of their riding. These people must also go to their member of Parliament to say: "What the government is doing to us does not make any sense. This reform is creating poverty".

There is no concrete measure for job creation in this unemployment insurance reform. Furthermore, the government is taking billions of dollars, for the sake of being a good government, and after that, in the next budget, it will brag: "We have been a good government, we have reduced the deficit by so much". But it did it by emptying the people's pockets.

Frankly, I would like to warn people when they hear government members say absolutely absurd things, and say that this reform is really the best there is at this time, that they really did a reform. I do not think they did a good reform. They are creating poverty. This reform is unfair, regressive, anti-employment, and it is creating poverty.

I would like to explain to our viewers how this bill will penalize the unemployed and those who are without a job, especially young people and women. The eligibility criteria are tougher. Previously, 12 to 15 fifteen hour weeks were all that was required to qualify, depending on the region. You had to work 15 fifteen hour weeks, or a total of 180 to 300 hours per year. Those who accumulated between 180 and 300 hours of work, depending on the region, qualified for benefits.

Now, between 12 and 20 weeks at 35 hours per week, or a total of 420 to 720 hours per year, will be required. In other words, an individual has to work, depending on the region, between 420 and 700 hours, or more than double the time, to qualify. For newcomers, that is to say those joining the labour market, the number of hours of work required to qualify will increase threefold, which means they will be expected to accumulate 910 hours before

becoming eligible. This is really an unrealistic expectation, given that there are no jobs. None have been created and no steps have been taken in that regard. The government is just hitting the unemployed over the head.

What is ever more appalling about this measure, this reform, is that once again women, because of their precarious condition, and young people will bear the brunt of a bad reform. Why? An impact assessment carried out by the federal government shows that the hardest hit will be individuals whose annual income is under $25,000. That takes the cake. It is a well known fact that women and young people are the ones who earn the least. Women still earn 70 per cent of what their male counterparts make. Once again, women will be the big losers.

Second, we are told that eligibility requirements will be tighter, eligibility being determined on the basis of the total number of hours worked over a given time instead of the number of weeks worked. In addition, contributions will have to be paid starting with the first hour of work. This means that the young student working for a fast food chain, not to name any names, who, as is often the case, was hired to work between six and ten hours per week, will have to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund starting from his first hour of work. While he is forced to contribute to the fund, this student will never get to draw a penny from it during all his years as a student employee.

They will dip into-not to say steal-his premiums in order to reduce the deficit. This money is really being misappropriated. Then they claim that, this year, they doubled the amount of money set aside for students, for youth employment projects, and that they really want to help students. This is a smoke screen because as soon as they start working, they will pay UI premiums without ever qualifying for benefits.

Bill C-12 will greatly reduce the number of people eligible for benefits. Furthermore, as I showed you earlier, even those who do not qualify must contribute to the fund, getting poorer in the process. Another reason why this bill is unacceptable is because it would consider spousal income in determining if someone is entitled to receive the supplement. That takes the cake.

Unemployment benefits will be calculated on the basis of income, when we know that women have always earned less than men. If both spouses lose their jobs, the man will receive benefits because of his higher income, while the woman will be forced, once again, to beg for the money to buy a pair of stockings. This is an unacceptable policy that takes women back 50 years. This bill is highly discriminatory. I cannot understand why the women in this House did not rise against this bill. This is appalling. Once they understand the clause concerning the penalty they will have to pay, all women will rise against this bill.

Finally, the bill seeks to reduce the maximum benefit period, which would inevitably result in a more rapid transition to social

assistance. Only 55 per cent of those who are jobless will be eligible for benefits. Where will the others go? They will go on welfare. This is called dumping the deficit into the provinces' backyards. The provinces will once again have to foot the bill.

And what about maintaining duplication and overlap? This will promote neither an effective employment policy nor employability, including for women.

There is unanimous agreement in Quebec regarding the need for an employment development policy. This bill will have tragic consequences everywhere in Canada and in Quebec, because the Minister of Human Resources Development, with the quiet complicity of the Minister of Finance, has decided that a reform of the unemployment insurance system was in order. We never opposed the idea of a reform, of modernizing the system, of making sure that the moneys are used in the best interests of workers. This is what we advocated.

Since you are indicating that I only have one minute left, I now come to my conclusion. Protests were held everywhere and there will be more, because the victims of this measure realize what the government is doing and they simply cannot accept it.

How could they accept, with an annual income of $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, or even less, that the federal government is targeting these people and ask them to pay for its mismanagement? When people have to make do with the meagre income provided by a system such as the unemployment insurance system, how can they quietly accept the government's decision to reduce benefits, even though there is a surplus in the fund?

This government will have to answer for its actions at the next general election.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, recently, on April 29, 1996, a demonstration was held in my riding to show the dissatisfaction of the public with the unemployment insurance reform.

The demonstrators included people from unions, community groups, teachers' associations and women's groups. These people denounce the unfortunate effects that this reform will have on their daily lives and deplore the fact that the government is not going after those who have the money, the more fortunate members of our society.

The demonstrations, which were held in various locations in Quebec and in Canada, are sending a message to this government, and it has no right to turn a deaf ear to these people who are only claiming their due.

The federal government is not doing its homework. It should not, therefore, be surprised, that the public is not giving it a passing grade.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to give my unconditional support to Bill C-217, tabled by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, whom I want to congratulate. This bill will amend the Criminal Code to provide increased protection to witnesses who were victims of sexual assault, or against whom violence was attempted or threatened.

These witnesses would therefore avoid being cross-examined by the accused, as is currently the case for persons under 14 years of age. This would eliminate a sometimes absurd situation which has gone on for too long.

Recently, an increasing number of people charged with assault have decided to undertake their own defence. Every time an accused decides to do without the services of a lawyer, his victims run the risk of being once again confronted with their aggressor, this time in public.

Moreover, the legal system is also affected by austerity measures. Among others things, eligibility criteria for legal aid are becoming more stringent. This means that an increasing number of people are not eligible for legal aid, since their income is deemed too high. Still, these people do not have enough money to afford a lawyer.

Undertaking one's own defence then becomes an alternative that many will choose, thus increasing the risk of a court confrontation between the aggressor and the victim. It is important to think about the plight of a victim having to testify in court before the person who assaulted her.

Our adversarial system is based primarily on the confrontation of two parties: the state on one side, represented by the crown attorney, and the accused on the other side, usually represented by a lawyer. The victim of a criminal act is not considered to be a third party in the case. However, he or she remains a key witness who can often provide invaluable evidence. Therefore, it is important to ensure his or her protection and to see that his or her testimony is made in the best possible conditions.

This is precisely what Bill C-217 seeks to ensure. It is not a magic formula that will turn the victim's testimony into a fun thing, but it is a simple way of making sure that he or she does not have to go through the absurd ordeal of facing the aggressor again and be forced to answer his questions.

A few years ago, the federal government amended section 486 of the Criminal Code in a fashion similar to the one proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert in her bill, except that it legislated to prohibit the accused who has undertaken his own defence from cross-examining victims under the age of 14. This goes to show that the federal government is aware of the fact that, in some cases, to ensure the protection of the witness who is also a victim, the court may have to impose on the accused that the cross-examination at least be conducted by counsel.

Age is not the only factor that makes a victim vulnerable. In rape or verbal, physical and psychological abuse cases, the victim often ends up in a cruelly and painfully fragile emotional and psychological state. Having to take the stand is already hard enough, and answering questions from their aggressors represents quite an ordeal for victims who often are still in a state of shock.

Beyond the legal aspect, there is also a whole human aspect, which cannot be ignored. Our system certainly recognizes the rights of the accused. The accused has every right to conduct his case without counsel. But many experts maintain that it is suicide to go it alone, the rules and proceedings being far too complex to be readily assimilated by lay persons and used in a trial.

However, for various reasons, some individuals accused of violent and sexual crimes choose to conduct their own defence. The risk remains then that the accused could misuse this right to once again confront and traumatize his victim by asking abusive questions, making the victim relive every instant of this painful experience.

Recently, two cases have clearly illustrated the absurd nature of the situation that prevails at this time. We need only to think of the notorious Agostino Ferreira, who was allowed to cross-examine, for several hours, the two employees from a boutique on rue Saint-Denis in Montreal, whom he had assaulted and raped.

We can barely imagine the state of mind of these two victims, when brought face to face with the same person who had humiliated them in the worst possible way. Imagine what was going through their minds when the person responsible for their rape was asking them questions about the details of this horrible event.

Let us remember the Concordia killings as well. The person responsible, Valery Fabrikant, dismissed his lawyers and cross-examined the witnesses himself, which was truly a verbal torture for them.

In most cases where the accused himself cross-examines the victim, the victim, after having been humiliated by the accused, is forced to relive the whole event, this time in public.

There is a way of sparing the victims this additional torture, without infringing on the rights guaranteed to the accused by law. Restricting the rights of the accused to defend himself in assault cases of a violent or sexual nature, as proposed in the bill of my colleague for Saint-Hubert, would afford the victims additional protection during the trial process.

In conclusion, the system can be as efficient as possible, but one fact remains: the key element in the legal process in cases of assault and sexual abuse is the victim's reporting of the attack and charging the attacker or attackers. If, for one reason or another, the victims do not testify as to what they experienced, any legal system, even the best in the world, will prove totally ineffective.

But, as long as assault victims continue to courageously bring their abusers to justice, and as long as the law makers and legal precedent recognizes their rights, the basic and vital objectives of criminal law-protecting society and setting an example-still have a chance to be met.

These are the reasons why Bill C-217 represents a giant step toward a more efficient and effective legal system, through a greater understanding and protection of those who are still the key element in the system, the victims.