Lise BOURGAULT

BOURGAULT, Lise, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Argenteuil--Papineau (Quebec)
Birth Date
June 5, 1950
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Bourgault
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=9740fef8-8654-47c0-b33d-7004b484fd41&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
administrator, real estate agent

Parliamentary Career

September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
PC
  Argenteuil--Papineau (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (October 15, 1987 - December 11, 1988)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
PC
  Argenteuil--Papineau (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (October 15, 1987 - December 11, 1988)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (December 12, 1988 - April 4, 1989)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (April 5, 1989 - May 7, 1991)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (May 8, 1991 - November 18, 1991)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 70)


February 17, 1993

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The Criminal Code does not provide for the seizure of goods acquired through profits generated by the illegal sale of smuggled tobacco products because this activity is not recognized as a form of organized crime. In practice, this means that some Mohawks could buy the Manoir Richelieu with the money made from the lucrative black market for cigarettes and open a nice casino which Quebec would otherwise not allow them to own.

So as not to make fools of us all in this House, will the minister urgently introduce a retroactive amendment to the Criminal Code and eliminate this unacceptable loophole which enables criminals to launder the money made by smuggling cigarettes?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Full View Permalink

February 17, 1993

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):

Mr. Speaker, ridicule will finally kill society.

Rich tobacco smugglers can buy real estate and other property with complete peace of mind, owing to a defect in the Criminal Code that does not provide for the seizure of goods acquired from the sale of smuggled cigarettes.

The warehouses of flue cured tobacco producers are robbed in broad daylight by criminals who sell the contraband in our famous flea markets. Distributors and retailers lost over $150 million in 1992 because of this illegal trade.

The governments in Quebec and Ottawa lost almost $1 billion in 1992, $450 million for Quebec and $500 million for Ottawa as its share of the tax that would have been collected in Quebec. Imagine the disaster for all of Canada.

Crime has increased 100 per cent and Canadian smokers have become the accomplices of organized crime, something which has not been seen since Prohibition. This has been going on since July 1991 and it is time to stop it.

Quebec and Ottawa must drastically cut taxes in order to kill the black market. The Criminal Code must be amended to prevent these criminals from laundering money obtained from smuggling, the exits from the Indian reserves must be controlled and above all, Quebecers and Canadians must stop buying contraband cigarettes; otherwise, the governments alone will be unable to wipe out this evil.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Subtopic:   TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Full View Permalink

February 16, 1993

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The minister is well aware that cigarette smuggling in Canada has become a plague and a disgrace which profits organized crime with the complicity of thousands of citizens who act against their conscience to save a few dollars on a pack of cigarettes.

Can the minister confirm that a national conference on this issue was convened with his provincial counterparts and can he say what concrete measures have been taken so far by the federal government to end this scourge which tarnishes our reputation and weakens our ability as a country to enforce our laws?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Full View Permalink

February 2, 1993

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to take part in this debate on air quality.

Private Members' Business

We all know that air pollution has been recognized for quite some time as a serious threat to health. Air pollution has probably focussed the public's attention on the quality of our environment to a greater extent than has any other form of environmental deterioration. Since the 15th century, smoke and the odours emanating from burning coal were considered a public nuisance. Laws designed to control point source emissions have been part of the history of most industrialized countries and were passed many years ago.

Interestingly, indoor air quality did not become a subject of debate and intense research until quite recently. The recent flurry of activity proves that indoor air quality has become a major health concern, especially in this country, where we unfortunately spend up to 90 per cent of our time indoors.

Here in Canada, we had the controversy about urea formaldehyde foam insulation. You will recall the UFFI debate and the government's ban in 1980 which I think was a major factor in drawing the public's attention to the problem of indoor air quality. Reports on scientific studies which showed a higher concentration of chemical contaminants indoors than outdoors have tended to heighten these concerns. Furthermore, office employees claim that current energy conservation practices in large office buildings are responsible for poor air quality.

No single Canadian agency has full responsibility for investigating and checking the potential impact on health of air contaminants inside residences. In the case of residential buildings, the government's presence is perceived by some as an intrusion, by others as a necessity. The wide range of strategies and approaches for controlling exposure to indoor air contaminants are an indication of the complexity of the problem. Finally, controlling indoor air contaminants involves measures such as ventilation, removal or replacement of sources of air contaminants, making changes so as to avoid contaminant sources, air purification, restrictions on household use of potentially hazardous chemical products, certification programs for builders and trades people, compulsory courses for engineers and building designers and educational programs for the general public.

Private Members' Business

Corrective measures may include a balanced application of several of these approaches, which are not necessarily incompatible. Standards or criteria defining air quality levels that are conducive to health and comfort must be used to determine to what extent controls are necessary. That is why in 1987, the Department of National Health and Welfare published the following document: Exposure Guidelines for Residential Indoor Air Quality.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Subtopic:   INDOOR AIR QUALITY ACT
Full View Permalink

February 2, 1993

Mrs. Bourgault:

No, in 1987. The first one of its kind to be published by any government in the world. Although provincial departments across the country approved these guidelines, they are neither compulsory nor binding. However, it is expected they will help individuals and public agencies to be consistent in their assessments of the need for corrective action. In the longer term, these national guidelines will be used as a basis for developing or modifying the building code, standards for construction materials and furnishings, and ventilation requirements.

The department developed these guidelines in June 1980 when the Ontario Deputy Minister of Health requested a federal-provincial study that would set standards for air quality in new residential housing projects. A proposal to form a task force on indoor air quality was officially tabled at a meeting in October 1980 of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. I mention this so that people who are interested will realize there are a number of committees and that a number of things have been done in recent years. The deputy ministers of health subsequently approved the proposal. The advisory committee created the federal-provincial task force on indoor air quality, whose mandate would be to examine a definition of acceptable air quality, the need to establish acceptable objectives and maximum acceptable concentrations of specific substances, and standards for ventilation or air recirculation. The scope of the mandate was restricted to residential establishments and the task force was to make recommendations designed to protect the public, based on constant exposure, in other words, 24 hours a day.

When it wrote these guidelines, the department wanted to protect the health of the great majority of the general public, including groups at risk like very young children, the elderly and persons with known health problems. These groups are especially concerned with indoor air quality because, as we know, they spend most of their time indoors. The department set itself two major objectives: (1). To develop guidelines on the concentrations of particular air contaminants in homes, taking account of factors like the sensitivity of groups at risk and the sources and modes of action of the contaminants; (2). To develop as much as possible other guidelines or recommendations on measures to protect or improve air quality in domestic establishments.

The federal-provincial task force met for the first time in September 1981 under the aegis of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the next four years it collected and examined scientific documentation on 18 substances or groups of substances before setting the guidelines and recommendations contained in the document published by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in April 1987.

The government agreed in principle to update the guidelines in 1992-93 so that is now going on. The group will consider other substances to be added to the guidelines. If it seems possible to develop guidelines on these substances the work will again be facilitated by the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health.

That is why the very existence of these guidelines, combined with the research now under way in various federal government departments, shows that we have implemented a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in indoor air.

Also, our government's tobacco policy is another measure that has particularly improved indoor air quality in public buildings. Nevertheless, it should not be taken for granted that everything is going well. As a member of Parliament when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I had to deal with the case of a citizen who is fighting a constant struggle throughout the country with the problems of asthma and the possibility that he might have to work or even live in buildings that are insulated in different ways.

February 2, 1993

I think that we are doing many things, but fully regulating single-family homes in Canada is still a long way off. Nevertheless we must continue to work for increased protection of the health of Canadians, especially those who work in public, semi-public and even private buildings, because health is a subject that concerns all Canadians. Health costs being so high, it is obviously desirable to implement all kinds of preventive policies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Subtopic:   INDOOR AIR QUALITY ACT
Full View Permalink