Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jean is giving me credit for more skills than I have, in fact. He will be very disappointed by what I have to say.

As for the position of Quebeckers on war, poverty and collective responsibility, ours is probably a slightly distinct society with its own point of view. In many conflicts, Quebeckers always vehemently resisted going to war. Basically, we dislike war. In the end, we prefer discussion, dialogue and compromise.

I think it is fair to say that Quebeckers would be infinitely more comfortable with a decision by international organizations where everybody has a right to participate in the debate and express their opinions. This way, we make decisions that not only do not add fuel to the flames, but defuse explosive situations.

As I see it, the U.S. missile defence plan answers the very strong need for the American people to claim to be the strongest. History shows that for thousands of years great empires have always fallen in the end. Basically because of their excesses. The U.S. missile defence plan will go down in history as an attempt to rule the world, but it will be the beginning of the end for the Americans.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in consulting the debates held in this House in recent months, indeed over the past two years, we see that questions relating to security have occupied a predominant place in our deliberations. Although perfectly normal in the present context, what perplexes me is the tack these debates are taking. We need to keep clearly in mind that sometimes there is but a very fine line separating legitimate prevention from paranoia, and that line can be easily crossed if we lose sight of common sense. Ensuring security is not synonymous with increasing existing tensions, which is what may happen if the missile defence system is put in place.

In order to understand the various issues raised by this plan, and its consequences, I will start with a brief overview of a few historical facts. After World War II, two superpowers were at loggerheads on the ideological and psychological fronts. This so-called cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. plunged the entire world into an atmosphere of mistrust. At the time, with the known technological advances in the nuclear field, it was clear that the each belligerent had the capacity to attack the other and provoke a catastrophe that would have had a terrible outcome.

With the increase in international tension, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, it was inevitable that sophisticated means of defence would develop, such as the antimissile missiles. Their mission was simple: destroy all enemy missiles heading for either of the two great powers or their allies.

This situation led to so much escalation of tension and risk of attacks that in the 1970s, treaties and agreements were signed. One of them was the anti-ballistic missile or ABM treaty, signed in 1972.

The purpose of this treaty was to reduce the number of anti-missile missiles stocked by each of the great powers in order to maintain a certain balance, through a theory with the very reassuring name of “mutually assured destruction”. In short, these treaties succeeded in reducing the risks that a nuclear war would break out.

In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan renewed the debate on anti-missile missiles with his strategic defense initiative straight out of Hollywood, nicknamed star wars. The objective was ambitious: nothing less than the militarization of space through laser-equipped satellites, or other such futuristic technologies, capable of intercepting nuclear missiles coming from the U.S.S.R. Since the technology was not yet advanced enough to support such a project, star wars faded into oblivion.

More recently, President Clinton brought the issue back to the table by approving the National Missile Defense Act in 1999. In recent months, we have been hearing about President Bush's plan, a sort of modified and updated version of star wars with anti-missile missiles.

All through these events, Canada has always taken the position that it was not appropriate to establish a missile defence plan, particularly because of the risk that it would pose in terms of an arms race.

I must make an aside here, Mr. Speaker. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Joliette. He is not in front of me and so I forgot him; that is quite unforgiveable.

I continue: there is no justification for the missile defence plan, because of the risk it poses in terms of an arms race. We note in passing that such a plan absolutely contravenes the spirit of the ABM treaty. Even if President Bush recently decided to no longer respect that treaty, the American decision does not make this justification less relevant.

In asking the government not to take part in this American missile defence plan, the Bloc Quebecois is opposing a renewed nuclear arms race, an inevitable consequence of the current military rhetoric. However, why must we ask the government not to take part, since Canada has always been opposed to missile defence?

There seems to be a significant reversal on the other side of the House. At least, so it seems based on some statements, particularly those by the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Here are a few reasons justifying our position. First, as we mentioned earlier, implementing this kind of plan could cause a renewed arms race, at a time when the United States wants to declare war on everyone it considers too heavily armed.

Already, we know that countries like China, North Korea, Russia, as well as several European Union countries, disapprove of this kind of plan. Each is well aware of the fragile balance in which the world now hangs. A single spark could blow things sky high. Furthermore, if we support the American missile defence plan, should we adopt a similar position if European or Asian countries want to do the same? By agreeing to this plan, we are embarking on a slippery slope, down which we are sure to fall. I cannot vouch for the person taking the first step.

In addition, this is sending the wrong message to countries that are already brandishing the nuclear spectre in their psychological warfare and shows of force. India and Pakistan, which have been in a conflict for many years, could be tempted to intensify pressure on one another, should international tension increase. The consequences for global stability are still unknown and too risky.

One of the justifications for their action is the need the Americans feel to protect themselves against rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and any other country that could be a potential threat to their security. How do they reconcile renewing the arms race and their barely concealed desire to disarm the planet, or at least any country they consider a threat? The danger with such an aberration is that it fuels the anti-American sentiment that already exists in many parts of the world.

While we must recognize that every state has the right to protect its citizens from threats against them, it is important to know that this system will never guarantee 100% safety. Let us not forget that the events of September 11, 2001, had nothing of a conventional attack and that a missile defence system could not have prevented this tragedy. The same could be said about the threat of biological attacks.

Clearly, the missile defence system will only give the impression of security. However, the costs for the plan will leave much more than an impression. The cost estimates vary between $60 billion and $240 billion, in U.S. dollars, of course. Since 1983, more than $70 billion has already been spent on the initiative. We can just imagine how much this money could have done to reduce the extreme poverty in which hundreds of millions of people live, a situation that provides a fertile breeding ground for terrorism.

In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind that this plan could very well have more adverse effects than benefits. In addition to contributing to a renewal of the arms race, it will provoke anti-western and anti-American sentiment among certain groups that have very little understanding of what is happening on this side of the Atlantic. The Government of Canada must not yield to pressure, it must stand firm. Unfortunately, its determination so far has been far from convincing.

Perhaps these words, from a much celebrated intellectual among the federal Liberals will influence them, and I quote, “I do not recall ever having seen, since I started following politics, a more degrading spectacle than that of all those Liberals who flip-flopped in unison with their leader”.

Who was it who dared to utter such a comment, you may wonder? None other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in Cité Libre in 1963, during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps a little soul searching is in order for this government and for a number of its members.

[National Nursing Week, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during this National Nursing Week, I proudly salute my colleagues, the nurses of Quebec.

This year's theme “Nursing: At the heart of health care”, very accurately reflects the commitment of these health professionals who provide, often under difficult circumstances, quality care to patients and their families.

Not only do nurses have a demanding profession, both physically and emotionally, but now they have to cope with reduced staffing because of, among other things, cuts to health care due to the fiscal imbalance.

At present, in Canada, nurses are clocking 250,000 hours of overtime each week, or the equivalent of 7,000 full time jobs a year. It seems obvious to us that this is a situation that must be corrected as soon as possible, so that the quality of life of these nurses can be restored, both at work and outside health care facilities.

To the nurses of Quebec and Canada, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I say thank you. We know that we can count on you.

[Aboriginal affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations governance bill has provoked an unprecedented outcry, which is increasing tensions daily between the federal government and aboriginal peoples. Most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee rejected Bill C-7, not to mention the opposition of the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Will the current Prime Minister recognize that the only sensible thing to do, given the circumstances, is to immediately withdraw Bill C-7 and leave it up to others to—

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are debating Bill C-17, the half-brother of the short-lived twins, Bill C-42 and Bill C-55.

Since September 11, 2001, many say that nothing is the same, that the world is changing, as evidenced by the recent events in Iraq. Obviously, although the world often changes for the better, we must recognize that, in this case, it is changing for the worse.

Everybody agrees that logic is essential to the drafting of any bill, and the government must listen to that logic. However, it seems that the government is hard of hearing, and I am very sorry about that.

We are certainly happy that controlled access military zones have been removed from the bill before us, but does this mean that we should stop being vigilant? Absolutely not. We must see that the decisions being made today respect the balance between the three branches in our society, namely the executive, legislative and judiciary branches. In its current form, Bill C-17 poses a threat to the balance between the executive and the legislative branches, since it includes specific provisions allowing ministers and officials to make interim orders.

Interim orders are exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. An order is considered to be a statutory instrument; therefore, it should undergo a preliminary check by the Clerk of the Privy Council. His role is precisely to ensure that the proposed regulation does not, and I quote:

—trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

So we should ask ourselves the following question: if the purpose is not to trespass unduly on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why are we exempting the interim orders from the proper examination that would prove they are in compliance with the charter? By chance, would the government have the secret intention of transgressing the most basic rules of our free and democratic society by infringing on the fundamental rights of those individuals who form that society?

We do not question the importance of preventing all possible terrorist acts, and we do not question the necessity of equipping ourselves with all the tools we need to expose those who would threaten the security of citizens.

But there is one inescapable fact and that is that in order to fight against terrorism, we must fight against its main cause, and that is the extreme poverty of hundreds of millions of people.

If we all agree that it is important to eliminate the conditions that breed terrorism, we also agree that we must fight against those who would come to our borders with the intent of committing terrorist acts. Once again, however, this cannot be done at any cost.

One price we must refuse to pay is waiving the right to privacy. In the past, we made choices. We made the choice to live in a constitutional state instead of a police state. We must be careful not to open the door to this style of governance where police are everywhere, always checking what everyone is doing.

Would any of us blindly agree to have personal information relating to us processed and used for purposes other than those related to the fight against terrorism? Should the simple fact of taking a plane warrant the RCMP and CSIS having a record on a person? No. That has been made abundantly clear in the debates on Bill C-55.

It is interesting to know what the Privacy Commissioner thinks of Bill C-17. First, it would appear that his concerns about the defunct Bill C-55 were and are still being completely ignored. The ministers and top government officials have failed, so far, to provide him with an appropriate response. I believe he is still waiting. This is why he is now calling on Parliament to ensure his concerns finally receive the attention they deserve.

I shall quote his words:

But my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.

What we must guard against is the risk of creating a precedent that would eventually open the door to increased police control over various areas of our daily lives. For example, if we allowed special powers intended primarily to protect national security and to counter terrorism to be made available to the RCMP with respect to air passengers, who is to say that this special situation will not be extended to rail, bus or metro passengers?

If, for example, a suicide bomber were to blow himself up on a crowded train, would we go so far as to flag train travellers and use this same opportunity to look for people with outstanding warrants? There is always a tendency to be overzealous. There is always a point of no return when it comes to overzealousness, a point beyond which we must not go for fear of destroying the fragile balance required to maintain a free and democratic society.

The commissioner also raises another point that we must not lose sight of. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. With Bill C-17, that right to anonymity will be set aside the moment we are unwise enough to set foot aboard a plane. If it were set out in the act that personal information can be used only in the case of persons representing a true threat to national security, we could feel a bit reassured, but that is not the case. Obviously, the right to privacy will be meaningless as soon as Bill C-17 comes into force, if the government maintains its position. We have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that you will not have to reserve passage on a ship in order to visit your girlfriend overseas. It is likely that your name would end up on a file somewhere.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois are here to serve the interests of the public, and so they will fight energetically to see that the right to privacy is respected. We share the Privacy Commissioner's view that there are some major changes needed in Bill C-17. What we have before us today could not be called major changes.

Privacy is one of our basic rights. We are entitled to expect information on us to be used sparingly, at the very least. For the government to confer upon itself the right to collect information on air travellers is one thing, but the right to exchange and distribute that information is quite another.

In fact, Bill C-17 gives the minister the right to disclose the information to the whole world. Not only that, but it allows the minister to disclose and release the information but does not provide a detailed framework for such activities. That is what I call increasing ministerial authority without proper monitoring.

As we have said before, maintaining a balance is crucial to a healthy society and the risks of a faux pas are too high.

With the new powers that the bill would give the minister, he could be authorized to disclose to U.S. authorities information on applications for refugee status made in Canada. Do we have the right to authorize the release of personal information like this? One thing is clear, as soon as information is shared with another party, we lose control of it.

It is naive, idealistic and even rash to believe that we could control a situation when we have not established sufficient limits.

In conclusion, the government cannot always defend the indefensible. The same goes for the protection of privacy.

Let me quote a short sentence from Khalil Gibran, and I dedicate it particularly to my colleagues in the government. This is my gift for today. He said, and I quote:

Strange that we all defend our wrongs with more vigor than we do our rights.

This sentence is food for thought. I hope that it will lead to conclusions that are worthy of the Canadian society, which is, as everyone knows, the best in the world.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, you are obviously well aware of how equally frustrating and gratifying the work of parliamentarians can be. The frustration comes when we work tirelessly on something very important to us, but when the results, for one reason or another, are slow in coming or, sometimes, never materialize. The gratification comes when these same efforts, no matter how long it takes, produce results that improve the quality of life of our constituents. For the past several years, the Bloc Quebecois has been intensely experiencing both emotions with regard to the young offenders issue, a subject directly affected by Bill C-416, which we are debating today.

When the federal government decided to go forward with Bill C-7, the Bloc did not waste any time in advising the federal government of the inherent dangers of such legislation for Quebec. Once again, I want to salute the untiring efforts of our former colleague, the former member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. Michel Bellehumeur, a Court of Quebec judge.

Quebec's system of dealing with young offenders is recognized as the most effective in the country. Since 1991, the crime rate among young Quebeckers has dropped by 23%. Everyone involved in the system in Quebec agrees that our approach, oriented toward reintegration rather than repression, should not be modified by any federal legislation.

Nevertheless, as we know, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. Unfortunately, that too often describes the federal government which, once again has chosen to ignore our party's objections and reject the consensus from Quebec. Despite all our efforts, the Minister of Justice has decided to proceed with utter disregard for our recommendations. That is, in short, why we are so frustrated with this issue.

We had to wait two years before receiving any gratification or recognition for our considerable efforts. Recently the Quebec court of Appeal agreed with the Government of Quebec in a unanimous opinion concluding that certain provisions of the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, formerly the Young Offenders Act, are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last week, the federal Minister of Justice decided not to appeal this decision, thus recognizing that he must amend his legislation, as the Bloc Quebecois suggested two years ago. It is easy to imagine the time, energy and money that we could have saved if this government had had the wisdom to recognize the relevance of our arguments. And to think that some people still question the relevance of the Bloc Quebecois.

While we were celebrating this victory, another political party in this House, the Canadian Alliance—the official opposition, to top it off—demanded that the government appeal this judgment. According to them, the decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal weakens the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Far be it from me to speak ironically—it is not my style. Still, their position on this issue confirms that they are not yet ready to make inroads into Quebec. I can predict in advance that the next electoral struggle in Quebec will be between the Bloc and the Liberal party.

It is therefore not surprising that we are here today debating a private member's bill, C-416, which is one again trying to tighten up the young offenders system. This time the Canadian Alliance is deliberately targeting aboriginals by trying to amend both the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The purpose is to deliberately deny the particular conditions in which a number of aboriginal youth live. Let us see specifically what Bill C-416 proposes to amend.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act states the following at subsection 3(1)( c )(iv):

within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should

respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements;

Now, in Bill C-416, this would read as follows:

(iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences;

You heard right: the specific needs of aboriginal youth are deliberately excluded from the factors the judge will take into consideration. Yet the bill does recognize that certain differences do have to be taken into consideration, but those differentiating aboriginal youth do not seem to be important enough.

Could we have an explanation as to what that political party has against the aboriginal community and the recognition of the specific nature of certain nations in this country? Hard to explain, and even harder to understand.

How can a party with its main base in the west of this country ignore the particular living conditions, often very precarious ones, of the native communities? According to the 1996 census, over half of the aboriginal people in Canada live in the western provinces and territories. Why then act as if they knew nothing about the living conditions of aboriginal people and how radically different they are from those of non-aboriginal people?

The census I referred to also reported that the average annual income of Canadians over the age of 15 years was $25,196, while for aboriginal people it was $14,283. I need hardly point out that such poverty generates violence and despair. It would, therefore, be normal for a judge to be required to take this into consideration when reaching a sentencing decision.

Another example shows the distress frequently facing young aboriginals, starting at a very early age. I am referring here to the haunting images of young Innu from Davis Inlet sniffing gas. The federal government had to implement a special assistance program to remedy this serious dependency that hinted at much greater problems, such their lack of hope, poverty, social isolation and its effects.

In a legal sense, the amendment contained in Bill C-416 has no logical justification, particularly under the case law developed under paragraph 718.2( e ) of the Criminal Code. In the R. v Gladue decision [1999], later confirmed by the R. v Wells [2000] decision, the court determined that this section does not alter the fundamental duty of the sentencing judge to impose a sentence that suits both the offence and the offender, but that the sentence must include a consideration for the community context of the aboriginal offender.

The judge is obliged to consider the unique systemic or background circumstances or aboriginal heritage. Furthermore, in section 36 of the R. v Wells decision, Justice Iacobucci stated and I quote:

—that sentencing judges should pay particular attention to the fact that the circumstances of aboriginal offenders are unique in comparison with those of non-aboriginal offenders.

In conclusion, it is important to clearly understand that the sections in question do not give preferential treatment to aboriginals as the Canadian Alliance is claiming, but rather propose an individualized treatment for each specific case, which must not be taken out of context. If this continues to be applied in a mandatory fashion when it comes to ethnic, cultural, linguistic and gender differences, why should there be a double standard when it comes to young aboriginals.

As the Bloc Quebecois has been saying from the start, there has to be an individualized approach, based on reintegration rather than repression. Obviously, we will not support Bill C-416, and we will be voting against it when the time comes.

[Walter Sisulu, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Walter Sisulu, a leading figure in the African National Congress, and a comrade of Nelson Mandela, has died at the age of 90.

Despite threats and mistreatment, Walter Sisulu devoted his life to the freedom and democracy of the South African people. Apartheid did not prevent Sisulu from educating himself to such an extent that Colin Powell respectfully called him “the wise man behind the statesman”.

Not one for vengeance, he played an outstanding role in the difficult negotiations that led to the end of apartheid, peaceful transition and national reconciliation.

We have lost a great man. “Sisulu stood head and shoulders above all of us in South Africa,” said Nelson Mandela. “He was a great force for wisdom and liberty,” added South African President Mbeki.

Walter Sisulu has left us, but his achievement remains. South Africa is at peace with its neighbours and within itself.

Adding its voice to so many others in the world, the Bloc Quebecois offers its condolences to all the people of South Africa.

[Nicolas Macrozonaris, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, a 22-year-old sprinter from Laval, Nicolas Macrozonaris, stunned the track and field world by taking the gold medal in the 100 metres at an international meet in Mexico.

Defying all expectations and despite limited financial means, Nicolas Macrozonaris managed to realize the full potential of his talent by taking the top spot on the podium. The favourite to win the event and current world record holder, American Tim Montgomery, had to settle for the silver medal.

With a time of 10.03 seconds, this young Quebecker joined the ranks of champions and earned international recognition.

We congratulate Nicolas Macrozonaris and wish him a long and successful career; he will continue to surprise us.

Bravo, Nicolas.

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep feeling of justice that I rise today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion that asks very clearly:

That this House recognize the urgency of amending the Canada Labour Code to ban the use of strikebreakers.

Everybody recognizes that in Quebec during the last 50 years of the twentieth century, 1976 was a turning point. That was the year René Lévesque came to power. The following year, the National Assembly passed an anti-scab law. I would like to talk about Quebec before and after 1977.

What happened in Quebec before 1977? Even though I was very young, I still remember very clearly the strike in Asbestos. I clearly remember the strike in Murdochville. I clearly remember the strike at Radio-Canada. Those strikes were long, tough and marred by violence, by a blatant lack of respect for workers and their families. Wildcat strikes such as those that occurred in Quebec before 1977 resulted in extremely violent clashes between workers and employers.

In life, when disputes occur, they have come to an end eventually and then we must move on together. After each violent strike, huge walls separated employers and workers. I do not know if there are many members in this chamber who have been on picket lines. For my part I was on a picket line three times. The first time was in 1963. It was the first time nurses were on strike, and it was an illegal strike on top of that. It lasted one month. There were no scabs because the workers to be replaced were nurses and naturally in those days nurses were just as scarce as today.

In 1973, I was still at the hospital, and the hospitals were again on strike. Therefore, there were no scabs that time either. I firmly believe that if there had been scabs, the hospital work environment after the strike would have been terrible. Patients would have paid the price of that terrible environment and that would have been unacceptable.

Quebec has had anti-scab legislation since 1977 and British Columbia since 1993. My colleague for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has mentioned some figures that were not to the liking of our friend on the other side.

Maybe I should mention some figures on recent disputes in Quebec businesses governed by the Canada Labour Code.

An 18-month-plus strike with scabs forced Vidéotron to sell off a large number of shares. Mr. Péladeau was a little put out and not very happy. At Sécur, the strike lasted three months. At Cargill, the strike is entering into its fourth year.

I am so worked up that I have forgotten to say that I must share my time with my colleague for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, since I will have to leave after oral questions.

The strike at Cargill is in its fourth year. At Radio Nord Communications, it has gone on for six months and we are wondering when it will be over.

One thing is quite clear. When a strike lasts, as it did at Vidéotron, more than 340, 350 person days, how do you think families can survive? How do you think social networks can hold up? These disputes create unacceptable social tensions. I believe that the present Canada Labour Code promotes these social tensions.

I will read you a quote from a worker at Cargill. This quote comes from an article that appeared in La Tribune in late January 2003. Here is what this man said:

I found work eight times.

When you are out of your company for many years, you try to find work to survive:

And in all eight of them, Cargill managed to have me fired. In the meantime, we are still tied to Cargill. We cannot get employment insurance or social assistance. If the lock-out lasts 10 years, I will not be eligible for employment insurance.

We know where the employment insurance surplus comes from.

Even if I worked elsewhere for six years, the day I am fired, I will still be considered to be in lock-out status.

This is a striker who is speaking. This is someone who must wonder every day if he will be able to put enough food on the table for his family, to pay his mortgage.

I will quote a professor of industrial relations at Laval University.

He is very clear. He states:

In the absence of federal legislation, a dispute turns into a war of attrition where the most powerful wins. This encourages traditional strategies that are disruptive and damaging for economic and social performance.

Furthermore, these traditional strategies are confrontational.

I would also like to address another issue. Canada takes great pride, and rightly so, in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the charter is a wonderful piece of legislation and serves as a model to the whole world. I wonder if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not give a worker, who is first and foremost a citizen, the right to respect and justice. I wonder if the Charter does not give a citizen, who is also a worker, the right to bargain in good faith.

In your opinion, Mr. Speaker, will the Charter of Rights and Freedoms create or recognize the need for arrogance or scorn, which are seen in disputes that last for months on end and during which employers do not hesitate to hire replacement workers to do the job? Will the Charter of Rights foster social and economic tension? I have great respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am certain that it does not condone unfair social tension.

I encourage all members to support the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and I ask all parliamentarians to strongly support Bill C-328 when it comes back to the House. Thus, Canada will follow Quebec's lead and I will be absolutely delighted.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, domestics are often victims of physical, psychological or sexual abuse. In light of the recent events, will the minister put an end to a program which paves the way for the degrading exploitation of female foreign workers, or will he at least bring in a replacement program designed to prevent the emergence of situations which are a violation of human rights?