Benoît Sauvageau

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we will frequently be hearing the same appeal in the various interventions by the Bloc Quebecois, an appeal aimed primarily at our friends and colleagues, the federal Liberal members from Quebec, to whom we extend a hand one last time.

As the countdown to the passage of Bill C-7 becomes more pressing, the extension of this hand is becoming more pressing for our Liberal friends and colleagues from Quebec. We ask them once again to listen to the consensus expressed throughout Quebec society in opposition to C-7.

I will read a motion that was introduced at the Quebec national assembly and passed unanimously, as mentioned by my colleague from Charlesbourg earlier. I would like all Liberals from Quebec to listen.

That the National Assembly call on the Government of Canada to make provision within the criminal justice system for young persons for a special system for Quebec under the Young Offenders Act, in order to fully reflect its particular intervention model.

I believe that when we analyze the motion introduced in the national assembly properly, we see that it is, in every respect, rational and adaptable to the requirements of federal government parliamentarians. If we read this motion properly, we see that it is not calling for the bill to be withdrawn outright or scrapped, nor is it describing the bill as terrible for Quebec society. It is asking whether there is a way of including provisions in Bill C-7 to preserve what is working well in Quebec, and the system is working well in Quebec.

The purpose of Bill C-7 is to provide solutions to problems in certain regions of Canada but if there were a problem in Quebec it seems to me that it would be very difficult to get the unanimous approval of Liberal, ADQ and PQ MNAs for a motion calling on the federal government, unanimously as I keep repeating, to consider the possibility of including provisions in Bill C-7 to recognize the distinctive character and the successful approach of the government of Quebec in its policy in this area.

As the member for Berthier—Montcalm repeatedly mentioned and as he also pointed out during his tour—which was much appreciated by the public—with Marc Beaupré, the actor who played the character of Kevin in Deux frères , they made a non-partisan tour of Quebec. For a politician, it is very difficult to seriously say that we have been on a non-partisan tour because we are always for the Bloc Quebecois or sovereignty, but with this bill, we tried to behave in a non-partisan way; this is why the actors agreed to join the Bloc Quebecois on this tour.

The justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois and the young actor who went on the tour heard the same message everywhere: if the rest of Canada wants to implement Bill C-7, there is no problem. If it is more acceptable elsewhere, culturally speaking, to have Bill C-7, there is no problem but we want no part of it.

As my colleague from Charlesbourg said earlier, the Liberal Party voted on a motion recognizing Quebec=s distinct character. Since then, Liberal members have never used this for a House of Commons bill. Perhaps the time has come to do so.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm went on the tour. We, on this side, have tried to meet, one by one, all Liberal members from Quebec to ask them why they would vote with their government and therefore against their constituents on Bill C-7.

I have talked about this in speeches at general meetings of the Bloc Quebecois in some ridings. I must admit the answer was quite surprising and rather weak as an argument. The answer we heard was: “We know you have the unanimous support of Quebec groups because they are funded by the government of Quebec and therefore have no other choice”. I find it despicable for Liberal members from Quebec to assert that we bought the support of different groups in Quebec by giving them some financial support.

I would like the Liberal members from Quebec to explain how the government of Quebec, sovereignists, can financially support the Liberal Party of Quebec. I would like to mention that the MLA for Brome—Missisquoi, Mr. Pierre Paradis, voted for the unanimous motion of the national assembly. I do not believe he is being funded by Mr. Landry, no more than his colleagues of the Liberal Party.

The Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Québec is against Bill C-7 and I do not think it is funded by the government or has a real say in decisions or ties to the government.

As the hon. member for Charlesbourg said earlier, other organizations are against this bill, like the Innus, the British Columbia Criminal Justice Association, Tim Quigley from the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. James Hackler from the Sociology Department of the University of Victoria; I doubt they are funded by the Parti Quebecois. I do not believe that the League for the Well-being of Children of Canada is funded by the Parti Quebecois either.

I told the members from Quebec that they may be right in part and that we may be biased in terms of our defence of or our opposition to Bill C-7, but that they also have to realize and acknowledge that they are somewhat biased. We recognize that both the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party are biased on this issue.

I suggested to them that we have a list of 23 individuals, organizations, institutions or associations that are against Bill C-7, choose anyone of them at random and ask them what they think about the positions taken by the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal Party and that they could and why they are against Bill C-7. I was not asking them to talk to one particular group that happens to share the views of the government of Quebec, which is subsidizing it. I was telling them to choose anyone of them at random.

We have been making this request to Liberal members from Quebec for the last two weeks and, from what I understand, none of them have even tried to find out why the people in the field in Quebec—not the officials of the justice minister—are against Bill C-7.

I believe that, with the kind of unanimity found in Quebec, with 23 organizations opposed to Bill C-7 and the national assembly, which passed a unanimous motion to that effect, not to mention the Liberals in Quebec, the government members who argue that the Bloc Quebecois is being stubborn in opposing this bill ought to respond to the motion passed by the national assembly.

The motion of the national assembly states, and I quote, “That the Government of Canada make provisions within the criminal justice system for young persons for a special system for Quebec”.

To conclude, I would ask the government to listen to what the people have to say, to reach out to them and look at what is being done in Quebec to meet the aspirations of those who work to fully rehabilitate young offenders.

[Official Languages, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we hope that some day we will get an answer.

In addition to reporting cuts in excess of $100 million in the programs' budgets and a smaller percentage of francophone deputy ministers, this study shows that the number of employees in official languages has dropped by 50% over a five year period.

Does the minister not think that he should look after his own affairs and change what his government is doing wrong before giving lessons to others?

[Official Languages, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister wants to come across as the champion of official languages, a damning report from the Treasury Board paints a grim picture of his government's performance in this area.

How does the minister explain the cuts in excess of $100 million, over a 10 year period, in the budgets of the official languages programs, thus bringing these budgets back to the 1977-78 level, more than 25 years ago?

[Blood Samples Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-217, under Private Members' Business.

If I am not mistaken, this bill, the blood samples act, was introduced in the House by a Canadian Alliance member on February 5, 2001.

It arises out of an event that occurred in October 1997, when a police officer, Isobel Anderson, arrested a man for armed robbery. It is useful to explain why the Canadian Alliance member introduced this bill.

While searching for weapons, she reached into his pocket and felt a sharp pain. She pulled her hand out to find a bloody needle stuck in her palm. As she feared, doctors told her that the needle may have infected her with HIV, which leads to AIDS. Then she learned that the robbery suspect had refused to take the HIV test and could not be compelled by law to give a blood sample.

After some negotiations, the suspect agreed to a blood test, and the results came back negative for HIV but positive for hepatitis C.

As a precautionary measure, Ms. Anderson agreed to AZT treatment, which understandably changed her life for several months. Six months later it was confirmed that she had contracted neither HIV nor hepatitis C. Today this policewoman is in good health.

Since the creation of the Reform Party, a group called Front Line and Good Samaritans Rights to Know has been encouraging police officers and other emergency workers to make their voices heard and support the efforts of the party, now the Canadian Alliance, in favour of a bill to protect the interests of people working for others in a service capacity.

Our position on this bill is the following: the bill is essentially aimed at forcing people suspected of being HIV or hepatitis B or C positive, and who could have infected a peace officer, a security guard or a person acting under section 494 of the criminal code, to give a blood sample.

The bill is pitting one fundamental right against another, namely the right to health and safety and the right to privacy and the sanctity of the human body.

We believe that in its present form, the bill might infringe upon the rights of people with HIV or hepatitis B or C by ostracizing them. Moreover, such a bill might lead to abuses against those suspected of carrying one of those diseases. Far from reflecting the values dear to Quebecers, this bill would contravene the fundamental human rights legislation passed by the Quebec government.

Finally, it seems obvious to us that this bill would go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and change the Criminal Code in a worrisome way. It would allow for the taking of blood samples even when no misdemeanour or offence of any kind has been committed.

The bill does not respect the fundamental values of Quebecers, and the government has passed several laws to entrench human rights and freedoms.

It might bear repeating that these values are entrenched in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, at articles 1—dealing with right to life, freedom, security and integrity of person—to 5, which deals with the right to privacy protection. In the Civil Code of Quebec, article 10 states that “Every person is inviolable and is entitled to the integrity of his person”.

If this bill were to be passed, several Quebec acts and codes would be affected by Bill C-217 and would require consequential amendments. That would be the case, for example, for the Professional Code and the Act respecting health services and social services.

When creating the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1974—under the Quebec Liberal Party at the time—the legislator established as a fundamental right that “Every person has a right to respect for his privacy”.

There is in the Civil Code of Quebec, in force since January 1, 1994, a whole chapter on the issue of respect for one's reputation and one's privacy. The new code, after recalling the principle stated in the Charter, provides that only the law or the consent of a person or of his heirs can justify an intrusion in his or her private life.

Moreover, Bill C-217 does not respect the concept of the human body's inviolability provided for in section 10 of Quebec's Civil Code, that says that, except for certain exceptional situations, no one is to be subjected to medical treatment without his or her well-informed and freely given consent.

According to some experts, the definition of medical care is broad enough to include the taking of samples, tests and even DNA analysis. A practice that affects someone's integrity violates all the more his right to privacy. And respect for one's privacy implies that every person can exercise control over personal information concerning him and decide whether to make them public or not.

It is interesting finally to note that the doctors' code of ethics includes under the principle of the confidentiality of medical information two exceptions that would apply to genetic information.

The first exception provides that the doctor can divulge facts that he was personally made aware of when a patient or the law authorizes him to do so, when there is a pressing and justified reason to do so for the patient's health or that of the people around him.

The second exception provides that, unless there is just cause, the physician may not reveal to people who are close to the patient a serious or fatal prognosis if the patient forbids it. However, in this last instance, experts say that nothing indicates what would constitute just cause to justify such violation.

Therefore, these exceptions could not apply to the subject matter of Bill C-217. The bill could be viewed as going against sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada. In R. v Dyment , Justice La Forest noted that “the use of a person's body without his consent to obtain information about him invades an area of privacy essential to the maintenance of his human dignity”.

Finally, we are not convinced that taking a blood sample from the person suspected of having transmitted bodily fluid to another person will enable to determine in every case whether the person carries the HIV virus or the hepatitis B or C virus. Indeed, because of the incubation period, it is very difficult to determine with certainty whether an individual is a carrier of these diseases. Had the tests done on the suspect apprehended by Ms. Anderson been negative, nothing could have indicated that the individual himself was not in the incubation period.

For all these reasons, we must oppose Bill C-217, which, in essence, is an interesting bill. When a peace officer, firefighter, or any other person needs to interact with another in the performance of his or her duties and is left with doubts as to whether he or she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis, this is unbearable, everyone will agree.

However, when a situation needs to be corrected, the way to do it is not with an incomplete, unconstitutional bill, because the very first inmate required to be tested would take it to the Supreme Court of Canada and would—as I have attempted to prove—win his case.

So we need to find a way to provide these personnel with some peace of mind. We in the Bloc Quebecois do not believe that Bill C-217 is the way to go. We do not feel it is going to provide any piece of mind to those working with the public, who are unfortunately infected by misadventure, by accident, or deliberately by inmates in detention.

We often hear stories of prison guards being bitten by inmates. They are then subjected to a truly unbearable sense of insecurity.

This bill, which is intended to remedy this untenable situation, would not do so.

[Montfort Hospital, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, the fight for the survival of the Montfort hospital resumes, as the Ontario court of appeal hears the appeal by the province's attorney general.

However, three judges of the divisional court unanimously decided in November 1999 that the Montfort was necessary to the advancement and improvement of the Franco-Ontarian identity as a cultural minority in Ontario and to this culture's protection against assimilation.

The problem here is not just linguistic, but is also and primarily a brutal attack on the social contract between all minorities in this country and the majority. This is perhaps much less a legal issue than a moral one.

The government of Ontario must respect the rights of Franco-Ontarians and immediately take all the means necessary to ensure that the only francophone hospital between Hull and Victoria will continue to fulfill its mandate.

[Francophone Deputy Ministers, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, his deputy ministers will be proud of him.

When francophone deputy ministers accounted for 32% of the total number of deputy ministers, a political scientist, who is now the minister responsible for official languages, said that this situation reflected the government's political will to improve the fate of francophones.

Following the same logic today, how can we not conclude that there is a blatant lack of political will on the part of this government to improve the situation of francophones in the country, since the number of them holding positions of authority is constantly declining?

[Francophone Deputy Ministers, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, under this government, the number of francophone deputy ministers is constantly declining. Francophone deputy ministers now account for only 22% of the total, that is seven out of 31.

How does the government explain this drastic decline in the number of francophones holding positions of authority in the public service, with the proportion of francophone deputy ministers having gone from 32% to 20%?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

With the same address.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member must realize that he switched parties but he did not change parliaments. We are not in Quebec City, we are in Ottawa. I want to know if he is still talking about Bill C-2 or if his remarks are in response to Mrs. Marois' budget speech?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beauce says that the Liberal caucus, particularly the Quebec Liberal caucus, clearly understood the objections of the individuals and associations that I mentioned earlier. They consulted in good faith and they amended the bill of the Minister of Justice.

Can the hon. member tell us if, after this long consultation process to introduce improvements and amendments, the coalition and the groups that I mentioned earlier are now in agreement with Bill C-7?