Carole-Marie Allard

[Solicitation Laws, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague for Laval Centre has said, I am certainly very pleased to be able to open a little window of positivity on the matter we are addressing today, and to announce my support for the motion to strike a special committee of the House in order to recommend changes to reduce the exploitation of sex-trade workers and particularly to stop violence against these workers.

Our goal, and that of my colleague from Vancouver East, is to create safer communities for all, and we certainly share the same motivation.

In fact, I must congratulate my colleague from Vancouver East for presenting this motion. With it, she is reaching out a hand to a vulnerable sector of the Canadian population, the sex-trade workers, many of whom are prostitutes, and the very large majority of whom are women, it must be admitted.

They call prostitution the world's oldest profession. My colleague from Laval Centre just said that herself, before yielding the floor to me. We must admit that the passage of time has not improved the situation of those who prostitute themselves, nor the safety of the communities where there is a very active sex trade.

Today sex-trade workers are in very great danger of disease, violence, even death. The world of prostitution is a subculture of our society where people live and work and where the protection of the law and respect of basic human rights are largely absent.

There is nothing new about calls for social justice for prostitution, nor about the realization that the vulnerability and lack of security for sex-trade workers are linked to issues of gender equality and women's fundamental rights.

In 1910, political activist and feminist Emma Goldman said that, whether the reformers admitted it or not, the economic and social inferiority of women was responsible for prostitution.

There is great merit to what Mrs. Goldman said nearly a century ago. Today's statistics show that the vast majority of sex trade workers are women. They are women from the most vulnerable sectors of our society: aboriginal women, women raised and living in poverty, victims of violence, women with substance abuse problems, and women who have been trafficked from other countries.

On an ongoing basis the people of Canada express their growing concerns about the safety of prostitutes and the harm that the activities of the sex trade can cause to the community.

The hue and cry on these issues has risen with the growing awareness of the plight of the missing women of Vancouver's East Side, and of other vulnerable women in communities across this land. We must do something to address these issues.

Our government is committed to taking positive action for social justice in ways that can achieve lasting positive change for these individuals and communities, and others at risk.

In the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada expressed its commitment to helping poor families and children to break out of the welfare trap. We are committed to ending the cycle of poverty and dependency that prevents children from getting a good start, that makes families vulnerable to poverty and violence, and that limits women's opportunities for self-determination.

Toward these ends, it is important that we carefully consider prostitution-related criminal issues. This motion is admirable. It is consistent with the government's commitment to children and families. It tries to find a way to help vulnerable persons and communities that have consistently been marginalized.

Through the concentrated study and dialogue that a House committee would generate, we can more deeply explore issues, consult with Canadians and develop strategies for action.

As some hon. members of the House have pointed out, prostitution is a complex and multi-faceted problem. It must be addressed on many fronts, including through legislative reform, community supports, social interventions and other related areas.

It must also be addressed in collaboration with a wide range of partners. That is why my colleague, the Minister of Justice, is speaking to the issue today. We must have the collaboration of a number of partners including other federal government departments, provincial and territorial governments, and municipal jurisdictions across the country.

As a reminder, my government has committed $32 million, that is $32 million annually, to a national crime prevention initiative. It has also invested $7 million in a family violence initiative.

In 2001-02 Status of Women Canada approved $3.9 million in funding throughout our women's programs. This funding supports initiatives that address the root causes of violence against women. A recent example includes Saskatoon Communities for Children, which my department supported as an initiative related to children involved in the sex trade. The goal was to generate legislative changes to ensure tougher action against sexual predators.

Other objectives include: developing strategies to raise public awareness about child sexual exploitation, forming partnerships to establish safe houses for youth, and enhancing efforts to open satellite homes for the rehabilitation of sexually exploited children.

Such efforts reach out and address the issues of some of the most vulnerable members of the population. They support and build on the safety and quality of life in affected communities. Working in partnership, we have created momentum that must be sustained if we are to make a difference for Canada and the people who live and thrive here.

I am therefore very proud to repeat that I am pleased to support this motion to establish a special committee of the House, which will develop recommendations and proposed changes to reduce the exploitation of and violence against sex-trade workers, and to create safer communities for all people in Canada.

Once again, in closing, I want to commend my colleague from Vancouver East on bringing this motion before the House.

[Question No. 100, February 7th, 2003]

Madame Speaker the Department of Canadian Heritage has no program that promotes the recognition of December 25 as a day commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ. The multiculturalism program is not responsible for religious holidays, such as December 25. These issues can be recognized by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons through Standing Order 31.

[Acadian People, February 6th, 2003]

The history of Canada, like that of any other country, has its sad moments. These moments are made up of events sometimes centuries old. This is the case with the deportation of the Acadians.

Canada is recognized worldwide as a bilingual country, and it is often described as a model of democracy. Since the days when, two centuries ago, Great Britain took over New France and other French colonies, Canadian society has developed relatively harmoniously into a country which, in this 21st century, is made up of two major language groups, one French speaking, and the other English speaking. These two peoples continue to live together in relative harmony and prosperity.

This coexistence is not without conflicts however. Nowadays, two large and very different language groups being able to coexist democratically within a single state is the exception rather than the rule.

Canada's Acadian community is not one, but many communities spread throughout the Atlantic provinces. In New Brunswick, the Acadians are concentrated in the southeast, the northeast and the northwest, with groups in Fredericton and Saint John.

In Nova Scotia, there are vibrant Acadian communities in St. Mary's Bay, on the southwestern shore, on Madame Island and in the Chéticamp area, in Cape Breton.

In Prince Edward Island, the Acadians live in the Évangéline area.

In Newfoundland, they are concentrated near Cape St. George, in St. John's and in Labrador City.

Many also live on the Magdalen Islands, in Gaspé, in the Montreal area and in western Canada. All of these communities, some of them large and others not so large, illustrate the vitality of the Canadian and Acadian people and of its two official languages.

It takes incredible strength and courage to ensure the development of a minority community. The Acadians have founded schools, colleges and universities. They have created playhouses, newspapers and publishing houses. They have made exceptional breakthroughs in the areas of culture, such as theatre, movies, visual arts, music and literature. They have given the world writers, poets, artists, dancers, musicians and singers. They have set up an impressive network of businesses and have created jobs.

The Acadians take part in the success and prosperity of our country. The Government of Canada recognizes their vitality and their essential contribution to Canadian society. They are part of the seven million people in Canada who speak, sing, write, work and live in French. These francophones are evidence of the vitality and the extraordinary determination to move ahead and to flourish in a continent where the majority is anglophone.

The French and the English languages, and those who speak them, have shaped our country and helped define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality finds its origin in the very roots of our country. It is difficult to be interested in the Canada of today without recognizing the importance of both languages and both linguistic communities in Canadian society.

Let us go back to the motion. Two hundred and fifty years later, should the House of Commons of Canada recognize the wrong doings of a monarchy to which it is not even connected?

Let us take a closer look. My colleagues and I are forward looking, just like Acadians and Canadians in general. We are committed to making Canada the best country of the world and we intend to do our utmost in this regard.

Let us look at how far the Acadian people have come. Traditionally, the three pillars of the Acadian economy have been fishing, farming and forestry. Acadia has become a leader in each of these areas.

The fishing industry continues to be dominant in Acadian coastal areas. In view of the problems plaguing the fisheries, Acadians have been looking for alternatives to traditional fisheries. They have invested in aquaculture, especially in salmon and mussel farms. They are engaged in fish and seafood processing programs, thus contributing to the sustainable development of ocean resources.

Hundreds of Acadians work in the forests of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Most forestry workers are employed in pulp and paper plants, sawmills, and furniture and wood processing plants.

In the farming sector, Acadians showed their creativity by reclaiming land from the sea. They built dykes and tide gates to drain swamps and lowlands in order to farm them. Farming is still done in Acadia, especially in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Potatoes remain the main export, but people are turning more and more to blueberries and cranberries, thanks to crop diversification.

However, the new Acadian economy goes beyond these traditional sectors. The economic renewal in Acadia is driven mainly by the cooperative movement and Acadians' entrepreneurial spirit. Fisheries cooperatives and credit unions were the foundation of a distinctly Acadian entrepreneurial culture.

For example, the credit union movement, which started in 1945 with the Fédération des caisses populaires, is made up of 200 000 members and various cooperatives and credit unions. It has assets of over $1 billion.

One of the finest examples of Acadian entrepreneurship success is Assumption Life. This major institution provides a wide variety of services in life insurance, group insurance and retirement savings plans. It also contributes, through loan, scholarship and donation programs, to education and health.

The cooperative movement has fostered the economic development of entrepreneurship in several Acadian regions. Business people have been forming networks, such as the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick et the Baie Acadienne Development Corporation, in Prince Edward Island, to create new businesses. In Acadia, small and medium businesses have become the main job creators.

Acadia has clearly distinguished itself in the education area. To do so, it has had to overcome problems related to its minority situation and to the dispersal of its people. Acadia has an impressive network of French language universities, community colleges, schools and school-community centres. The University of Moncton, in New Brunswick, and Sainte-Anne-Collège de l'Acadie, in Nova Scotia, provide full French language education and attract students from all over Canada and elsewhere.

Through its teaching and research activities, the University of Moncton has played a key role in the promotion of French language and culture in Acadia. Many Acadian leaders, including the former governor general, Roméo LeBlanc, the Supreme Court judge, Michel Bastarache, and the Premier of New Brunswick, Bernard Lord, went to the University of Moncton. It has more than 30,000 graduates who became leaders in Acadian society—

[Acadian People, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is living in the past, while we and all Acadians are looking to the future.

I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to take part in the debate on Motion M-238, which reads as follows:

That this House officially acknowledge the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.

Before going any further, I will say that this motion's biggest flaw is the fact that it was introduced by a member whose party advocates breaking up this country. Will the hon. member do the honourable thing and admit that the Bloc Quebecois' plan has had a devastating effect on Acadians and all French speaking Canadians? Will he apologize today to the Acadians for having tried to exclude them in such a way?

[Privilege, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I am asking you not to entertain the request by my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Privilege, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity to address the question of privilege on the premature and unauthorized disclosure of the minority report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, which was tabled before Christmas by the hon. Bloc Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

The hon. member claimed that, based on a number of newspaper articles, of which I did not receive a copy, it is clear that certain members of the committee gave interviews which, to a large extent, enabled reporters to learn the contents of the report before it was tabled in the House of Commons.

I asked to see these articles, and yesterday I was sent a three paragraph article published in the daily Le Droit . I do not know if you have other articles in your possession, but I assume that this is the only one that was tabled to support the motion of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

The first two paragraphs do not quote anyone, but in the third paragraph my name is mentioned and I am said to have made the following statement:

The committee wanted to send a clear message to young people aged 12 to 18 that it is not legal to smoke marijuana.

First, I want to say that I am extremely proud of the work done by the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. We had our work cut out for us because, as you know, right in the middle of our public consultations, the House referred a bill to us on the legalization of marijuana. From the outset, we set this hot button issue aside to allow the Senate committee, which was finishing up its report on the matter, to publish its recommendations.

You will recall that the conclusions of the Senate report were quite controversial and left us with a hot potato in our hands.

As a result, our committee was well aware of the importance of properly defining the priorities in the area of addictions. It therefore decided to split the committee report into two parts to be made public.

We decided to publish the first 39 recommendations in an interim report on December 9 and to save the last two recommendations for the final report, made public on December 12.

On December 9, the interim report was greeted with a great deal of attention from the media. We proposed 39 recommendations on addictions and our approach to solving the problem in Canada.

Each and every one of us, including the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, was interviewed on television and had journalists ask every possible and relevant question, as their job requires them to do.

All week, they tried to fit the pieces of the puzzle together so they could break the news about marijuana before the report was tabled on December 12.

I gave interviews all week long, and I felt it was my duty to do so. I even took part in a television show with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Then, on December 12, our committee tabled its final report. The report contained the first report and also the two final recommendations that dealt with cannabis. Allow me to read the recommendations out loud.

Recommendation number 40 specifies:

The Committee recommends that the possession of cannabis continue to be illegal and that trafficking in any amount of cannabis remain a crime.

Recommendation 41 stipulates:

—that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health establish a comprehensive strategy for decriminalizing the possession and cultivation of not more than thirty grams of cannabis for personal use.

This strategy should include:

Prevention and education programs outlining the risks of cannabis use and, in particular, the heightened risk it poses to young persons; and

The development of more effective tools to facilitate the enforcement of existing Criminal Code prohibitions against driving while impaired by a drug.

This is the full text of the recommendations set out in the committee's final report released on December 12. So, it would seem that the allegation made by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve does not hold. Let me explain why.

Although I am in fact quoted in the article, I do believe, with all due respect, that what I said was nothing new. The headline of the article I received from your office simply said “30 grams of pot, no more!”

I have sent to your office two other newspaper articles where the quote about the 30 grams is attributed to another member of Parliament. A number of articles were published during that week. I would remind the House that any reporter who had read the interim report would have easily come to the conclusion that we were not about to legalize marijuana; it was right there in black and white.

That is the first part of my answer. I am referring to the article I sent to your office, which says:

As a member of the special committee, the member from the Canadian Alliance... supported the cultivation of not more than 30 grams—

I would also point out that an anonymous source is quoted in this article. Would that be the hon. member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve? Or maybe the Alliance member right across from me? They just mention an anonymous source.

The article also mentioned that on December 9, the minister and member for Outremont indicated his intention to go ahead with a bill on decriminalization. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and member for Outremont has never stopped—since taking up his duties at the Department of Justice—saying that he is for the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use. In the Speech from the Throne, there was a reference to this measure, which was felt to be imminent.

I also remember having heard the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on a program on RDI, revealing—on the subject of marijuana—the basic position we would all take as a committee, which is, and this is my recollection of what he said, that it should remain illegal, but that recreational users of small quantities should no longer have criminal records.

My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve also published two articles in Quebec last summer setting out his position.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, that we are not prohibited from talking to journalists in circumstances such as I described. Nor does it in any way constitute divulging the contents of a report.

From the moment an interim report is tabled, the eyes of the media are on us. As a member of the committee, the Alliance member opposite knows that we did all we could to publicly reflect the recommendations contained in the special committee's interim report.

At no time was the text of recommendations 40 and 41, in the form they appeared in the report, made public, which demonstrates that there were no leaks of the report before it was published.

I therefore submit that the report was not leaked. My comments reflected my concerns about the use of marijuana among young people, aged 12 to 18. This is a concern, incidentally, that I expressed publicly on numerous occasions during the committee's public hearings.

If I am guilty, then the other members of the committee are equally so, because each and every one of them, unless I am mistaken, was quoted in newspapers, starting with the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

I am tabling the article from December 12, which I brought to your attention, where the member for Vancouver East is mentioned. In it, she is quoted as saying:

But another member of the committee, New Democrat, Libby Davies, believes the opposite, that the committee, made up of a majority of Liberals, does not go far enough, because possession of cannabis is still considered illegal—

[International Network on Cultural Policy, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is in Paris right now to bring together as many countries as possible in support of a legal instrument, which, once adopted and ratified, would help protect culture when trade agreements are concluded.

The minister is speaking in a variety of fora, including the Canada-France Chamber of Commerce and UNESCO. I would like to congratulate my government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their leadership in the area of cultural protection.

[Soirée des Masques, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and extend congratulations to the nominees and winners at last night's Soirée des Masques.

To list just some of the winners, L'Homme de la Mancha received the Loto-Québec award; Amours délices et ogre , the Enfants terribles award; Le ventriloque , the Montreal production award; Les trois soeurs , the Quebec production award, and Encore une fois si vous permettez , the regional production award.

There was also a moving tribute to theatre personality Paul Hébert.

Thanks to Quebec theater, we have an opportunity to experience moments of magic, tragedy and joy. The time we spend in the theater is always unforgettable, and I encourage our artists to continue to offer us the opportunity to experience the whole gamut of emotions.

[Statutory Instruments Act, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), introduced by the member for Surrey Central.

First, I would like to mention a point that was put forward earlier in today's debate, regarding the fact that the current disallowance procedure, set out in the Standing Orders, works well.

This procedure is a very useful tool for Parliament to control the exercise of regulatory authority. This procedure has existed for some 15 years and, until now, only eight reports containing a resolution to revoke a statutory instrument have been adopted. Each time, the government implements the resolutions.

Since the disallowance procedure works well and the entrenchment of a disallowance procedure in the Statutory Instruments Act would be problematic for several reasons, I cannot support the bill introduced by the hon. member.

I would, however, like to go into greater detail regarding one of the government's concerns with this bill. It is important to point out that this bill goes much further than the current procedure set out in the Standing Orders.

Under current procedure, adoption of a resolution under Standing Order 123 constitutes an order of the House to revoke the statutory instrument in question. With this bill, adoption of the resolution would have the effect of automatically revoking the regulatory instrument in question on the thirtieth day following the day on which the motion was agreed to.

In our opinion, such an automatic revocation measure is fraught with consequences. It can cause a legal vacuum and hence serious problems to those administered under the regulatory instrument in question. This automatic revocation procedure deprives the government of the necessary flexibility legislative measures require.

First of all, it is possible that the government has not had time to gauge the impact of such an automatic revocation on the legal system in place. As well, the government might find itself hard pressed to fill this legal vacuum or to make the necessary adjustments to the system without having the time required to properly assess the impact of the revocation or new measures.

For example, there was a recent case involving the fresh fruit and vegetable regulations. This was reported on by the Standing Joint COmmittee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, in a report tabled in keeping with the disallowance procedure set out in the Standing Orders. The report in question was Report No. 67, tabled on June 7, 2001.

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regulations set out the requirements governing the registration of establishments in which fresh produce is prepared and packed. Sections 57 and 58 of these regulations stipulate grounds for suspension or cancellation of the establishment's registration. These grounds were the same for both types of measures.

Since the grounds for suspension and cancellation were the same, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations felt that the establishment operators were at the mercy of the civil servant who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations and which sanction will apply.

The committee decided on the revocation of one of the two provisions, namely section 58, which deals with the cancellation of registration.

The government complied with an order of the House and revoked section 58 of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Regulations. The revocation was registered under the designation SOR/2002-68.

This revocation came into effect some eight months after the committee's report was tabled.

It is important to note that, in this case, other regulations were affected, namely the Honey Regulations and the Maple Products Regulations, as they had similar provisions to those at the heart of the report. Therefore, there was a need to make similar changes to these regulations.

This is a good example of why the government needs some latitude, not only to avoid a legislative vacuum, but also to be able to adequately adjust the existing regulatory system.

In this example, it is clear that simply revoking the power to cancel registration would not effectively solve the problem on its own.

There must be time to consider an alternative solution and to implement new regulatory measures.

However, I believe that it is most important that the government have the flexibility needed to solve such issues. The government must have the time needed to pass new regulatory measures in order to fill the legal vacuum and to adjust the regulatory system that is in place.

The automatic disallowance process being proposed here today fails to meet this need for flexibility. Furthermore, passing new regulatory measures hastily to replace provisions that are automatically repealed may be very risky. It could also have terrible consequences, not only for government but more specifically for citizens.

I would like to point out that a great many regulations are legislative texts just like the bills that are debated here in the House. Therefore, it is very important that these texts be developed with the utmost care, for the benefit all Canadians.

In most cases, the government needs time to establish policy in order to implement regulations that are effective.

[Chinese New Year, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, February 1, is Chinese New Year.

In Chinese society, legends and stories revolve around 12 animals. Today, some people put stock in the virtues attributed to these animals.

2003 is the Year of the Goat. According to the Chinese zodiac, the year of the goat will bring harmony and humanity throughout the world. Honesty and compassion will make a strong comeback.

Chinese New Year is an invitation to celebrate. I would like to take this opportunity today to wish a wonderful year and joyous celebrations to the Chinese community.