Robert Lanctôt

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with Motion No. 10, which concerns reinstatement of clause 9, it is vital to reinstate this, because it is one of the key points of the bill. It concerns the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre.

Having spoken with all athletes as well as a number of coaches, we find it obvious that this is both welcome and necessary. I trust that it will not be made mandatory.

I had proposed some amendments on this, making it a voluntary decision for the athletes to be part of this centre. Similarly, should they wish to take advantage of the centre's mediation or arbitration, the federations and Sport Canada would be required to participate.

These amendments were turned down in committee. Since the bill does not make reference to this, it is important not to deprive athletes of their rights, in other words, they must still have the right to decide to go to court.

Creation of a dispute resolution centre must not deprive anyone of his or her rights. I trust that it will be used as something extra, another extrajudiciary approach, that is the opportunity to opt for mediation or arbitration. People must, however, still have the possibility of going to court if that is important to them.

In other words, if two athletes decide its settlement is final, this must be respected. This represents a big step forward for athletes, because they will have a choice, but this must remain a choice and not be made an obligation. I hope that the bill will be interpreted in this way. There is no specific reference to this being mandatory or not, so I hope this is what will be done.

Now for the appointment of the executive director, it was important to move this amendment because we want this centre to be truly independent. We are creating an extrajudiciary entity, but there must be transparency and independence.

In this regard, when the minister or the secretary of state for amateur sport appoints the directors of this board, it is important for these directors to appoint the executive director. This will ensure transparency. Of course, this will also indirectly ensure accountability, since the board will operate at arm's length.

It is high time we had such legislation and co-operation with the provinces and with Quebec. I hope that people will talk to each other, that the ministers will get along, because physical activity and sport are extremely important for society, in terms of health, but also of unity and sport ethics.

We have not yet discussed the issue of sport ethics. The bill does not say much about it, but it is so important. As members know, we now have the World Anti-Doping Agency in Montreal, and this is wonderful for Quebec and for our athletes. It tells the whole world that doping in Quebec and in Canada is a thing of the past, and we must show leadership in this respect. I hope that we will make good use of this bill to achieve our objectives.

Of course, I congratulate the members of the subcommittee on amateur sport for reaching a consensus. We all had to make compromises. Personally, it goes without saying that I would like to see many amendments to this bill.

Again, I want to tell the secretary of state for amateur sport that we must not forget the amendments on the grounds of the decisions made by the dispute resolution centre, which must be put in writing. Deadlines should be included in this regard. As for the amendments that I proposed in this respect, I hope that the government will follow Quebec's procedure code, which is part of an act, not regulations, and I hope that the legislation will be amended to include these amendments.

The registration of a sentence must be included in the bill, not just in the regulations, as the government tried to do. The idea is not to have the dispute resolution centre work in isolation. This would be a mistake. Things as important as deadlines or the written reasons for an arbitral decision must be included in the bill.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 17th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, since the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has been constantly asking that the government respect francophone athletes and trainers from Quebec, who must master the English language as well as their sport. Our request is totally legitimate.

We wish to remind the government that 12 of the 16 recommendations were to be implemented by April 1, 2001. Nothing has been done; no recommendation has been implemented, which is deplorable.

The 16 recommendations were quite simple. The first one called for Sport Canada to review the official languages objectives with regard to the funding framework for sports organizations.

This means that Sport Canada was asked to require Canadian sports federations to eliminate restrictions for francophone athletes.

The second recommendation called for Sport Canada to ensure, through close monitoring, that official language objectives within the funding framework were met, and to do so by April 1, 2001.

In turn, Treasury Board was asked to review its method for verifying compliance with programs so as to ensure better control.

The next recommendation called for a complete review of language requirements for positions within the Athlete Assistance Program.

The fifth recommendation referred to the requirement for assurances that both official languages will be respected during large-scale games. For the sixth recommendation, the official languages commissioner called for the linguistic requirements for management positions to be reviewed.

The seventh recommendation involved reviewing how responsibilities are assigned to program officers, in order to guarantee client organizations services in the language of their choice.

Sport Canada was also to work together with sporting organizations in order to adopt policy statements on official languages.

Another recommendation was to ensure that Sport Canada require that the linguistic capabilities of Canadian sports organizations be reviewed. Sport Canada was also to review sports organizations' budgets for official languages spending.

There was also the issue of having a non government organization provide translation services.

Recommendations 12, 14, 15 and 16 dealt with the first language of coaches. The commissioner recommended that coaches know both official languages and that medical services be offered in both official languages.

We are pleased to note that the government decided to make specific reference to respecting official languages, even though this is the result of the fact that we insisted on this each time we spoke on the subject, whether it be in the House of Commons or during the hearings of the subcommittee on the study of sport.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud that our repeated demands of the government for recognition, in law, of the importance of the Official Languages Act has finally yielded results, as it is contained in the preamble. Obviously, we would have preferred it if all of the amendments on official languages that were presented by the Bloc Quebecois had been included in the bill itself, rather than simply in the preamble.

However, I believe this is a considerable improvement, and it is my hope that athletes, coaches and everyone involved in sports will benefit from this addition to the preamble.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 17th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the Bloc Quebecois critic for amateur sport to address Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport.

Since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has been supportive of the principles that underlie this bill, provided that it includes a specific provision to comply with the Official Languages Act. We believe that athletes, coaches and the whole population will benefit from the objectives of this bill, which are laudable and long overdue.

The Bloc Quebecois has always made athletes and coaches a key element of its demands and it will continue to do so at every opportunity, as long as this is necessary.

Bill C-54 is a step in the right direction. It remains to be seen whether these specific measures will meet the numerous expectations of the sports community and of the general public. It is important to remember that this bill is as much about sports as it is about physical activity.

Discussions during the sittings of the subcommittee on sport were lively, but we always kept in mind that we should be working in the best interests of athletes and coaches, because this is a non-partisan issue. Based on the comments that we heard, it appears that our work was appreciated.

The objectives on both sides of the table were basically the same, namely to increase resources for our athletes and coaches, to develop an awareness of the fact that sport facilities and infrastructures are in urgent need of investments, and to implement practical measures to increase public participation.

As a member of parliament, the Bloc Quebecois critic for amateur sport and a member of the subcommittee on sport, I have stressed the need to have a specific provision on respecting official languages. Today, we see that our efforts have paid off. During the sittings of the subcommittee, we insisted on the need to put in place mechanisms to monitor and implement the use of official languages, based on the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages in the report she tabled in 2000.

Subcommittee members unanimously expressed a desire to soon have a true department of sport and physical activity. We believe that the creation of such a department would officialize the implementation of the objectives of Bill C-54.

Members of the subcommittee would also like to see a strengthening of the preamble to Bill C-54. We need more than empty words to meet the expectations of our athletes and trainers. It is incumbent upon the government to officially act on this preamble as soon as possible.

We hope that this bill will put athletes and trainers at the heart of this government's actions, as the Bloc Quebecois has been recommending since the very beginning.

We also hope that the government will act quickly to make the resources available to meet the objectives of excellence and that the appropriate transfers will be made to Quebec, the provinces and the territories so that athletes can have, right from the start, all the tools they need to succeed.

Our athletes and trainers are our pride, and we need to show that to them. They have been listening to empty words for too long. The time has come to take action so that we never again have to talk about a lost generation.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the government will take its inspiration from community physical activity programs such as Kino-Québec. We are still wondering about the relevance of abolishing the ParticipAction program.

It is the government's intention to encourage physical activity for the public at large, but it did abolish a program that would have helped us move along toward that goal.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill inasmuch as there is total respect for Quebec's jurisdiction, to avoid any form of encroachment. We encourage the federal government to open a dialogue of co-operation with its counterparts in Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

With respect to the creation of the dispute resolution centre, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its desire that this extrajudicial resolution centre operate on a purely voluntary basis in connection with athletes and that Sports Canada be required to respect athletes' wishes. It would also be appropriate to implement arbitration award consultation mechanisms, thus creating sport case law which would be available to the sport community.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the rules of application for the mediation and arbitration process should follow the example of the rules of procedure in use in Quebec. The amendments to this effect were rejected by the subcommittee on sport during clause-by-clause study.

Finally, we see in the specific affirmation of respect for the official languages an intention of goodwill, and we hope that Quebec's athletes and trainers will finally be able to participate fully in the international sport community.

In 1999, the Bloc Quebecois filed a complaint with the official languages commissioner asking her to look into the difficulties faced by francophone athletes. The commissioner felt that our allegations were well founded. In 2000, she submitted a detailed report containing 16 recommendations.

In her report, the Commissioner of Official Languages referred to the results of an indepth investigation of the use of French and English in the Canadian sports system. Her conclusion was that not only did the process of selecting Canadian teams represent a major obstacle to francophone athletes, but that the problem existed far earlier than the final team selection process. It is a problem that has been around for some time and it is time steps were taken to ensure respect of the rights of francophone athletes to receive services and coaching in the language of their choice.

The Bloc Quebecois has been calling for a long time for implementation of the 16 recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages. Her report is already two years old. We are still demanding their immediate application. In fact, acknowledgment of the francophone athlete issue is the central point of our demands, as it has been from the start, both in the House of Commons and in the sports subcommittee.

The Commissioner of Official Languages makes it clear: French and English are far from equal in status as far as Canadian sport is concerned.

With the introduction of Bill C-54, the Bloc is entitled to call for proper implementation of the recommendations by the Commissioner of Official Languages, and particularly the explicit entrenchment of these recommendations in the bill itself. The Bloc Quebecois therefore calls for legislative acknowledgment of the formal application of the Official Languages Act.

How many francophone athletes have been training for years and have not managed to get to international level competitions because of the language barrier? Unfortunately, far too many.

The Bloc Quebecois has been constantly demanding from the very start that the government respect francophone athletes and coaches, who are being forced to master English as well as the demands of their sport.

As I have only two and one half pages more to read, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech.

[Élevages Ruban Bleu, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate a business in my riding, Les Élevages Ruban Bleu of Saint-Isidore, which was recognized as the provincial award winner at the 27th congress of the Fédération des agricotours du Québec for its promotion of goat cheese.

The jury selected it because of the devotion and caring of its operators, Denise Poirier and Jean-Paul Rivard, to ensure that visitors have an opportunity enjoy “a total farm experience”.

One of the reasons for the 50% increase in the number of visitors to this farm and its great success over the past 10 years is its Pavillon Ruban Bleu. This interpretive centre provides visitors with the opportunity to learn more about the farm's products.

Congratulations to Les Élevages Ruban Bleu for their dynamism, their vision of the future and their contribution to raising the profile of the riding of Châteauguay.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we now possess all the tools necessary to create an approach that would punish true offenders while protecting farmers, hunters and researchers. But this is not what the government wants to see.

We are of the view that not including the defences found in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code in the new part V.1 will have the effect of depriving those who legally kill or cause pain to animals of the protection they are currently afforded.

Section 429 of the criminal code is clear. It says that legal justification or excuse and colour of right constitute specific protection to whomever takes part in a legitimate and legal activity. It is therefore essential to include these specific safeguards in the provisions of new part V.1 of the criminal code.

According to Department of Justice officials, subsection 8(3) of the criminal code should apply. They say that defences of legal justification or excuse or colour of right are implicit in section 8. Why not include them explicitly in the bill as the entire animal industry is requesting? It is completely illogical to refuse to do so. These protections are not implicit because they are explicit only for certain sections of the criminal code, specifically section 430 and those which follow.

The Bloc Quebecois is adamant about this. The means of defence now provided for in section 429 of the criminal code must be included in new part V.1 of the criminal code.

In addition, we are of the view that going back to committee for consideration of this point is more than necessary. It is vital to ensure that the bill truly meets the needs of all parties.

The committee proceedings must be entirely democratic in order to consider all the effects of this problem of cruelty to animals. In addition, it is our role in committee to ensure that there will be no possible conflict in interpretation of the new provisions.

Unfortunately, today the government has brought in a motion for closure. Unfortunately, we know what is going to become of this amendment to the amendment.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today and tell the House about the Bloc Quebecois' position on the proposed amendment to the amendment with respect to the date the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is to submit its report.

I wish to reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tangible and appropriate measures to fight the scourge of cruelty to animals. This is a serious problem which merits all our attention and all our energy. This problem has gone on for too long and it is high time that we face up to it and take the appropriate corrective action.

Again, what we are talking about are acts of unheard-of violence deliberately committed against creatures unable to defend themselves and win recognition of their rights.

Despite all Bill C-15B's good intentions, the Bloc Quebecois still opposes it for two main reasons: the lack of protection for legitimate activities involving animals, and the fact that important powers are taken away from the chief firearms officer, who reports to the government of Quebec.

An amendment to the bill was put forward requiring that the bill be referred back to committee for detailed consideration of clause 8, which sets out how the bill will be applied.

We are in favour of this amendment because it specifically addresses one of our main objections to Bill C-15B, which is the defence for legitimate activities relating to animal husbandry.

It is noteworthy that the section addressing firearms would benefit from a thorough revision as well. The Bloc Quebecois maintains its position on this camouflaged decrease of powers in favour of the chief firearms officer.

We are in favour of the creation of a new section in the criminal code which would institute an innovative concept, the object of which would be to completely change the concept of what an animal is. A animal would no longer be perceived as property, but rather as a specific named entity in the code.

We want to make it clear that we are opposed to this, if it is going to have significant negative repercussions on all those who are involved in a totally legitimate way with animal husbandry, hunting or scientific and medical research.

This is a very important amendment, because it will mean a definitive change to the application. Such a change must not be done in such a way as to have a detrimental effect on what is already in place. And that is exactly what the present wording of Bill C-15B is going to do.

By changing the description of what constitutes an animal, we will no longer look at animals as before and will no longer treat them as before. Yet this innovation must not result in a radical and definitive change in the lives of those who are currently involved in animal husbandry or scientific research in particular, and have been for many years.

With this amendment to the amendment, we recognize that it is essential to look at clause 8. We also acknowledge the urgency of the tragic situation that occurs daily. By introducing this amendment to the amendment, parliamentarians are clearly establishing the limits of a very tight deadline within which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must report back to the House on its indepth study of clause 8 of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this amendment to the amendment in that it establishes a reasonable opportunity to carefully, meticulously, review clause 8 of this bill, a clause which may be considered the very cornerstone of the criteria for protecting legitimate activities involving animals, including animal husbandry, hunting and scientific and medical research.

Bill C-15B is very controversial, and has been from the very beginning. We all receive mail from our fellow citizens asking us to support this legislation. I had the opportunity to discuss the Bloc Quebecois' position with a number of these people, and they support our position, which is to protect animals while recognizing the legitimate activities related to the whole animal industry.

We, like the stakeholders, want increased protection for animals. However, we also support specific protection for people in the animal industry. The problem is that, in Bill C-15B as it is currently worded, there is a blatant lack of protection for these legitimate activities in the animal industry.

Again, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the bill in its present form, because of this unacceptable and deplorable flaw.

There are currently specific defences for activities relating to the animal industry. These defences are provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, which explicitly protects those who raise livestock, hunters, the animal industry and researchers. These protections are not included in the new part V.1 of the criminal code.

As we said before, the primary purpose of this bill should have been to increase penalties for any reprehensible and violent activity involving animals. The penalty for a cruel offence should be serious enough to deter anyone contemplating it. But this is not the case with Bill C-15B, because it lumps all violent actions together, whether or not cruelty is involved. This is unacceptable.

Officials from the Department of Justice told us in committee that the government's intent was not to deprive those who take part in legitimate breeding activities of the protection to which they are entitled. How can this be the case when the current protection that is specifically laid out in section 429 of the criminal code is not included in clause 8 of the bill? This begs the question. We have reason to seriously question the statements made by the representatives of the Department of Justice.

We have been told that they are legal experts who have anticipated everything. Yet, if this is the case, why were the protections found in the current legislation not included in the new bill? It makes no sense. Why not include the specific protections found in section 429 of the criminal code? These protections are not repeated in the new part V.1 of the criminal code, even implicitly. According to the wording in section 429, these protections only apply to sections 430 to 446 of the criminal code. All we want is to apply the general rights of defence to clause 8. However, at the request of the Bloc Quebecois, clause 8 was explicitly included in the bill, but the government did not want to include explicitly the defences set out in section 429. It makes no sense.

How can we interpret these protections as applying to the entire criminal code? It is simply not logical. Why not include that which has existed for such a long time? The legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. This is a legal principle known to all experts. If legislators have taken care to specify that protections only apply to certain specific sections and not the entire code, that is their intention.

We introduced amendments to this effect, but they were all rejected in committee. The Bloc Quebecois believes that it is essential to take the appropriate measures to satisfy all of the stakeholders. It is possible and perfectly feasible.

As I said before, the Bloc Quebecois supports the creation of a new part of the criminal code for a completely new definition of animal, thereby granting a new designation and legal value.

However, we cannot accept it if the current protections are not respected. The fact that the means of defence that currently exist are not included concerns us.

Unfortunately, I am out of time. I only had a page and a half left to read. I wonder if it is possible for the House to give its unanimous consent for me to finish my speech.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is not simply to modernize the criminal code. Instead, it is to provide greater protection for animals.

This is the primary objective, to add provisions to provide protection, rather than removing rights of defence. These rights of defence that the minister has given with section 429 of the criminal code, by describing them as general as regards the property section, well I am sorry, but these have been added.

Section 429 of the criminal code contains three things. It refers to legal justification, excuse and colour of right. Therefore, when it comes to section 8 of the criminal code, which has been around for a long time, pertaining to the general rights of defence in common law, specific rights have been added to this subsection of section 429 of the criminal code.

Does the minister understand this? We are not simply talking about protecting the rights of fishermen alone. I think that this example will speak to him; he likes fishing. There is also the animal industry, trapping, hunting, the whole scientific research industry. Is he interested in the rights of all of these people?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to be clear. The criminal code already had section 8.

I would like to ask the minister why there was a section 459 dealing with property specifically. It is not because the section 8 defence was in place—and still is—that the provisions of section 429 were specifically introduced in the section on property.The section on animals was changed and a new one was created, with which the Bloc Quebecois agrees. All that we are asking is for the defences set out in section 429 under property be included in the new one.

He, as a fisherman, and his friends in the advertising business both know the value of fishing and want this protection. He tells us there is implicit protection. What difference does it make to make it explicit, if the minister thinks that these defences are in place? I would like him to explain the reason for this.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Minister of Justice an opportunity to really answer the question asked earlier by the Canadian Alliance, because I am going to ask him the same question. Furthermore, I asked him this question when he appeared before the committee and I did not get an answer.

We are talking about the defence available to the animal, hunting and medical industry. These people had the defence provided for in section 429 of the criminal code.

He is telling us that this defence will implicitly be part of the bill. That is not so. When we asked for these amendments, they introduced an amendment which specifically provided clause 8. Yet it is a common law defence; there was no requirement to be specific.

However, we explicitly requested that the defences in section 429 be included. Can he give me an answer today? Why not specifically include the defences provided for in section 429?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister of public works whether or not he was planning on suspending the $2 million contract granted to Robert-Guy Scully for a series on innovation and entrepreneurship, given that the RCMP is currently investigating his series on Maurice Richard. The minister informed us that he would review the file and report back.

Can he tell us today if he had time to examine the contract and if he will suspend the contract, as he did for advertising contracts?