Diane Bourgeois

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too cannot say that I am pleased to speak to this bill this morning.

Truly, it is with a heavy heart that I rise this morning. I am fully aware that we must fight against terrorism. When I say fight, I am using a metaphor, meaning that we must counter terrorism. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to what women think of this legislation.

As members know, I am the status of women critic for the Bloc Quebecois. As a woman and a critic, I believe it is my duty to draw the attention of the House to what women think of this issue and to their ideas, all the more so since they came to meet with us this week.

A number of Canadian women came to Parliament Hill to meet the party leaders and members. They came with suggestions, as they too are fully aware that we have to take action against terrorism.

This morning, I saw pictures of Afghan women and children in places where there is practically no water and no food, being bundled trucks to be sent back, sent away. Very often, those people have no food, they have no education and they have been living in dire need for 20 years.

For 20 years now, the Afghans have been fighting to go return to their lands and enjoy some freedom. This is heartbreaking. I think we have every right to ask why there are people living in such conditions? And this situation is not new.

What happened on September 11th—and I will once again use a metaphor—only lifts the veil on an area of the world where life is full of violence.

That said, on this day commemorating the date on which women became persons under the law—on October 18, 1929 the Government of Canada recognized women as persons—I say to myself, seeing all the women and children who know nothing but poverty, who are living in hovels, or even in vehicles, that they are not being treated like persons. They are living like animals.

When the women came to see us this week, they told us that they agreed there should be an anti-terrorism law. They are fully aware that the present situation is a highly exceptional one. They passed messages on to us, but they also spoke of the need for balance, prudence and co-operation with the international community, in order to deal with the causes of this terrorism.

The Bloc Quebecois has heard and understood their messages. That is why, like my party and like these women, I agree with the principle of the bill we are debating today. There are, however, certain elements of it which require the prudence and balance to which they referred.

When the root causes of terrorism were mentioned, my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay spoke of poverty and of education. This bill could perhaps include what those women asked us for, namely an aspect relating to co-operation with the international community on the aid to be provided.

I will move on to a few points that I will try to touch on quickly. What the women did not like about this bill was that it will be re-examined only in three years. That is too long a time. They are cautious and wonder what could happen in the next three years. What could happen during that time? The law could lead us to certain prejudicial actions. It could, perhaps, be revisited yearly, but this would be up to the parliamentarians to do so, by seeking a certain consensus and holding discussions with the public. Women are present in all segments of the population, and in particular in areas concerned with people's welfare.

This bill has been criticized by charities because of the secrecy of the legal procedure and the evidence provided by CSIS, which could avoid saying exactly why an individual was being imprisoned or why someone was considered a terrorist. Women that do not normally go on strike, such as nurses, for example, could do so, chant slogans and defy the law. According to this bill, they would be considered terrorists. This is what women are criticizing.

As concerns Quebec, women there were upset—as they told us clearly on Monday—that the bill was not drafted in co-operation with the government of Quebec. This government, it will be recalled, has social democratic policies. The women of Quebec believe that their government could have some power and direct the work of the minister in terms of international co-operation to fight the causes of terrorism.

Women did not just realize yesterday that actions were needed. But they do not like actions to progress. They want to be careful and tend to favour a certain balance. They want discussion and a public review of the law within a year only. They want a democratic and transparent process and to take part in the debate.

This reminds me of a story. I do not know whether those watching us know the story of Lysistrata. Aristophane wrote a play 2,411 years ago, in which Lysistrata was the central character. She was the wife of an important citizen of Athens, who, tired of finding herself alone in the house educating the children, cleaning and serving as general factotum, while the men were constantly at war, mentioned it to some of her women friends. They spoke of it to the women in the village. She had an idea. People are going to laugh. It is a bit of a comedy. Her idea was not to—

[International Aid, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the minister understood my question properly.

There are several aspects to Canada's action in the fight against terrorism, one very important one being the provision of humanitarian assistance to populations affected by this war.

Given that the Minister of National Defence has stated that he supports the United States all the way in their fight against terrorism, is the government prepared to go as far when it comes to the innocent victims of this war, and does it intend to fulfill its responsibilities and increase humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan?

[International Aid, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, Canada is not living up to its claims, as our contribution is a mere $6 million.

Other countries with smaller populations have been considerably more generous. For example, Norway has given $81 million in Canadian; Sweden, $50 million; the Netherlands, $44 million; and France, $47 million.

Will Canada live up to its claims and announce additional humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population in the very near future?

[World Teachers' Day, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, October 5 is World Teachers' Day. Let us reflect on the vital role teachers play in our society.

Teaching is about more than passing on knowledge. It is also about listening, understanding, explaining, guiding, encouraging, developing, training, educating, and instilling values, principles and ideals.

Teaching is also about helping to shape an identity.

Teaching is a profession that carries with it some very weighty responsibilities and, too often, we neglect to point this out. We forget to thank the people who are there for students, who support their initiatives and who guide their steps.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to these women and men who play a role in developing our society's most important resource, our young people.

[Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans and to congratulate the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who have proposed ways to improve proceedings and the work done here in the House.

Perhaps my reaction will appear naive. However, I just realized—and I am a newer member—that important decisions are being made in this House that affect Canadians and Quebecers, and we do not even have a quorum.

I find this situation appalling for the simple reason that the House of Commons and all within it and all the work done here is paid for by our constituents' taxes.

I say this in all naivety. Women in Canada and Quebec—I am speaking of the living conditions of women, since I am the critic for the status of women—need to be heard, to be lent an ear. If they knew that, today, in this House, we frequently had no quorum, they would begin to wonder. Sometimes when a vote is called, members swarm in like flies.

It makes no sense. It is totally ridiculous. I wanted to say that. Perhaps I should not have mentioned it. I just want people to know that changes are needed, and they are paying for changes to be made.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, further to what I was saying at the beginning of my speech, there is agreement that the criminal code needs modernizing, but not at any price.

Bill C-15, particularly the portion relating to animal cruelty, contains amendments we consider an enrichment, indeed a necessary one, in order to ensure that animals are protected. I have, moreover, referred to this in the first part of my speech.

It does, however, also contain some aberrations that have negative impact, particularly for individuals and businesses raising animals for the purposes of consumption, people whose business this is, whose living this is, and who expect this bill to include the protection they enjoy at the present time under section 11 of the existing criminal code, but which is no longer present in this bill.

Bill C-15 is also prejudicial to the thousands of sports enthusiasts who are liable to be charged because the part relating to animal cruelty contains no exception that would protect them.

We can present a whole set of arguments in support of the absolute necessity for Bill C-15 to be looked at again, amended and reworked.

In Quebec alone, close to 400,000 hunters and one million fishermen will be affected by this bill. These figures demonstrate the heavy economic impact there will be on Quebec. I am certain there are also people in other provinces who hunt and fish, in equal numbers, and there will be economic repercussions there as well.

It is important to remember that in Canada as in Quebec, we have a tradition of hunting and fishing. It is not only native peoples who do so. We do so, and most hunters and fishers are guided by a spirit of wildlife conservation. There are also groups of hunters who use dogs, and this bill affects them considerably.

Quite often, these people assist foundations or provincial wildlife departments in studies to show their respect for wildlife. They are affected, because they will no longer be able to use their hunting dogs. From now on, because of the training, they could be considered to be harassing or mistreating the animals. These people help with animal conservation, because their dogs help them find dead or wounded animals.

Other people use birds, pheasants they raise for hunting. What will they do if they can no longer use them? We need these animals to train the dogs.

The rights and practices of hunting in our society must be taken into account. The provinces do so. They have laws and regulations derived from federal and provincial legislation in hunting matters that contain measures to ban and penalties to do with hunting practices. They are however in contradiction with Bill C-15. The converse is also true. We must be able to alter this bill.

We must be able to amend it significantly, and I am not alone in saying that. I have a document in hand that comes from the law and government division.

This is taken from the Department of Justice website. It is quite clear. It states that we could alleviate the concerns of groups that expect to be affected by this bill. It mentions, in particular, hunters and trappers, who fear that some of their acts may lead to prosecution.

It states quite plainly that the legislation needs to be reworked. It lists exceptions to acts that would be considered criminal. These include not only hunting and trapping. They include:

identification, medical treatment, spaying or neutering; provision of food or other animal products; hunting, trapping, fishing, and other [lawful] sporting activities...; pest, ...control; protection of persons or property; scientific research...; and disciplining or training of an animal.

The opposition parties are not the only ones saying that this bill must absolutely be split, reworked and modified, there is also someone from the federal Department of Justice.

I would like this to be referred to committee, so that it can be studied item by item, in order to come up with legislation that is fair towards everyone and to avoid prosecution and court costs. We cannot tell to what extent our fellow citizens are, or are not, on the same wavelength as us when it comes to the issue of cruelty to animals.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, which, for many reasons, has not received unanimous support. This is an omnibus bill that deals with subjects having to do with criminal law, but which seem to have nothing to do with each other.

For this reason, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express my support for the motions and proposals presented earlier by our colleagues, to the effect that this bill should have been split.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to speak to the part that will group together current provisions of the criminal code regarding cruelty to animals. This is an extremely important part, which will affect a market and people involved in certain sports, people who are quite concerned about this bill.

The fact that the minister is finally proposing amendments to the criminal code, particularly when it comes to cruelty to animals, is a good thing. It is time, and I believe that people are in favour of such measures. However, this section of the bill in unfair. In our opinion, the minister must give all groups or organizations affected the opportunity to respond.

The part of the bill that addresses cruelty to animals is significant, since a number of studies have clearly demonstrated a marked correlation between cruelty to animals, family violence and violence toward human beings in general. According to some studies, 70% of individuals found guilty of criminal offences had been violent toward animals as children. In all cases, what is involved is an abuse of power over defenceless individuals or animals. Our society cannot condone any abuse of power whatsoever against anyone or anything.

In my opinion, the first step must be to legislate the protection of pet and farm animals. It is estimated that more than 55% of the population owns a domestic animal. More and more, domestic, or pet, animals have come to occupy an important place within Canadian and Quebec homes in recent years. Increasingly, people are adopting animals that become full-fledged members of the family and a source of affection. Seniors are no exception, and increasingly use pets to meet their emotional needs.

This increase in pet ownership, and the fact that they become “people” like any other family member, has generated a huge underground industry worth billions of dollars. Some have made inordinate profits from it. We need only think of the puppy and kitten mills, the dog pounds and attack dog training schools that have generated so many court cases. Lacking any functional legislative and regulatory framework, magistrates end up issuing reprimands with no consequences, and neither the underground industries nor the animal abusers take any heed.

That is why we are in favour of increasing the penalties for individuals or businesses found guilty of animal cruelty. This would be a maximum five-year sentence and a heavier fine.

We would go further still; we would delete the word “maximum” in the phrase “maximum penalty of five years”. If we assume that abusing animals is a form of violence, then there is too much at stake. An individual charged with cruelty to animals should be liable to at least five years in jail. Those found guilty of cruelty to animals cannot be given a chance.

I also wish to draw members' attention to the puppy and kitten mills I mentioned earlier, a form of battery husbandry. These are run by undesirable breeders raising poor-quality animals, often the result of inbreeding, with disastrous consequences, and with no respect for the animal's reproductive cycle or health.

This problem has been repeatedly covered in the newspapers and on television. These animals are in distress, beaten, and underweight, because they receive little or no food. Simply put, they are living in extremely unhealthy conditions.

They are kept in cages that do not allow them to lie down; there are dogs and cats whose paws are deformed because the place in which they are growing is inappropriate. Some animals are chained up outside in extreme temperatures. Some are so sick that, when the Humane Society comes to their rescue, it must put them down because they can no longer be saved.

This is unacceptable and it is the reason we are in favour of a tougher piece of legislation, one with more teeth, to address this problem.

There are also some people for whom the legislation causes problems. This sizable segment of the Canadian population includes producers of animals destined for consumption, as well as hunters, fishers and trappers.

Right now, producers of animals destined for consumption are protected under part XI of the previous legislation, which exempts them from prosecution since their occupation is supplying animals for consumption. But part XI was moved in the new legislation and it has been dropped entirely from Bill C-15. They therefore no longer have the immunity they had under the previous legislation. This is an important legal protection which they need and now enjoy, but which they can no longer invoke under Bill C-15; they are no longer exempt.

I think that clause 182.2(1) of the bill has to be reworked and added to. At the moment it reads as follows:

182.2(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly

At this point we could add: “and without justification or an excuse in law or appearance of right”.

These people have a vested interest. They provide food for people. They must not be dragged before the law under Bill C-15 for some hair-brained reason, such as killing animals. We must give these people protection and protect legitimate agricultural activities.

Another category of individuals is also oppressed by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you go hunting or fishing in your rare free moments, but I must say I enjoy these sports a lot. Under Bill C-15, people will be liable to fines and even imprisonment for having wounded or mutilated an animal, be it a night crawler, a worm, a fish, a partridge, a deer or a moose because there are terms and expressions in the bill that are not clear.

Now, the definition of the word animal includes all invertebrates and all vertebrates, be it a partridge, a wild animal or a chicken. They are all in the same boat.

For example, if I wound a partridge while I am hunting and my neighbour finds it, he can take me to court, accusing me of wounding a partridge. At that point, under Bill C-15, I would have to appear in court and would be liable to a fine, even imprisonment. This part of Bill C-15 has to be amended.

There are also some extremely important clauses that provide for the protection of those who hunt with dogs. It is a really agreeable sport enjoyed right across Canada. Over 400,000 hunters hunt with dogs in Canada. These people cannot all be considered as criminals. They have to be protected.

These hunters' dogs are not considered abused. First, a hunting dog is a gentle animal. This type of dog could not be trained to hunt if it were abused. Owners of hunting dogs automatically provide excellent living conditions for their dogs, so that the dogs can be receptive to them and able to do the work asked of them.

Furthermore, hunting dogs help with the protection of wildlife, for the simple reason that if you go hunting, as you have said you do, Mr. Speaker, and you kill a partridge, you will have a hard time finding it in the underbrush, if it is at all dense. However, a hunting dog will be able to find it. The partridge might not be dead. It might be injured, and die later. If I were to leave that partridge in the forest, then I would be showing disrespect for wildlife. In such a case, my hunting dog will retrieve it.

It is important to consider that with Bill C-15, if we do not take this into account, there will be people who will have to give up their sport, and give up protecting certain animals.

[Social Housing, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, under the minister's plan, rent for the social housing units that would be built in Montreal would be $700 per month.

Does the minister not realize that at $700 per month needy families would not have access to these housing units and that his plan is totally off target?

[Social Housing, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are urgent needs in social housing and the government must take immediate action.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services justify allocating to Quebec $147 million of the total budget of the program to create affordable housing when the province should get $163 million based on its demographic weight and $183 million based on actual needs? Why such a shortfall for Quebec?

[Social Housing, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity today to try to help clarify the terms affordable housing, poverty and homeless.

This is a topic of great interest to me, all the more so as I am a woman. When one talks about poverty, the homeless and affordable housing, the majority of those affected are women. I am also the Bloc Quebecois critic for the status of women.

I will begin right away by saying how very disappointed I am in the answer given by the member opposite. I thought that we were here this afternoon to clarify, as set out in the motion, the terms affordable housing, poverty and homeless, and not to list off what the government is doing with respect to affordable housing, poverty and the homeless.

Since the beginning of this parliamentary session, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly asked questions on these topics. We have tried in various ways to find out whether the government is on the same wavelength as we are, if its understanding of the concepts of affordable housing, poverty and homeless is the same as ours.

As the House knows, the federal government stopped funding social housing in 1994, and perhaps that is why we have been asking so many questions. It is no longer providing any funding for this. It chose instead to put in place an affordable housing program, which is totally unacceptable for Quebecers and Canadians.

The federal government is about to invest $680 million in housing that does not meet the needs of the poor and the homeless.

The motion brought forward today will give me the opportunity to explain the difference between social and affordable housing and to give a clear definition of the words poverty and homeless, and I thank the member for Edmonton Centre East for that.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic on the status of women, I will cannot claim that I live in what would qualify as poverty. I am one of those women who, through their work, were able to make a decent living.

However, I went to meet people, to meet groups in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. I went to see if these groups had a definition of social housing. I went to see what they thought of affordable housing. I went to see what the words poverty and homeless meant to them.

The idea of affordable housing is directly related to the issue of social housing. Social housing means housing designed exclusively for unattached individuals, elderly people, men, women, families and households with a very low income. It means that these people pay at least 30% of their gross income, and maybe more, to have a decent place to live, including heat and electricity. We are talking about more 1,670,700 households, the majority of which are single parent families headed by women.

I believe it is important to define what social housing is because it is not affordable housing.

During the last election campaign, the Liberals promised affordable housing. Today we can state that they have not yet begun to fulfil those promises, because negotiations between the federal government and the provinces are at a standstill.

Promises were made about the construction of housing by independent building contractors, with a minimum investment of $12,500. We know that decent housing requires an investment of at least $25,000 investment. I am referring here to four-room accommodation. This is housing that will then rent for between $600 and $800 a month in Quebec. My colleague from Edmonton Centre East has said that the rent would probably be far higher in a certain other region.

During the election campaign, the minister responsible for social housing stated on a radio program that this type of housing would be made available for families. Thus, the affordable housing would be reserved for families able to afford this amount of rent. That is not what social housing is all about.

Obviously, the Liberal government does not have the same definition of poverty as we do, or perhaps it does not even realize what poverty is, or it just does not want to acknowledge its existence.

People need social housing because they poor. When one is poor, one cannot pay $600 a month for housing. When one is poor, one often depends on food banks or soup kitchens. When one is poor, one often faces a dilemma: pay the rent or buy food, pay the rent or pay for drugs. A growing minority is no longer able to pay the rent and services like electricity or gas at the same time.

Poverty amplifies another problem, that is the discrimination one faces when looking for housing. Owners of rental housing are increasingly invoking the presumed insolvency of poor people as a reason to reject them as tenants. These people are often forced to accept inferior housing.

As for the homeless, what I earlier called the problem of homelessness, and I would only like to say to my colleague of Edmonton Centre East that that it is not an illness, it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to housing problems.

It was said earlier, more than one million tenant families are inadequately housed, a record number of people are condemned to live on the street in every big city and people living in the street are there for a number of reasons, many of them having to do with housing.

Community groups that have this expertise on homelessness agree on the following definition of homeless: people who are of no fixed address and who do not have the assurance of a stable and safe dwelling for the next 60 days; people with very little income who do not belong to any group on a stable basis; and people who have mental health problems or problems with alcohol or social disorganization.

These people are often too poor to have access to a dwelling or a room, and when they do, it is often in slums. Social housing units for the homeless are too rare. We know that there are other reasons for homelessness, but we can say that the housing problem is one of its structural causes.

As we can see, the three themes in this motion all relate to poverty. Based on what we saw, it was obvious that the concept of affordable housing did not at all reflect the needs expressed by the public.

It is my hope that today's debate will develop an awareness among members and make them more vigilant regarding the affordable housing policy to which this government is committed. In our opinion, the government is headed in the wrong direction in this area.

If, as my colleague from the party opposite said, there are as many definitions of housing as there are regions in Canada, why does the government not give the money to the provinces so that they may meet the needs of their citizens?