Michel Guimond

[Privilege, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government House leader does not want us to raise our point. Is he hiding something? Does this bother him?

In short, the Minister of Justice and officials from her department did it again in a meeting this morning. Notwithstanding the complexity and the importance of this bill, it is, at the very least, peculiar that nobody at the Department of Justice requested simultaneous interpretation for their briefing session on Bill C-36 this morning. For more than one hour at the beginning of this briefing, the minister's officials provided information solely in English.

Assistants of members of the Bloc Quebecois were present at that meeting and were unable to obtain the information in their native language, despite the complexity of the bill.

The right to service in the language of one's choice is guaranteed under section 133 of Canada's constitution as well as under the Official Languages Act.

In view of the complexity of this bill and taking into account the language barrier, it becomes very difficult for parliamentary assistants and for the members themselves to form an informed opinion about such a bill.

The reference book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice says on pages 66 and 67, and I quote:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”--

I could also refer to Erskine May, who said the following, and I quote:

The privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

Let me now quote from Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, chapter 2, page 13:

If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament--i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament--in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.

In conclusion, my right to receive information in my native language, through my assistants, was violated this morning by the Minister of Justice.

Considering these facts, I submit that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also violated.

Should you rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege relating to an event that occurred during oral question period but, rather, a question of privilege that results from a briefing session on Bill C-36 given this morning by the Department of Justice.

I want to put this question of privilege in its proper context and to stress once again the indifference shown by this minister and her department toward the members of this House and their right to information, which is a priority. We saw the Minister of Justice's way of doing things with Bill C-15, which resulted in a question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Provencher. That question was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons amended the directives for members of the Privy Council Office.

As regards Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, a lot of information was released even before the bill was introduced in this House on Monday. One simply has to read the October 13 edition of the National Post , which included whole parts of the bill and which came out before the briefing session organized by the Minister of Justice on Monday morning, the day that Bill C-36 was introduced in the House.

Our right to information as duly elected members of this House, which is a priority, was once again violated. This leak about Bill C-36 in the National Post was the subject of a--

[Anti-terrorism legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is excluded from Bill C-36. This means that no one, no organization, not the commissioner, not parliament, not the justice system will be able to control the actions of the government.

Does the minister consider this acceptable in a free and democratic society?

[Anti-terrorism legislation, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill is making it possible for the government to get around not only the Access to Information Act, but the Privacy Act as well, as the commissioner, George Radwanski, pointed out yesterday.

How can the Minister of Justice justify the government's grabbing the power to do as it sees fit with the personal information it has collected on Quebecers and Canadians?

[Points of Order, October 18th, 2001]

It is very clear.

[Points of Order, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to clarify something. I understand that the words were added, but what about the future?

Still, even if the words are read, they do not introduce a peremptory order; so, will you allow the vote of members to be recorded after the taking of a vote, as it was done? I think we need some clear guidelines on that point.

[Judge Michael Sheehan, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to pay tribute to Judge Michael Sheehan, who yesterday received the Maurice Champagne rights and freedoms award from the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal.

Devastated by the death of his son, this courageous and very wise father decided to become involved by being there to listen to the distress of others and making a remarkable contribution to suicide prevention efforts.

When he speaks, Judge Sheehan reminds us that human life is what we hold most dear and that in fact people contemplating suicide do not want to die but just end their suffering.

This suffering is on the increase. Every day in Quebec there are 250 suicide attempts, five of which are fatal. In 1999, 316 women and over 1,200 men lost their life in this tragic manner.

Judge Sheehan's contribution to the prevention of suicide in Quebec is, of course, invaluable but his message is inspiring as well and helps to demystify this sad reality.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that CSIS informed the RCMP. If this is true, how does the solicitor general explain that the RCMP arrested Mr. Mouammar and then released him without charging him when they learned he was a CSIS informer?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, could the solicitor general tell us whether the Government of Canada is still protecting Gilles Breault, alias Youssef Mouammar, instead of laying charges?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a report by journalist Normand Lester, on Radio-Canada, revealed that an informant working for CSIS, who had a mandate to infiltrate the fundamentalist networks in Montreal, was in fact the spokesperson for an organization advocating the use of violence and terrorism.

How does the solicitor general explain that the informer, Youssef Mouammar, remains in the employ of CSIS, despite the concern expressed by the review committee in its 1997-98 annual report?