Diane Bourgeois

[Nobel Peace Prize, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Ms. Shirin Ebadi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. This Iranian lawyer is the first Muslim woman to receive such an honour.

In awarding her the prize, the Nobel Committee has emphasized the importance of human rights in general, and in particular the rights of women and children for whom Ms. Ebadi has worked for over 25 years.

Shirin Ebadi was the first Iranian woman to become a judge, but she was removed from that office in 1979 when the Islamic Republic was created in Iran. She had to struggle for more than 10 years to regain the right to plead as a lawyer. Iranian women owe to Ms. Ebadi and her colleague Mehr-Anguiz Kar the family law amendments that give more rights to women. Ms. Ebadi also gained fame by defending children before the courts, as well as intellectuals imprisoned since 2000.

On behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I want to pay tribute to this defender of the rights of women in Iran.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I often meet with Canadian and Quebec women's groups. I heard a comment this week and I would like to hear what the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable thinks about it.

First, people told me that if the House adjourns because of an election and if we in fact move up the implementation of the new electoral map, that will mean that what they have said to their members before the election will get lost. To them, this means that it will take almost a year before they can get an answer or a solution to their problems.

Somebody else asked me: “What do we do about Bill C-22 to amend the Divorce Act? What do we do about Bill C-25 on labour relations in the public service? What do we do about victims of harassment? What do we do about same sex marriage? What will happen with all these bills that people are waiting for? What will happen with poverty and social housing?”

That is what the women's groups were asking and it is also what I am asking my colleague.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we are beginning the last hour of debate at second reading of Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, put forward by our hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

Let us remember that in 1997 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health was given a mandate to study all aspects of the issue of legislating natural health products. The committee was charged with holding consultations, making analyses and formulating recommendations concerning the legislative and regulatory regime governing traditional medicines, homeopathic preparations, and vitamin and mineral supplements.

The committee was also expected to consult broadly with stakeholders, including associations, individuals representing consumers, manufacturers, distributors, growers, importers, exporters and retailers.

We see that this bill, like the committee's mandate, has reached a great many individuals who were very concerned about the regulation of natural health products. The committee held many hearings, heard many witnesses, and came to the realization that regulation of natural products was very controversial.

Many of the witnesses lobbied to have the regulations governing natural health products changed. Consequently, the committee members said that it was more than time to review the entire issue, which they did. The same year, a Health Canada survey showed that 56% of Canadians had used natural health products in the previous six months.

Thus we can see that Canadians and Quebeckers are taking more responsibility for their own health and in many cases, this leads to increased interest in and demand for natural health products.

The committee concluded—it set out parameters—that natural health products have their own unique characteristics and must not be treated strictly as either food or pharmaceutical products.

Moreover, the committee said that natural health product regulations must not unduly restrict access by consumers. In addition, it concluded that the authority for decision-making must be given to a regulatory body that has dedicated expertise and experience with natural health products and that natural health product regulatoryapproaches must respect diverse cultural traditions.

These four principles listed by the committee led to the request for the creation of another committee, which could draft legislation on the matter. The bill before us today does not in any way reflect the safeguards or points of reference the committee set out.

The Standing Committee on Health would have liked the current act to be changed because, as it now stands, a natural product can be considered a food or a drug.

The Standing Committee on Health, which received the mandate to study the act, said that natural foods should come under a third category. They have their peculiarities and particularities and, thus, an act respecting food and drugs should not include them. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not correspond with what the Standing Committee on Health had decided.

What we are saying is that a third category absolutely must be created for products that should truly be identified by skilled people. Currently, everyone—whether at Health Canada or in the general public—claims to know the benefits or inconveniences of natural health foods. Unfortunately, far too often, people do not know what impact these might have.

In 1997 or 1998, the Standing Committee on Health had said it would be better if the legislation required us to form a committee with specialists. Thus, a third category must be created for natural health products. This is one of the conclusions of the report of the Standing Committee on Health. Again, to the committee, natural products are neither food nor drugs.

The report stated that regulations alone are not sufficient and that statutory amendments should be made as soon as possible. The report also indicated that the majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee had reached this same conclusion. As a result, the Bloc Quebecois had asked for a certain flexibility, which does not exist under the present legislation.

The Bloc Quebecois, which represents Quebec in the House of Commons, conducted a study and concluded that there are many manufacturers of natural products and many consumers of such products in Quebec. This industry generates over 3,000 jobs in Quebec. So, if a certain level of flexibility is not allowed and if care is not taken, numerous jobs could be lost.

In Quebec too, naturopaths have said that this would mean that some products that do not pass the approval regime applicable to drugs could be kept off the shelves. What is happening at present? Since natural food products have not been defined, they are sometimes classified as drugs and sometimes as food. Our natural products that fit in neither category are quite simply excluded. This is unacceptable.

Yes, statutory amendments are needed. A new category must be created, because natural health products are not food. We need a bill that will create a third category of products. Natural health products should not be subject to the approval regime for drugs, which would mean their withdrawal because they do not correspond to the overall definition of a drug.

The bill currently before the House is therefore vague. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because the experts, the committee and the public were ignored. In its present form, the bill must simply be defeated. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is going to do, since it opposes this bill.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to Bill C-17 earlier, I said that I thought that the government just wanted to scare people. I said that there were organizations or groups which used the same methods as the government and continued to spread this fear. I talked about my house insurance.

The member for Berthier—Montcalm is a former mayor; he has been the chief executive of a municipality. I would like to know what he thinks. If he were still mayor, would he let this kind of legislation go through in his municipality?

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, for this question. He is right, I did not mention that point during my speech.

The Bloc Quebecois is still concerned, for example, about the provisions on interim orders. The bill provides that different ministers will have the authority to make interim orders without any prior check as to whether they are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enabling legislation. Members of the Bloc Quebecois tried to reinstate that prerequisite, but all our amendments were defeated.

I also want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that those interim orders require the amendment of ten other statutes for the minister to be entitled to make interim orders. We should also mention that members of the House have no say in the process of enacting regulations before they take effect. This means that, in most cases, whenever an interim order is made, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations will review the regulations only once they are in force, often several months later. That is not normal. An interim order should be made for a limited period of time. That way, since it will eventually come to an end, the committee review could very well happen too late.

We also have concerns about another item, the exchange of information. Under the provisions of the bill, data held by the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would not be destroyed soon enough. This is what we are talking about.

This means, for example, that, if I travel a lot, they would have all sorts of information about me without my knowing when it would be destroyed and what would become of it. Therefore, the freedom of individuals is being violated.

[Public Safety, 2002, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-17. It is quite a coincidence, since I am currently renewing my home insurance policy and on the issue of liability insurance, my contract stipulates:

Terrorism: an ideologically motivated unlawful act or acts, includingbut not limited to the use of violence or force or threat of violence or force,committed by or on behalf of any group(s), organization(s) or government(s) forthe purpose of influencing any government and/or instilling fear in the public—

It also points out that the policy does not provide coverage for:

—any loss or damage caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by terrorism or by any activity or decision of a government agency... to prevent, respond, or terminate terrorism.

So, this is not covered by the insurance policy. Later on, I will link all of this to my speech on the public safety bill now before the House. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, people were understandably afraid. However, I think that some people want to exaggerate the attacks or the threats of terrorism. The government as well as other groups and businesspeople are using the events of September 11, 2001 to scare people. They want the public to remain nervous and distraught. Legislation like Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, 2002, can only instill more fear in people. That is not showing them much respect.

As I said earlier, and as everyone knows, the United States was hit by deadly attacks on September 11, 2001. The response came rapidly and there was an unprecedented movement to mobilize in the fight against terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois joined this immense mobilization. We condemned the attacks and, in the hours that followed, we offered our cooperation to the federal government with respect to emergency measures for dealing with the situation. But at the time, we had asked—and that has remained our position for all the bills that have been presented—that there be a fair balance between freedom and security.

Unfortunately, the federal government has failed, and the measures it has proposed have not maintained this balance. They go even further in my view; they scare people. That is particularly true when it comes to bills such as Bill C-17, which we are debating today.

The first bill presented in response to the terrorist attacks was Bill C-36. We agreed to adopt an antiterrorism bill, but Bill C-36 did not strike the right balance between freedom and security, something we are still looking for.

The terrorist attacks and threats reached an exceptional level and created an exceptional context. This happened in a certain country, at a given time, during a given period. That does not mean there will not be any more, that there will be attacks here in Canada or in Quebec.

Of course, acts of terrorism can happen every day. Nonetheless, there have not been very many here over the past three decades, so why frighten people and hold them hostage?

I repeat, Bill C-36 was an exceptional measure in response to an exceptional situation. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to include the sunset clause my colleague was talking about earlier, for the legislation to cease to be in effect after three years unless the House decided otherwise.

The Bloc Quebecois asked for an automatic review every year, by the Standing Committee on Justice, or after the tabling of a report by an independent commissioner, to remove the pressure that people feel and perhaps prevent escalation or trade-offs. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. There are other problematic elements, but those are the main ones.

Then came Bills C-42 and C-55 and the current version, Bill C-17; the public safety bill that now before the House.

Claiming to be trying to further improve security, the government then introduced Bill C-42 on public safety. From the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois was against this bill, because some of the proposed measures really went too far and the connection with terrorism was rather tenuous. For example, the new power being given to ministers regarding interim orders was way too arbitrary. As for the military security zones, they were ill defined and their implementation left the door wide open to much abuse.

This bill was then replaced by Bill C-55 and later on by the bill before us today. Unfortunately, these two bills did not manage to maintain the necessary balance either.

Considering the two bills that the federal government introduced on terrorism, we have to recognize that the government has failed in its fight against terrorism. The proposed measures fail to maintain a fair balance between freedom and security. And what is worse, the government is trying to justify the extraordinary measures by the fight against terrorism, while some of those measures are neither necessary nor justifiable. We need only think about the use that can be made of the information obtained under Bill C-17, with respect to people for whom a warrant has been issued. If we oppose Bill C-17, it is mainly because we strongly believe that it is a bad bill, but it is also because we recognize that the government's behaviour in the fight against terrorism is a failure.

We voted against this bill at second reading. We will do it again this time, as we still oppose this bill. From the beginning, we have opposed many of the provisions that are still in the bill before us, despite the fact that we tried to move amendments and made many efforts to understand and refine the first bill.

Despite all the efforts that we made to soften the impact of the problematic clauses, these clauses remain unacceptable for the Bloc Quebecois and its members.

[Women's History Month, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. It is an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by women to history and our society.

All too often, historians ignore the important contribution of women to the advancement of our society. Many women stand out, In 1639, Marie Guyart de l'Incarnation opened an Ursuline convent school for girls in Quebec City. In 1705, Agathe de Saint-Père founded the first textile mill in the country, thereby becoming a very prosperous merchant. In 1893, Joséphine Marchand-Dandurand founded Quebec's first women's magazine, Le coin du feu . In 1900, Dorimène Roy Desjardins, along with her husband Alphonse, co-founded the Mouvement des Caisses Populaires Desjardins.

We must not forget Mesdames Casgrain, Payette, Roback and Monet-Chartrand who, along with many others, made significant contributions that shaped Quebec society.

During Women's History Month, the Bloc Quebecois joins me in paying tribute to these women.

[Psychological Harassment, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, despite the policy and regulations in effect in the public service, psychological harassment remains a reality. Studies show that 21% of public servants are still subject to harassment. In fact, this figure may even be higher than 30%.

What concrete steps does the President of the Treasury Board intend to take in order to end psychological harassment affecting 21% of public servants?

[Human Rights, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we were delighted to learn that the Islamic court of appeal in Katsina, Nigeria, had acquitted Amina Lawal.

In March 2002, this single mother of four was sentenced by an Islamic court to be stoned to death for giving birth to a child out of wedlock. She was to be executed in January of 2004.

Since Shariah law was adopted in 2000, a number of sentences of stoning for sexual relations outside of marriage have been brought down. None of these has been carried out, however.

Right from the start, the entire world has condemned this expression of violence and discrimination against women, of which the sentence against Amina Lawal is a tragic example.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to commend Quebecker Pierre Brun of Lawyers without Borders for his excellent work on this case. He travelled to Nigeria to help defend Amina Lawal, and is certainly in part responsible for the fact that today we can celebrate her release.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, September 24th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I introduce my first bill in this House.

It defines psychological harassment and abuse of power, requires the public service of Canada to provide its employees with employment free of psychological harassment, and requires every employee of the public service of Canada to disclose behaviour that is contrary to these principles.

The bill also provides for the exercise of recourse, the imposition of fines and the taking of remedial action when an employee who has made a disclosure is subjected to retaliation. In addition, the bill amends the Canada Labour Code to prohibit acts of psychological harassment.

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