Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Yannick Nezet-Séguin, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on September 24, the audience of 3,000 who had come to hear Verdi's Requiem at the salle Wilfrid-Pelletier had the pleasure of seeing Yannick Nezet-Séguin awarded the prestigious Virginia Parker Prize presented annually by the Canada Council.

This young orchestra conductor, whom Claude Gingras readily describes as a brilliant talent and a veritable phenomenon, joins other famous recipients of this award from Quebec, including Louis Lortie, Sophie Rolland, Marc-André Hamelin, Karina Gauvin, Alain Trudel and Richard Raymond.

Barely 25 years of age, he has been the assistant conductor and chorus director with the Opéra de Montréal since 1998. He was the guest conductor of the Orchestre métropolitain de Montréal in 1998 and is now its artistic director and principal conductor.

Mr. Nezet-Séguin, the extraordinary ovation that followed the performance of Verdi's Requiem was in tribute to your youth, your talent and your sensitivity. It is clearly the prelude to an international career. The Bloc Quebecois salutes you with pride.

[The Late Hon. Marcel Lambert, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in tribute to Marcel Lambert who passed away Sunday at the age of 81.

Mr. Lambert, who sat in this House and was its Speaker, was born in Edmonton in 1919. He was a student at the outbreak of the second world war. He joined the King's Own Calgary Regiment. He was taken prisoner of war in 1942 during the Dieppe raid. At the end of the war, he returned to the University of Alberta and went on to study law at Oxford. He returned to Edmonton and opened a law firm there.

In 1957 he was elected for the first time to the House of Commons under the banner of the Progressive Conservative Party in the riding of Edmonton, which he represented until 1984. He served as parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence in 1957-58. Re-elected in 1958, he served as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national revenue until 1962. Following the 1962 election, he was appointed Speaker of the House and remained so until February 1963.

The general election brought the defeat of the Conservative government but not of Marcel Lambert who was re-elected. In opposition, he served as defence and finance critic.

When the Conservatives returned to office in 1979, he chaired a committee and was re-elected in 1980. In 1985, when he retired from active political life, he was appointed the chair of the Canadian Transport Commission.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself, I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to his family and friends.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of what I think would be a clear way of doing things.

We will be having an election soon, in three weeks or three months. We do not know when but there will be one. When elected parliamentarians return to the House how will they choose their Speaker?

It is the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons to be impartial, to use judgment and common sense. These are three attributes required of the privacy commissioner. I think that everyone would agree with me.

Why, therefore, would parliament not elect one of several candidates? Naturally this takes longer and is more complicated than just appointing someone, but when it is a question of privacy, something that affects us all, is it not worth taking a little of the House's time? This is something that is very basic and I am certain that Canadians as well as Quebecers would see it as a plus for democracy.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the issue of transparency in parliaments is taking on increasing importance. With the emergence of all the information technologies, the average person is becoming increasingly aware that things are not as they should be.

The appointment to which the hon. member referred is just one more example of what I would call the almost disturbing power wielded by a majority government which has the right to decide on a number of appointments with ramifications for the public.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before discussing this appointment, I would like, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to acknowledge the work of Bruce Phillips who, in spite of often extremely difficult circumstances, did a professional job. Mr. Phillips can only be praised for the impartiality and common sense that he displayed.

At this point, I think that the Parliament of Canada and all Canadians and Quebecers want the privacy commissioner to be someone with good judgment and with the ability to objectively evaluate the facts before him.

We congratulate Bruce Phillips and we wish him a new career that will allow him to use his skills for the benefit of society.

As for the appointment of Mr. Radwanski, anyone taking the time to read his resumé can only agree that this man has a very extensive knowledge of Canadian politics. He is most certainly a brilliant and very intelligent person.

We all know, however, that these qualities are important but do not necessarily provide all the rigour required to hold an office that must be totally exempt from any partisan behaviour. The Bloc Quebecois will not approve this appointment for the simple reason that parliament must be allowed to ask questions to a candidate to the position of privacy commissioner.

This is another appointment made by the executive branch of government and it could be perceived as a political appointment. I believe the government—the one that is still in office—would definitely not want to give that impression. I humbly suggest that the government order that this candidate be called by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to answer the questions of members of parliament. In my view, this is the least we can ask in a parliament that claims to be the most democratic and the best one in the world.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge is a laudable initiative. It improves the existing legislative provisions and will help lead an effective fight against pedophilia.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-321 and hopes that the committee will soon review it.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 2000]

This is unfortunate. Could I have the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech?

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at second reading of Bill C-321, an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes. This bill, introduced by the member for Lethbridge, is votable, and the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to the criminal code.

This bill consists of a single clause, which I will read:

1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 163.1:

163.2 Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection 163.1(2), (3) or (4), the court that convicts the person may, in addition to any other punishment imposed on the person, order that anything by means of which or in relation to which the offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Since this is a bit obscure for the average person, I will simplify.

The purpose of this amendment to the criminal code is to make it possible to confiscate, by court order, and following a conviction, any material that has been used to commit a child pornography offence.

In order to properly take in the ramifications of the bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge, it is important first of all to have a thorough understanding of the implications of the offences listed under section 163.1, which have to do with the making, distribution or sale, and possession of child pornography.

Prior to 1993, the criminal code contained no specific provisions relating to child pornography.

In 1993, as the result of the Butler decision, parliament passed Bill C-128, an act to amend the criminal code and the customs tariff (child pornography and corrupting morals). Its aim was to amend the criminal code to expressly prohibit child pornography.

In the Butler decision, which was given in 1992, the supreme court had to decide on the constitutionality of the definition of obscenity as set out in section 163(8) of the criminal code. The court stated that pornography describing sexual acts involving children constituted the undue exploitation of sex, and accordingly the production and distribution of this type of pornography were prohibited by the provisions of the criminal code.

Although freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2( b ) of the charter of rights and freedoms—fundamental freedoms such as the freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other means of communication—was infringed upon as far as the supreme court is concerned, this infringement is justifiable under the first section of the charter.

However, the criminal code made no reference to the offence of simple possession of child pornography. Bill C-128 therefore filled this legal void by adding specific provisions to the criminal code with respect to child pornography, including a definition of it and providing that the distribution, sale, production and possession relating to this definition were criminal offences.

In adding the offence of simple possession, the aim of the legislator was to dissuade people from undertaking this sort of activity and thus further protect children against sexual exploitation.

Recently in British Columbia, John Sharpe's acquittal—the decision drew attention to the urgent and growing problem of child pornography—sparked a general outcry right across the country.

Not only was this decision questionable, relating as it did pornography with freedom of expression, it also pointed out the weakness of the instruments available to the law in seizures of pornographic material.

Sharpe was charged with the offences in subsections 163.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code for possessing pornographic material involving children.

In this decision, the judge declared the section invalid because it infringed section 2( b ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and acquitted John Sharpe accordingly.

According to Justice Shaw, it was not clearly demonstrated that child pornography had direct harmful effects. He also pointed out that freedom of expression is an important value, that an individual's personal effects relate to that person's particular character and personality and that banning mere possession has an impact on a highly intimate and private aspect of a person's life.

Following on the Sharpe case, a motion relating to child pornography was brought before the House. That motion, by what was then, Reform Party, called for the government to immediately the move to use the notwithstanding clause in order to maintain the ban on the simple possession of child pornography as set out in subsection 163.1(4), which had been struck down by the Sharpe decision.

Reiterating its attachment to the social values condemning child pornography, the Bloc Quebecois expressed its conviction that, although this issue needed to be addressed, it was premature to immediately invoke the notwithstanding clause and that justice ought to follow its course to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Bloc Quebecois therefore opposed the motion.

Only this past January 18 did the supreme court hear this controversial case. The supreme court decision, which is about to be released, will attract the attention and interest of everyone. Let us recall that the supreme court stipulated in 1992, in Butler, that “The overriding objective of s. 163 is not moral disapprobation but the avoidance of harm to society, and this is a sufficiently pressing and substantial concern to warrant a restriction on freedom of expression”.

We are confident that the justices of the supreme court will rule along the same line in this case, justifying the attack on guaranteed charter rights and quashing the British Columbia Appeal Court judgment. The similarity with Butler leads us to believe that this will be justified under section one of the charter, given the potential of irreparable harm to the children.

Right now, section 164 of the code provides for the seizure, under certain conditions, of pornographic material, but this section has a very limited application. Only copies of a publication or copies of a representation or written material may be seized.

The purpose of Bill C-321 is to make it possible to seize everything that was used to commit an offence. Accordingly, under this new legislation, it would be possible to seize such things as the computer used to download the pornographic publications, the printer, the camera or anything else that made it possible to make, distribute, sell or possess the child pornography.

There are increasing numbers of organized networks for the distribution of pornographic material and their activities are made easier by the explosion of telecommunications technologies, which make access almost universal. Anyone, including children, has access, which is why it is important to put even more energy than ever into fighting these networks and giving the courts the tools they need.

Not only must the final product, whether copies of a publication or copies of a representation or written material, be seized, but so must everything used to produce and distribute this pornography. Only thus can we hope to help destabilize these networks and weaken their production capacity.

As the Bloc Quebecois pointed out during the debate held in the fall of 1999, it is imperative that section 163.1 stand, but what is also needed are tools that allow material to be seized, for the safety and dignity of our children. This is precisely what—

[Employment Insurance, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister finally be brave enough to listen to public opinion and announce significant changes to the employment insurance plan established by this government, which affects women, young people and seasonal workers especially.

[Employment Insurance, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are, within the Liberal cabinet, significant differences of opinion on the rules governing access to employment insurance. Everyone knows this, it is an open secret.

Does the minister intend to support the position taken by the Prime Minister, on the eve of an election, of making the changes necessary in the field of employment insurance?