Diane Bourgeois

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I speak to Bill C-55 and every time I take the floor I try to bring a feminist dimension to the debate. I believe it is important to do, so because women make up 52% of the Canadian population. They have the right to express their opinions on such an important bill, which will regulate some of their actions in months and years ahead.

This morning, I will base my comments on what women told us following the events of September 2001. They came to meet us in last October or November to oppose unilateral decisions that would impact on the safety of their families and children.

I believe women are not against an act designed to maintain public safety. Women in Canada and in Quebec, however, have concerns about the safety of their children and their families and really want this bill to be debated in a spirit of transparency. Women do want their children and families to be safe, but under fair and sound measures.

Women have problems with some of the provisions of the bill. They believe three elements will create a very significant problem. The first element deals with unlimited powers that one or more ministers may have in the areas of health, emergency measures or transportation.

In terms of health, allow me to consult the notes I took following this meeting. Part 5 of the bill, which amends the Department of Health Act, empowers the minister to make an interim order if he believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk to health or safety. I believe that the provisions about dealing with a significant risk are those women are suspicious of. Il will come back to this later.

As regards emergency measures, what is urgent? At the moment, women have needs. They have become the backbone of health care across Canada through their personal involvement. They play the same role in education. Is this not urgent? What is urgent for one is not necessarily urgent for another.

With regard to transportation, the element that raises a problem is safety. We know that air carriers will have an obligation to provide information. I am thinking about an abused woman who is hiding, about a woman who needs to leave the country in order to get information. If she is tracked down and found, this does not really ensure her safety.

The second element has to do with controlled access military zones. I will also come back to them.

The third element deals with personal information. We now know that the privacy commissioner has said that there would no longer be personal information because we will be forced to provide it to an agency under a minister or an senior official.

With regard to the first element, the unlimited power to make interim orders, women in Quebec and Canada remember how the then Minister of National Defence behaved in December, I believe in the case of prisoners taken in Afghanistan and brought to Guantanamo base. Women remember the defence minister's lack of judgment; he hid these operations from parliament and Canadians. We also think of Big Brother.

Women's confidence in the Government of Canada is very limited, in view of some of its actions. Women want to know how far ministers who have to make decisions under Bill C-55 will go. They do not trust the government. They wonder how much logic and transparency these men, who govern, who make decisions, will demonstrate. Indeed, we know that there are not many women in the decision making circles. Will women's views be taken into consideration?

Women also wonder about the credibility of both the Canadian Security Information Service and officers. It is mentioned in Bill C-55 that officers may take decisions. Women are concerned by this. As for the controlled access military zones, once again, women's quality of life would be affected.

I also want to stress that the women of Quebec, and I am one of them, remember the October crisis in 1970. I experienced that crisis personally. At the time, I lived in a Montreal neighborhood where there was an army presencet. The psychological impact of that was terrible. I remember the events as if they had happened yesterday. I remember the atmosphere of war and some images are stuck in my mind. I was in what could be called a controlled access military zone at the time. In my neighbourhood, there was a curfew and we were watched. I was a young girl and I could not even go out as I pleased. This marked me.

Just like me, the women of Quebec remember that. They are not convinced that controlled access military zones will not reproduce what they experienced in those days.

Furthermore, getting back to women's demands, and I want to stress this, we see that the women of Quebec, just like the women all over Canada, have taken part in marches. The first one was not promoted as widely; it was the called the bread and roses march, and was held in 1995. Women took part to say “We experience poverty every day; we are often victims of violence. We need a more equitable and fair system. We need measures for our children and our families. We need the government to pay better attention to our concerns”.

In 1995, they marched. In 2000, they marched again and they went and got support from around the world. It was another step. They came here to tell us that the situation could not go on. There is still a great deal of poverty in Canada, where there are 1.3 million poor children. There is still a great deal of poverty among single parent families with low incomes. The federal government has withdrawn from social housing. There is also a great deal of violence that does not get much attention.

I think that women have had enough. They have marched twice, but they will not march three times. When women see the federal government with a $60 billion surplus while they are the ones struggling to maintain health care, education and social services, as I was saying earlier, they could possibly march a third time, but this time it will be with a lot more clout.

They could possibly go further in their actions. What guarantee do they have that, in a context of transparency, justice, equity and freedom, they will be able to make their grievances known? When they marched at the people's summit, if I understand the current bill correctly, they would have been in a controlled access military zone and they would not have been allowed to express their views.

Women are so sick and tired of the situation, they are so exasperated that they will have to go further. And when they do decide to go further, will they be told that they are not allowed to do so for public safety reasons? Will controlled access military zones be created to prevent them from expressing their views?

Im closing, I will just say this. How does the Public Safety Act, 2002 make women feel safer?

[Housing Bill of Rights, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the efforts by the hon. member for Vancouver East in readdressing social housing.

The presentation of her bill will once again afford me an opportunity to speak to this issue, but this time in a far more optimistic tone. As we know, since last November, a number of bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and territories, including the Government of Quebec, have been signed with a view to stimulating the creation of affordable housing.

The federal government's withdrawal from social housing has had catastrophic results. Some provinces have been experiencing a housing crisis for a long time, and it is already some years since the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for which the federal Minister of Public Works and Government Services has responsibility, first informed the minister of the scope of the crisis.

As a result, some provinces experienced a huge jump in the number of households in desperate need of accommodation. These past ten years, because of the federal government's stubborn insistence on keeping a high profile, we in Quebec have been deprived of more than 50,000 social housing units. On numerous occasions the Bloc Quebecois has called upon the federal government to reinvest in housing. Although we feel that a bill like that of the hon. member for Vancouver East is a good thing, unfortunately we also feel it contains some problematic elements.

First , last year in 2001 the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for housing met on two occasions in order to fine tune the affordable housing initiative so that it would meet the needs and priorities of each province and territory. At Quebec City in November last year, they established a definitive frame of reference that was unanimously accepted by all of the ministers.

This frame of reference includes the following important elements. First, provinces and territories have the primary responsibility for the design and delivery of housing programs within their jurisdiction. Second, provinces and territories require flexible programs to address their affordable housing needs and priorities. Third, this initiative needs to create affordable housing for low to moderate income households.Fourth, units funded will remain affordable for a minimum of ten years. Fifth, provinces and territories will be required to match federal contributions overall. Provincial and territorial contributions may be capital or non-capital in nature, and may be in cash or in kind. These contributions may be made by the province or territory or by a third party. I will explain why.

The reason this agreement was approved was because it met the requirements of provinces which, like British Columbia and Quebec, had already taken steps to meet their housing needs, in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, where the population is decreasing and where it can be said that there is no housing crisis, in Newfoundland, a province which prefers to spend its money on renovating housing, and in the Northwest Territories, which are short of money and prefer to invest in other ways.

Therefore, in response to the outcry from the provinces, the federal government finally accepted that its financial contribution to this cost shared program be given to the provinces, and that they would decide how to spend it based on their needs.

This makes the third element of the bill, the development of a national housing strategy, unnecessary. Based on what I described earlier, the provincial governments are responsible for their budgets in addition to their dealings with their municipalities.

As a result, I do not see how the federal government could require the provinces to reserve 1% of their budget for national housing programs. Furthermore, we know that, in Quebec, there are mechanisms to ensure the fair distribution of funding through the Société d'habitation du Québec and the protection of renters through the Régie du logement. In Quebec, we are organized.

Also, a few years ago, Quebec developed a policy to fight poverty. It is therefore important that the administration of any federal-provincial agreement in this area be left to the province. In Quebec, it is the government of Quebec that consults with municipalities and assesses projects.

For all of the reasons I have mentioned, the bill put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver East cannot be retained, and the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, the media, the opposition parties and all those who believe in transparency have been asking the government to launch a public inquiry.

New revelations are made daily. The reports from Groupaction, the contracts to L'Almanach du peuple , and the connections linking the former minister of public works and the minister of immigration to an advertising firm seem to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Over the weekend, we learned that another minister, namely the Minister of National Defence, displayed favoritism by awarding a $36,500 contract to his ex-girlfriend.

How many more scandals will have to be unearthed before the Prime Minister realizes the need for a public inquiry?

[Protection of the Unborn Child, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise to address a motion which seeks to recognize the fetus as a human being.

The first time, a similar motion was presented by the same colleague from the Canadian Alliance. This first motion was not moved for debate in the House because the Bloc Quebecois, mindful of the interests of Quebecers and Canadians, opposed presenting a bill to, “define a 'human being' as a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required”.

Today, the same member is bringing up once again a debate that I had thought had been settled some time ago. He is moving a motion that would have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of human being to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child, obviously with a view to taking a position against abortion.

We believe that this debate has had its day. Moving such a motion serves no purpose. The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review the current definition of “human being” in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and report—

Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that a child becomes a human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”. This is what the member told us earlier. The section continues “whether or not it has breathed, it has an independent circulation, or the navel string is severed”. I think that the wording is very clear.

The motion before us asks that the committee:

—report (a) whether the law needs to be amended to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Nowhere in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is there any reference to the conception of the embryo, or fetus, to its development, or even to gestation. Nor is there any definition of pregnancy. I think that this is the important point. It is interesting to note that the United Nations convention gives as a definition, in its first article, “a child means every human being below the age of 18 years”.

Article 5 provides that every child has the inherent right to life, and that states parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. This is important: the survival and development of the child.

In its preamble, the United Nations convention says:

that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding;

that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration;

that due account must be taken of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child.

So, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides legal protection after birth. This is what the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will discover when they study the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is no mention of “before” birth.

As for the second part of the motion, it deserves our full attention. The second part states that the Standing Committee on Justice should see “whether the law should be amended so that an unborn child is considered a human being at the point of conception—” and so forth. It would have committee members debate a motion on which the Senate of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada have already ruled.

In 1988, the supreme court declared the sections in the criminal code on abortion at the time as unconstitutional. Since then, all women in Canada have the right to decide on their own whether or not to terminate their pregnancy. To my knowledge, Newfoundland is the only province that has no specific abortion facilities. However, it is recognized across Canada.

In 1989, the Senate of Canada rejected a bill passed by the House of Commons that would have recriminalized abortion. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to recognize the fetus as a person with legal rights and affirmed that it was up to an elected body to make such a decision. For the third time, the supreme court established that a fetus has no legal status before birth.

The landmark decision on this, however, was more than fifteen years ago, when it ruled in favour of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who performed abortions. At the same time, it made a recommendation for fair and reasonable access to abortion services.

In conclusion, I must reaffirm that, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois maintains that this motion is null and void. I would add that, when I debated this issue here in the House last year, the members across the way, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, seemed to me to be prepared to recriminalize abortion and to present the motion to the House. Today, I note and appreciate the open-mindedness which will mean that women's right to choose will be respected.

My party will also always be vigilant to ensure that such motions, which are contrary to the freedom of choice women obtained only after much struggle, are not passed through male dominated parliaments which claim to want to see the population comply with the laws they themselves put in place.

If this motion were to follow its course and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were to examine it, it ought to also take mothers' rights into consideration. Mothers are human beings with rights that are protected by law.

In closing, I would emphasize that the member who introduced the motion wondered or simply informed us that there were filing cabinets filled with responses to his survey as to whether people were for or against abortion. I am certain that there were no cabinets filled with responses from women, because women are the ones who have to deal with child rearing on a day to day basis.

[Petitions, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, even though there is talk of an imminent settlement at Radio-Canada, 30,000 people support those who signed the petition that I am presenting here today to send a clear message to the management of Radio-Canada.

The petitioners find it unacceptable and shameful that Radio-Canada discriminates against women and people who do not have job security. Radio-Canada employees in the regions should not be paid less than those who work in large urban centres. The regions need a news service that is tailored to their needs. For that, Radio-Canada must offer decent conditions to its staff in the regions.

I hope that a solution to this dispute can be found as quickly as possible.

[Excise Act, 2001, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47. The Bloc Quebecois could have supported this bill, but I would like to explain why we have not done so.

We would have liked the amendments put forward to include beer, namely the reduction of excise duty on beer produced by microbreweries, to be considered in order.

In the current Excise Act, wine, spirits, beer, tobacco and distillery products are all mentioned. Bill C-47, which is supposed to bring that Excise Act up to date, also deals with absolutely everything, except beer. It is pretty unthinkable.

I would like to tell the House why I am personally against this bill. In my riding of Terrebonne--Blainville, we have the microbrewery which produces the Boréale. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the managers and the 75 employees of that microbrewery.

They expect their MP to stand up for them and put forward their viewpoint and their concerns. They also expect the government to take into account that this substantial tax—which is a surtax in some way—is eroding their profits and stifling the growth of their company.

This microbrewery was established in 1987. It is recognized worldwide for its five different types of beer. I say worldwide because people come from around the world to learn about their brewing methods, and also because of exports. There are 75 employee plus the managers who put their hearts into their work. They give their best for this small business' operations. It is a dynamic and strong company, and management is determined, despite everything, to keep their market share.

This business is 100% Quebec owned and operated. It is the second largest microbrewery in Quebec; it has $12 billion in annual sales, selling more than 45,000 hectolitres, which is very impressive for a microbrewery. As I said, its brewhouse is the most technologically advanced in the entire microbrewery industry in Canada. It has a fleet of 12 trucks, which adds to the indirect jobs it creates. Its distribution is based in North Montreal and in the Eastern Townships and extends all the way to remote areas. In order to ensure incredibly personalized service, its sales reps operate like travelling salesmen, again, creating more jobs.

This microbrewery has to cope with a surtax of 28 cents on each litre of beer, for all of the different beers that it sells. If it were in the United States, it would only pay 9 cents per litre.

How can we explain that here in Canada, we cannot protect our microbreweries against the American microbreweries? The Bloc Quebecois has looked into the matter, and has found out that the Brewers Association of Canada, which claimed to be fighting for the microbreweries, was in fact in collusion to throttle the microbreweries by having them pay the full excise tax.

Which are our big Canadian breweries? Molson and Labatt. When we look at the situation closely, we realize that there is collusion and chumminess between the big Canadian breweries and the chair of the finance committee. Yet she is supposed to be there to find other ways to help the microbreweries.

More than 2,000 employees are directly dependent upon the microbreweries. I proved earlier that the microbrewery located in my riding, the Boréale, also generates a lot of indirect jobs. If 2,000 direct jobs depend on Quebec's microbreweries, how many indirect jobs depend upon Canadian microbreweries?

I think that the government should really pay attention to what it is doing. It is throttling these microbreweries, which are small and medium size businesses that contribute to the Canadian financial policy. There are a good number of them. The big companies are not the only ones we have. There are also people working in small businesses, often family businesses, where women are penalized by the employment insurance system. What will happen to these people if the microbreweries close down? Many people will lose their job. These are people who depend on us, as parliamentarians, and on the government for decision making. These microbreweries will close down and these people will lose their jobs.

As I only have a few moments left, I would ask the government and the Standing Committee on Finance to take into consideration all the people working for the small and medium size businesses. These are the people who are being done in by senseless and foolish policies. They want to make a decent living.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-55. First, I will offer my views as the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women, and thus give a woman's view of the consequences of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois does not, of course, have anything against a public safety bill. We are, however, the spokespersons for thousands of Quebec women, and indirectly of Canadian women, who are concerned about their children and their families. For these women, safety is extremely important consideration, and it affects everything that impacts upon their quality of life.

The women of Quebec and of Canada want safety and security for their children and families, but not at any price. Women want it to be logical. They want the measures put in place to be transparent, just and equitable, as well as intelligent.

This bill contains provisions that are, in my opinion, problematic for women. My colleagues who have spoken today have clearly defined the three main elements that are problematical.

The first concerns the unlimited powers available to the minister or ministers, whether for health, emergency measures or transport. The second concerns the controlled access military zones, the third, privacy. Personal information will no longer be private, and the privacy commissioner has voiced objections to this.

As far as the first element is concerned, the unlimited powers to enact interim measures, the women of Quebec and of Canada still recall the way the Minister of National Defence did things, last December I think it was, in the case of the prisoners from Afghanistan who were taken to the base at Guantanamo. The women also recall the Minister of Defence's lack of discernment in concealing these operations from parliament and from the Canadian public at that time. The women want to know how far the ministers will go, the ones who will have to make the decisions under Bill C-55. They are worried.

They ask me “What will be the limits of logic and transparency reached by these men who govern, the decision-makers?” We may know, or we may not, but women are worried.

Women are wondering about the credibility of those involved, and of officials. Bill C-55 would enable officials to make decisions. This worries women. When it comes to controlled access military zones, once again, this has an effect on the quality of life of women.

Let us recall that the women in Quebec remember the October crisis of 1970. I was in my twenties at that time. I lived in a sector of Montreal where the army was present. It made an incredible psychological impact. I remember it as though it were yesterday. I also remember the climate of war and images that have stayed with me. I was living in a controlled access military zone at that time. There was a curfew in effect in my neighbourhood. I was monitored, as a young person; I was not free to go out as I pleased. I practically could not breathe.

Women in Quebec remember this and they are not sure that these controlled access military zones will not reproduce what they went through. Furthermore, if we look at the demands of women—and this is what I would like to focus on more—we see that the women in Quebec, like those in Canada, have taken part in marches.

The first march that caught the attention of the public was the bread and roses march that took place in 1995. Women were saying “We know all about poverty, we experience it every day. We often experience violence. We need a system that is more fair and equitable. We need to put measures in place for our children and our families. We need the government to pay more attention to our concerns”. And so in 1995 they marched. It was a small march that people may not have taken seriously.

In 2000 they marched. Not only did they march again, but they went and got support from around the world: women from 157 countries also marched. It was another step. They came here to tell us that the situation could not continue. There is still a great deal of poverty in the world and also in Canada, where there are 1,300,000 children who are poor. There is still a great deal of poverty among single-parent families with low incomes. The federal government's withdrawal from social housing has also created problems that are felt by women.

With respect to violence, the government of Quebec has established a great many measures to end violence and poverty. However, in Canada, the government has not responded to women's demands.

Let us imagine that, at some point, these women may want to go further. What guarantee do they have that they will be able to come and make representations to us in a context of transparency, justice, fairness and freedom? Women have reached such a degree of exasperation that they will have to go further. When they decide to march on the streets, will the government rule that, for reasons of public security, they are not allowed to do so? Will the government designate controlled access military zones?

As regards privacy, if women go too far, will authorities search for personal information on these women to label them as terrorists? How far will this go?

I am asking hon. members opposite to think about these three points, keeping in mind that women account for 52% of all Canadians.

[Air Transportation, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the preferential treatment of Dorval over Mirabel, the Minister of Transport stated yesterday, “Naturally, it is important to respect leases and I am not aware of the existence of any problem with the lease between ADM and the Canadian government. Both are international airports”. Yet the lease is very clear on the concept of “major international airport”. It is a matter of transporting freight and passengers.

How can the Minister of Transport honestly state that the lease is being respected and that Mirabel retains major international airport status, when ADM—

[Airline Industry, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the board of directors of the Aéroports de Montréal is about to announce the transfer of passenger flights from Mirabel to Dorval as early as April 2003.

This flies in the face of common sense and violates the lease, which clearly stipulates that the lessee must use the premises for the purposes of a major international airport.

Given that the board of directors is making a complete mess of this and is not respecting the lease it signed, what is the Minister of Transport waiting for to ask for their resignations?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for giving me the opportunity to discuss Bill C-47, particularly because we have a microbrewery in my riding, Boréale, which serves people from part of North Montreal.

Its employees and its president are doing an excellent job but, because of difficulties with the excise tax, they cannot make a breakthrough with the quality product that they offer.

When we, in the Bloc Quebecois, were told about Bill C-47, I agreed with my colleagues that we could probably support it. However, in the last months, the situation with the bill has worsened.

I remember that I had the opportunity, about a year ago, to replace my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on the Standing Committee on Finance and to hear about the problems experienced by Canadian and Quebec microbrewers.

I thought that, this time, the government would have had the decency to meet their demands, so they could operate under the same conditions as microbrewers in the United States or in Europe. However, I am very disappointed that the these microbreweries have to pay a lot, 28 ¢ in Canadian currency. This is a lot for a microbrewery that has to compete with other microbreweries. For example, American microbreweries only pay 9 ¢ a litre. How can they be expected to find a place on a market they are entitled to have access to, just like aany other Canadian brewery?

I find it somewhat deplorable that Canadian microbreweries are being forced to be minor players on this market which, as a matter of principle, should be open. I think that everybody should have an opportunity. Unfortunately, these microbreweries and their employees are victims of a tax policy that, by the way, seems more and more to have been dictated by the big brewers, which are good buddies of the current government.

What I also find disappointing is all this collusion between the wealthy and the federal government. Clearly, considering the composition of the committee and the fact that its chair is the hon. member for London West, who happens to be the wife of one the executives of those big breweries, there is something fishy. People are not crazy. I think Canadians realize what is going on.

Two thousand employees depend on the microbreweries, two thousand people who, in order to survive and progress, absolutely need the help of the government. The Canadian brewers who are quite rich do not care about the survival of these microbreweries and their employees.

If these microbreweries disappears at an annual rate of 1%, large brewers earn $17 million more a year. If that money went to microbrewers, regional and local economies could continue to function. I think this situation is shameful and horrible.

There is a conflict of interests on this issue. There obviously is collusion to eliminate Canadian microbreweries. Large Canadian breweries are predators. Molson and John Labatt are predators who are actually preventing our people from making a living.

When we look at the history of Canada and even of Quebec, these are the very people who founded these huge breweries, going against historical trends in Quebec in the process. There is a very large number of microbreweries in Quebec, and I believe that there is a clear intent to take away part of the power that Quebecers have through microbreweries.

In Bill C-47, wine, spirits, tobacco and distillery products are all mentioned. We are asking that beer be included. Why should it not be included? It would be normal and logical.

It is clear that the federal government and the members of the committee are in collusion to do nothing. I understand why only 11% of Canadians trust their politicians. In a situation such as this, I think it is absolutely normal that someone who makes a decent living in microbreweries believes that they want to get rid of it. People do not trust this government nor those who are making the decisions and passing the laws. I think it is absolutely understandable.

We have to modernize our parliamentary system and our laws. ITo do that, we have to dare to condemn what is going on. This is what the Bloc Quebecois is doing, and I believe that it is standing firm in its opposition to this bill.

We say to the population of Quebec that it is inadmissible and unacceptable that the federal government is acting in collusion with large companies, which are making money at the expense of Canadians and Quebecers. I invite the people in my riding, where we have Boréale beer, to remember this at the next election.