Richard Marceau

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the debate on Bill C-204 introduced by my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands will provide me with an opportunity to give a bit of an overview of the whole debate surrounding the Young Offenders Act.

Listening to the Canadian Alliance member and the Liberal member, we finally get the picture that, when it comes to law and order, the two parties are very hard line, very right wing, and do not take into consideration the whole rehabilitative aspect of justice.

At the time, there was a debate in this House led by my former colleague for Berthier—Montcalm. This debate made it very clear that, when the accent is on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures, we get results.

With the adoption of the new young offender legislation—to which the Liberal speaker referred—we have seen that the way things were done in Quebec—the only place where the law was really being enforced properly—really gave results. The Liberal Party, with the support of the Canadian Alliance, which was urging it to go still further, wanted to shunt aside this approach, which was working.

You will recall the raucous debate in the House, in committee and off the Hill, when defence lawyers, crown prosecutors, judges, social workers, police officers and police commissioners said, “Do not touch the Young Offenders Act; it is working well”.

However, carried by the right-wing wind being blown by the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party decided to impose one vision across the country and do away with Quebec's approach, which was working well, in order to impose a vision that was diametrically opposed to Quebec's. Bill C-204 goes along much the same lines. It seeks to toughen the treatment of young offenders even more. This falls in line completely with the Canadian Alliance's philosophy. I am not calling into question the importance of punishing and preventing crimes referred to as “breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling-house”.

However, that said, I believe the approach of the member from the Canadian Alliance—whom I respect, incidentally—is wrong.

First, it duplicates existing legislation. Second, clause 2 of the member's bill, in respect to minimal sentencing, uses the word “shall”, which is—in legal terms, as we know—imperative. Judges would be required to impose a curfew. This fails to take into consideration the circumstances and to provide any leeway for judges. This clause ignores the discretion of judges and imposes a uniform treatment without any possibility of varying it based on the circumstances.

However, it could very well happen that the circumstances would in no way justify the imposition of a curfew. In other cases, the circumstances would justify it, but it would be left to the discretion of a judge, who would base his decision on facts and law. In certain cases, an obligation to impose a curfew would very likely be counterproductive. However, what the member is trying to do here is to help young offenders put their lives back together. If this is passed, if there are such minimum mandatory sentences, the effect might be the opposite of the one desired.

The only advantage to this bill and this debate is the opportunity to set out a strict philosophy of law and order for young offenders. This philosophy, I repeat, comes from the Canadian Alliance and was imposed on Quebec by the Liberal Party. When it comes to young offenders, the Liberal Party is a watered down version of the Canadian Alliance. They share the same philosophy and the same basic principles. These basic principles, as I said earlier, are foreign to how Quebec does things.

In closing, I want to stress that this is a very good example of the fact that, in Canada today, when Quebec's values and way of doing things conflict with Canada's way, the Canadian steamroller goes over Quebec's uniqueness, Quebec's distinct character and the Quebec nation. We will not forget this when the time comes.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

And from a somewhat different perspective, there is the sensitive issue of defence for possession of child pornography. The interpretation of the notion of artistic merit given by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe case angered many. In fact, the court interpreted this notion in a very broad manner, and I quote:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

The Minister of Justice, in introducing Bill C-20, has replaced this defence with another one, based on the public good this time. It specifies, and I quote, that:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and if the acts alleged do not extend beyond what serves the public good.

Let us again use a fictitious example to illustrate cases in which this new defence could be used.

Normally, the possession of pornographic videos involving children would be considered a sexual offence. We all agree, this is very clear. However, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of pedophiles could justify having such tapes in his possession for treatment purposes because his possessing such tapes serves the public good. In this case, the possession of videos is more helpful than harmful. Prima facie, this new defence seems reasonable.

Bill C-20 also proposes harsher sentencing for offenders. The proposal of the Minister of Justice would see the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation double from five to ten years. The maximum sentence for abandoning a child or failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child would more than double from two to five years in prison.

The courts would also consider child abuse during the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code an aggravating factor that could lead to harsher sentencing. In our opinion, these changes seem quite relevant and we support them.

Before closing, I would like to stress the overall objective of facilitating the testimony of children. This legislation would reform the current criminal justice system so that contributing to and participating in the system is less traumatic for victims and witnesses.

The current provisions of the Criminal Code would be expanded to make testimonial assistance available for all witnesses under 18, not only those who are affected by sexual offences and other specific offences, in all criminal proceedings.

This assistance includes allowing witnesses to give their evidence from behind a screen or by closed-circuit television, or having a young witness accompanied by someone they trust.

The current provisions generally require that the Crown establish the need for testimonial assistance. Given the possible trauma to young witnesses of the courtroom experience—and I know whereof I speak, having watched the proceedings, and my wife, who is a Crown attorney, and I have spoken about this at length—the proposed reforms recognize the need for this particular assistance. We strongly support it.

We should note in passing that it is at the judge's discretion, however, to deny assistance or protection if it obstructs the administration of justice.

In our view, these elements of the bill represent a step in the right direction and we will support them throughout the entire legislative process. However, this new process must not infringe on the right of an accused person to a full and complete defence, which remains a fundamental right under current Canadian law.

This bill that we are talking about is very broad and the different angles that we intend to work on are those that I have just mentioned. We intend to support the bill at this stage. As I have already said a few times, we will take the opportunity at committee stage to improve it in order to protect our children. They are society's most important resource.

[Criminal Code, January 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House this morning is, in my opinion, of special importance. The initiative of the Minister of Justice to restrict access to child pornography is an important measure and I want to assure the House that the Bloc Quebecois will work very seriously on this issue.

Protecting children is a fundamental principle in a society. Children are our greatest asset and they deserve all our attention and protection. They are the most vulnerable group in our society.

We could have a long debate on pornography in the broad sense of the term. However, in my opinion, child pornography is something that must be completely and fundamentally banned and prohibited, something that we must fight actively and strongly to prevent its spreading.

Not only is child pornography associated with a degrading sexual deviance, it also reflects a sick and degrading state of mind, for consumers, but especially for children.

It is not without a degree of emotion that I rise to address Bill C-20, because I am the father of two young children. I thought about my speech this morning for a long time, and I have been haunted by a terrible thought: what if my two sons fell into the hands of sexual predators or were sexually exploited by such depraved minds? This is why I am taking a particular interest in today's debate.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-20, because we feel that the minister's initiative deals with several important aspects of criminal law. It includes new provisions that have become necessary, given the particular nature of today's new technologies.

However, some clauses of Bill C-20 raise important questions, including those dealing with the issue of consent regarding sexual relations.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes to have some witnesses appear to discuss this issue and to examine all its aspects. Of course, we reserve the right and the privilege to move some amendments later on.

Bill C-20 makes fundamental changes two acts, the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. The government hopes to make a number of amendments to the Criminal Code, particularly to:

(a) amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography defences;

The bill will also:

(b) add a new category to the offence of sexual exploitation of young persons and make additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation;

(c) increase the maximum penalty for child sexual offences—

and

(d) make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing;

In the same vein, it is important, under the circumstances, to:

(e) amend and clarify the applicable test and criteria that need to be met for the use of testimonial aids, for excluding the public, for imposing a publication ban, for using video-recorded evidence or for appointing counsel for self-represented accused to conduct a cross-examination of certain witnesses;

And finally, it is important, in terms of the Criminal Code, to

(f) create an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.

Bill C-20 “also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age”.

In order to make the most of the bill's objectives, it is important to carefully assess the law as it current exists. One of the significant concerns that we have deals with consent to sexual relations.

Currently, under the Criminal Code provisions concerning consent to sexual activity, the consent of a person under the age of fourteen is not a defence against charges of a sexual nature, such as sexual abuse, exhibitionism or fondling. This means that persons aged fourteen and older can give their consent.

This provision, as you know, is subject to an exception. The consent of a complainant can be a defence if the latter is between twelve and fourteen years of age, if the accused is more than twelve but under sixteen years of age, if the accused is less than two years older than the complainant and if the accused is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

Furthermore, a person in a position of trust or authority cannot sexually interfere with a person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen years, even if the minor consents. It is also important to remember that, obviously, child prostitution is illegal in Canada.

These provisions in the Criminal Code have been strongly criticized, namely by the Canadian Alliance, which wanted to change the age of sexual consent to sixteen. Among the arguments advanced in favour of raising the age of consent was that Canada might become a sex tourism destination simply because sexual relations with minors aged fourteen and up are not illegal here.

However, with such stakes, it is essential, urgent and necessary to think clearly. To this end, the Bloc has always been opposed to raising the age of consent to sexual relations. We believe, and let us be clear, that although it is preferable that children aged fourteen and fifteen do not have sex, this is the age that society in general seems willing to tolerate.

Furthermore, you will recall, this is what I said during the debate at second reading on Bill C-215 introduced by the member for Calgary Northeast last November 4.

I also drew attention to the doublespeak by the Canadian Alliance on this issue—and it is important that this be done. In fact, let us remember that during the debate on the Young Offenders Act, Alliance members thought a 14 or 15 year old child was responsible enough to be tried in adult court, but not responsible enough to consent to sexual activity. They were prepared to put this child in prison, because according to them he was criminally responsible, but he was not responsible enough to consent to sexual relations. What doublespeak.

In a different vein, in his proposal, the Minister of Justice creates a new concept of exploitation. Now, an adult will not be able to have sexual relations with a minor if the latter is placed in a position of exploitation with regard to the adult.

The criteria that will be used to determine whether there is exploitation in the relationship are the following: first, the age difference between the person and the young person; second, the evolution of the relationship; and third, the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

This may seem complicated. To simplify things, let us look at a specific example. Geneviève is 15 and in a relationship with Gilbert, age 45, whom she met in a bar. Geneviève is not dependant on Gilbert in any way. However, from the beginning of the relationship, Gilbert has showered Geneviève with gifts that are very expensive for a young girl her age. Very soon, Geneviève consents to sexual relations with Gilbert.

In this situation, based on current law, Gilbert is not guilty of any crime. Under the provisions proposed by the minister, Gilbert could be found guilty of an offence under section 153 of the Criminal Code and liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten years. In fact, their age difference is 30 years and the relationship is very recent.

It is important to point out that we have some reservations about these new provisions. First, they create uncertainty regarding the law, and this is never a good thing. A person of full age who has sexual relations with a minor will never be sure whether he or she is committing a criminal offence, since these provisions of the Criminal Code leave a great deal to the interpretation judges will make of the clauses that are proposed today.

This leads us to a second point. A parent who disapproves the sentimental choice of his or her minor child will always have the option of filing a complaint with the police, even though their reasons for doing so are not those anticipated by the legislator. This could add to the legal uncertainty.

Consequently, I reiterate the fact that the Bloc Quebecois is interested in hearing witnesses in committee on this issue. We are prepared to move amendments if necessary.

As I mentioned earlier, the rapid technological changes that have occurred in recent years have made it necessary to make some legislative changes, in order to deal with the new reality.

For example, the electronic cameras that transmit live images on the Internet have raised concerns about possible abuse, including the illegal observation or recording of persons for sexual purposes, or when such observation or recording is a blatant violation of privacy.

This is why the bill proposes to add two new offences to the Criminal Code. The first one would make it a criminal offence, in three specific cases, to deliberately and surreptitiously observe or record another person in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The first case would be when the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. The second case would be when the person observed or recorded is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude or to be engaged in sexual activity. Finally, the third case would be when the person is nude or is engaged in sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such activity.

So, we are not talking about surveillance cameras in a shopping mall or in a parking lot, but in a place where a person can reasonably expect a minimum of privacy.

The second offence relates to distribution of material when aware that such material has been obtained by commission of the offence of voyeurism. This would also constitute a crime. The maximum sentence for all voyeurism-related offences would be five years imprisonment.

Finally, copies of a recording obtained by the offence of voyeurism for the purpose of sale or distribution could be seized or confiscated. The courts could also order deletion of any voyeuristic material from a computer.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the legislative provisions relating to voyeurism were made necessary by the proliferation of surveillance cameras and the rapidity of distributing images taken by such cameras, via the Internet for instance.

Consequently, we are in favour of the provisions relating to voyeurism.

Now, let us move on to child pornography. Primarily, the new provisions on child pornography address two different aspects.

On the one hand, the present definition of child pornography applies only to material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a child. Bill C-20 would expand that definition to include any material that describes prohibited sexual activity with a child where the written description of the activity is the dominant characteristic of the material and is done for a sexual purpose.

These new provisions raise a number of questions. First of all, it must be made clear that possession of child pornography is a crime punishable by five years imprisonment.

The new provision calls for any written material describing sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 to be considered a form of child pornography. Consequently, this would mean that someone who recorded in his personal diary fantasies, sick and twisted as they might be, of sexual relations of this nature would be committing a criminal offence and be liable to five years in prison, even if he or she did not show this document to anyone and no child was in any way involved in creating the document.

First of all, this provision strikes us as a broad one, and tantamount in a way to making thoughts a crime. The Minister of Justice counters that objection, however, by saying that we must interpret these provisions in light of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the Sharpe case.

In Sharpe, it is indicated that there are two types of material that must be excluded from the definition of child pornography: first, documents or representations that the accused alone created and retains solely for personal use, for example a diary, and second, visual recordings created by the accused or in which he is represented, which do not depict any illegal sexual activity and which the accused retains solely for personal use.

We find it hard to understand why the Minister of Justice did not integrate these exceptions into the Criminal Code. In fact, their absence will have the effect of creating legal uncertainty, because the Criminal Code will provide, even for an informed reader, a very imprecise definition of child pornography.

We plan to use the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to hear witnesses on this issue. Of course, we will move amendments if we believe they are necessary.

[Taxation, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should also know that there are overlaps that we could do without.

Quebec is faced with major challenges in training its workforce. In the context of the Canada-Québec Labour Market Development Agreement, does the minister not think it is time to pay Quebec the maximum amount under the Employment Insurance Act?

[Taxation, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to stop using the EI fund to pay down the federal debt and to make a transfer payment to Quebec for labour market development.

The National Assembly of Quebec would like to see an additional agreement reached that would put an end to the overlap in funding Quebec initiatives in labour market development.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not think the time has come to sit down with her counterpart in Quebec to negotiate this agreement, which would help develop the labour market by putting an end to these unnecessary overlaps?

[Firearms Program, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the Minister of Justice.

It seems strange that the Minister of Justice took more than a week to react to the Auditor General's report criticizing the veritable administrative fiasco of the Canadian Firearms Program. Worse yet, it took the release of this report to get a reaction out of the government.

There are two possibilities: either the government knew and did not do anything, or it did not know, which is also worrisome because that means it does not even have control over the administrative machinery.

It took the specific intervention of the Auditor General to uncover the magnitude of the administrative mess, because the Liberal government, true to form, took an amazingly lax approach to the management of this program.

Because of this government's chronic lack of transparency, as highlighted in the Auditor General's report to Parliament, the costs of managing this program mushroomed. No one in the government had the moral decency to sound the alarm before the Auditor General did.

The costs of the program, originally estimated at $2 million, will soar to $1 billion by 2004-05, showing the government's incompetence and inability when it comes to managing public funds.

The fine words of the minister this morning do not assign blame or even admit responsibility, far from it. It is totally disgusting to see the minister downplaying the situation on the pretext that the challenge of firearm registration was such a great one. At best, this is evidence of the lack of concern and lack of awareness of the government, and of the present Minister of Justice, and his predecessors.

It is unacceptable that, despite the budgetary control exercised by Parliament, the government has succeeded in camouflaging the real costs of the program. Even some Liberal members have expressed their outrage at the government's mismanagement and called for the head of the Minister of Industry and former Minister of Justice.

Something along these lines is necessary, but it must be admitted that it was far beyond the administrative capacities of the ministers responsible. The hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into this program represent nothing more and nothing less than a huge government exercise in wasting public funds, the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada.

As hon. members are aware, when this program was created, there was an atmosphere of austerity in Canada. Deep cuts in federal government program budgets, and in transfer payments to the provinces in particular, created some very precarious situations for the budgets of other levels of government.

In such a difficult economic situation, the taxpayers, who were bearing the brunt of these major sacrifices, were entitled to expect that the dollars saved would be properly administered. But no. Thanks to a cumbersome and incompetent government, the costs of one program were able to go through the roof without any control.

The Minister of Industry, formerly the Minister of Justice, was out of his depth and did nothing. Worse yet, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who kept a tight hand on the purse strings at the time, since he was Minister of Finance, did not sound the alarm either. And imagine that some people already see him in the Prime Minister's chair—unbelievable.

Through their incompetence, the Liberals gave the opponents of gun control plenty of heavy ammunition to use against it. This fiasco left two victims in its wake: the taxpayers' wallets and the very principle of firearms control.

More than ever before, we need to keep a close eye on this arrogant and incompetent government. That is why the people of Quebec have sent two new representatives of the Bloc Quebecois to this House.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate suggested by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley on Bill C-280 to amend the Criminal Code, particularly concerning the selling of wildlife.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance had already tried to have this amendment made to the Criminal Code in the last legislature. At the time, my colleague from Châteauguay firmly opposed this legislative measure.

His reasoning and particularly the relevance of his argument still hold today, since there has been no amendment to the legislative measure.

Indeed, the bill re-introduced by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley still contains the same irritants that justified the opposition of the Bloc Quebecois to Bill C-292 on May 9.

Let us remind the House that, despite what she said earlier in her speech, the bill before us is a typical example of the federal government intruding into provincial jurisdictions. This is a situation that we have seen too often in the past and that we are still seeing today with this bill.

While the sponsor of this bill still insists that the intent is not to replace provincial wildlife laws but rather to complement them, this does not change anything. It is surprising to see a member of the Canadian Alliance ask the federal government to get involved in an issue that concerns the provinces, when in their speeches, the members of her party are such articulate advocates of a decentralized Canadian federation.

Besides, the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance is talking about Kyoto. This is a different debate altogether. I will touch on the issue anyway. The implementation plan for Kyoto has yet to be released. We advocate a very ecological vision of society. That having been said, it seems to me that any attempt to draw a parallel between the debate on Kyoto and today's debate is lopsided and somewhat offensive.

The purpose of Bill C-280 is to make the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts an offence, unless carried out under a licence or permit issued by a competent authority.

Simply put, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the trading of wildlife, dead or alive, to afford it some protection against unscrupulous individuals who abuse the credulity of people by painting an enticing picture of the aphrodisiac qualities of certain animal parts, raising certain species in inappropriate conditions or simply selling their meat clandestinely.

The basis for the legislative measure put forward by our hon. colleague is noble and reflects her commitment to the conservation of nature, and wildlife in particular. This is something I applaud.

However, we must recognize that the bill she is proposing is only filling a legal vacuum left by a number of provinces in Canada.

As the hon. members know, I am sure, Quebec already has very comprehensive, and also very effective, legislation in this regard. Under the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, anything that directly or indirectly concerns the purchase of wildlife is covered by chapter C-61.1. The Government of Quebec has already provided a legal framework for the protection of wildlife, and this initiative was recognized on many occasions in the past.

The Bloc Quebecois' position basically falls within the same ideological spectrum. Moreover, we are taking into consideration the constitutional distribution of jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government.

The member from the Alliance wants federal legislation that can be implemented throughout Canada. This reasoning does not work.

First, she wants the federal government to intrude in an area outside its jurisdiction. She also wants the federal government to do the work that some provinces have neglected to do in their own legislative sphere.

I am sure no one will be surprised to learn that Quebec has once again taken the lead on this issue.

The penalties proposed by the member are almost the same as the ones stipulated in the Quebec legislation. In Quebec, we have fines ranging from $500 up to $16,400. We also have jail terms of up to one year. We even have administrative penalties causing the suspension of licences for up to six years.

Before I conclude, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-280. In fact, it reminds me of the heated debates led by our party against Bill C-5, the Liberal government's bill on endangered species.

I do not understand why the Canadian Alliance would want to give the federal government another opportunity to infringe upon an area of provincial jurisdiction. Not only does this boggle the mind, but it is the complete reverse of the general policies usually developed at their conventions.

Provinces that have not had the fortitude or determination to legislate in this area only have themselves to blame. Quebec took its responsibilities a long time ago. The other provinces should do the same.

Using tools such as the Criminal Code to make up for provincial legislative shortcomings is contrary to the spirit of the Criminal Code. Moreover, it somehow absolves the provinces of their responsibilities by allowing these pernicious intrusions by the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Worldwide All-News Television Network, November 27th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank my hon. colleagues from Repentigny and from Fundy—Royal for their contribution to this debate.

I want to say that I was bewildered, to put it mildly, by the remarks of the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. He declared the idea impractical from the word go, before giving it any thought. Unless he knows everything, which I doubt, I wonder on what basis he is making such a silly statement.

If we read the motion as presented, we can see that we are asking that consideration be given to the creation of an international French language televison network. He jumped the gun by declaring the idea impractical before even considering it. Allow me to question the seriousness of the approach and pronouncements of the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

There is another point I absolutely want to bring to the attention of those listening. Both speakers who opposed considering having an international French language network are francophones in minority communities, namely the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. These are two individuals who should normally be very sensitive to the importance of promoting French language information tools. These two members of this House refused unanimous consent to make this motion votable. This speaks volumes about their personal and political involvement in championing francophones outside Quebec living in minority communities.

To conclude, we have learned today that the House will be changing its rules to allow each and every member of this House to bring in at least one votable bill per Parliament. I wish to announce, therefore, that I will very seriously consider reintroducing this motion or one very similar, so that it can be declared votable. This way, members will have to publicly take a stand for or against such a proposal, which, I repeat, is intended as a response to the suggestion by the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac, about creating an international French language all-news network.

[Worldwide All-News Television Network, November 27th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction with the Government of Quebec and the other partners in the Francophonie, given consideration to the creation of a worldwide all-news television network.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak as long as the hon. colleague who spoke before me; unfortunately, our time is limited.

The idea for Motion No. 141 was first suggested by the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. He suggested the idea that the world needed an international French language all-news channel. I agree with this objective. Today's world cannot accept English language information only, information with a single colour.

Madam Speaker, like many of us in this House, you have travelled pretty extensively. When we travel around the world, whether for personal purposes or for purposes relating to our business as federal elected representatives, we realize that, besides the local media, the main sources of information are the American network CNN and the British BBC. Both play a major role, even an essential one, in maintaining the flow of information around the world. Two networks is not enough, however. CNN and the BBC cannot meet all the needs for information worldwide.

The Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada—the latter under pressure from the former—who are fighting for cultural diversity, and rightly so, should realize that one aspect of this cultural diversity is the basic need for information from various sources and various cultures, each with a vision of the world quite different from the others. We should not have a uniform vision of information; that is not good for the whole planet.

France is currently looking at three options. The first is to have a French language, French only news network. This would be an exclusively French network based of the public television system, such as France 2 or the LCI news network. It would present the world with almost nothing but the French vision. While it is important, the main player in the Francophonie, France is not the only important player when it comes to the French language on this planet. This is nevertheless an option being contemplated by France.

The second option is a European network, based on the EuroNews system, which we get here, in Quebec and Canada. This would be a multinational but European network that would broadcast to the rest of the world.

The third option being considered by France is a multilateral French language network, somewhat similar to TV5. I am of the opinion, and this is the purpose of my motion, that the Quebec and Canadian governments—since we are in the federal Parliament, in Ottawa—should insist that the third option prevail. It would be a matter of telling our partners, our friends, our French cousins that we too want to diversify worldwide news sources, that we too want to be involved in the broadcasting of a different vision of news, and that this option should be examined by the Francophonie, which is an increasingly important forum at the world level.

I want to make it clear that I am not asking that TV5 be replaced. TV5 is a great success and it works fine. However, one of its objectives is also to broadcast cultural programs and films. That is fine. I want French language culture to be increasingly known all over the world. It is important that this culture be known, regardless of its origin, whether it is French, Quebec, Canadian or African.

However, it would also be important to have access to a French news source 24 hours a day. When we travel, we often watch TV5. We often find ourselves watching a movie. The only news sources available are the BBC or CNN.

The world needs an all-news network in French. Except for English, French is the only language spoken on all five continents. Therefore, I urge this House to ask the government to give consideration to—that is to keep an open mind and to explore the possibility of—creating a worldwide all-news French television network. Let us send to our French friends the message that we are interested in taking part in a multinational French language project that will help support cultural diversity in all this news, which is essential in the 21st century.

[Terrorism, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this issue, it is disappointing to see the shortness of the statement of the Solicitor General on terrorists, terrorism and innocent civilian victims.

The opportunity given to ministers to make statements in the House is usually a solemn occasion marking a major change in government policy. However, the Solicitor General's statement, far from meeting these criteria, shows the government's flippancy when it comes to fulfilling its responsibilities in the fight against terrorism.

This is not serious. In the fall of 2001, Bill C-36 was rammed through Parliament as if terrorism were a new reality. Then, it took the government almost a whole year to realize that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terrorist entities. Yet, for years now, they have been claiming responsibility for suicide attacks. Normally, it should not have taken close to a year to add these organizations to the list.

The addition at this point of these six entities to the very short list of organizations having direct or indirect ties with terrorist activities in Canada or abroad is stunning.

It seems to us that merely mentioning the name Hamas should be enough to trigger thoughts of terrorist activities in the Middle East and all over the world. The same is true of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It would have been interesting to know why the government suddenly woke up today. This would have given some substance to the minister's statement.

Since the government singled out these organizations and put them on its list of terrorist entities, I am surprised that Hezbollah is not mentioned anywhere. We are fully aware that, as charities go, this entity is nothing like the Knights of Columbus.

Generally speaking, we feel that the government, particularly with Bill C-17, formerly known as Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, has not managed to strike a balance between public safety and individual rights and freedoms. The comments made by the Privacy Commissioner are evidence of that.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased that these entities were added to the government's list, but it is disappointed to see the Solicitor General using a piecemeal approach on such an important issue. We would to know when the list will be made longer, to paraphrase the Solicitor General, and we would like to know why it is currently not as complete as it should be.