Odina Desrochers

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-49. I am very upset by this bill, because it will result in the disappearance of the riding I have represented for seven years. I do not challenge this decision, but I do challenge the consultation process and the lack of recourse so people could change this terrible decision.

I represented the only rural riding in Quebec that fully covered three RCMs: L'Érable RCM, Bécancour RCM and Lotbinière RCM, as well as some municipalities in the Arthabaska RCM, for a total 70,000 constituents. This was the only rural riding in Quebec, with Plessisville as its largest town with a population of barely 8,000. However, its economic strength is based on the rural strength of L'Érable, Lotbinière and Bécancour RCMs.

The first phase took place in December 2002, when the commission advised us of its first recommendation. It made no changes to my riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, other than suggesting the inclusion of three municipalities in the western part of the current riding of Lévis. That seemed acceptable and increased the number of constituents from 70,000 to approximately 95,000.

In March 2003, when the commission returned to advise us of its proposal based on its consultations and mathematical calculations, my riding had literally disappeared. From that point on, I consulted, and I received resolutions. During my numerous travels around my riding, I met people who asked me to do my best to preserve the only rural riding in Quebec.

Despite all my efforts, including appearing before the standing committee considering this matter, where I saw a dozen of my colleagues making recommendations all rejected out of hand by the commission, it became clear that the commission's goal was to take the population of Quebec, divide it by 75 and establish equal ridings of 90,000 to 100,000 people. No consideration was given to regional specificity nor socio-economic profile. Expert accountants merely applied mathematical formulas.

The changes were based on statistics compiled from the 2001 census. On that basis, we have to accept things, because if the population increased or decreased, some modifications must be made while obviously respecting the socio-economic profile of the regions.

My riding was divided in three, and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay is also losing his riding. My colleague from Manicouagan is being assigned a 1,300 square kilometre riding. My colleague from Champlain saw his riding disappear, or almost, and was forced to annex the current riding of Saint-Maurice. This redistribution affects almost 60% of the ridings in Quebec.

I would have liked to have seen an appeal process in Bill C-49. Just imagine. We, as MPs, have been working with a certain portion of the public for six or seven years. When it comes time to go back to the ballot box, and for us to stand before our electorate, it will have changed dramatically. I have a decision to make in the next few weeks. I have to decide whether I will run for Érable or for Lotbinière.

One thing is certain, I will still be around to fight the Liberals during the next election. I will fight the person who I feel is responsible for the most antidemocratic act we have ever seen in this House.

Let us review the facts. In June 2002, the Prime Minister fired his finance minister because of his lack of loyalty. Then, frustrated at having lost in 1990, the member for LaSalle—Émard set things in motion to become the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Even though the Bloc Quebecois has strong reservations about the way the current Prime Minister does and manages things, we still think he was the victim of an incredible mutiny within his own party.

[Taiwan's National Day, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on this day, October 10, we are proud to celebrate Taiwan's National Day. Following the election of its first social-democrat president three years ago, this state has turned a new leaf and boldly moved toward democracy by enhancing human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Unlike its neighbour, Communist China, Taiwan has made giant strides in building democratic structures that have paved the way for a modern and dynamic society, a model for the entire Asia-Pacific region.

As a sovereignist, I am proud to note that, like Quebec, Taiwan is striving for recognition as a country and for its place at the table of nations. In that sense, I hope that the Canadian government will acknowledge the democratic values promoted by that country and will encourage Taiwan to sit as an observer at the World Health Organization, as well as recognize the right of the 23 million citizens of the Republic of China to be represented in the United Nations system.

To all Taiwanese, happy national day.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm. With words, sentences and substance, he was able to summarize all the issues that are now in Bill C-17, Bill C-55, Bill C-42 and Bill C-36.

However, no matter what number is given to this bill, it still contains flaws. Since the beginning of this debate today, we have talked constantly about the balance that must exist between freedom and security. Paragraph by paragraph, my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has gone over the issues in this debate and, above all, has pointed out the elements that are contrary to our fundamental values.

My question is quite simple. No matter what number the government is using, whether it is Bill C-42, Bill C-55, Bill C-36 or Bill C-17, why is my colleague still saying that he is against this bill?

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear my colleague's remarks, which support completely the position of the Bloc Quebecois. This fight has now been going on for two years.

She mentioned that the present bill has the same flaws we identified in the two previous bills, as we said today.

For the information of the hon. members opposite, I would like my colleague to mention a few points that she would have liked to amend in Bill C-17, which will be adopted in a few minutes, unfortunately.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I have said several times, what I worry the most about is that this bill will apply for three years. If freedom is restricted for three years, who knows what can happen. I am also worried about the considerable power the RCMP will have concerning relations that could exist between people suspected of being members of terrorist groups.

I think this issue is fundamental. We cannot give up freedom of speech and hard won democratic rights for the sake of a bill we have been debating for two years. Just imagine what the Americans and people in other countries think. They have already developed and passed legislation. In the meantime, we are still working on this bill. This is the last stage of a bill that is flawed and dangerous for freedom of speech.

I think the Liberal government should backtrack, send the bill back to committee, take the time to correct the flaws in the bill, and give us a piece of legislation that will strike a fair balance between freedom and security.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak to the important matter of Bill C-17.

As you know, I will start by blaming the Liberal government once again for this gag order which limits the time allotted to parliamentarians to discuss such a crucial and important issue.

The legislative agenda has been rather thin lately in this parliament. There have been persistent rumours that the current session could end early due to the upcoming change in leadership on the other side, in other words the current Prime Minister will have to step down in favour of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

It would appear as a result that the government wants to push ahead with several bills and move the agenda faster. After unduly delaying bills and regulations, it now wants to make up for lost time. Attempting to make up for lost time by ramming through a bill as important as Bill C-17 is going a bit too far.

I would like to share an experience I had recently in Taiwan at a world convention in Taipei attended by about 23 countries. The conference was entitled “Democratic Pacific Assembly”. Those 23 countries tackled the fundamental issue of security and freedom of speech.

The motions that were unanimously passed during this important meeting said that the balance between freedom and security had to be maintained and that the unfortunate events of September 2001, that are starting to be distorted, should not serve as an excuse for legislation muzzling hard won freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, Ottawa does not seem to want to respect this fundamental balance between freedom and security. We must say yes to security, but not at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

We have seen what has been happening in the United States over the past two years. Freedom of speech has virtually been eliminated from the airwaves, especially on television; we saw the Bush administration trying to take over the media, use propaganda and justify its behaviour. We are all aware of the situation in which the U.S. administration and its president, Mr. George Bush, now find themselves, especially with their involvement in the war in Iraq. Again, in the United States, freedom of speech has been severely curtailed. Unfortunately the media capitalized on a show. Today, the show is over but the current president and his great thinkers are still trying to justify his actions by using the word terrorism.

With such a formidable neighbour, the Canadian government must be wary of adopting some of the provisions found in Bill C-17. If our neighbours south of the border go too far and get carried away on the issue of terrorism, we are not out of the woods.

As we all know, parliamentarians have been considering this important piece of legislation for two years now. Bills C-36, C-42, C-55 and C-17 were all brought before the House. Unfortunately, whatever the number of the bill is, it still contains the same deficiencies.

Let us review the history of this bill. The first bill introduced in response to the terrorist attacks was Bill C-36. Although we supported at first the need to pass anti-terrorism legislation, we thought that the federal government's proposal did not strike the proper balance.

At the time, the Bloc Quebecois thought that Bill C-36 did not effectively balance freedom with security issues. When Bill C-36 was first introduced, the attacks and the terrorist threat were at an all-time high and had created an exceptional climate. But since then, a lot of water has gone under the bridge.

I remember taking part in the debate on Bill C-36. I warned the government about the three-year limit. Things were changing so fast that we thought we could not pass legislation on such a crucial issue and maintain it for three years without reviewing and adjusting it.

If, at some point, the Canadian government needs certain tools to address a particular situation, we can provide these tools. However, the situation may change, and this is why we would like the legislation to be reviewed and reassessed every twelve months to see if it meets the expectations of the public and our security needs.

Members will recall that the Bloc Quebecois asked for a sunset clause to be added to this bill so that it would cease to be in effect after three years, unless the House decided otherwise. Parliamentarians always have the power to amend an act if the situation warrants. However, we do not know what the future holds for us. We are all trying to stamp out terrorism. We believe that laudable efforts have been made so far, and this is why we think that a piece of legislation as crucial and important as the one before us today must be reviewed periodically.

Regarding this particular piece of legislation, we also asked that it be reviewed automatically each year by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which would be the same thing. Every year, it would be referred to the committee for review. This means that members from all political parties gathered around a table would have a good look at it and would be able to make recommendations in light of the current context. Again, our suggestion was rejected.

Furthermore, it was also said regarding this bill that the Minister of Justice could withhold information normally accessible under the Access to Information Act, without any safeguard provided. This is also very dangerous. The bill will be reviewed only in three years' time. I have talked about this before. The Minister of National Defence will be able to intercept international communications simply by sending a written request to the Centre. He will not even need a judge's authorization.

In this regard, allow me to say that I am very concerned, especially after the events of August 14 and 15 when a power failure hit Ontario and the southeastern United States. We know that the person who was supposed to have all the information and to reassure the public, the Minister of National Defence, made a statement. All he did was further confuse matters. The sources were contradictory. Just imagine if the present Minister of National Defence were to intercept international communications. How could we take him seriously when he interpreted this information and particularly when he explained what was really happening in a given situation?

Continuing with the history of the public security bill, there was first C-42, then Bill C-55 and now Bill C-17. One thing is clear. The weaknesses that were part of the initial bill are still present in Bill C-17 and I will explain why.

Claiming to be trying to further improve security, the government introduced Bill C-42 on public safety.

As soon as the bill was tabled, our party stated its opposition once more, finding that some of the proposed measures went much too far, and that their link to terrorism was rather tenuous. The government must not be given an opportunity to abuse the situation.

The collective memory of Quebeckers has not faded away. We remember very clearly what happened during the October crisis in 1970. We all must remember it, because if we give police and military powers to this government, we know they may be abused. Consequently, when faced with such situations, the collective memory of Quebeckers reminds us of the sad events of October 1970. Today, in 2003, I want to reintroduce them into the debate because one never knows what may happen when a context changes.

In my opinion, that is the reason this bill tends to draw links—often very tenuous ones—with terrorism. I will return to the whole issue of the powers the bill would give to the RCMP and CSIS.

Bill C-55 was then replaced by Bill C-17, which is now before us. Unfortunately, these two bills do not come any closer to achieving the necessary balance. And yet that is the fundamental principle and we mention it constantly in these debates. The position of the Bloc Quebecois is to strike a fair balance between liberty and security at all times, and especially to prevent possible abuses by the Canadian federal government.

We have had some victories along the way during the debates to come up with new legislation. In Bill C-17, we see that the controlled access military zones that were mentioned in Bill C-42 have been withdrawn. That was a considerable victory for the Bloc Quebecois and that is why we keep on hammering away with these fundamental principles.

As I said earlier, it is terrible that the government is using a closure motion once again to prevent us from exercising our rights, presenting our point of view, and trying to eventually convince the Liberal government of the flaws in Bill C-17.

I would also like to address the powers that will be conferred upon the RCMP and CSIS. We are aware of the case of Maher Arar—on which my colleague from Mercier has been asking questions earlier. This Canadian was apprehended by the Americans when in the United States and was subsequently returned to his former country.

Judging from the RCMP's behaviour, if it had more power given to it, this would lead to almost an automatic connection between the RCMP and the Americans. This lays open to question the rights of citizens, of the people of Canada and Quebec.

So those are the powers. The bill includes provisions which confer extended powers on RCMP commissioners as well as the director of CSIS, in connection with the gathering of information on air passengers from the airlines.

The more we travel, the more we will be under surveillance. That is what this means. The more often we take a plane, the more the RCMP will interfere in our business. The more often we visit countries likely to have links with countries that have links to terrorists, the more likely the RCMP is to interfere in our business. It is unacceptable that so much power is being given to the RCMP, particularly when we have seen how it acted in this matter, which is getting so much media coverage and attention in the House.

We tried to amend this bill so as to limit the powers relating to retention and use of the information gathered in this way. We often hear reference to someone “flagged by the RCMP”. What does that mean? It means that the RCMP collects information on such individuals, based on the assumption of a link with terrorism. This information is on file with the RCMP and can be used at any time in order to violate the freedom of members of the public. It is really dangerous to give so much power to the RCMP with Bill C-17.

We also wanted to ensure that the information gathered would be destroyed within 24 hours of landing unless there were any suspicions about the passenger. What point is there in keeping information? But no, the time limit will be seven days. In other words, during those seven days the authorities are in possession of information on an individual which can lead to digging deeper into that person's life, far more than to just find out about his past, his background, when he takes a plane.

The current Bill C-17 includes such abuse, and these are fundamental democratic issues. All the government is doing is imposing Bill C-17 on us. It is forcing the bill on us and gagging us so we keep quiet. If this is democracy, we have a real problem.

I want to say once again that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois oppose this bill. We opposed various provisions in the initial version that are still found in this bill, a few of which I mentioned. Despite all the efforts to mitigate the problematic provisions, we continue to find them unacceptable.

I will repeat once again that it is time for the government to backtrack, and not adopt this bill this afternoon, during the vote to be held shortly. This is a serious situation given the bill's failure to ensure a balance between freedom and security. This is the most important point. If we have to give up rights and freedoms for improved security, why did we fight for them in the first place? In many countries, people are still fighting for freedom of expression.

I am reminded of my trip to Taiwan. In the neighbouring country, the People's Republic of China, there is no such thing as freedom of expression and respect for human rights. Yet we live in an age where information circulates freely. Furthermore, the Americans may promote free speech, but free speech that is controlled and planned by the Cabinet of the United States President, George Bush.

Given all these situations, Bill C-17 must include the desired amendments to maintain a balance between freedom and security so that Quebeckers and Canadians can live freely in the years to come.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, naturally I agree with my colleague and I think this important speech brings us back to reality; we are always looking for the perfect balance between security and respect for human rights.

Could my colleague summarize the main irritants which explain why the Bloc Quebecois must, once again, vote against this bill?

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my point is that while some efforts were made, much remains to be done. Because this comes under federal jurisdiction, the government ought to put more effort into this.

This government is very good at always announcing a phase one that is on a very large scale, from coast to coast, as it were, and then, with phase 2, at scaling things down. When the time comes to take steps to save production, there is no money left. There are studies and consultations, but no decisions.

I agree that efforts have been made, but much remains to be done.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the situation I mentioned where farmers and breeders are faced with certain problems, I think there must be some who have difficulty paying their taxes.

When people lose a significant portion of their monthly or annual income, they have to make choices, and that is becoming increasingly difficult. That means when income decreases, the farmer or breeder has to make big decisions.

The mad cow issue started in May. The United States government is slow in responding and does not seem willing to show much openness. The federal Liberal government should show more leadership. It sometimes tends to intrude in our provincial jurisdictions. However, the international market is a federal jurisdiction. I just want the government to do its job.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important motion on what is commonly referred to as mad cow disease, an increasingly difficult situation for people in the west and people in Quebec.

The situation is becoming increasingly difficult because the initiatives taken by parliamentarians on either side of the House and by groups, breeders and the labour organizations that represent them, are addressed to the United States Government. The United States government is not necessarily paying attention to these complaints and no wonder, no decision has been taken in this House for the past few months.

The Prime Minister is much more interested in preparing for his farewell party than in Canada's current economic problems. Moreover, we have a new Liberal leader—he is not leader yet, but the delegates are saying he will be elected at the convention in November—and even though he is not officially the prime minister yet, he is running things.

When the Bush administration meets and talks directly with the people involved in bilateral negotiations, it must think that we in Canada have an odd way of running the country.

Consequently, we are faced with situations like the current mad cow crisis, which is dragging on and for which no decision is being made.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said he showed great leadership in resolving the mad cow problem. In actual fact, he is very good at announcing things, but they are always limited to the first phase, in other words, phase 1 when the federal government has money. When it comes to phase 2, we are told it is not ready and that it is being reviewed. The new Quebec minister of agriculture, Ms. Gauthier, was here yesterday for a meeting and asked the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food if there truly was a phase 2.

The minister is certainly a champion of consultation. I had the opportunity to sit on the committee for a few years and I can say that there is plenty of consultation and review, but nothing is ever really decided. When we are faced with a situation like mad cow, decisions are slow in coming. When negotiations between Canada and the United States drag on, the government should show leadership, since this is not provincial jurisdiction.

The market and international trade are federal responsibilities. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Prime Minister, the future prime minister or the Minister of Finance—who is also much more concerned with his personal future than his political future—would be the ones to examine this matter and make any decisions.

The government's behaviour with regard to the agricultural industry in Quebec, which is a fundamental and vital industry, is unbelievable. On the one hand, the UPA and all the unions are working together to ensure that this industry remains diverse and, on the other hand, we are dealing with a very unsupportive government.

This has direct consequences on central Quebec, which is where my riding is. The President of the Syndicat des producteurs de bovins du Centre du Québec, Alain Laroche, stated, on August 29, that, “the cattle industry, which generates 20% of the jobs in the central Quebec region, is on the verge of a catastrophe”. The farmers say that this situation is cause for concern for the next generation, iand a solution must be found in order to help them, otherwise it will be impossible for young farmers to buy a farm.

Currently, in Quebec, the industry is concentrated. Consider the problems faced by the hog farmers due to giant hog farms and mega-hog breeding operations which are taking over the market. There is no room for the next generation.

Mr. Laroche also said:

People must realize that we can no longer make ends meet.

There is no doubt about that.

Inverness is a small municipality in central Quebec. Its entire economy depends on the beef market, to the point that the beef festival is one of the most important events there. This social and economic activity attracts all the big cattle farmers in central Quebec. Along with various cultural activities, this festival helps to promote this industry.

Farming is the primary industry in central Quebec. Those on the other side of the House, the Liberal Party members, must pay more attention to what is happening in our regions.

We also have some statistics. We all know that the crisis has had a number of consequences. First, the slaughterhouses are no longer operating normally. As a result, producers incur higher costs to keep their herds. Another consequence is the reduced need for workers. The lack of production in the slaughterhouses means that, here, too, there is more unemployment.

Each time a crisis is brought on by the lack of leadership in the Liberal Party of Canada, the current Liberal government, it always affects the little people, the people who live on reasonable salaries but who cannot live very long on employment insurance benefits. It is not the same as earning $12 to $15 an hour. And first, one has to qualify for EI.

Right now, I know that representatives of the major central labour bodies in Quebec are going to knock on the doors of federal Liberal MPs to call them to account. With all that was said during the last election campaign, I am eager to get to the next one, because we will be able to call them a name I cannot say here because we are in the House and it would be called unparliamentary language. What we are saying is that these people are not telling the truth. That is a little better. We know that the Liberals made grand promises to make changes in employment insurance, but nothing has been done.

The mad cow crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, and the crisis in manufacturing are all factors with harsh effects on rural areas.

When people talk to me about the survival of rural communities, I know that the previous government in Quebec made incredible efforts to revitalize rural areas. We know that a province or country that finds itself with some weaker regions is not well balanced. Thus, if the rural regions are confronted with economic problems, it is because they were first up against the Employment Insurance Act, which really depopulated the rural areas. This legislation made it necessary for people to leave rural areas to move to large urban centres in order to regain their economic health.

All of that was to say that, of course, we shall vote in favour of the motion brought forward today by the Progressive Conservative Party. Any steps that can be taken to get us out of this blockage are important.

Before I close, I would like to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette. I had forgotten to mention that, but it is the hon. member for Joliette who will continue the efforts I began some 10 minutes ago to convince the Liberal government to wake up and solve the problem.