Richard Marceau

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to support my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

This morning, I received from my colleague, the Progressive Conservative House leader, three legal opinions totalling 75 pages in English only. Unfortunately, I was preparing the eight motions I will present before this House and I did not have time to read the 75 pages.

I must add, however, that a legal opinion does not read like a Stephen King or John Chisholm novel, and I think all members taking part in the debate, and all the members in this House, should have the opportunity to read, digest and understand these three legal opinions, which I believe will have a significant role to play in the debate this afternoon or later, we hope.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that throughout the year a number of activities are planned in celebration of the RCMP's 125th anniversary.

I would like the solicitor general to tell us how much these activities will cost and where the money is coming from.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that I am disappointed about two things. One is, of course, the small number of MPs present across the way. It is very disappointing, especially since this bill is so important to so many of our fellow citizens. During part of the debate, there was only one Liberal present. That is really disappointing.

The second disappointment is about this government's practice of introducing bills in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. The government's legislative measures should be introduced and debated in the House of Commons, where the elected representatives are found, not in a House of unelected members, who are therefore not representative.

As for Bill S-5, I will start right off by saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill at third reading. Its purpose is to enhance the equality rights of the disabled and to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

One of the three main objectives of the bill is to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code. The amendments to the Canada Evidence Act will make it possible to use whatever means are necessary to enable a witness who has difficulty giving testimony to do so. This would, for instance, include the use of sign language interpreters for hearing impaired people called on to testify.

There are also certain amendments to the Criminal Code. Clause 2 of the bill creates a new offence, sexual exploitation of a person with disability. This is distinct from the general offence of sexual assault, and is in response to demands from a number of groups representing the disabled, many of whom we met with.

One might wonder, however, and I think this is a very legitimate point, why the sentence is less severe, being a maximum of five years, than in the case of the general offence of sexual assault as set out in section 271 of the Criminal Code. We will see how the case law evolves with respect to this new offence, or whether charges of sexually assaulting disabled individuals will still be tried under the already existing general provision.

Other provisions will finally make it easier for persons with disabilities to serve on a jury. The disabled are full-fledged citizens and wish to share fully in the rights and responsibilities of any citizen. Serving on a jury is a good example.

We are therefore in favour of these amendments, because they will improve access to the criminal justice system for persons with disabilities, and because they are a response to long-standing demands from groups representing the disabled.

Let us now turn to the Canadian Human Rights Act. With respect to the requirement to accommodate needs, this aspect of the bill is the one that has understandably received the most attention, both from persons with disabilities and from federal employers. We will see how existing case law incorporates this new provision.

We hope that the obligation to accommodate needs will lead to better integration of persons with disabilities in federally regulated businesses. This is what many groups of disabled persons that we met with are hoping for and it is a hope shared by the Bloc Quebecois.

We also hope that interested groups and individuals will become actively involved in formulating regulations on the criteria for evaluating undue hardship. No one is in a better position than persons with disabilities and employers—rather than technocrats in their federal government ivory towers—to establish regulations following the passing of this bill.

Finally, and I will be very brief, because I do not want to go on like my colleague before me, I want to speak of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

At second reading and during consideration in committee, we expressed certain reservations about the independence of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal proposed in the bill.

It is noteworthy that, on February 23, in the matter between Bell Canada and the Canadian Telephone Employees Association, the federal court found the existing human rights tribunal to be unconstitutional because of its lack of independence from the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We believe Bill S-5 would ensure the tribunal's independence by drawing on the provisions governing Quebec's human rights tribunal. Quebec, I would point out, sets the example in this area.

That said, the proposed tribunal responds to a number of the questions raised by the federal court, and we believe it would have greater independence than the existing tribunal. It would be up to the courts and case law to determine whether this is so.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill at third reading. I now give the floor over to other members.

[National Security, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in this debate.

In tabling the 1997 public report of CSIS and delivering his annual statement on global and domestic security, the minister reflects the government's desire to remain transparent and accountable regarding the management of security intelligence issues.

Because all procedures used by CSIS cannot be disclosed, we should hope that security intelligence is gathered in a legitimate fashion. Of course, the minister stands up for his department, but troubling facts are regularly reported by the press.

In fact, how can the minister reconcile the statement he just made with the following facts?

On April 4, based on the contents of a 24-page SIRC document dated July 18, 1997, the Toronto Star reported that CSIS had abused and endangered a vulnerable refugee claimant by promising him asylum if he spied on fellow Tamils. While he had not yet gone through the regular immigration process, CSIS held up the possibility of his being admitted to Canada in exchange for his co-operation.

In addition, this SIRC report follows up on the fact that, in 1996, a person by the name of Thalaya Singam Sivakumar went public with his story. Mr. Sivakumar claimed that he worked for CSIS for five years because the agency promised he would be allowed to stay in Canada. But in 1994, CSIS broke off its relationship with Sivakumar and it now claims it never promised him anything.

The same SIRC report indicates that CSIS had intervened in the immigration process in other cases in order to recruit informants. A former high ranking member of CSIS, Ian Macewen, who headed the counterterrorist section for seven years said that CSIS tried to help its better informants. He added that, on four occasions during his years of service, CSIS intervened in the immigration process to obtain immigrant status for such people.

The Toronto Star , once again, reported on April 15 that another refugee claimant had accused CSIS of trying to force him into spying. The individual in question, Mr. Singh, comes from India, and more specifically the state of Punjab. His story is dangerously like the preceding one. He made a formal complaint against CSIS last month.

In the light of these facts, we are forced to condemn this practice of CSIS and request that these matters be studied thoroughly.

The minister announced earlier that a special Senate committee would review Canada's antiterrorist mechanisms. I would remind him that senators are appointed and do not represent the public. As they are accountable to no one, I question their ability to properly represent the concerns of Canadians.

I would ask the minister to replace the special Senate committee he wants to set up with a committee of the House of Commons.

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House today to speak on the motion put forward by my colleague, the parliamentary leader of the Conservative Party.

I must say, however, that I am terribly disappointed that my colleague opposite, the hon. member for Eglinton«Lawrence, would refuse to make this motion votable and turn this into a political, partisan issue, when in fact every member of this House should support the motion.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day” to honour the memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.

The Bloc Quebecois enthusiastically endorses this motion and will support it.

Society as a whole is indebted to police and peace officers for the work they do so we can live in peace and security within our families, in our homes, at work and everywhere else. Men and women have paid with their lives for this dedication to their communities, and their families too deserve our gratitude in recognition of the great sacrifice resulting from the choice made by their spouse, father, mother or child.

Everywhere in Quebec and in Canada, police and other law enforcement officers perform their duties under difficult circumstances, and we become aware of the importance of what they do only when some tragic incident wakes us up to the harsh reality of it.

On behalf of my colleagues in this House and the general public, I wish to thank all those who work tirelessly to make our society a fairer and a safer place to live.

The media report only the most spectacular tragedies, so we tend to be collectively unaware of what these law enforcement officers go through every day, as they live with the possibility that their future may be jeopardized if a seemingly routine incident turns sour on them.

I urge the government to implement the measures needed to eliminate human dramas altogether. Whole families are being torn asunder, and, as lawmakers, we have a moral obligation to ensure that social and family dramas are not repeated.

I encourage the government to take note of the motion and to support it so the will of this House may be realized. The issue is not political and therefore there is no need for speeches to promote party positions.

I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague and friend, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

[Saskatchewan Francophones, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the minister chose to hurl meaningless insults instead of responding to something very specific and announcing a policy.

Why, instead of saying any old thing, does he not stop hiding his head in the sand and come up with some concrete measures to put a stop to assimilation?

[Saskatchewan Francophones, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, francophones from Saskatchewan denounced here in Ottawa the ethnocide—and that is their word—they are facing.

According to the 1996 census, although 20,000 of them claim French as their mother tongue, only 6,000 actually use it. The rate of assimilation in Saskatchewan is assessed at 71%.

What does the government have to say this morning to francophones from Saskatchewan, who consider their numbers to be disappearing?

[Court Challenges Program, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my Reform Party colleague. This motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should withdraw all funding from the Federal Court Challenges Program.

I would like to tell the House immediately that the Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to the member's motion, having given it lengthy and honest consideration.

The Court Challenges Program was created to fund legal cases having to do with the defence of equality and linguistic rights. In moving such a motion, it is evident that my Reform Party colleague is unaware of the importance of preserving these rights in a society such as ours.

Section 15 of the Charter protects the right of every citizen not to be subjected to discrimination. Is there any right more important than that of equal recognition for every individual?

A society cannot claim to be free and democratic if it does not adequately protect the right of its citizens to be treated without discrimination. With this in mind, we must make the necessary tools available so that those whose rights have been trampled can demand appropriate redress.

Some members are apparently under the impression that it is easy to take a case of discrimination before the courts. It is important to know that victims of discrimination think twice before launching into a long and costly legal proceeding.

The grounds for appeal against unjustified discrimination are not always easily determined. The line between what is considered discriminatory and what is considered a justified distinction is sometimes a very fine one.

It is therefore essential that these people be able to count on something like the Court Challenges Program to help them obtain justice.

The program provides financial assistance for cases appealing legislation that may deny rights to equality. It also, and this is very important, helps people express their linguistic rights.

Once again, I would point out the implication of the recognition of language rights. Section 133 of the Constitution of 1867 provides for the optional and mandatory use of the French and English languages. Furthermore, the charter of rights and freedoms contains certain provisions on protecting the use of the official languages.

Some will claim, and rightly so, moreover, that language rights are not sufficiently promoted. French language services are certainly not provided all across Canada. Language rights are as important in a society such as ours as equal rights. It is through language that people express themselves and make themselves understood. Language provides expression to our emotions, our dissent, our approval and our feelings.

Democracy cannot function properly if the public cannot make its voice heard. Justice will not be served if those who come before the courts cannot make themselves understood there in their own language.

The reason the court challenges program supports people wishing to protect their language rights is to preserve the delicate balance between the official languages. The program provides funding for preparing court cases and for pre-trial research.

The court challenges program is essential to ensure that everyone has access to justice. That said, what explanation can there be for the hon. member's proposal that the program funding be terminated? This is incomprehensible. One would have to be very short-sighted and narrow-minded to propose such a thing.

In proposing such a motion, the hon. member will certainly attempt to find support in the policies of the former Conservative government, which had decided to put an end to the program, to kill it. It is important to keep in mind that the Minister of Justice of the day, Kim Campbell, the colleague of future Quebec Liberal Party leader Jean Charest, had used the difficult economic climate of 1992 as justification for termination of the program's funding

At a time when the federal budget surplus could reach several billion dollars, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the hon. member's motion. I am not, moreover, alone in wondering what lies behind the Reform member's proposal. I would invite him to justify it to the members of the Fédération des francophones de Saskatchewan, who are this very day here in Ottawa calling for their province to become bilingual.

In a release issued today, the president of the federation said, and I quote “The ethnocide of the French-speaking minority has always been perpetuated by provincial governments in areas such as education, health and social services, while the federal government looked the other way”. In such a context, it is completely inconceivable that a member would dare to move the withdrawal of funding from this program.

In addition, in its June 1992 report, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons—the Bloc was not there at the time—concluded that the program played an essential role by giving individuals access to the courts. The Court Challenges Program has become indispensable to the development of equality and linguistic rights case law.

The Bloc Quebecois feels not only that funding for the Court Challenges Program must be maintained, but that improvement of the program would be justified. I urge my colleagues opposite to give this some thought.

The inequality that has existed with respect to historically disadvantaged groups is justification for preserving such a program. We must ensure adequate access to the courts and make it possible for rulings having to do with the violation of equality and linguistic rights in our society to be enforced.

[Court Challenges Program, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Francophone Saskatchewan is disappearing according to the Fédération des francophones de la Saskatchewan, which clearly contradicts the federalists who say that French is gaining ground throughout Canada. A key to the survival of francophones outside Quebec is the ability to appeal to the courts to guarantee their right to education.

Why is the minister refusing to improve the Court Challenges Program as she promised to do on March 18? Will she do as she did with the GST and break her promises?

[Cigarette Prices, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that, with the increase in the price of cigarettes, cigarette smuggling is back with a vengeance in southern Quebec and Ontario.

Before the situation returns to early 1990 levels, has the solicitor general approached his colleague, the minister responsible for customs, regarding special action to eliminate this scourge?