Benoît Sauvageau

[Government Grants and Contributions, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general also says, and I quote “Where expected results are stated only vaguely, where risks are unassessed, project assessments incomplete, or performance unmeasured, management cannot be confident that [the programs] are achieving value for money.”

Has the attitude of the Prime Minister, who has always played down the management scandal at the Department of Human Resources Development, not sent a signal to all his ministers and officials that he will back them up however they manage?

[Government Grants and Contributions, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general did not pull any punches in her report this morning to the federal government. She noted significant shortcomings in the management of grants and contributions in all departments.

How can the federal government claim to have made all the necessary efforts to manage taxpayers' money better when a review of the facts reveals that a large portion of the $16 billion in grants and contributions is badly managed and badly used?

[English Language Media, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the revelations made by Normand Lester, new stakeholders are now surfacing and their contribution is very enlightening.

For example, Maryse Potvin, a researcher in social sciences and an expert on racism, is studying what she calls the dérapages racistes or racist excesses toward Quebec in Canada's English language media since the 1995 referendum.

Ms. Potvin talks about a national psychosis in English Canada and says that she can see the elements of the speech and the mechanisms leading to racism.

The comments made by Robson, Francis, Johnson and others columnists whose intellectual probity is matched only by the rigour of their methodology, were closely examined.

I invite all those who care about the truth to put an end to the shocking excesses that tarnish Quebec's reputation by consulting the research done by Ms. Potvin in the scientific magazines Canadian Ethnic Studies and Politique et sociétés , to end such slandering.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since we had to vote on the gag order imposed upon us today, I would like to begin by telling you, speaking for myself, my party, and I believe the members of the opposition parties, that I am totally outraged.

Once again, for the 72nd or 73rd time—we are no longer sure of numbers—the Liberals are imposing a gag on us, after a history prior to 1993 of objecting to this approach, calling it the most undemocratic of parliamentary procedures for preventing the members of this parliament from expressing their views on various bills.

At the time, they accused the Conservatives in power of making abusive use of this parliamentary procedure. Yet they have now succeeded—maybe trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records —in beating the Conservatives' score by 100%, that is having twice as many gag orders.

I believe it is very important to remind all those who are listening to us or who will one day read the Debates of the House of Commons or those who are students of the “great democratic tendencies of the Liberal government”. They will be able to see how the government has gagged parliamentarians. Today, after a mere three hours of debate, if I am not mistaken, we are now being gagged and deprived of our right to express ourselves on this bill.

Perhaps the MPs could go before the supreme court and argue that this is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms, restricting their freedom of expression. Who knows? But I am just joking about that, because it is one of the government's prerogatives to do so.

Motion No. 6 proposes, after line 14, to change permanently to 15 years in connection with secrecy and national security.

This amendment deserves our attention and deserves to be discussed, yet we have seen how the Liberals have dealt with amendments. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments. Witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and suggested several ways to amend the bill constructively. Yet, each time the government, which had said that it wanted to hear from opposition members and witnesses to improve the legislation, turned a deaf ear to the constructive criticism and recommendations that were made to improve the legislation. According to many editorialists and specialists in the field, the bill fails to meet the objectives it was designed to fulfill, that is, ensuring greater security and fighting terrorism while preserving the importance of the freedom and safety of Canadians and Quebecers.

This bill could have been improved thanks to the proposals made to the government. Many people believe that this type of bill is completely new,and that prior to September 11 no one had examined the issue of international terrorism, but this is wrong.

Several international conventions have been signed and ratified by the Canadian government. The government has signed 12 of the United Nations conventions and protocols on terrorism, and has ratified 10. Two still await ratification, but I will discuss them later.

Thanks to the anti-terrorism measures proposed, Canada could ratify the two final counter-terrorist conventions. Under the proposed bill, Canada could ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, a convention that would freeze the assets of terrorists by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activity and by preventing assets and financial and related services from being made available to terrorists.

These measures enable a federal court judge to order the freezing and seizure of property used to support terrorist activities. We heard the Minister of Finance boast about having had a good idea—it happens, but not as often as he would have us believe—to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. All he had to do was sign the UN international convention and Canada would have had a convention to monitor and fight terrorist financing.

Another convention that could be ratified by Canada at the United Nations is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, which contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructures and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Canada could also ratify the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, which seeks to ensure the safety of United Nations personnel.

I just mentioned two conventions that Canada signed but has yet to ratify. I will spare hon. members and not mention the other ten conventions against terrorism that Canada signed.

This bill must be based not only on the views of opposition members, but also on those of government members who, in committee, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, supported by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, expressed their support for a true sunset clause.

These government and opposition members, as well as the experts who testified before the committee, tried to guide the government toward a more effective Bill C-36. Moreover, the public servants who drafted this legislation must or ought to have taken into consideration the various international conventions ratified or signed by Canada to deal specifically with counter-espionage.

This bill will amend a number of acts in Canada. Indeed, we are not dealing merely with Bill C-36. My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert clearly demonstrated that Canadian legislation as a whole will be affected by this bill.

The criminal code will be amended so as to include provisions for dismantling the activities of terrorist groups and incapacitating these groups and their supporters. The definition in the criminal code of terrorist activity as “an act that is committed in or outside Canada” makes it an offence under one of the ten UN conventions or protocols against terrorism.

What we see is that the government wants to implement a law in Canada which contravenes a convention signed or ratified by Canada with other countries. We must therefore be very careful.

Another of the laws which may or will be amended by the passage of Bill C-36 is the Official Secrets Act. It would be amended to cover national security concerns, including threats of espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and coercive activities against communities in Canada.

Other laws will be affected by the implementation of Bill C-36. The Canada Evidence Act would be amended to include changes in court and other proceedings for the purpose of ensuring the protection of sensitive information, if need be.

The National Defence Act would also be amended to clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment so that it could intercept communications directed at foreign entities and do security checks of the government's computer networks. The permission of the Minister of National Defence would be required to intercept any private communication.

I have tried to show that this is a piece of legislation which will have an impact on other legislation and many other international conventions.

The criminal code would also be amended so that any person with information relating to an ongoing investigation into a terrorist crime could be compelled to appear before a judge for the purpose of disclosing that information.

Other legislation could be amended, including the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. This act could be amended in order to give powers to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. I have listed a few of the acts as well as some of the international conventions.

In conclusion, I wish to tell this government that while there is indeed a serious situation following the events of September 11, and while this situation calls for emergency measures, there is also an obligation to consult, to listen, as the minister said, and also to be willing to understand. Listening is one thing, but there must be a willingness to understand.

I believe that by voting in favour of the bill at second reading, we have shown very clearly that we wish to support it, but we are not going to support it at subsequent stages unless it is actually improved.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, before I start my speech on Bill C-36 and on the proposed amendments, I will give a little reminder to the Liberal government, which just invoked closure for the 72nd time since 1993.

I remind it that, when the Liberals were in the opposition, they—among others, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, as leader of the rat pack—denounced the Conservative government for being undemocratic, because, according to him and after some checking, 9.4% of parliamentary business was done after closure had been imposed.

Since the Liberals took office, that figure is more than 17.4%, that is almost double. It is disturbing to see a government practically double the number of times it invokes closure to deal with bills in the House of Commons.

Today, this is the 72nd time since 1993. If they wanted to be consistent, they too could declare themselves undemocratic, having doubled the number of times closure was invoked by the Conservatives when they were in office.

This being said, I would like to join my colleagues who congratulated the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, forSaint-Bruno—Saint-Hubertand for Châteauguay for their excellent work, especially in circumstances that parliamentarians should not be in, that is, dramatic and atrocious.

Indeed, the government gave parliamentarians, with only a few minutes' notice, about 100 pages of amendments. The pagination is deficient and parliamentarians were told to do their job. These parliamentarians are then asked to be careful and on the look-out.

While the committee was sitting, the government replaced the majority members, because they only had to vote, but it had on the committee some people who were really interested and who wanted to examine the amendments until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Then it said “Let us bulldoze all this and have these amendments agreed to, because even if the opposition parties move some amendments, we will vote against them.”

I believe this is what is feeding the irony the people listening to us have shown too often toward parliamentarians.

Members, as well as those who are watching us, will understand that, unfortunately, after voting in favour of the principle of Bill C-36 at second reading, the Bloc Quebecois will have to vote against this anti-terrorism bill at third reading because the government refused to listen to reason and to understand our reasonable motives for wanting this bill amended to strike the right balance between security and freedom.

I will try to explain clearly to the House and to Canadians why we will be opposing this bill and what amendments we brought forward, because we sincerely wanted to support this anti-terrorism bill for all the reasons stated previously.

Our opposition to this bill is based on six reasons. I will state them first and then explain them. The first reason we will oppose Bill C-36 is the sunset clause, which we asked for from the very beginning. There is a sort of sunset clause in the bill, but it is incomplete. So this is the first reason we must oppose this bill.

The second reason deals with reviewing the legislation.

The third reason concerns the definition of the expression terrorist activity.

The fourth reason deals with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The fifth and penultimate reason concerns the security of telecommunications or electronic surveillance.

The last reason, which is just as important—because I did not list them by order of importance—is the list of terrorists and of charitable organizations.

With regard to the sunset clause, I will quote from people who are not members of the Bloc Quebecois to demonstrate that witnesses who appeared before the committee were also apprehensive about the sunset clause or lack thereof. This goes to show that members of the Bloc Quebecois or opposition members are not always the only ones to oppose government policies.

Here is what two witnesses said before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The first comment comes from the executive board of the Canadian Automobile Workers, from its president Buzz Hargrove. He said:

It is obvious that there are areas which seriously infringe on public freedoms, which are the foundation of a democracy.

He went on to say:

Canadians must be able to express their opinions on a piece of legislation as fundamental as this, legislation which will change their daily lives.

Another witness, and not the least, who appeared before the committee was this government's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We will see if he is as consistent with himself. If he is not consistent with this government, or with his caucus, we will see if he is consistent in his own thinking. He said:

I think that, as a government we should be open to a sunset clause. It would then be up to the government to prove that these measures are important. Whether for a period of three years or whatever, I am in favour of a sunset clause.

His colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, supported him.

Even with the slight amendment on the sunset clause, on two aspects of Bill C-36, we are opposed to the absence of a sunset clause for the bill as a whole, such as other countries have, and we explained this.

With respect to a review of the legislation, we proposed that there be an annual process. We called for a report on a variety of aspects of the bill to be prepared by an independent commissioner and studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

To all intents and purposes, after we have called for an annual review by parliamentarians and an independent commissioner, the government has proposed that the reports cover only two aspects of the bill: investigative hearings and preventive arrests. It is therefore proposing that a report be presented to parliament. After the report is presented and adopted, there would not be a real review process, which is very important, as everyone agrees.

As for the definition of terrorist activity, we explained this at length, but it is important to recall that our amendment would have meant that demonstrations and illegal strikes would not be considered terrorist activities. There was an illegal strike in Quebec last week. Everyone would agree that this was not a terrorist activity. Even the former president of the CEQ would agree that, while it was an illegal strike, it was not a terrorist activity.

Even though the definition has been amended, we believe that some protest groups—this was brought up by editorial writers and experts—could still fall under what is called terrorist activity. This definition, while amended, does not meet the expectations of the public or the Bloc Quebecois.

As far as the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act are concerned , I will give the floor to the primary stakeholders, John Reid and George Radwanski, who are responsible for their implementation. They clearly stated that they did not appreciate the fact that the minister would have the power to issue orders preventing the communication of information, when it is normally up to them to decide wether or not information can be communicated for defence or national security reasons, their decision being subject to review by the federal court.

Again, these are the two primary stakeholders who are voicing their concern about the amendments to the Access to Information Act.

As far as the Communications Security Establishment and wiretapping are concerned, we have put forward amendments requiring that the defence minister seek the court's authorization before approving wiretapping by the Communication Security Establishment. The minister did not see fit to amend the bill in this way, thus giving free reign to the defence minister, which in our opinion would set a dangerous precedent.

In conclusion, regarding the sixth and last point, the listing of terrorists, we have put forward amendments so that organizations not be listed or lose their charitable status without being made aware of the evidence against them.

It would be quite normal for those listed as terrorists by the Minister of Justice or the government to at least know on what basis they are being accused.

I believe my colleagues before me explained it very well in their speeches, and I tried to explain clearly the six points on which we are still in disagreement. Again, we might be overly optimistic, but we do hope that the government will listen, otherwise we will have to vote against the anti-terrorism bill.

[The Acadians, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House during the last hour of debate on Motion No. 241, moved by the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes and amended by the member for Laval Centre.

I also wish to acknowledge the presence on the Hill today of Équipe Francophonie 2001. This team is composed of about 70 French speaking Acadians from across Canada, who came here to meet members, ministers and senators and make them aware of their reality.

I recall that the ancestors of what would become the Acadian people were the first Europeans to settle in North America in 1604. As a matter of fact, Acadia will celebrate the 400th anniversary of its foundation in 2004.

Even though the hon. member does not wish to live in the past, I am convinced that he will be present in 2004, during the celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the foundation of Acadia and that he will be proud to take part in the festivities honouring the forefathers of the Acadian people. However, he will not be living in the past.

In the middle of the 18th century, Acadians were treated horribly by England who imposed one of the worst treatments that can be applied to a vanquished people, expulsion. The systematic deportation of French and Catholic subjects between 1755 and 1763 was organized and realized by the British authorities, in a savage and brutal way. Those are the facts.

Families were dispersed and many never could come back to their ancestral lands. The results of this expulsion can still be felt today and this event influences the way Acadians see themselves today.

Motion No. 241 does not ask us to rewrite history, as someone said earlier, but to simply acknowledge the harm done and the terrible consequences of those tragic events on the development of the Acadian society.

On June 7 last, Mr. Hector J. Cormier, author and editorial writer of the Moniteur Acadien , wrote the following about Motion No. 241:

There are some among us who will speak against this initiative.

We saw that earlier.

The main argument: avoid living in the past.

We also heard that earlier. He goes on:

It is smoke and mirrors. Acadians are undoubtedly living in the present. This does not mean that they do not recall the past. This argument was also used by the senior public servants who prevented us from learning our history. It was not only important that we ignore the past, but we also had to act as if nothing had happened.

Members of the House of Commons who have a chance to speak to motion No. 241 and who forget about party affiliation have been able to demonstrate on a number of occasions that they can speak with one voice when it is necessary. And it would not be the first time.

On several occasions, whether the motion was tabled by the Tories, the Alliance or the Liberals, we have obtained unanimous consent from the House, even if they are now trying to convince us that they cannot support the motion because it was tabled by a member from the Bloc Quebecois and those are bad separatists. It is a dishonest way of refusing to support this motion.

A vast majority of Acadians are in favour of motion No. 241. Approximately 92% of them have said to be in favour of this motion before an advisory committee established by the Société nationale des Acadiens.

We know that all members of the House of Commons can unite on this issue, since they have done it in the past on other matters. Parliamentarians now have to make a choice: they either respect the wish clearly expressed by the various organizations representing the Acadian people and the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the proceedings of the advisory committee established by the Société nationale des Acadiens; or they refuse to recognize the prejudices endured by Acadians because of the 1775 events, and they accept the consequences of taking such a stand.

Nothing can change the minds of the hon. members who wish to oppose this totally legitimate motion.

All possible arguments used so far against it have been dismissed, not only by the MPs of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties, but also by the respective Acadian communities of the members who wanted to divert this debate.

We have, for example, been accused of “paternalizing the debate”. I believe that today they are the ones doing this, offering as a little “goody”, pardon the expression, a little enticement to the Acadian communities, the acknowledgment of a holiday they already acknowledge. Then they accuse us of paternalism.

As for the matter of petty politics, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes,has offered on a number of occasions to transfer his motion—and it is worthwhile for the Acadians to know this—to a Liberal MP, an Acadian MP, or to a member of another political party, such as the New Democratic Party. Each time, this was turned down.

It has been proposed that the motion be amended—provided it was not watered down too far— in accordance with the wishes of the Liberal Party. Each time, this was turned down.

We are accused of petty politicking on this motion. It is worth pointing out that several attempts were made to transfer this motion, or to make it acceptable to all hon. members. Each time, this was turned down.

As for the lack of consultation, my colleague has acknowledged that. There was perhaps a problem with consultation initially. Afterward, though, since 140 groups or individuals were consulted on the motion, and 92% of them supported it, it can be seen that there was consultation.

I would ask the Liberals whether they did any consultation to find out how many groups were in agreement with their position against the motion. The only argument that can continue to hold for the Liberals is a very weak one: the fact that it was presented by some “wicked sovereignists”, “separatists” as they call us. The Acadians will know how to pay them back for this in due course.

All of this has been debated and resolved. Now we must choose: either we accept to recognize the wrong or we refuse. We accept to right the wrong to Acadians, or the members who are supposed to represent their constituents in the House will have to shirk their responsibility of representing them in the House and say to them: “No, despite the fact that you have asked me to support motion No. 241, out of respect for my government, because I want to become a minister some day, or because I do not want to lose my minister's portfolio, I will have to vote against motion M-241”. That is how constituents will see it.

I am not trying to be mean, but some other people might say “Father knows best”. But that is not very nice, and I am nice, so I would never say this to another member.

I would like to read from an article written by the president of the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, published in L'Acadie nouvelle on October 29. The article states the following:

Acadians will not soon forget the steps that have been taken to garner the support of the Canadian government and the Acadian members in their efforts to obtain the apology they deserve from the British Crown following the deportation of 1755. Is it asking too much—

This message is aimed at the Liberal members who are Acadian. It goes on to state:

for you to reconsider the terms and the value of motion No. 241? This is a rendezvous with history that you must not miss. Voting against this motion because it was proposed by an opposition party is a red herring and may well be a strategic error that could backfire against the government.

This is what Jean-Guy Rioux, the president of the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick wrote.

We hope that in the end there will be an effort made by our Liberal Acadian colleagues and by all of the Liberal members to demonstrate goodwill by supporting this motion of such historical importance for the Acadian people.

[History of Canada, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Minutes paid for by the federal government trace an idyllic portrait of Canada's history. But this history has known less glorious moments, such as the burning of the parliament of the united province of Canada in 1849 by a horde of English-speaking Montrealers, the very ones who claimed to be so attached to democratic institutions.

As Normand Lester reports in Le livre noir du Canada anglais , these fanatics did not approve of the duly elected government compensating the Quebec victims of the destruction wrought by the army when it put down the rebellions of 1837 and 1838. Yet the people of Ontario were compensated for this same destruction.

The fact that this crime went unpunished has been interpreted by author John Ralston Saul as evidence of the restraint shown by the Canadian government. When the army fired on Acadian deportees, on patriotes, on Metis, on those who opposed conscription, it showed no restraint.

The Heritage Minutes presented one side of the coin only.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm. I believe that the Minister of Justice, the government opposite and all the members of this House should pay attention to what he said. We can only recognize his professionalism in reviewing the young offenders bill, the anti-gang legislation and the other bills introduced by the Minister of Justice.

Our justice critic is concerned, as are an increasing number of people, by the haste surrounding the tabling of this bill. Yes, there is some urgency in this context of real terrorism, but there are also considerations relating to this bill that deserve our attention.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm if, in his opinion it could be risky to pass this bill quickly. The government is saying it is a matter of days and hours. Should we take time to consult experts to make sure that this bill is everything we want it to be?

[Official Languages, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during his testimony in committee, the minister responsible for official languages co-ordination said:

If the rate of assimilation were 65%, it would be discouraging.

However the rate of assimilation of francophones in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan is over 70%.

If the minister is discouraged by a rate of assimilation of 65%, it is urgent that he take action. Will he therefore lay out for us, as the official languages commissioner has requested, his plan of action and tell us what resources he intends to devote to changing this state of affairs?

[The Acadians, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this motion received the support of, among others, the member for Acadie--Bathurst, the Société des Acadiens and the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick.

How does the minister explain his lack of openness to the consensus of the Acadians.