Pierre De Savoye

[Hate Propaganda, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Motion M-384 put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North brings to our attention one of the concerns which modern technology arouses among the population.

Allow me to read this motion for the benefit of those who are listening to us:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move with speed to adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via the electronic Information Highway while simultaneously preserving legitimate use of the freedom of speech and expression.

Before moving on to the substance of this motion, I would like to take a few moments to explain simply and succinctly to this House and the public what is this information highway which has been the subject of increasing media coverage lately.

I will address not only the problem presented by Motion M-384 but also several related problems. Finally, I will share with you the results of my research on this subject and my conclusions. If I go beyond the 10 minutes allocated to me, I will then ask for the indulgence of the House in allowing me to conclude my remarks.

As everyone knows, the information highway is essentially a figure of speech designed to help us understand a reality. Let us take a look at it.

What this is is a system comprised of various means of electronic communication, such as telephone lines, television cable, optic fibres, radio and television antennas and towers, cellular phones and waves transmitted by satellite.

All these technical means of communication are in common use today. They are the channels through which information travels in various forms: telephone for voice, television for images, fax for documents.

These channels are very useful but also very slow. Indeed, when large amounts of information need to be transmitted at once, electronic channels get clogged up or jammed. That is why major communications companies are putting into place more powerful systems so that large volumes of information can be transmitted.

A single optic fibre can transmit as much information as thousands of telephone lines. Two satellites in orbit above the United States presently handle 200 television channels at a time. These new channels are called highways because they are larger and more powerful than traditional channels.

Let me say a few words about the major Canadian companies involved in the development of these electronic highways. Bell and other telephone companies are grouped under the mane Stentor. There is also the Unitel group and the Sprint group. Cable operators are also represented. Vidéotron and Rogers for instance are very much involved in the process. Two groups, PowerDirectTv and ExpressVu, want to broadcast television programming directly via satellite. These are the expressways of the future.

On the slower routes available today, there is a global network that already provides convenient information transmission through the telephone system. I am referring to Internet. The transmission of documents, images, voice, music, films-in fact, any form of communication is possible on this network.

This network works like a telephone system. You can dial the number of your correspondent and write or even speak to him; you can have a conference with several correspondents; you can leave messages with an automatic answering machine, a kind of 900 number, and the public can read these messages by dialling the 900 number. The numbers are referred to as addresses, and the services that provide access to these messages are called Mosaic and Netscape.

This network has an additional feature. You can leave information on a bulletin board, or take part in a discussion group. This is a kind of 900 number where everyone can enter information and read information entered by others.

We are now ready to deal with the substance of motion M-384. The problem referred to in the motion is that some Internet users leave hate literature in discussion groups, on bulletin boards or in any of the documents accessible through Netscape or Mosaic.

Although the hon. member for Winnipeg North does not refer to this in his motion, there are other problems such as obscene literature, photographs and films. Hate literature and pornography are not that widespread and are in fact a rarity on Internet.

There are other problems we must consider as well, because they are more widespread and have a greater impact, not only on Internet but also for instance, on DirecTv, and I am referring to the satellites that send us television signals from space.

What we are talking about here are crossborder sales of goods and services in contravention of the law, tax laws among others, through which capital is illegally siphoned off to foreign countries. We are also talking about the violation of copyright, through which a lot of capital is drained from Canada to foreign countries.

We should also stress the fact that Canada's Internet network is funded by the public through grants to universities, for example. This means that the whole population is paying for a service that is only really available to a very select few. Currently, this network is contributing to the emergence of two classes of citizens, those with access to information and those without. I am not saying that there are no solutions to these problems, I am sure that one will be found, I am just saying that these problems exist.

Let us return now to Motion M-384 which I have researched thoroughly. First, I sent the following message to several discussion groups on Internet: I would like to have your comments on the government's motion regarding the information highway, soon to be debated in the House of Commons. This was followed by the text of the motion.

Allow me to read extracts from three of the many responses I received.

So, from the Computer Science University of Manitoba:

"The answer to this one is in my mind very clear and simple, don't".

From Industry Canada, probably, an employee said: "If the wording of the proposed legislation said `forbidding the spread' rather than stopping the spread, then the full force of the law could be brought down on anyone who used the info highway to spread hate propaganda, with that the notion implying that some technical mechanism is needed is probably undoable anyway".

Finally, a lawyer answered: "What precisely does this motion intend to accomplish and why is it necessary? There is already a section in the Criminal Code which applies to the publication of hate propaganda. As I read this legislation, it is capable of applying to information distributed on the information highway as well as to any other medium of communications".

Mr. Speaker, from these few reactions, it appears that the "internauts"-and that is how they are called-are in tune with our present discussions. As an "internaut" myself, I am happy to say that "internauts" do not hesitate to put those distributing hate literature in their place. Thus, the Freenet message from Columbus, Ohio, offering subscriptions to a magazine intended for, and I quote, "all the whites in the world" received two responses. They are both in English, and I will probably elicit a few beeps in reading them.

"Get your racist [bell] out of the Internet and yes I am white". Another message: "Get the [bell] out of Canada. Take the racist Canadians with you to your garbage-infested world. I too am white".

What I want to say is that, thanks to these electronic means, people who see the system is being abused literally flood the abuser to the point of blocking his system.

I also did some research in the Criminal Code. Section 163 concerns obscenity. It provides that anyone who produces, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, exposes to public view or possesses any writing, picture, model, record or other obscene item is committing an offence. Section 163.1 refers to mechanical or electronic means.

In terms of hate propaganda, section 318 of the Criminal Code provides that anyone making a statement in a public place inciting hatred is committing an offence. Furthermore, the Criminal Code defines "communication" as words spoken, written or recorded by electronic or electromagnetic means.

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 deals with firearms and certain other weapons. As we all have seen here in the House, support for this bill is not unanimous. And we all know that in our ridings, certain groups have voiced their support for or their dissatisfaction with the bill.

Please allow me to put this debate into the current context as I see it. Two groups are making representations. One of them is in favour of the bill, which aims, among other things, to control firearms; the other is opposed to the bill.

The group in favour of the bill says that it wants to reduce the number of deaths involving firearms. We know that some of these deaths are accidental, some are the result of family disputes, some are suicides or of, course, some occur during the perpetration of other criminal acts.

The supporters of firearm controls also support a public awareness campaign on the use of firearms and are looking to this legislation to provide stricter controls through licences to possess weapons, the registration of weapons, the prohibition of military and paramilitary weapons, the control of ammunition sales and strict restrictions on the use of handguns.

Those who oppose the bill believe that the legislation should above all target criminals. The group claims that the current legislation already sufficiently controls the possession and use of firearms for hunting, target practice and collection purposes and disputes the claim that the current legislation is not being applied. Lastly, this group opposes additional legislative mea-

sures because it claims that they would pointlessly tax honest citizens without actually reducing crime.

The bill before us intends to meet the following needs: clamp down on smuggling, prohibit the possession of certain firearms and restrict the possession of others, institute mandatory registration of all firearms and set a certain number of rules regarding the purchase, possession, storage, sale, exchange, loan, transfer and, naturally, the use of firearms.

Which criteria should we use to evaluate this bill? In my opinion, there are three. The bill's first aim is to reduce the number of lives lost and injuries inflicted because of the use of firearms. I presume that everyone would agree that legitimate, controlled and careful use of weapons would reduce the risk of death or injury. Lastly, I believe that no legislation will ever be able to prevent an act of insanity, but that legislation can and should increase the probability that the consequences of such an act would be less serious.

I am concerned about several aspects of the bill before us.

First of all, I think that the proposed measures against crime and smuggling could be made more effective. I also question the impact on collectors, competitors and hunters, as well as the usability of the registration system. I understand that it involves entering into a computer the specifics of all firearms owned across the country, but does this registry and the information it contains make the system easy to use? Will this registry really produce the promised results and, if so, at what cost and is there an easier way to achieve the same results?

I am not questioning the goals that have been set but the advisability of the means used to reach them. I, however, have serious reservations about the authority to search without a mandate, which is provided under this bill. Sections 98 through 101 create new powers to carry out inspections anywhere, even in residential premises provided that the inspector-not the police officer but the inspector-obtains either the occupant's consent or a warrant.

Under the regulations currently in effect, these powers only apply to businesses. The decision to extend their application to residential premises will arouse-and is already arousing-controversy and may, if this bill becomes law, be challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Clause 101, among others, would require police officers to obtain either the occupant's consent or a mandate before entering a residential premises. As we know, a justice of the peace could sign a warrant for the same purposes and reasons as the cases covered under clause 99 regarding inspections, but only if entry has been refused or if there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused.

In general, although I agree with the bill's goal of reducing violence, I am not certain that the bill as it now reads adequately serves this goal while respecting the other rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why I encourage the various groups and individuals to make their views known to the Committee on Justice, which will soon hear evidence on this bill. I hope that this evidence will help all members of this House, especially government members, to improve this bill so that it achieves our goals and makes firearms handling safer for people in Quebec and Canada, as we all generally hope for.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise this afternoon to speak on a matter that seems to be only a technical consideration of figures. However, basically, it is an opportunity to show Quebecers how the rest of Canada envisions Quebec.

My hon. colleague opposite mentioned a moment ago that since the Bloc Quebecois sanctions Quebec's sovereignist agenda, we should not give too much importance to the readjustment of electoral boundaries since Quebec will have ceased to exist as a province within a few months. He is perfectly right. If there is something which does not motivate me to speak too long, it is certainly the rearrangement of an electoral map including Quebec, because I fervently hope that sovereignty will be proclaimed very soon. But it is a good opportunity to show Quebecers what the rest of Canada thinks of the role of Quebec in the Canadian confederation.

Giving Quebec 25 per cent of the seats is more or less proportionate to what we pay in taxes. There is an old maxim that says "No taxation without representation". Let us go back in time to see how we have been treated since the conquest of Quebec, or New France, by England.

It must be realized that some 250 years ago, this territory was totally owned by New France. We had families, we spoke French, and economic, social and cultural activities were all conducted in French. Then came the conquest. It did not simply transfer custody over the country from the King of France to the King of England. It also brought forth assimilation dynamics which caused the territory to be separated between Upper Canada and Lower Canada a hundred years later.

We must not forget that at the time, the economic situation was critical in Upper Canada whereas it was very comfortable in Lower Canada, Quebec in other words. The Union was essentially a means for Quebec and its sound economy to help finance Upper Canada where the economic situation was rather on the slow. And the federal government did not stop there. To finance wars which were continuaaly breaking out, it introduced taxes to get even more money. Was that money put to good use for Quebec and Quebecers? Just looking at the way investments were made tells us that it is not the case.

Why are decisions made the way they are? Simply because Quebec no longer carries any political weight. If we have only 25 per cent of the seats, it means that we are losing 75 per cent of the political power. It is easy to understand that the sovereignist agenda would finally give back to Quebec 100 per cent of all the powers required to ensure its own viability, protect its economy and take on its role on the world scene.

Today, we have the opportunity to show that even with 25 per cent, which is exactly what Quebec has been requesting all along, even with 25 per cent, we face opposition from the government.

I ask all Quebecers: Is it worth staying within a Confederation when common sense requires that we get what we are entitled to according to historical rights, and that raises objections and eyebrows? I am thoroughly convinced that I could have explained all of this to empty benches and that the government's position would have been the same.

I hope this will make Quebecers understand that there is no alternative to the historical decision we must make. There is only one solution, the one that will give us 100 per cent of our powers and not limit us to a mere 25 per cent or even less.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are debating a motion on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the cuts it has suffered in the last budget.

The comment I would like to make, and my colleague will have the opportunity to add to that when I am finished, is that the budget as a whole does not seem to be based on a corporate plan. What I mean by that is that the cuts appear to have been made at random. The CBC has had its share, as well as other government agencies and programs. There are consequences to all of that. The Americans have an expression for this type of random cutting and the consequences that follow.

They call it dynamic scoring. What is it exactly? Well, it has been discovered that when cuts are made in one place, there are macro-economic consequences elsewhere. It means that in trying to save money here, we force people into unemployment there, which creates, in the economic cycle, a decline whose effects we do not always take the time to measure in advance. So, do we know how many businesses who provide services to the CBC will see their sales reduced because of these budget cuts that will force the CBC to buy fewer services from them?

Do we know how many people will be laid off? Do we know how many of these people will be unable to find a new job in their area of expertise or in another area? Do we know by how much welfare costs will increase in each of the provinces? We have to realize that what happens with all these cuts-and the cuts to the CBC are no exception-is that the federal government is saving some money but is forcing the provinces to spend more on welfare. Not only have we shifted the problem, but we may well have made it worse.

No macro-economic study supports the effects of what the Americans call dynamic scoring. We are making cuts at random, we do not have specific targets, we do not know where that will lead us and I think it is something that Canadians have a right to know. I would like my colleague to comment on my perception of the way we are not being governed.

[Mil Davie Shipyards, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Minister of Industry admits that he must now take his responsibilities and confirm that the federal government will participate in MIL Davie's recovery plan by putting the company in charge, as a transitional measure, of developing a multipurpose Smart Ship?

[Mil Davie Shipyards, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

It will be remembered that Ottawa had agreed to approve the recovery plan of the last shipyard in Quebec on the condition that MIL Davie workers sign a new work agreement. Well, this condition has now been met, since a new work agreement was approved yesterday.

Now that the workers have signed a new work agreement with MIL Davie, does the federal government intend to live up to its part of the deal concerning the shipyard's recovery plan and help to modernize its infrastructure?

[Michel Bélanger, February 27th, 1995]

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there are two Michel Bélangers.

There is one Michel Bélanger, a true statesman, a man of imposing presence and influence, who can inspire in Quebecers a healthy confidence in themselves.

At the time he co-chaired the commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec he was impervious to the exaggerations and arguments of fear still being brandished by a few federalists who lacked the fine words of terror that were the specialty of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Then there is the other Michel Bélanger. A man who heads the NO camp, whose imposing presence is withering away inside the ideological straitjacket put on him by the federalists. These days, Michel Bélanger has become the bogeyman.

This man, who had raised the debate on the national issue to the level of pragmatism and a people's belief in itself, has been reduced to visiting homes for the aged and telling the people there that a sovereign Quebec could no longer afford to pay their pensions.

This shows how little argument the man has left.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many debates in this House have revealed how reticent and hesitant federal politicians are to call attention, with figures to back them up, to the shameful way too many francophones are treated outside Quebec.

Federalists never mention the 38 per cent rate of assimilation of Franco-Ontarians, the 75 per cent rate of assimilation of francophones in British Columbia or even the 8 per cent figure for Acadians. These unfortunate data clearly contradict the claims of the supporters of federalism, who say nothing about the fact that these francophones must continue to fight for schools, health services, government services and cultural services.

The rest of Canada continues to watch indifferently as francophones are assimilated, while federal politicians continue making unfounded claims about the havoc Quebec sovereignty will wreak on these communities.

This is disgraceful and cowardly.

[Official Languages, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given the alarming increase in the assimilation rate of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, how can the minister justify the slow pace with which the government has made its services available to francophones in the language of their choice? Is bilingualism a sham?

[Official Languages, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The Official Languages Commissioner published a study this morning on services in the minority official language offered to the public in designated federal offices. Among other things, the study found that in Quebec, service in English is available 98.8 per cent of the time, while in the rest of Canada, 28 per cent of all designated offices still do not provide service in French.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify that, more than two years after a regulation was passed on the issue, over one in four francophones outside of Quebec are unable to obtain federal services in their language?