Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Immigration, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the safe third country agreement between Canada and the U.S. has apparently been approved by the federal cabinet.

All that remains for the agreement to come into effect are a few formalities and yet it has not been discussed at all in the House of Commons or by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Will the minister promise today to submit the text of this agreement to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, so that we can debate it and hear from experts who could inform us about the many risks entailed if this agreement were to come into effect in its current form?

[Immigration, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs is recommending that Canadian citizens avoid travelling to Algeria, “due to continuous terrorist activity in some parts of the country”, his colleague, the Minister of Immigration, is standing by his decision to lift the moratorium on removals of Algerian nationals on the ground that “there is no risk to citizens of Algeria who are removed”.

How can the minister defend the lifting of the moratorium and explain that, in spite of a bloody civil war that has resulted in over 150,000 deaths, the government is allowing the removal of people who have been here for years, while their children, who were born in Canada, could, in principle, remain here?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister of Public Works is refusing to give a clear answer to my question.

Is this not because Canadian Heritage's list was bypassed and the Everest contract went through Public Words solely to comply with the wishes of the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, a minister very familiar with how the system works and who did not hesitate to make use of it?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works assured us yesterday that he would make all the appropriate enquiries with respect to the contracts awarded to Everest following pressure brought to bear by the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

My question today is a very simple one. Will the Minister of Public Works tell us whether, in March 2000, Everest appeared on the list of companies prequalified by Canadian Heritage for this kind of contract?

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

No, we are not talking about the Liberals, because if they were genetically modified, it did not work.

The public is askin for safety and has left this up to the men and women who were elected here. If we are able to work properly with regard to pest control products, I greatly hope that, with regard to GMOs, we be able to stand up in Quebec and Canada.

I am sure the hon. member representing New Brunswick, who is looking at me and is very concerned about health issues, will applaud what I just said. I am watching him.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Friday mornings are often full of nice surprises and I do consider it a nice surprise to be able to speak today to a bill that deals mostly with public health.

I worked directly with sick children for many years, so everything that has to do with the health of children is a priority of mine, even more so since I have become a grandmother.

I would like to make a comparison to explain the significance of this bill. I do not think it has been done yet in the House, so it should be very worthwhile.

Antibiotics were developed in the 1950s. They were considered a great thing because they were healing patients. Very serious studies had been carried out. In the end, they concluded that the benefits outweighed the side effects.

I would like to tell the House about two types of antibiotics that were widely used at the time. The first one was called chloromycetin. Park & Davis shareholders made a lot of money on this drug until a lengthy study showed that it had catastrophic side effects on blood cells, namely the red blood cells which carry oxygen, the white blood cells which are our body's defence system, and the platelets which prevent us from bleeding to death when we hurt ourselves.

Chloromycetin lost all its virtues, since its side effects far outweighed any benefit it could provide.

The second antibiotic I want to talk about also had serious side effects. it was called gentamicin and was prescribed to patients with cystic fibrosis. Everyone has heard of cystic fibrosis. Everyone knows that Celine Dion lost a niece to cystic fibrosis. This wonderful antibiotic had irreversible side effects on the auditory nerve. So, people lived a little longer, but went deaf. These are just two examples.

One of my colleagues was talking about DDT recently. I remember seeing cans of this product in my house, in my little village of Vaudreuil. It was fantastic, extraordinary. However, we have since discovered that DDT had terrible effects on the environment and on people's health.

In any bill dealing with health, there is a very important principle known as the precautionary principle. We are now using pesticides for several reasons. In the last 10 to 15 years, the most obvious one for all city dwellers is to have a beautiful lawn. Everybody wants to have a beautiful lawn that looks just like the green carpet here in the House, although it does have a few spots. A green carpet is quite nice. But a few spots on the lawn will not kill anybody. It is essentially a question of appearance.

I find it quite ridiculous to threaten people's health for cosmetic reasons only. This makes no sense at all in terms of what is really important in life.

However, when we talk about pesticides in agriculture, we know that we all have to eat and that we all want to eat healthy products that are not dangerous to our health. I feel it is important that the pesticides used to ensure good quality products be as harmless as possible.

We therefore need quality products, products that have been carefully evaluated and that are still regularly evaluated, even once they have been recognized as safe enough.

I really wonder about what the government is up to with its amendment to re-examine the entire legislative process, which is the normal thing to do, but give that role to the Senate.

It is true that since our senators are appointed for life, or rather until they reach 75 years of age, some will probably recall certain pesticides they knew when they were young. They said “Obviously, they are no good”. There may certainly be an element of truth in this, but I personally do not think that it is a good reason.

Each time we talk about fundamental issues like public health, I always think that this is a responsibility that belongs to duly elected parliamentarians. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vigorously oppose the Liberal government's amendment.

The second amendment is also quite disquieting. I do not have to remind those who are listening today that, for a few weeks now, there has been a momentum in favour of transparency all over the country. I think it goes against the required transparency to say that some documents will remain confidential to protect the competitiveness of businesses.

We know very well that competitiveness, if it is necessary, can also be the source of extremely serious abuses. People can deliberately hide things they know are tremendously harmful just to continue raking in the profits. We have seen some recent examples of this.

When I was very young, people smoked and it was not dangerous; it was sort of trendy, fashionable and everybody did it. Now, as we know, the situation is quite different. U.S. companies, and maybe even some Canadian companies, have been sued for having caused cancer.

So, if we are not careful about the whole pesticide issue, if we do not invest more in research to find natural agents to control pests and parasites, one day we will have to deal with major health problems, there will be lawsuits and, in the end, the public will pay for the government's bad decisions.

Bill C-53 which is now before us is good legislation. It is not perfect, but, thank God, I am a Quebecer and happy to be one because Quebec has, in this area as in many others, legislation which is slightly ahead of Canadian legislation. Therefore, the gaps we see in Bill C-53 will be filled in a responsible and intelligent manner by the Quebec legislation, which meets the public's expectations.

It is no accident that a small suburban community west of Montreal was the first to ban lawn care products. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have ever been to Hudson, but there you will find fine homes on beautifully landscaped lots. In this small community, they have perhaps understood that health is far more important than a manicured lawn and that weeds are not really all that ugly. After all, they are a life form.

Thus Hudson did a service to Quebec and Quebecers and I think this community also helped open the eyes of the rest of Canada since, as my colleague said and everyone knows, the supreme court confirmed that Quebec municipalities were entitled to regulate the use of pesticides within their boundaries.

In conclusion I would like to make the connection with the famous GMOs, genetically modified organisms. There was a lot of talk about these products, but we have not talked about them for some time now.

[Refugees, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his kind wishes, but I must say that the best gift of all would be an answer to my question.

The rumours are that an agreement between Canada and the United States regarding safe third countries is imminent and that it will be unveiled at the G-8 summit in Kananaskis.

Will the minister tell us why Canada will now have to be told by the United States who is a refugee and, more importantly, who is not?

[Refugees, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has sent a letter to the minister of immigration reminding him that an appeal procedure is vital to any refugee determination process.

Will the minister tell us when he intends to restore the appeal process and, in the meantime, will he make a commitment to keep two commissioners in place for refugee hearings, as unanimously recommended this morning by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

[Week of the Disabled, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since June 1, Quebec has been promoting the right of thousands of people, who courageously face one or more functional limitations on a daily basis, to be treated like first class citizens.

This is the seventh annual week to recognize the disabled in Quebec. The spokesperson this year is singer Martin Deschamps. With his first solo album, Comme je suis , which has sold more than 50,000 copies, he generously agreed to share his difference with us.

If all Quebecers take up the challenge of recognizing difference, we will discover that it enriches and enhances the community.

Until June 7, this difference will be displayed with pride; shows, exhibits, and sports activities await you. Take up the invitation. You will be astonished at the extent to which together, everyone wins.

[Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on a subject that I care about deeply, the prevention and eradication of torture. I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, for having introduced this important debate in the House of Commons. As he himself mentioned during his first speech in the first hour of this debate, torture—in addition to being a reality that we cannot deny—seems to be very much on the increase throughout the world. In fact, Amnesty International conducted a survey between 1997 and 2000, and found that torture or abuse took place in more than 150 countries.

Torture and abuse is characterized by intimidation, physical and mental violence, brutality, discrimination, pain and fear. How can we, in a so-called civilized world, tolerate such violations of human dignity? How can we tolerate human rights being violated in this way? Do we have the right to simply turn away from such situations, citing the fact that we already have legislation or treaties that punish and condemn such barbaric behaviour? The simple fact that we have to ask the question is answer enough.

For this reason, we must have the necessary tools to prevent such acts and punish those who commit them. In 1984, the United Nations passed the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under this convention, torture is defined as follows:

--any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity-

Why is torture one of the most reprehensible things there is? Because, as the definition says, it is intentionally inflicted. It is a premeditated act. One cannot torture someone accidentally; it is impossible. The only way to torture someone, regardless of the reason for doing so, is with full awareness of one's actions. In the context of torture, breaking someone's arm or burning someone's flesh, administering electric shocks, whipping, beating to death, is always a premeditated act carried out with a very specific goal in mind. Whatever its attraction, it is undeniably an unacceptable and reprehensible abuse of power.

Worse still than physical torture, the most degrading form of torture is when someone attempts to break, humiliate and dehumanize victims. Reduced to a subhuman state, they feel attacked in their very being. They live in fear and shame under a moral intimidation which continues beyond the actual actions. Not only does such violence wound at the time it is inflicted, but these inner wounds may destroy a person's entire life. This is why we must do more than merely ratify the UN convention. It is more important than ever that Canada in turn ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

This convention, which is under the aegis of the Organization of American States, came into effect in 1997. Unfortunately, nine of the 34 OAS member states have still not ratified it. This includes Canada and, surprisingly, the United States. But why sign this convention if we have already signed the UN convention? I will read the OAS definition of torture. It defines this practice as follows:

any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

There is no need to point out the difference between this definition and the one from the UN. Its complementarity is found in the last sentence, which reads, and I quote:

—of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

In order to understand in practical terms what this means, let us imagine the following scenario: a torturer who hates getting his hands dirty whispers to his victim in a convincing voice that he intends to kill his children. There is no physical violence involved, but the victim may well become very talkative, much to the pleasure of his torturer.

Under the OAS definition, such a practice would be considered as torture. Therefore, since this definition is more comprehensive and introduces a new element, it can only be a very significant and useful complement to the UN convention.

To say that the inter-American convention weakens that of the United Nations, as claimed by some members of this House, is sheer folly, particularly since the convention adopted by a majority of OAS state members targets a specific region of the world, namely the Americas. Not only does this allow for closer monitoring, but it has the geographical advantage of being in conjunction with the development of the free trade area of the Americas.

Who has not heard about the FTAA, this vast project on which all the states of the three Americas are working, with the exception of Cuba? We support the idea of developing this economic zone but, as Bloc Quebecois members have said repeatedly, not at any cost, and certainly not at the cost of doing it on the backs of citizens and violating the most fundamental rights. Why refuse to adhere to the principles that are already in place within the OAS to show our values and to show the context in which we want to build this FTAA?

If it is true that this government respects human dignity and fundamental rights, then it must be consistent and adopt the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This is precisely what the inter-American convention is trying to promote and to have respected as closely as possible. Then, how can we be opposed to it?

If anyone is still wondering what point there is in ratifying two conventions instead of one, the answer is simple: this would enable us to reaffirm our commitment to defend the rights of all the citizens of this planet. This solidarity must know no boundaries and our values, combined with our respect of rights and freedoms, must impact upon the culture of our partners, economic or other. This is, moreover, one of the reasons that justifies adoption of this convention: cultural differences.

Even if not all peoples consider the same things acceptable or unacceptable, it is important to ensure that, on a subject as important as torture, everyone is in agreement. It is therefore inconsistent to want to step up economic ties with countries such as Colombia, for example, with whom we seem not to see eye to eye about torture. Colombia, of course, may seem less respectful of the conventions than Canada, we agree, but is it normal then for Canada not to see fit to sign the convention when Colombia has signed it? How can we then reprimand a state in the OAS for dubious practices when we have not seen fit to become a signatory to a convention aimed precisely at protecting people from this type of abuse?

The last point I want to address is the new context within which we find ourselves today. We have referred to it on so many occasions here in the House: the fight against terrorism.

Could it be that, in seeking out terrorists, acts of torture might be committed with a view to obtaining information on the various networks of terrorists and on potential attacks?

I fear the answer may be yes, and I would therefore invite each and every one of my colleagues to reflect on this point.