Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, instead of condemning the theft of public funds and putting a stop to it, the Prime Minister is getting riled up about the leaks that are bringing the sponsorship program frauds out into the open.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that, if the Prime Minister is convinced that millions have been stolen, the first and only reflex he ought to have had is to punish the guilty parties rather than threatening those who have brought the situation out into the open?

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admits that there may have been a theft, but in the same breath follows up with an intent to cover it up, by intimidating those who blow the whistle on abuses. As for the minister of justice, he is trying to have us believe that he has no influence whatsoever when it comes to identifying the companies that are getting nice fat commissions for the sponsorship programs.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify this attempt to make official this political interference and this trading of favours in the process of awarding contracts?

[Parliamentary Confederation of the Americas, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence today on the Hill of the President of the Parliamentary Confederation of the Americas, Laura Pavòn Jaramillo. Now a representative of the Federal Congress of Mexico, she was formerly a representative of the Congress of the State of Mexico, mayor of Toluca, senator of the Republic, and president of the Senate.

Ms. Pavòn Jaramillo is the first woman to chair COPA, a permanent and automous forum of parliamentary assemblies of unitary, federal and federated states, regional parliaments and interparliamentary organizations of the Americas

COPA encourages further exploration of and follow-up to the discussions at the summits of the Americas and in other forums. Here in this country, a group of friends of COPA has just been formed. I encourage all members of the House to join it.

[Immigration, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in April, the minister of immigration lifted the moratorium on Algerian nationals. As a result, all Algerians living in Canada who were denied refugee status will be returned to their country. Since then, more than 1,000 people have been living in a state of terrible anxiety as they await a deportation order.

The moratorium, which had been in place for five years, allowed them to escape Algeria's harsh reality, which resembles a civil war. Contrary to what the minister claimed, the situation in Algeria has not changed, and safety continues to be a big concern. Violence, torture and fear are part of the daily landscape, and there is little hope of a resolution to the conflict. Just recently again, 23 people, most of them civilians, women and children, were slaughtered.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the claims of the Algerians and asks that the hundreds of cases be examined with justice and compassion.

[Quebec City's Synagogue, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week Quebec City's only synagogue was attacked, proving that conflicts know no borders.

Late Sunday night, the jardins Mérici district was shaken by a bomb blast. A bomb had been thrown under the porch of the Beth Israel Synagogue, causing damage to the building.

This incident has led to understandable concerns among Quebecers about the increase in antisemitic acts. The respect for diversity and the tolerance that characterizes our society must continue to be among our fundamental values.

I call upon all parliamentarians to deplore this bombing and to make it clearer than ever that freedom depends on a conviction that violence is not, and cannot be, the proper solution to disagreements.

[Mental Health Week, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Mental Health Week is drawing to a close. I would therefore like to draw the attention of the House to a number of facts that cannot leave us unmoved.

Twenty per cent of the population of Canada, and of Quebec, will have to deal with mental illness at some point in their lives. Some 2.5 million adults are coping with depression. One in five children is suffering from a psychiatric problem.

Worldwide, five of the ten major causes of disability relate to mental health. The socio-economic consequences of this cannot be ignored. Here in Canada, psychiatric illness accounts for 16% of health expenditures.

When we know how much problems with interpersonal communication, poverty and lack of emotional support can generate unbearable stress, we realize that we have a collective obligation to stay attuned to others.

In accepting to share our stories, we will help a friend or relative to go from darkness to light, so to speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the second time that I rise to speak to Bill C-55. The first time was at the second reading stage. We are still at the second reading stage, but an amendment has since been moved by an Alliance member, and an amendment to the amendment, by a Bloc Quebecois member.

For those just joining us, I will read the amendment again, as modified by our amendment to the amendment:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, since the Bill reflects several principles that violate human rights and freedoms, which have been denounced by the Privacy Commissioner and are unrelated to transport and government operations, rendering it impractical for the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to properly consider it

I sincerely thank my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who brought this amendment to the amendment forward. The few words we have added reflect the concerns of all Canadians and Quebecers and of many parliamentarians regarding Bill C-55. As for the privacy commissioner, he was very critical. I will read something I had prepared for my previous speech.

Some were pretty harsh in criticizing Bill C-55, including the privacy commissioner. He stated clearly that the government drew its inspiration from practices commonly used by totalitarian states. The commissioner did not even give this new anti-terrorism legislation a passing grade.

Members will certainly agree that such an analysis is not very good for a government, a Liberal government of course, but also and more importantly one that claims to be liberal, especially since it cannot label as partisan the comments made by the privacy commissioner.

In the speech that I made last week, I asked two questions about Bill C-55. First, is Bill C-55 different from Bill C-42? The answer is rather obvious. They are basically the same. Second, is Bill C-55 an improved version of C-42? Unfortunately, it is not.

Since I have the opportunity to do so, I will give a part of my speech that I did not have time to deliver. The Chair monitors time very closely. As we will see, my concerns fully justify adding the amendment to the amendment.

The difference between Bill C-55 and Bill C-42 is that, somehow, Bill C-55 is worse, particularly as regards personal information.

In the first draft of this bill—because everyone agrees that C-42 was a preliminary draft for C-55—enormous power was given to a single person, namely the Minister of National Defence. At a time when the authority delegated to the executive branch is being questioned, at a time when people are asking the legislative branch, that is all of us here, to have more of a say in the decision making process, how can the government justify a bill that puts so much power in the hands of a single person?

The situation is all the more alarming because the decision to suspend people's fundamental rights will—believe it or not—be based on the minister's judgment. This is rather disturbing, is it not?

I want to take a more in depth look at the communication of information. When I read the legislation, I reread a sentence three times, because I could not believe my eyes. I even read it out loud, thinking that my eyes might mislead me, but not my ears. Unfortunately, the result was the same.

The expression “reasonably necessary” is used regarding decisions on the collection of information and the persons who will have access to this information. What does the term “necessary” mean?

This notion is left to the judgment of a person who, in a particular situation, might find it reasonable to give my credit card number to the RCMP. I am sorry, but I do not find that reasonable.

I must admit that I was more than worried when I reread the infamous expression “reasonably necessary”. The context to which this expression is applied is the following.

It is provided that the information thus collected and that could be transferred to the RCMP and to CSIS should theoretically be destroyed within seven days, which is the time it took God to create the world. Seven days is “reasonably necessary”.

However, it might not be “reasonably required” to destroy this information, and for which purposes? For the purposes of transportation security.

According to which criteria will it be determined, and who will make the final decision on this issue? The bill is silent on this matter; the Minister of Transport will rule unchecked.

Should we be concerned about that? I believe we should. When the privacy commissioner says that these measures are a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification, I wonder to what kind of trick the Minister of Transport, even with the help of the whole cabinet, will resort to justify that it is reasonable not to destroy my credit card number.

This debate is not over. Last week, I asked two questions. Is Bill C-55 different? We can fairly say that the differences are minor, and that this bill is more of the same, making it increasingly clear that the government does not know how to fill the legislative agenda. This is cause for concern, especially when we know that barely two years have gone by since the last election.

Here is my second question. Is Bill C-55 an improvement over Bill C-42?

Let us face the fact: this new bill does not meet the expectations we had, and will not dissipate our concerns. At a time when respect for each other is more critical than ever, we cannot tolerate that fundamental rights and freedoms be trampled, under the pretence of trying to fight terrorism. The citizens we are seeking to protect should also be protected from abuse.

However, absolutely nothing is telling us that it will be the case should—

[World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today, on World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day, I would like to draw attention to the humanitarian efforts of thousands of people throughout the world, who bring aid and comfort to the countless victims of conflict and disaster.

WIth its theme “The truth about AIDS. Pass it on”, the Red Cross is reminding us that more than ever it has to deal with the constantly growing HIV-AIDS epidemic.

Raising public awareness of the discrimination and prejudice faced by the more than 40 million people in the world who are affected by this disease is a major responsibility, when we realize that more than 500,000 children are born every year with the virus to mothers who have chosen not to undergo testing for fear of being stigmatized by their community.

Everything possible must be done to do away with taboos and change public perceptions. I call upon all members of this House to take real action to support the Red Cross staff and volunteers in their daily battle to improve the well-being of humanity.

[Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was categorical: the safe third country agreement between Canada and the United States will be finalized before the G-8 Summit on June 26 and 27.

Given that there could still be a coup d'état supported by a foreign country, such as the 1973 coup in Chile, what hope would such an agreement leave for refugee applicants who have fled their country after their government was overthrown by the United States, and who had the misfortune of travelling via the United States?

[Armenian People, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by first thanking my colleagues who have spoken to the motion before the House, whatever their views might have been.

The fact that we have different viewpoints clearly indicates that the time has come for this parliament to take a strong stand on this issue. If we had to wait for unanimity, we would get to vote on very few issues. Parliament is where decisions are made.

It is most unfortunate that the unanimous consent which was requested twice was not given. In my mind, that is miscarriage of democracy. Since September 11, democracy has been miscarried a few times in this House, which has ordinary Canadians and political analysts in Canada and around the world a bit worried.

Today, we were given the opportunity to demonstrate our values and the significance we give to history, and to say how despicable we find those well-orchestrated plans to eradicate a whole nation.

Of course, a people can be eradicated in very subtle ways. I will not go into this today, but one thing is clear, the events that took place between 1915 and 1920 nearly eradicated the Armenian people.

However, the Armenian people, because it has suffered so much, was incapable of recovering. Indeed, one only has to look at the numbers of Armenian artists who make us proud in Quebec and Canada because they have become integrated into our culture.

Finally, I would like to invite hon. members to go to see the lastest movie by Atom Egoyan, an Armenian filmmaker, who has won many prizes for his work. It deals with the Armenian genocide. By watching this film, many of us will have a better understanding of what the destruction of a society means.