Diane Bourgeois

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I simply wish to point out to you that the member has been speaking for four and a half minutes. He could perhaps ask a question as we are also in a question period.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, farmers from both Quebec and Canada have been asking the federal government for help for some time now. Despite the fact that it feeds everyone here in Canada, the agricultural sector is still the poor relation of the government.

This evening, all of us here recognize that we must act urgently on the question of assistance for farmers. We have to stop talking about what was done wrong or what was not done.

We also recognize that there are an enormous number of changes to be made. The parliamentary secretary may well say that things were good in the agricultural sector last year, but there were still thousands on Parliament Hill yesterday, 3,000 of them from Quebec, here to tell us that they had been pushed to the brink.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can answer my questions. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has just told us that $750 million was recently paid out to Canadian farmers. I would like some details about this. First, did this $750 million come from the budget that was passed last year? Second, can he break those amounts down and tell us where they will be going? Third, given that we are agreed on the urgent need for action, in particular on the question of the spring seeding, will it be possible to do something in the next two weeks?

[International Aid, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and the minister are really serious, can they commit to Canada's attaining the target figure set by the UN because at the rate things are going, that will not happen until 2035?

[International Aid, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to have put a great deal of money into international aid. His friend Bono does not share that opinion.

When the Liberals took power in 1993, Canadian aid represented 0.44% of the gross domestic product. Despite all the PM's fine words, the figure has dropped to 0.30%. It is very difficult, under such circumstances, to trust this government.

Can the Prime Minister admit that this is a pretty substantial drop for someone who had promised to do far more and far better?

[Official Languages Act, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill S-3. I have an Acadian name. The Bourgeois come from Caraquet. There are also Bourgeois in Tracadie, New Brunswick. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst spoke earlier about the Paulins. I do not know whether he was talking about the Paulins from Caraquet, but in any event, there are some Paulins in my family. My family also has some Pauls in Manitoba.

As you can see, I am well aware of the difficulties these families and friends have faced in terms of protecting their language, French. In fact, the Pauls in Manitoba speak more English than French, while the Paulins favour French.

That is one reason it is important for me to speak today. I also want to thank Senator Gauthier for his work and the battle he waged for several years to achieve official language equality in Canada. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The official languages commissioner seems to be making an effort. She got a substantial increase in her budget, which is now some $750 million. We presume she could do more for francophone communities outside Quebec to be respected.

The Bloc Québécois has examined Bill S-3 thoroughly. We realize our position might suggest that we are letting down francophone communities outside Quebec, but that is not so. This bill is dangerous for Quebec since—as our colleague from Gatineau mentioned—it makes it an obligation for federal institutions to enforce part VII of the Official Languages Act. Regulations can be made prescribing the manner in which any duties under part VII are to be carried out.

However, the member did not mention at all—unless I am mistaken—that it also requires the government to take measures “to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”, while providing the right to apply to the court for a remedy, permission to contest an alleged violation of part VII.

I note that the problem lies in the provision whereby the government is required “to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

The Bloc has examined the bill carefully. We realized that Canadian society is defined as a list of areas in which the Minister of Canadian Heritage should take measures in education, provincial services, health, social services and municipal services. These areas are under Quebec's jurisdiction, exclusively. We already have legislation in Quebec to protect our anglophone minority. Here is an example.

A few years ago, I was the president of a CLSC, a local community services centre, and Quebec legislation on health requires all CLSCs and hospitals to set aside a portion of their budget to provide service in English to anglophones.

It is in the legislation. We have already thought about our anglophone minority. It is a shame the other provinces have not followed suit. They have not tried to help francophone minorities any more than necessary.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill because it wants to protect itself. We in Quebec are the leaders of Canada's francophonie. Francophones outside Quebec are following in our wake. Many times the Bloc Québécois has helped and defended them and many times have we taken their requests into account. I am proud that we did.

One of our colleagues who has left this House, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, staunchly defended the Acadians by asking the Queen of England to issue an apology for their deportation.

The Bloc Québécois' support for francophone communities outside Quebec is unfailing. However, we cannot support them if that means losing our own strength as Quebeckers and francophones. Accordingly, we cannot vote in favour of this bill, which will weaken us.

If the Bloc Québécois and Conservative amendments for ensuring this protection had passed, we could have voted in favour of this bill. Unfortunately, it is not possible.

We are distressed about this, given the work put into this by Senator Gauthier and the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but the Bloc Québécois must protect Quebeckers and their language. Perhaps another time we could be in favour of this bill if it included the amendments we want.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would have a comment. This is a good bill to the extent that the minister has put his foot down and will finally be legislating against animal cruelty. There is a problem, however. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke illustrated it perfectly. We are mixing apples and oranges, mixing the gun issue with the hunters, pets, poultry farmers and auctions. Everything is all mixed together.

The committee will have to go back to the drawing board and develop categories within the bill. That is what matters. When Bill C-10 was discussed, this was already a problem. The same happened when we discussed Bill C-22, and it is happening again with Bill C-50. Everybody mixes everything up. How can we ever arrive at safeguards for everyone—aboriginal people, farmers, hunters, fishermen—as well as the industry? This can never be achieved because it is such broad legislation.

I hope the minister will listen to what animal welfare groups are asking for to fight animal cruelty.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment and also a request to make to the hon. members of this House.

My comment is on the fact the bill before us, as a whole, is a good one. I think that for the first time, the Minister of Justice has put his foot down and intends to legislate in order to combat cruelty toward animals.

However, the bill could have perhaps gone further. In my opinion, it should contain elements requiring the provinces to introduce legislation on cruelty toward animals. Not every province has legislation on this.

Perhaps the bill needs to be a lot more specific. There are different types of cruelty toward animals. There is the cruelty of an owner toward a pet. Pets include cats and dogs, of course, but also ferrets and all sorts of small animals. There can be cruelty toward those types of animals.

This bill needs to go further in terms of cruelty of breeders toward their animals. Earlier I gave the example of companies that breed poultry for consumption and put 20 animals in a cage designed for 10. Sometimes these animals break their wings under those conditions.

The bill could also go further in protecting hunters.

These are all subjects that the bill does not necessarily address or mention. That is where the problem lies. The bill does not cover these specific matters. I am getting the signal that I need to hurry up, so I will be brief.

In closing, I just had a meeting with someone who works at the SPCA in Montreal. That was the message that agency wanted to get across to the hon. members of this House. It was my pleasure to convey it to you.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague seems very concerned by this bill and by cruelty to animals. I know he is very concerned in this regard. I think he worked on Bill C-10, which I worked on as well.

He mentioned cruelty to animals and what we saw on TV on the weekend. It is not an isolated case. Canada is the only country without legislation to protect its animals. Puppy mills, for example, come from the south. The U.S. has laws in this regard. The fact that people in the states face such a law brings home the fact in Canada that we do not have such a law in a given field. We can set up puppy mills and the result is what we saw on television on the weekend.

Care must be taken with this bill, because it is comprehensive. This is the most important consideration. It covers not only cruelty to animals, but cruelty by industries and businesses in the animal trade.

I have a chinchilla rancher in my riding, and he is not comfortable with this bill. It makes him a bit nervous. When it comes time to slaughter his chinchillas, what is to stop him being accused of animal cruelty?

Then there are the hunters, and the poultry producers. Everyone knows that poultry are killed at an abattoir. This is done very quickly and the animal does not suffer. There is no problem there. The problem comes in shipping them. They put 20 in a cage that normally takes 10. When we buy turkeys with broken wings at the supermarket, that is exactly what has happened. Many turkeys end up with broken wings because 20 of them were shipped in a cage that should have held 10.

Sometimes we buy pork that is as tough as old boots and not good to eat. This is not always because it is boar meat. We are also sold meat from pigs who have been exposed to the cold. A person needs to have been a farmer to really understand what cruelty to animals is.

So this is my question for my colleague from the NDP. Can he assure me that this bill, which will be reworked in committee, will be scrutinized in order to differentiate between cruelty toward animals belonging to an individual—for example cruel treatment of an individual pet—and cruelty towards animals by farmers and companies. This is one part of the bill.

Then there is the other part. What about bow hunters, for instance, who do not finish their prey off with the first shot? Will they be accused of animal cruelty? What about fishers? Can the NDP member give us assurance that the bill will address both aspects of cruelty to animals?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have a comment and then I want to ask a question.

It is very appropriate, in my opinion, to introduce a bill to prevent cruelty to animals. This bill is essential. We have been talking about this since I arrived in the House of Commons. We had Bills C-10 and C-22. Now, we have Bill C-50. I hope that this bill contains many improvements. I will make what may be an unfortunate parallel. It would have been nice to see legislation banning cruelty against human beings, particularly psychological harassment, in the same way that we are now considering legislation on cruelty to animals.

My question is as follows. It is not so much how animals are killed, which is important to animal rights groups, but rather the care they receive, whether they are en route to the slaughterhouse, force-fed, given water and food, cared for, from the day they are born to the day they are slaughtered. For those who have concerns about this, is there a section in the bill that mentions protection for animals in this very specific regard?

[Mining Industry, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, instead of imposing restrictive standards in terms of social and environmental responsibilities on Canadian mining companies operating abroad, the minister would prefer to let them self-regulate. We can see the results in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, the Philippines and Guatemala.

Does the minister realize that, with that attitude, he is giving companies the green light to do what they want, without any respect for the rights of the communities?