Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion No. 414, moved by my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert. This motion is most commendable, and I support it unconditionally. I congratulate her for having moved it.

The situation as is stands is ironic, and my colleague's motion attempts to change this state of affairs. Currently, the use of lead is prohibited in the migratory bird hunt. Yet, the use of lead in sport fishing has not been prohibited. It is of no use to protect a species halfway. If we decide to protect it, it must be fully protected, as the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert has proposed.

It is estimated that fishers lose approximately 500 tons of lead sinkers and lures in Canadian waters every year. Some may reply that other more toxic substances are left in waters every year. However, these lost lead sinkers have a significant impact on the health of birds, because they poisons birds when they are swallowed. It is estimated that between 20 to 50% of the deaths of adult diving wildlife is caused by lead lures found in our lakes. Lead fishing sinkers are the main cause of unnatural death in loons in Quebec, as poisoning occurs extremely quickly.

Hon. members will see how important a motion this is. The hon. member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert has, moreover, had the support of Ducks Unlimited for her initiative. Its director of research wrote her on March 25 indicating that support. My colleague's motion is in line with the thinking of Ducks Unlimited, which passed a resolution in that vein in 1995. It read as follows:

—because lead shot is a substance of persistent toxicity which, when consumed, can lead to death for waterfowl and other species, and because non-toxic equivalents are available, Ducks Unlimited Canada supports the use of non-toxic shot in hunting waterfowl.

However, notwithstanding the most definite justification for Motion No. 414, the Minister of the Environment does not seem in any rush to legislate on this matter. It would seem that he would prefer a consciousness-raising campaign instead. I have always respected the Minister of the Environment but on this he is really hiding his head in the sand like an ostrich. If he is incapable of backing a well thought out motion, I seriously believe that, like a bird with lead shot in its wing, Kyoto will not fly.

Yet he has admitted himself that lead may have been the cause of death in 20% of the loons in certain regions. This is serious. Even if he is aware of the problem, he prefers to launch an awareness campaign and then, if that is not sufficient, claims he will then be prepared to support the proposal by my colleague from Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert. Time will be lost, and how many more birds will be lost as well during that time? He knows very well that, sooner or later, he will have to pass legislation to ban lead in fishing, just as he has banned it for hunting waterfowl. He has the means available to act now, and needs only to say yes to this motion. We are not asking him for the moon.

Judging by the position of the parliamentary secretary, we can see that the government has again decided to put off till tomorrow what it could do today.

I trust that all members of this House will realize the importance of the motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, and will support it.

We are all aware of the problem posed by the death of migratory birds. We have the solution right at hand. Let us act, for action is urgent, and let us not slough off what we are able to do about it today.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, could you tell the Liberal member of who knows what riding that whenever she has something to say, she should rise and then put her questions?

When the member acted in that manner, she was chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

If I were a member of a committee and had some interests, or if someone in my family had interests, I would not stay. The hon. member could have let another member of parliament sit in her place. There are so many Liberal members on that committee that she could have given up her seat and say “I will not deal with the microbreweries issue, because my spouse has a direct interest in it”. She did not do it. She continued to sit on that committee.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot proposed amendments dealing primarily with microbreweries. The Liberal member used her authority as chair of the committee to reject the amendments of the Bloc Quebecois.

Since the last general election, since Motion No. 2, we have a new way of operating in the House. When amendments are presented to a committee, they cannot be presented again in the House at report or third reading stage.

The Liberal member knew exactly what she was doing. I find this deplorable. I really like the hon. member for London West. In the past, we have had the opportunity to discuss a number of issues. I thought she was very professional in making decisions. But now, I find it deplorable that the Liberal government would have reacted in such a fashion.

When the government reacts in such a way, when it deals like this with an issue that should be dealt in an honest and transparent fashion, and when things such as what happened occur, it means that something is going on.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I was not sure I would have the opportunity to be heard this afternoon. So, I am glad to be able to speak today on Bill C-47. First, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot for the presentation he made earlier as he educated us and told the people watching this debate on television that the way the government dealt with Bill C-47 was a disgrace.

The Bloc Quebecois supported this bill until our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot realized, in parliamentary committee, that the die had already been cast. Instead of protecting the interests of the public, of organizations simply asking for their fair share—which is what the government was elected for—it protected the big shots who are very close to the government.

The bill did not refer to the excise tax on beer. As we all know, this bill dealing with the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores was also supposed to deal with the taxation of beer. Unfortunately, microbreweries, which are doing well and taking up 4% to 5% of the market, will not be considered as breweries. The Canadian Council of Regional Breweries finds this appalling. Microbreweries are important because they mainly operate in regions and are significantly contributing to local economies.

In my region, in L'Anse-Saint-Jean, which is located in the riding of my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to be more precise, there is a microbrewery that was producing, a few years ago, seven different brands. Nowadays, it only brews three different brands: Illégale, Folie Douce and Royale.

Why have Brasseurs de l'Anse Inc., in the Saguenay region, had to limit its share of the market in the last few years? Because it was being treated unfairly by the government. I find it quite pathetic that the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, who claims to be concerned about regional development, would choose to support the member for London West.

I find what happened this week at the finance committee most inappropriate. Madam Speaker, I am also a woman. We both have a position in our society. These days, many women have careers and we see more and more women at executive levels. When the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, my leader and the member for Roberval brought up that practice at the finance committee, the Prime Minister of Canada thought they had acted condescendingly towards women. I interpreted what he said as being contemptuous towards women in general and myself. He understood quite differently what the members of my party were saying. What he understood was not what my colleagues meant. I am a woman and if my colleagues had meant that women should not occupy important positions, I would have been the first to call them to order.

My colleagues said that the member for London West who is a woman and chair of the Standing Committee on Finance--

[Non-Violence Week, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. Rock Gilbert and the numerous volunteers who, this week, launched the second annual non-violence week in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean.

Nowadays, violence takes a number of forms; it can be physical, verbal or psychological. It is becoming more and more of a presence in all spheres of our society.

During the week, the event's organizers will be meeting people in schools and shopping centres throughout the region in order to raise awareness of the issue of violence. The only way to eradicate this unfortunate phenomenon is to talk about it.

I urge the federal government to acknowledge the problem of violence and to put in place an initiative to eradicate it and to allow us to live in a world of joy, good humour and humanity.

[Highway Infrastructure, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport refuses to respond to the people of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, who are demanding that the government make good on its campaign promises relating to highway 175 in the parc des Laurentides.

I am calling upon the Minister of Transport to take his campaign promises into consideration, as well as the fact that Quebec has fulfilled all its obligations, and to at last announce the financial participation of his government in the construction of highway 175.

[Highway Infrastructure, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord has not done a thing since the last election. The time for making excuses and ducking the issue is over. The people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean want Ottawa to live up to the promises made by the ministers and by the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord before the election.

When will the Minister of Transport make good on his promise and announce the federal government's contribution to the project? All we are waiting on is him.

[Highway Infrastructure, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean paper, Le Quotidien , published an article by Denis Bouchard, in which he stated “The federal government wanted Quebec to commit to covering half of the costs for making highway 175 into a four lane highway, and it did. It also wanted Quebec to undertake environmental impact studies, and it did. Now the province is asking Ottawa to respect the promise that it made ten times, not once”.

What is the Minister of Transport waiting for to make good on the federal government commitment and announce its financial support as soon as possible, as promised during the election campaign?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with child pornography.

I will begin by giving a brief background to Bill C-15. The opposition parties and the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to split this bill, because it addressed a lot of unrelated issues.

We asked the government to split Bill C-15 in two distinct pieces of legislation, Bill C-15A, to deal with child pornography, and Bill C-15B, to address firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government agreed. So, I am very pleased to speak, on behalf of my hon. colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, to the amendments made by the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for his remarkable work on the issue of justice.

Last week, I attended an event in his riding which brought together over 300 people. It gave me the chance to realize how much his constituents appreciate his excellent work on justice.

I would like to state the Bloc Quebecois' position with regard to the first amendment proposed by the Senate. We are, as is the government, against this amendment. It was aimed at ensuring that people whose equipment is used for illegal purposes, probably without their knowledge, would not be prosecuted. But it opens a door that is wider than the one it is trying to close. This amendment is totally useless. It is even dangerous.

The concept of mens rea is implicit in the criminal code. Therefore, the custodian of a computer that would be used by a third party for illegal purposes cannot be prosecuted if there was no criminal intent, which is required for any criminal offence.

However, with the amendment proposed by the Senate, the custodian would be protected against prosecution even if he or she was fully aware of the purpose for which the equipment was used. The concept of intent is no longer important. Whether that person was aware or not of what was going on, he or she cannot be prosecuted and can therefore facilitate pedophilia with total impunity.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is against this amendment to Bill C-15A. It is totally useless and even dangerous.

As for the second amendment proposed by the Senate, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of that amendment. It is simply aimed at correcting what was probably an oversight resulting from the creation of a new offence related to juvenile pornography.

Obviously, if we protect from prosecution any person who produces, distributes, sells or possesses juvenile pornography for educational, scientific or medical purposes or in cases where such material has artistic merit, then we must afford the same protection to those who access it. Through this amendment, the senators have shown a lot of imagination in finally clarifying that clause of the bill.

As for the third amendment, we are in favour of it because it specifies those to whom the powers of the Minister of Justice can be delegated.

The old wording read “any individual”. The new wording specifies that the suitable people will be, and I quote:

—any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who, in the opinion of the Minister, has similar background or experience—

With this amendment proposed by the Senate, the minister's powers to act cannot be delegated to just anyone. This is comforting, because we are talking about child pornography, and those to whom the powers of the minister are delegated must at least be competent people who are able to identify the issues involved.

I would have appreciated it if the government had demonstrated as much openness toward the bill that I introduced last week regarding sexual offences, more specifically pedophilia, as it has demonstrated toward Bill C-15A.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance said earlier that we have the moral right to pass legislation to protect our young people, the children of this country. We, as legislators, must do so, given that young people are not able to.

The issue that my bill dealt with was no bigger than that of child pornography, in Bill C-15A. However, it was a current issue.

Why are these amendments being proposed to the criminal code regarding child pornography on the Internet? Because the criminal code needed updating, and today, 20 years later, we are in the age of the Internet.

This bill allows us to deal with the age of the Internet. Everything that our friend from the Canadian Alliance described, in referring to the meeting that he attended, is true. We can no longer hide our heads in the sand about what is happening on the Internet. It was time to act.

This same openness should have been demonstrated when it comes to criminal acts committed by pedophiles against youth under the age of 14. This is also a current issue.

Last week, instead of being open-minded and acknowledging the problem, instead of realizing that it was no longer an option to keep one's head in the sand about all the sexual offences being perpetrated against our children these days, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice should have demonstrated the same open-mindedness and given some thought to a problem which all members on both sides of the House have been lobbied about at their riding offices or here in the House of Commons. Increasingly, we are talking about pedophilia.

In my riding, and in Quebec, 40,000 people signed a petition calling on the government to take action with respect to pedophilia against young people under the age of 14. This was not just something I dreamed up.

Over 40,000 people signed a petition, which I tabled in the House, calling on the government to amend the criminal code for this offence.

After I spoke last week, I received many calls in my riding, as did other colleagues. People did not understand the government's refusal to take action on this problem, which is just as serious as child pornography.

I am still very moved. I remember all the young people who came to talk to me about this issue in my riding office. They told me “The government must give us some means, it must help us. We cannot act. We are the victims. We do not have the means to overcome this psychological, physical and mental ordeal”.

The purpose of my bill was to open the door a little bit to allow these young people to come and express themselves, to see a ray of light. Indeed, when one opens the door and there is a bright sunshine, a little ray of light brightens up the house. I wanted to help them have that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice only talked about big money. He said that it would cost too much, that it did not make sense, that the answer was no. He only talked about big money. He did not put himself in the place of the young people who are the victims of these criminal acts. He did not want to do that. He did not even recognize that the problem existed.

I only asked him to allow these young people and their parents to come and tell their story. They could have come to a committee sitting and explained to parliamentarians what they and their parents are going through. We could have finally opened the door a crack and taken a close look at this issue, as we are doing with child pornography on the Internet. My request was rejected. Both times I asked for the unanimous consent of the House, two female government members refused to give that consent. This hurt even more. Us women are confronted with this issue.

It is the same thing with this bill. Yes, the Bloc Quebecois supports amendments Nos. 2 and 3 from the Senate, but it is opposed to amendment No. 1. We had to take action, and this government allowed us to do so. As the Canadian Alliance member said, it designed tools to deal with abnormal things that can be seen on Internet sites involved in child pornography.

Let us face it: there is a growing number of perverts. We are not immune to everything that relates to perversity. We cannot think about all the things that these people can imagine. But today, with these amendments, we can give some powers to people in positions of authority, so that, at last, child pornography on the Internet can be monitored more closely.

There are other problems affecting our young people. The Canadian Alliance member was telling us about assaults on children younger than six, about dreadful photos on the Internet. Everything connected with pedophilia is dreadful. It affects the child's soul as well as his body. His inner being is violated. The member spoke to us of photos on the Net. These young people have been violated to their very core.

I trust that this government, which has shown open-mindedness concerning this problem, will note that in future I will not give up.

I will continue my crusade against pedophilia and will introduce a new bill that will focus even more clearly on sexual acts relating to pedophilia.

We can keep our heads in the sand no longer. As the Canadian Alliance member has said, and I would like to repeat his words, parliament has the moral right to pass legislation to help and protect our children. Our children are our future and they are the ones who will be responsible for the development of this country. If we act, our young people will be able to have a healthy future, psychologically, physically and mentally.

I congratulate the senators for their open-mindedness; their two amendments clarify the issues. We can finally say that they have been able to be of use as far as this bill is concerned.

Child pornography is a major problem. I beg this government not to stop any of its efforts relating to the sexual abuse of children.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 1982, the Government of Canada patriated the Canadian Constitution unilaterally, excluding Quebec.

Twenty years later, the consequences of this patriation, and particularly Quebec's exclusion, are still being felt. What is worse is that ,based on this constitution, Canada—mostly the Liberal government—has since disregarded Quebec consensus on numerous occasions.

Canada has decided to build itself by ignoring the aspirations of the Quebec nation, by creating a strong central government and by refusing to recognize Quebec as a nation.

This is why no political party recognized in the National Assembly, no Quebec government, regardless of its political stripes, has wanted to sign this constitution.

Quebec is a nation. It respects other nations and their citizens. We would ask for the mutual respect of Canadians in turn.

[Pest Control Products Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just like my colleague, this is what I hope for. We have a tool for the future. We all want to protect the environment.

The environment committee report is quite comprehensive; one can find everything in the document. I invite people to obtain a copy of the report--there are still copies in both French and English--in order to see the very serious work done by the committee. The witnesses who appeared before the committee said what the government should aim for. We heard from some fine witnesses people who made some very compelling suggestions.

The report sets out everything needed for the government to finally become a leader in the area of pesticides and organic farming and everything pertaining to our collective conscience. Every day, people are being challenged; now they will have some way of realizing that maybe tomorrow will be too late and that they should act right now.