Pauline Picard

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is nevertheless unbelievable. The Prime Minister, who claims to be the defender of francophones outside Quebec, is closing his eyes to the treatment being given francophones in southern Ontario. Is he confirming he is totally incapable of ensuring equality for francophones throughout Canada?

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In causing the closure of the Centre francophone de santé et des services communautaires in southern Ontario, the Harris government has revealed its true colours. For Franco-Ontarians, the message is clear: If you want services in French, move to Quebec.

How does the Prime Minister explain his silent complicity with Mike Harris, as he cuts services to francophones in Ontario?

[Fédération Des Femmes Du Québec, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a majority of members of the Fédération des femmes du Québec support sovereignty. An exceptional proportion of 83 per cent of them have said yes to change. Each day, more and more women consider Quebec's sovereignty as a prerequisite to the progress of equity and justice in our society.

Whether it is for pay equity, parental leave, preventative withdrawal of work or child care services or to prevent regressive federal reforms of old age pensions and unemployment insurance, the women of the Fédération des femmes du Québec are convinced that only a sovereign Quebec will fulfil their needs.

The Bloc Quebecois invites all Quebec women to participate actively in the debate on Quebec's future.

[Criminal Code, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, for her courage and tenacity. Courage because she rose to demand new legislation on the practice of genital mutilation. Tenacity, because she continued to push for her bill despite a negative response from the Minister of Justice, since she was convinced that it was both appropriate and necessary.

I am therefore pleased to speak in this debate in support of Bill C-277, since I share the belief of my colleague and the large majority of women and men across Canada and in Quebec that the current legislation must be clarified and reinforced in order to protect women from these barbaric acts.

I share her conviction that the Minister of Justice's great sense of responsibility will lead him to concur that such a modification to the Criminal Code will be beneficial and to revise the decision he reached in April 1994.

The Minister of Justice's decision not to criminalize excision was based on two arguments: charges may be laid against those practicing excision under the present provisions of the legislation, and the intent is to focus on prevention.

I feel that those two arguments are too weak to justify the decision not to make any changes to the Criminal Code. I have nothing against prevention and information, far from it; one cannot be against what is right, but as Machiavelli said many, many years ago, virtue alone has no effect on man unless it is reinforced by a degree of deterrence.

Prevention is fine, but above all specific legislation needs to be passed to prohibit the practice of mutilating the genitals of women and girls. After all, what is there to prevent after the harm has been done?

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits anyone from assaulting, causing bodily harm to or killing another human being. The minister contends that these provisions are enough to prohibit all kinds of genital mutilations. I think not, because this legislation is too vague and does not deal specifically enough with excision. A person who performs or causes this kind of mutilation to be performed could use religious and particularly cultural arguments to justify this practice. Legislation such as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that the various cultures be recognized and promoted.

It so happens that genital mutilation is a standard in many cultures, including Africa and Asia.

I do not think we all have to be lawyers to understand that the existing legislation is not as efficient as the minister would have us believe. Several provisions are likely to discourage a crown prosecutor from preferring charges or a judge from convicting to the full extent of the law in such instances, however few they may be.

Education and prevention are fine, but that is just not enough. Monitoring needs to be instituted to find, denounce and, more importantly, punish offenders for real.

Action is required. Existing provisions do not prevent such acts from being committed. Also, one can seriously question the effectiveness of a prevention policy consisting merely in information. The only choice left is for the legislator to make a special law to unequivocally criminalize the practice of such mutilations.

Bill C-277 is not that complex. It does not call for a complete overhaul of the system. It is just a few lines long. And let me quote the proposed amendment to be added after section 244. It reads as follows:

A person who: a ) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a female person; or b ) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph ( a ) is guilty of an indictable offence andliable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

That is all. Two small paragraphs. That is all we need to settle this matter once and for all. I do not understand why the minister is reluctant to pass a bill that is so short but that would reinforce the current Criminal Code and make it much more of a deterrent.

Allow me to speak of this issue in a little more detail. According to studies published in 1993-94, between 85 million and 114 million of the women alive at that time had undergone genital mutilation.

According to some figures, the number of genital mutilation cases has increased by 2 million a year in nearly 40 countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. These procedures are performed on girls aged 4 to 10 on average. That is appalling.

Although impressive, these figures do not say anything about the trauma experienced by these girls, most of whom are quite young. They do not say anything about the pain suffered both during and after these mutilations or on the health problems many of the victims will face for the rest of their lives.

Often performed in unsanitary conditions by people without any real medical knowledge, these mutilations can have many adverse consequences, including haemorrhages, incontinence, abscesses, infections, traumas, shock and infertility.

Those who perform these procedures use improperly sterilized tools, if not plain kitchen knives. According to a document from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, sugar, eggs, thorns and palm ribs are also used.

Very painful and often performed without anaesthesia, these irreversible procedures often result in traumas as well as sexual and psychological complications for the victims.

I do not think I need to continue describing this practice to give members a good understanding of what we are dealing with.

This practice is clearly unacceptable and should never be condoned. We must also ensure that those who perform these procedures are severely punished. Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier, current legal provisions do not have enough teeth to be 100 per cent effective. We must ensure that this practice is no longer used in our society. The current legislation does not achieve that goal; prevention alone is not enough. However, Bill C-277 would certainly do it.

We could talk for a long time about the benefits and the merits of such a bill. But what is important is to understand that, in a country that claims to be democratic, these religious, cultural or other traditions are indefensible and reprehensible. As a self respecting society claiming to protect its individual members, it is immoral to condone such shameful atrocities.

Yet, and unfortunately so, this is what the Minister of Justice did by rejecting the suggestion to amend the Criminal Code so as to explicitly prohibit excision.

Bill C-277, which was introduced by the hon. member for Québec, provides an opportunity to correct the situation, once and for all, in a simple and efficient manner. France, Great Britain and Sweden have already outlawed that practice, while Norway and several American states have strengthened their legislation to that effect. The time has come for us to take concrete action. It must be made clear to Canadians and those who come to our country that genital mutilation is not only unacceptable as a matter of principle, but also not accepted and severely punished, since it is in fact a crime.

[Health Care, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister at least admit that a $7 billion cut in transfer payments will mean nothing short of scaled-down health care for the public?

[Health Care, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. At the federal-provincial conference of health ministers, provincial ministers vigorously denounced the federal government's decision to cut transfers to the provinces for social programs, including health care, by $7 billion over two years. These cuts can only have a disastrous effect on health care provided to the public.

How can the minister claim to be the champion of a universal and accessible health care system, when at the same time her government is cutting $7 billion in transfers to the provinces, thereby forcing them to cut back on the quantity and quality of services?

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister admit that, by doing an about-face and saying she no longer recognizes the obligation to respect the results of the referendum, she is renouncing the loyalty she owes to Quebecers?

[Quebec Referendum, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. After publicly expressing her vision of democracy by stating that the government would respect the Quebec referendum results, the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the referendum in Quebec, was put in her place by the Prime Minister a few minutes later.

Since she can no longer express her convictions in public, can the Minister of Labour at least undertake to plead privately with the Prime Minister to convince him to recognize the results of the Quebec referendum?

[National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical Devices, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to motion M-375 brought forward by the hon. member for the Yukon. This motion proposes that the government begin consultations with the provinces and territories to establish the parameters for a national registry of drugs, medical devices implanted in the body for more than one year and various forms of biotechnology.

This motion deals mainly with the serious problem of breast implants and the deleterious effects they have on the health of those women who have them.

An estimated 150,000 women, in Canada and Quebec, have had silicone breast implant surgery between 1969 and 1992. Approximately 75 per cent of these implants were for purely aesthetic reasons, and the remaining 25 per cent for post-surgical reconstruction of the breast. Although the use of breast implants is strictly voluntary in both cases, medical considerations compounded with cultural factors turn this procedure into a complex source of concern for women's health.

Today, many women are confronted daily with the disastrous results of silicone leaking into their body. These leaks cause immune deficiencies. The implants contract and the body tries to reject this foreign substance, creating massive scar tissue.

Some women develop problems like the hardening of their breasts, chest pain or loss of sensitivity. Others have more systemic problems like pain in the joints, kidney trouble, infections, sclerosis, chronic fatigue, etc. All these complications are part of what we now call the silicone-related syndrome.

Canadian women are worried. Some scientists still refuse to admit the dangerous effects of silicone. Officials and representatives of the federal health department do recognize that some women with breast implants experience health problems, but they quickly add that no link has yet been proven between these health problems and the fact that they have received these silicone-filled prostheses. However, the potential health hazard of silicone has been a proven fact for a long time now. Hundreds of American women have sued and won their case against the makers of silicone gel breast implants; American courts have recognized that this product is dangerous and the victims have received substantial compensation.

In 1992, the House of Commons Sub-committee on the Status of Women released a report entitled Breast Cancer: Unanswered Questions . Although this study was originally on breast cancer and the breast implant that was called Même at the time, developments on silicone-based implants led the sub-committee to expand its study and to make several very significant recommendations concerning breast implants.

One of the greatest problems the sub-committee recognized was the lack of a satisfactory mechanism for monitoring the development of complications and the long term effects of these objects implanted in our body. So, it is now impossible to tell the number of breast implants that were used, the range of potential problems or the rate of satisfaction with these implants.

The lack of a national registry is a major flaw in the current medical system. Doctors and surgeons may easily lose track of people with breast or other implants, and this limits their ability to give their patients new information or updates on problems that may arise from these implants.

It also makes it impossible to follow up on patients for prolonged periods to produce the scientific data bases required for proper methodological research. A national registry would also make it possible to identify problems and complications related to implants or inquire about the incidence of complications related to the use of implants and other medical procedures.

At present, consumers can lodge complaints about business transactions, cars they buy or service contracts, but surprisingly enough, there is no equivalent for products such as breast implants, cardiac valves, artificial hip joints and what not.

This recommendation to establish a national registry is not new. It has already been made by several groups. For example, ACEF, the Montreal Association coopérative d'économie familiale, published a report on breast implants last year. In it, ACEF again urged Health Canada to provide women with adequate information on the subject and to establish a national registry of women with silicone gel breast implants to facilitate and ensure efficient medical follow-up.

In a study conducted in 1992, the Sub-committee on the Status of Women made further recommendations. It felt that "women have a fundamental right to accurate information regarding the risks and possible complications associated with the use of implants".

The sub-committee recommended that the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons and the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Surgery prepare in coordination with the appropriate government officials information sheets that accurately reflect current knowledge and debate around the possible effects of breast implants.

The sub-committee also requested that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, identify alternatives to breast implants and outline the conditions under which such surgery should be considered.

To develop properly, society cannot do without women or ignore women's issues and the problems they face.

Women's health is one of the factors which have a direct bearing on the place of women in our society. Here, as elsewhere, we must take effective action. Women's health has always been neglected. There is never enough money allocated for research are always inadequate. There are major problems with research related to breast cancer, gynaecology and obstetrics, chronic and degenerative diseases, mental health, violence, occupational diseases, particular needs of immigrants and ethnic groups, teenagers, elderly women, etc.

When she first took office, the Minister of Health explained how she intended to promote women's health. She told us about the programs which her government was going to implement to correct the imbalance affecting women in the health care system. So far, not much has been done. When will a true health program will be developed for women?

If the Minister really cares about women's health, now is the time to act and support motion M-375. In doing so, she would make a concrete step toward that goal.

[Bovine Somatotropin, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of BST was raised repeatedly by the official opposition but the government never confirmed that it would respect the citizens' right to eat products unaltered by synthetic hormones.

Without even a debate on the use of biotechnology in food production, the government is presenting consumers with a fait accompli. As a matter of fact, Health Canada has already authorized the marketing of experimental milk produced with somatotropin imported from the U.S.

It is not the interests of consumers that the government is looking after, but the economic interests of pharmaceutical companies such as Monsanto, which is lobbying Health Canada like never before.

The government must stop dragging its heels and extend the moratorium on somatotropin so that the interests of consumers will be protected in the future.