Pierre De Savoye

[The Canadian Armed Forces, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The latest in a long list of scandals involving the armed forces was made public yesterday on TV. Several senior officers at the Valcartier base have developed a system involving embezzlement and kickbacks. Worse yet, it is alleged that this practice, which has been going on for at least 15 years, is common place in several other military bases across the country.

Given the fact that this kind of systematic fraud is part of the already long list of scandals we know about, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to clean up the armed forces command, starting with the defence minister and his protégé, the chief of staff?

[Governor General's Performing Arts Awards, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to congratulate the winners of this year's Governor General's Performing Arts Awards.

Among those honoured for their contribution to Canadian and Quebec culture were songwriter Luc Plamondon, folk singer and songwriter Joni Mitchell, film director Michel Brault, costume designer and teacher François Barbeau, actor-director Martha Henry, and choreographer Grant Strate.

The remarkable career of each of these winners shows not only their huge talent but also the extraordinary creativity that drives our performers.

The Bloc Quebecois commends in particular Mr. Plamondon's decision to donate his prize money to a bursary for young artists who want to write musical comedies or improve their skills in this area.

[Broadcasting Act, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is of vital importance to consumers. It is a bill designed to ensure that the consumer will not be billed for something he does not wish to buy.

A few months back, we saw a cable company bill its consumers for the cost of television channels they had not requested. The consumers were told by this company that they should have warned it that they did not wished to be billed for something they had not ordered. Thank goodness the food chains do not operate like this, because an order of groceries would start to get rather expensive.

The attitude of this cable company was unacceptable. Pressure from outraged consumers forced the company to reverse its position. This was an excellent thing. We do not ever want to see such a situation again, either in the provision of cable service or of any other service.

At the same time, we must ensure that if legislation is necessary in this area, that it be passed by the right legislature. The question that quite naturally arises is this: Is the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, the federal government the institution which has the responsibility with respect to consumer affairs for resolving this type of problem?

The proposer, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, maintains that because telecommunications comes under federal responsibility, it therefore follows that consumption of a product whose production and distribution are federally regulated should be treated likewise and also come under federal responsibility.

If that were the case, the federal government could put up buildings in any municipality in this country with no regard for zoning bylaws. If so, federal government employees would no longer have to pay provincial income tax, or municipal property taxes.

The lines need to be drawn where they are, where they have to be. In this instance, no one is disputing the fact that broadcasting and telecommunications are matters of federal jurisdiction. Unfortunately, this question was decided some years ago, when Quebec had the rights it had hitherto assumed in the area of communications taken away from it. This, unfortunately, is now just water under the bridge.

Is Quebec now also going to be deprived, along with all of the other provinces, of its right to pass consumer legislation? A few months ago in this House, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Industry specifically on broadcasting and consumer protection. The minister told me in this House that this was a provincial matter. If the minister says so, I have difficulty understanding that a member of his government is not taking his minister's word for it.

However, I clearly understood the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to have said:

"If Quebec has already solved this question for its consumers, why should this House be prevented to do the same for the rest of Canada?"

In other words, why could this House not look after the rest of Canada, since Quebec can look after itself. I appreciate the clairvoyance of my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton, but he may have jumped the gun by a few months or years. Quebec is still part of Canada.

Yet, if he were prepared to amend his proposal so that it applied only to the rest of Canada, specifically excluding Quebec, thus acknowledging and confirming this jurisdiction which it has under the Constitution, perhaps I could find some sympathy for such an amendment.

I would like to draw your attention to another comment that was made in this House. Earlier, the hon. member for St. Boniface said that a company that practiced negative option billing in a province where this was banned under the laws of that province would probably, since it was operating in an area under provincial jurisdiction, be able to get around this ban.

When I hear members of this House claim that a federally-regulated company operating in an area under federal jurisdiction would be able to flout the laws of a province and probably get away with it, I say there is something wrong with the system.

If the hon. member said that the Constitution and the law should be enforced in such a way that provincial jurisdictions are respected, that would be a responsible thing for a member of this House to say. But to claim that, since the laws of a province could be flouted, the federal government should interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction, is irresponsible in the extreme.

Unfortunately, I have to say it is merely one example of the lack of responsibility and sometimes irresponsibility shown by the federal government in its dealings with the provinces. I will not go into the problems of health insurance which are a source of frustration for a number of western provinces. I will not go into the fact that some members opposite support certain things that were done during the last referendum, in violation of provincial laws. I will not go into the fact that, through its spending power, the federal government consistently trespasses on provincial jurisdictions. If I did, I would be here all day.

To conclude my comments, the intentions of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton are praiseworthy. The consumer must be protected. -I am one myself-, but we should go to the legislatures that have the authority to do so, and I am referring to provincial legislatures. I can assure you that in Quebec, since I am a Quebecer, I will make sure that the consumer gets all the protection to which he is entitled. Since Quebec has already taken action in this respect, I would urge the other provinces to follow Quebec's example, instead of urging this government to compensate for the inertia of the other provinces.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened attentively to the speech by the member of the government party. In the bulk of his speech, he has indicated that the legitimate and normal use of drugs would continue to be possible in this country.

That, however, was not the issue being addressed by Bill C-8, which replaced C-7, which in turn, I would remind you, replaced a Conservative government bill, Bill C-85.

My hon. colleague made no mention of the work of the other place, which has confirmed the concerns I expressed on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois in this House in February 1994. In those first debates, on February 18 to be precise, the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged the obvious necessity of passing legislation in the drug field. The Bloc also expressed regrets, however, that Bill C-7 had several significant flaws and not only ignored the parameters to be defined in effective drug control strategy, but also opened the door to some major adverse effects. Quoting from my speech at that time, the flaws could be grouped under four questions. First, are legitimate activities of physicians, pharmacists, vets and dentists properly protected against abusive application of the legislation and especially against regulations the scope of which we do not know at the moment?

Second, would the significant powers granted to inspectors, to be designated directly by the minister, not possibly lead to some errors which could unduly penalize health professionals and their patients?

Third, how would the confidentiality of medical records be ensured when the bill allows absolutely anyone designated as an inspector by the minister to reproduce documents found in a physician's office or in a pharmacy and to seize electronic data?

Fourth and foremost, why are drug-dependent persons who need to be treated and not jailed considered criminals in this bill?

What we are talking about here is the fact that the bill now before us, which has already been before us and which was before us at the time of the Conservative Party, talks of controlling supply and totally neglects the elements of controlling demand. Controlling supply involves cracking down on those involved in trafficking. Controlling demand involves prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation.

This is why the Bloc voted against Bill C-7 at second reading on April 19, 1994 in this House. Subsequently, you will remember, the bill was sent to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Health, which met many times over a number of years. Most of the witnesses before the sub-committee, with the exception of federal officials, need I mention, opposed the bill, because they felt it would likely compound problems relating to drugs, rather than contribute to reducing them.

As a result of the concerns expressed by the Bloc Quebecois, other members of the sub-committee were made aware and they in

turn made the members of their caucus aware. A period of reflection then followed, between June 1994 and June 1995, during which the committee did not meet.

In October 1995, the Bloc Quebecois proposed 14 amendments. Five were accepted by the sub-committee, four were rejected following explanation and five were similarly withdrawn. Furthermore, there were six amendments the Bloc Quebecois deliberately chose not to introduce, because the government tabled equivalent amendments, which had clearly been borrowed.

Before the other House considered this bill, it was amended, thanks to the initiatives of the Bloc Quebecois, in order to reduce if not eliminate most of the major irritants I mentioned earlier. So, now a judge will have to take clause 11.1 into account. With your permission, I will read it, because it makes Bill C-8 much more sensitive to the interests of those affected by the consumption of drugs.

This clause reads as follows: "The fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community".

This short clause in the bill is the only provision dealing with rehabilitation and detoxification but not, as you can see, with prevention. It is very little in a bill as comprehensive as the one before us today.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana reduced. We also succeeded in having medical records protected. Search and seizure will now be allowed only on reasonable grounds. The inspectors and analysts appointed by the minister must show that they have the necessary qualifications or they must acquire them.

Finally, on a related topic, the definition of practitioner has been sufficiently broadened to prevent people involved in the legitimate performance of their duties from being sued under the Criminal Code.

As our distinguished colleague pointed out earlier, the subcommittee was also told by many witnesses that the debate should be broadened and include concerns that Bill C-8 does not address.

In fact, the subcommittee submitted three recommendations to the Standing Committee on Health, which included them in its report. First, that a task force be set up to define the relevant criteria in determining which substances should be listed in schedules I to VII of the bill. Second, Canada's drug policy should be implemented. Third, the regulations and orders issued under this bill should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. I should point out that the last two recommendations resulted from the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois.

I also want to thank the members of the subcommittee, who considered these issues and debated the validity of Bill C-8 with open-mindedness and honesty, before finally approving and drafting the recommendations I referred to.

On October 25, 1995, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health tabled the report on Bill C-7 in this House. On October 30, 1995-need I remind the House that it was the day of the Quebec referendum and that, as a result, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois were away-the House passed Bill C-7 at third reading in the absence of Bloc members. The other place, which undertook the consideration of this bill on December 13 and 14, has recently submitted the amendments it wants this House to incorporate in the bill. In fact, that is the purpose of the motion before us. But I must tell you that these are only minors changes that the other place is requesting.

Still, it is interesting to note that, following on remarks made first by Bloc Quebecois members, and then by government members, the other place is also recommending that the Canadian drug strategy be reviewed.

This leads me to conclude that this bill still falls short of resolving the drug problem adequately. While the bill deals with the supply aspect, it fails miserably to address the demand aspect by providing for prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation. But the worst bugs of the bill had been ironed out before it was referred to the other place.

I must say that, unless provisions pertaining to prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation are included, the bill before us will never have any real positive effect. In this respect, I should remind the House that the other place was told by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy that it was a shame that the legislators in this House and in the other place did not dare put in place a modern drug strategy.

As a matter of fact, this foundation recommended that the other place not approve Bill C-8, but the other place realizes that defeating the bill would mean going back to square one and starting all over the debate on repression while sorely neglecting the real issues of prevention, detoxification and rehabilitation.

To introduce legislation reflecting a modern approach to managing the drug problem, the legislator must feel he has public opinion behind him. It is precisely to allow the public to form an informed opinion on the issue that it becomes essential to have a national debate. Had the other place refused to approve Bill C-8, we would have faced a dead end.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. But our support must be construed as a very strong expression of our demand that the government act on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health by opening as soon as possible a national debate on the drug issue.

[Whistle Blowers Protection Act, June 19th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-318, an act respecting the protection of whistle blowers and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing today has two objectives. The first is to encourage federal public servants to disclose any actions or institutional practices which would constitute an offence under a public service act or directive or would represent a risk to health, safety or the environment, or a significant waste of public funds.

The second objective, which sets the framework for the first, protects federal public servants against reprisals by their employer for any whistle blowing that takes place under this bill.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed).

[Dangerous Offenders, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us introduced by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is important. It touches an issue of concern to all Canadians.

This House must weigh carefully the response to be given these issues of sexual offences. The aim of the motion by my distinguished colleague from the Reform Party is to ensure that, in cases of aggravated sexual assault, the offender is examined by two psychiatrists to determine the likelihood of his committing another such offence.

If they determine there is such a likelihood, this person would be declared a dangerous offender and would not be released so long as they posed any threat to society.

On March 25, 1996, our distinguished colleague from the Reform Party said in this House: "This motion is a response to the demands of Canadians who are fed up with the failure of our justice system to protect women and children". The problem I see is that, despite the good and necessary intention of the Reform member, the effect of her reform would be the opposite to what she intended.

Listen carefully. Psychiatrists are human. They work in an area where things are never black and white. In mathematics, one and one make two. In engineering, the combination of two forces leads to a predictable and measurable result. When humans are involved, rarely do the specialists agree entirely. Should the motion put forward by our distinguished colleague from the Reform Party pass and the Criminal Code be amended accordingly, we would then find ourselves in the situation where the judge would have to make his decision on the basis of the opinions of two psychiatrists. Even then, these opinions would need to be agreement.

Let us imagine for a moment that one of the psychiatrists concludes as follows: "I have every reason to believe that this person will relapse into crime", while the other one comes to a different conclusion: "This person might relapse, but I am not sure. I have a doubt". In such cases, the judge would have no choice but to decide against designating the individual in question a dangerous offender.

In an area as difficult to assess as that of human behaviour, to ask two mental health professionals to agree on an issue with such radical, fundamental and crucial implications on the life of the offender is certainly no small task. The fact of the matter is that, in Canada, we already have the Criminal Code and legislation which, if enforced properly, should provide the required level of public protection. But the key words here are proper enforcement. Passing more laws that would be improperly applied would not solve the problem. Still worse, more legislation that would make enforcement more complex and more delicate could not help but result in the justice being sought being poorly administered.

At this time, the procedure for declaring a person a dangerous offender works well. Section 753 of the Criminal Code allows the courts to declare a person who has committed a serious personal injury offence a dangerous offender. This can, of course, include sexual offences; all of the offences are listed in section 752 of the Criminal Code.

But the one with responsibility is the judge, who must assess the reports from mental health and other specialists. It is not the

psychiatrists who make the decision, much less do they have to be unanimous in their interpretation of a situation.

Once an offender is found guilty of any of the offences listed in section 752, the court hears the evidence presented by the crown, basing its decision in part on the individual's inability to control himself, his clear indifference to his actions, and of course also on the brutality of the acts in question, for which the normal standards of restriction of freedom would not be sufficient.

Once the court's decision has been handed down, the law ensures that the court declares the person a dangerous offender and imposes indeterminate detention rather than some other sentence. The law is there. The public can be properly protected by this legislation. In fact, this is one of the most severe sentences a court can hand down. Here again, though, the court and the judge make the decision, not the psychiatrists.

Consideration must also be given to what actually goes on. In Quebec in 1994, there was only one dangerous offender, and only now, in 1996, have we declared another. This sort of inmate is found primarily in Ontario and in the western provinces.

Why is there a difference in behaviours between Quebec and the other provinces in Canada? Because-and this is the crux of my argument-Quebec has focused on prevention rather than remedy. In this sort of assault, punishment after the fact in order to protect the rest of society does not resolve or repair the prejudice suffered, the offence against the initial victim. Above all, the number of initial victims must be reduced.

For several years already, Quebec has had an effective medico-legal system to deal with the problem of the clientele under control of the law, including dangerous offenders. The system works well, and those suffering from mental illness receive proper psychiatric care. In short, Quebec's approach is a solution to Canada's problem, one that has already been put into practice and tested.

I would propose that, rather than invest in complex legislative processes whose results, as I have said, are far from guaranteed, we should be investing more in prevention and the treatment of these dangerous offenders where the medical system works with the legal system.

Quebec's experience is successful. It affords Quebecers security because preventive measures are in place.

I will conclude with these words: in this area, as in many others, an ounce of prevention is worth a pile of law books.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in this land that stretches from coast to coast called Canada, every citizen is represented by three parliamentarians: a member of the provincial legislature, a member of the House of Commons-there are 295 of us playing this role-and a senator in the other House.

As you can see, this is a lot of representation. We could even talk about redundancy, although redundancy sometimes has its merits. For example, every airplane has two control circuits: one on the left and one on the right; the same goes for ships. Thanks to this built-in redundancy, if one circuit fails, the other can take over and ensure the safety of passengers. This shows that redundancy has its uses.

We must now ask ourselves whether redundancy in our parliamentary system, the so-called bicameral system, enhances the safety, reliability and effectiveness of government operations?

If the other House had helped us a few years ago to avoid plunging the country so deeply into debt, we would all undoubtedly agree that our bicameral system, our other House of Parliament, can be effective, but such was not the case. Despite its redundancy, our parliamentary system does not improve government operations or enhance public administration. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

I thank my colleagues from the Reform Party for allowing us today to reflect on the usefulness of the other House. What I find regrettable is that this reflection is restricted to the other House because this House has its own operating flaws. If you consider the obligation to toe the party line, the way the House fulfils its responsibilities, the extent to which each member can represent his or her constituents, you will agree with me that the problem extends to the whole parliamentary system.

We must contemplate a comprehensive review of the parliamentary system from coast to coast. In conclusion, let me say that the partnership proposed by Quebec would lead us not only to a review of the system but also to a modern system that would enable us to face the challenges of the 21st century.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to what the government is calling employment insurance, which I consider not only unemployment insurance, but, alas, an unemployment guarantee. Let me explain why.

One element of the bill before us proposes to lower maximum insurable earnings from $43,000 to $39,000.

This will have major macro economic effects, which I have never heard mentioned either in this House or in committee. You are no doubt aware that people earning more than $39,000 but less than $43,000 will have more disposable income, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, the low wage earners, who in the past were not insured, now will be. But, they will be because they will be contributing to unemployment insurance.

Their disposable income will shrink. When we look at individual cases, this seems insignificant. However, when we look at the big picture, at the figures as a whole, we realize we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, indeed billions of dollars coming out of the pockets of low wage earners and going into the pockets of high wage earners. This will mean macro economic consequences for retailers, businesses and industry. Let me explain.

The low wage earners, with less disposable income now, will spend less, not for luxuries, they never had the means anyway, but for life's basic necessities. The high wage earners, with more disposable income, generally, will be able to buy luxury items.

What does this mean? How will this flow of money affect Canada's economy? Very simply, the economies of provinces with more low wage earners will centre on immediate need products, whereas in the economies of the provinces with higher wage earners, business and industry will develop around luxury items. Regions will become polarized based on people's average salary.

What this bill is doing is shifting wealth, and we have to face the fact, because incomes are not equal coast to coast. There are regions in Canada, in Quebec, less well off than others, where there are more low wage earners than in other regions where there are high wage earners.

With this new plan, the government if transferring several billions of dollars from areas with only low income earners to areas with high income earners.

I ask you: What do you think this is going to lead to in three, five or ten years? Poor areas will become poorer and the rich ones will become richer. The laws of macro-economics are that simple and obvious. You cannot play with these numbers and believe that the results will be simple and easy to arrive at.

I have never seen in a committee, or in the House, someone showing us an econometric model of the consequences of the implementation of this system. One should not rush into such a decision. This is not the kind of decision you want to make hastily, and yet this is exactly what this House is going to do with this bill. There will be consequences.

The government is going to push some regions into poverty to the benefit of others which will get richer. When a country creates poor and rich regions, eventually it does not maximize its potential. It will eventually have to pay a price for it because rich areas will have to help keep poor areas economically active. The law of consumption, the great law which allows businesses to sell goods to consumers, will be faced with an impossible equation.

You see, if people can no longer afford to consume, how will businesses be able to produce goods and make a profit? Somebody forgot that businesses cannot afford to be only profitable, efficient and productive, they also need a market. Their market is made up of people like you and me, people who are listening to us and who have to earn a living day in and day out, and be left with enough money to be able to treat themselves to some of the niceties of life. And yet, what we are doing with this bill is transferring billions of dollars from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of those who are better off.

Let us imagine for a moment that the government is implementing one of the recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois and that everybody contributes to the UI fund regardless of any maximum insurable earnings. We would then be able to keep the UI fund in the black and provide adequate benefits to those in need, while reducing premiums and correcting inequities between the haves and the have-nots, between prosperous regions and disadvantaged regions. This solution would not be nearly as harmful and may even have a positive impact, while those who introduced this bill clearly did not assess its potential negative consequences.

I would also like to talk about seasonal work. Seasonal industries represent an important component of the Canadian economy from coast to coast. If you attack the seasonal industry in a region or in all regions, you will weaken-not you personally, Mr. Speaker, but the government, which I am addressing through you-the country's economy as a whole.

The bill before us may well undermine seasonal work. Any weakening of seasonal work would have negative consequences for the regions affected. Preventing this essential component of our economy, which provides us with fruits and vegetables at certain times of the year and offers us winter sports, from running properly would hurt the Canadian economy as a whole.

As consumers, seasonal workers who can no longer support themselves throughout the year will have less to contribute to the Canadian economy. As a result of this reduced consumption, a business somewhere will be stuck with surplus inventory and forced to cut production and then to lay off non-seasonal workers.

We see what this could lead to. Sooner or later, attacks against seasonal work will become attacks against permanent jobs.

We are falling into a bottomless pit. It is not the first time this government and the previous one have committed basic errors in strategy. I will not talk about former minister Lalonde's national energy policy, a catastrophe for which we are still paying the price today. I will not talk about those policies which, year after year, have led us into a hole that is $560 billion deep.

I will talk about what we are doing here today, which is gambling with a sum of about $16 billion. In essence we are gambling because, until now, no other country in the world has dared take the measures we are about to take, that is to estimate insurability not based on the number of weeks worked, but based on the number of hours. What will be the consequences? I do not know, nobody here knows, and not only does it concern me, I find it totally unacceptable.

Before going any further with this bill, the government should have the decency to build a comprehensive econometric model to measure the consequences of this legislation. Then we could make the necessary adjustments or the necessary change of course, as the case may be, to achieve the desired results.

Only 40 per cent of unemployed Canadians are covered by the unemployment insurance plan, which is not much. It is not an employment policy. In a case like this, I can only wish the government not only withdraw its bill, but that it withdraw from the area of employability and transfer this responsibility to the provinces, especially Quebec which has been waiting for that for a long time. It is ready to assume this responsibility with policies that will be beneficial not only to Quebec, but to the rest of Canada as well.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that was my intention, and I thought it had been understood. I see that perhaps it was not. In which case, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know this intervention from the Reform Party is very sincere. However, in Quebec for many years we have been doing exactly what the Reform Party is proposing right now. Many other provinces have not done so. The privy council recognizes those powers and has given them to the provinces as per the Constitution

Basically what I am saying is let every province copy the example of Quebec. Quebec is different. Quebec on this subject and on many other subjects has taken the lead in Canada. We were here first, so maybe that explains it. However, if anyone wants to come to Quebec and have a look at how we are doing it, they are welcome. Then they can copy whatever we are doing.

However, do not duplicate once again here in the House with measures that are already implemented and working successfully in Quebec. That would be duplication. That would be spending the public's money unwisely. The intent is fine, but let the provinces do it as Quebec has been doing it.