Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[International Women's Week, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, March 3 to March 9 will be International Women's Week. This year's theme, “Working in Solidarity: Women, Human Rights and Peace” focuses more than ever on the importance of recognizing and making a significant contribution to universal social justice for all women.

To accomplish this, we need solidarity. Let us no longer tolerate suffering and war; let us speak out on every possible occasion against injustice and the abuse of rights, of which women far too often still fall victim.

Celebrating the significant progress we have made over the years must not cause us to lose sight of the fact that a great deal remains to be done if women's fundamental rights are to be fully recognized.

If women decided today to finally assume the space to which they are entitled in society, perhaps we would be witnesses all over this planet to the blossoming of flowers of peace and solidarity.

My best wishes to women here and elsewhere. Have a good week.

[Refugees, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to motion Motion No. 422 because the choices we make are first and foremost societal.

Is it from this perspective that we will deal with this motion aimed at barring from Canada any refugee claimant who might have made the mistake of setting foot in the United States, Australia, New Zealand or any European Union country before showing up at our border.

Refugees are trying to escape bloody regimes or situations where their life and the lives of their family are at risk. It is our duty as a modern and democratic society to show our openness and generosity in the way we treat those who consider Canada a haven of peace and security. These values are just as fundamental for Quebecers as for Canadians. It is incumbent on us to welcome those who are desperately seeking a peaceful and safe place to live.

The rights of refugees must be respected, in spite of demands for increased security, which seems to be the rationale for this motion. The Alliance member wants to amend the current Immigration Act to deny consideration of claims by refugees coming from countries listed in the amendment, which are considered safe.

Therefore the member wants Canada to suspend the Geneva convention on the protection of refugees. The Bloc Quebecois rejects this demand both with regard to claimants born in the countries listed and those who, coming from elsewhere, transited through any of those countries.

The notion of safe third country which underlies motion Motion No. 422 can be summed up as follows: the refugee claimant must necessarily ask for asylum in the safe country he transited through in order to get to the country where he wants to make his claim. Otherwise, he would be turned down flat.

For instance, if someone coming from Iraq or Zimbabwe were to go through the United States to enter Canada, his refugee claim would be automatically rejected; it would not even be considered in Canada because this individual should have claimed refugee status in the United States, which is considered a safe third country. This individual would not have the right to appeal in Canada.

The notion of safe third country raises some concerns. Some countries do not have the same criteria for the selection of refugees, even though they generally abide by the provisions of the convention. However, the high commissioner for refugees is very clear: for such a mechanism to be acceptable, one must first ensure that, in those countries, refugee claimants have indeed access to procedures allowing them to exercise their rights.

The motion says “all countries that are members of the European Economic Union”. How can such a broad list be proposed, particularly since some European countries just recently signed the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and are not very familiar with all the obligations it imposes upon them. The adoption of a list of safe third countries as proposed in Motion No. 422 is unacceptable, because we refuse to have refugees sent to a country that does not have the same criteria as we do or does not comply with the convention.

The notion of safe third countries presupposes that an agreement has been ratified between Canada and these countries, but no such agreement exists at this time. The unilateral list proposed by my colleague from Surrey North was established without these countries being invited to take part in negotiations on that issue, and such an agreement cannot be entered into without careful consideration. Motion No. 422 establishes a list without any formal process, which brings me to say that the Canadian Alliance's proposal is rather simplistic.

To explain the serious reservations we have concerning the notion of safe third countries, it would be appropriate to briefly remind members of certain major differences between the policies of Canada and the United States with regard to the refugee status determination process, differences which surely reflect the values of our neighbours to the south.

The biggest difference between the two countries is that, in the United States, the immigration tribunal hears refugee claims under an accusatorial process. An attorney is there to oppose the claim on behalf of the U.S. government. In Canada, the process is considered non-accusatorial. A refugee hearing officer is there to question witnesses and help the tribunal reach a decision.

Another major difference is that claimants without documentation are systematically detained in the United States. In Canada, detention is considered exceptional. As the U.S. has hardened its refugee policy for security reasons, we can say that being granted refugee status in the United States clearly becomes quite an achievement.

Moreover, adoption of a safe third country policy would deprive us of the power to direct our own refugee policy, harmonizing it with U.S. policy, for instance. Canada's policy on refugee claimants would be based on the U.S. policy and would be subordinate to it. It is a source of pride to us that Canada's policy differs greatly from that of our neighbours to the south when it comes to certain countries. Cuba is a good example of this.

Promoting the notion of a safe third country means making Canada's refugee policy subservient to that of the Americans. It is surprising that an Alliance MP would be promoting such a loss of Canadian sovereignty, in this case relating to refugee protection.

Many refugee claimants pass through the U.S. to come to Canada, an estimated 40%. Thus in 2000-2001, more than 11,000 people seeking asylum passed through the United States to get here. Our neighbouring country is often an unavoidable stop on the way for someone wanting to make a refugee claim in Canada.

Why choose Canada? There are many reasons. Certain individuals may prefer to claim refugee status here for personal reasons, for example because they have family here or because they are francophones. Moreover, Canadian values such as generosity and compassion are attractive. Contrary to the United States, Canada permits access to legal aid and social welfare or allows an individual to study or to work during the refugee status determination process. In a lot of cases, the transit country is only instrumental.

Those who flee their country seldom have the opportunity to choose their itinerary. They have to use the means available to them when the situation is urgent. Closing Canada's door to those refugee claimants who have been unfortunate enough to come here via the wrong country is abandoning the attitude of openness that is characteristic of this country and its people. This motion really sounds like “no, not in my backyard”.

The motion before us is disturbing in many respects. Members certainly know that countries have allies for better and for worse. Such is the case with the United States. Throughout history, because of their interests in certain countries, the United States have often supported, openly or not, discredited dictatorships. Chile is a case in point.

In the early 1970s, General Augusto Pinochet, with the blessing and support of the United States of America, removed the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, with a military coup d'état. Following the assassination of the Chilean leader, a great many people fled the country for fear of physical reprisals.

More than 7,000 Chileans and other Latin American refugees were admitted to Canada since 1973. Had we passed a motion similar to Motion No. 422 prior to the overthrow of the democratic Chilean government, it would have been impossible for these people to have found refuge in Canada. How many of them could have trusted American intelligence services, filed an application and have it accepted in the United States, when this country had supported the repressive machine in Chile?

This parliament must respect the necessary balance between the need for security and Canada's obligations toward immigrants and refugees. Canada, as a part of its duties and responsibilities as a democratic society, must be open to immigrants and refugees.

Painting all refugees as a den of potential terrorists is an attack against democracy, because it is often their struggle for democracy that forces them to seek exile and to flee dictatorships and escape from regimes of terror.

In closing, by opposing Motion M-422 , we are standing with those who are the most oppressed, we are being true to our values, and we are choosing to defend freedom.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today, we have come to the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

We cannot address this topic without being concerned, since this reality bluntly raises the issue of our collective responsibility toward the safety of our environment and our planet. Indeed, we are talking about our planet, about the future of life on this planet, and about the health of generations to come.

If, for a while, nuclear research held out the hope of a wonderful source of energy for humanity, this false hope has faded since, and the problem of waste management that it has created illustrates in a concrete way the difficulty of maintaining security and development and of respecting and protecting the environment. Developed countries are among those largely responsible for political decisions in connection with the proliferation of this waste. People who are listening to us will agree with me when I say that Canada cannot evade its responsibilities or underestimate the consequences of its decisions. Yet, the very essence of Bill C-27 suggests that this government is ignoring willingly this worldwide problem.

In good faith and no doubt very naively, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-27 at second reading. At that time, we were hopeful that it could be improved at committee stage, ensuring some damage control. But the Liberals rejected all our amendments. Therefore, we will vote against Bill C-27 and we are not reluctant in describing the government's attitude as anti-environment.

I will not be able to list all the objections we raised, to which the government did not listen. But the House will no doubt allow me to outline important amendments that were rejected indifferently.

Everyone recognizes that Bill C-27 is far from responding to the recommendations of the Seaborn panel. For nine years, this independent panel held consultations, carried out environmental impact studies and asked the public for input. The report findings particularly emphasized the fact that Canadians and Quebecers' support is essential for accepting the principle of nuclear fuel waste management, and that the safety of the management system is only one of the essential criteria for acceptability.

One of the suggestions made in the Seaborn report was to develop a comprehensive public consultation plan and to establish a reliable nuclear waste management agency. Another one was that the federal regulatory control with respect to the scientific-technical work and the adequacy of the financial guarantees be subject to regular public review.

Pursuant to clause 6(1), the Minister of Natural Resources will be solely responsible for establishing the waste management organization that will be asked to propose to the Government of Canada approaches for the management of nuclear fuel waste. The problem is that the energy corporations who produce the waste, like Atomic Energy Canada, will be part of the waste management organization.

Everyone knows that Atomic Energy Canada is a crown corporation reporting to the natural resources minister. So, obviously, the minister and the waste management organization will not be having an arms' length relationship. The Minister of Natural Resources will be judge and jury in the decision making process. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is?

To make the decision process more transparent and independent, the Bloc Québécois suggested that clause 2 be amended so that the environment minister be responsible for the act, instead of the natural resources minister. We do not accept the lack of transparency in this bill nor the chummy relationship between the minister and the energy corporations.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the members of the waste management organization should be designated by the governor in council on the recommendation of the House of Commons standing committee. Under Bill C-27, it would be up to the energy corporations to establish the waste management organization that will have to propose to the minister a long term management approach.

We condemn this decision and the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations of the Seaborn panel that energy companies be excluded from the management organization.

How can we have any confidence in a management system with no new body independent from current producers and owners of waste, and one whose overall mandate is geared toward safety?

By refusing to amend clause 6(2) to ensure that no nuclear energy corporation can be part of the waste management organization, the government is clearly saying that public safety is not its primary concern.

Real public consultations are needed; in fact, they are essential. We deeply deplore the fact that the decision to use the Canadian Shield as a long term burial site for waste was not the discussed through any public consultation, and that the federal government decided to bulldoze any public consultation by limiting impact studies to three years for the future management organization.

We think that our amendment, to the effect that this organization should have ten years instead of just three, would indeed have allowed for an intelligent and thorough consultation. As members surely know, our proposal was ignored. The government is not only acting irresponsibly, it is also showing contempt for the public.

Moreover, Bill C-27 does not guarantee that the public will be consulted. Indeed, the bill provides that the minister may consult the public, the provinces and the aboriginals. The minister has the right, but not the obligation, to do so. Again, this contradicts the Seaborn report. The Bloc Quebecois, and the public, will not settle for bogus consultations like those that lasted 28 days on MOX.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois vainly tried to have Bill C-27 amended to ban imports of nuclear waste or MOX in Canada. Our amendment was defeated. The Liberals rejected our proposal. Bill C-27 ignores the indispensable support of Canadians and Quebecers in the whole issue of nuclear fuel waste management.

The amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois regarding clause 15 was also ignored. We firmly believe that the House of Commons should imperatively be consulted on the management method chosen.

To whom does clause 15 give the final say in the selection of the nuclear waste management approach? How surprising: the winner is the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources. Clause 15 of the bill should have been amended, so that the management approach would be chosen on the recommendation of the standing committee of the House of Commons.

The impact of Bill C-27 is all the more a cause for concern, since the management organization provided for in the bill will not come under the Access to Information Act. Openness was an essential condition clearly recommended in the Seaborn report. The Bloc Quebecois thinks all the documents created by the management organization, including environmental impact assessments, should be made publicly available if need be.

This is the reason why we have asked that the Access to Information Act apply to the management organization. But the Liberals rejected our amendment. Do they have something else to hide, besides their Canada Deuterium Uranium containers, also called CANDUs?

Quebec could very well be the first victim here. The geological formation chosen for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste is the Canadian Shield. As my colleague from Jonquière indicated, the Canadian Shield includes 90% of the Quebec territory.

I would like to conclude by saying that Bill C-27 is proof that for the federal government, a Liberal government to boot, the environment is a very low priority.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that the environmental challenge concerns all mankind. We will vote against Bill C-27 because of our concern for quality of life. We will continue to fight for and on behalf of future generations.

[Artiste pour la Paix 2001, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, Jean-Claude Côté, artistic director and founder of the Théâtre de la Récidive, was honoured with the Artiste pour la Paix 2001 award.

This honour is bestowed annually by Artistes pour la Paix, a group founded by Gilles Vigneault and Dolorès Duquette some 20 years ago.

Mr. Côté joins a group of artists from Quebec who have been honoured for their humanistic values and their sense of peace, artists such as Marcelle Ferron, Marquise Lepage, Marie-Claire Séguin, Armand Vaillancourt and Simone Monet-Chartrand.

The fall of 2001 brutally reminded us of the fragility of democracy and the difficult struggle for peace, yet this recognition underscores the fundamental contribution that artists make to our raising our collective conscience.

Jean-Claude Côté's proposal for the 2001-02 season “Voix du monde, un théâtre pour la paix” was visionary. By providing a forum for ten playwrights from ten countries on five continents, Jean-Claude Côté has allowed us to experience the universality of peace.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to applaud his commitment.

[White Cane Week, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, White Cane Week, the theme of which this year is “Aging and visual impairment”, winds up on February 10. The risk of developing a serious vision problem increases with age, and half of all those with visual impairments are 65 and older.

Thanks to the commitment of community organizations, however, these people can look forward to continuing to function as full-fledged members of the community, autonomous and no longer isolated, which is the first consequence of any significant loss of visual acuity. It was with this in mind that the Fondation des aveugles du Québec launched a pilot project on aging and visual impairment.

I urge everyone to take part in the many activities organized to mark White Cane Week. It is an excellent opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing the visually impaired.

[Middle East, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Middle East is degenerating; the atmosphere is hardening and some people fear the situation is beyond remedy. Given the recent death of an elderly Israeli in an attack by a young Palestinian woman student, who also lost her life, the recent statement by the Speaker of the Israeli parliament is a real balm.

Avraham Burg warned his fellow citizens with this lucid comment “An occupying people, even if it was led into being an occupier against its will, ends up being harmed by the occupation and its stains, which change and disfigure it... The occupation corrupts.”

At risk to his career, he agreed to go to Ramallah to meet with the Palestinian parliament. “I will go wherever there is a possibility of talking peace,” he said.

According to him, only the creation of a Palestinian state, coupled with a Marshall plan for the Middle East, will do away with the prevailing despair and bring peace.

Last week, he sent a message to the international community with these words. “If the world ignores the Middle East as it goes up in flames, it will eventually have the same problems in Paris, London, New York and Washington”.

Let us listen to this man of peace.

[Competition Act, December 7th, 2001]

—Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. All these riding names are complicated and very long. He has worked very hard and I believe that the bill before us is the concrete result of his commitment to work for the good of Canadians and Quebecers.

[Competition Act, December 7th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:

“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:

77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.

(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.

(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.

(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.

(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.

(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.

(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.

(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

Madam Speaker, I suppose you are rather surprised to see me rise to speak to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, at report and second reading stage.

As you know, I am much more comfortable dealing with issues regarding health, culture, citizens' relationships and pedagogy. But the House being a forum for pedagogy, you will see that I am very comfortable talking to Bill C-23.

Every day, as private citizens, we are faced with competition. With globalization and the opening of markets, competition is often fierce, and it is not rare to see the little guys being swallowed up by the big guys, at the expense of consumers. Competition is a rather neutral concept. It all depends on how we use it. We all know that this neutrality is all the more delicate as the interests involved are greedy.

I often go for advice to my friends the dictionaries, Robert and Larousse —you know, the one that scatters to the winds . They are a wealth of information that never cease to enrich me. Here is the definition of competition that can be found in the Larousse dictionary.

Competition: Competing interests between several persons creating a competition and, in part, between merchants or firms trying to attract clients with the best price, quality, etc.

It goes on to say:

Free competition: An economic system without any intervention from the state to limit industry and trade freedom, and under which producers coalitions are viewed as a crime.

That is it for definitions. In the end, competition is a bit like what Aesop said about the tongue as being the best and the worst of things. A twisted tongue is as troublesome as unfair competition.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-23 is aimed at improving, albeit slightly, the competition framework. In this area as many others, rules are needed as people should have access to quality products and services at acceptable prices instead of being the victims of practices favouring the corporate bottom line.

If I may, I would like to take a minute to read the summary of Bill C-23, which goes like this:

This enactment amends the Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act. The amendments include the following:

amendments to facilitate cooperation with foreign competition authorities for the enforcement of civil competition and fair trade practices laws;

amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices;

amendments streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references;

amendments broadening the scope under which the Tribunal may issue temporary orders; and

some housekeeping items.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the objectives of Bill C-23 because they are in the interest of the public, since the parameters set in the bill should respond to the legitimate needs of small and medium size businesses and protect the rights of consumers to enjoy the benefits stemming from healthy competition.

Recent events have given us a telling example of what can happen when competition turns into a trade war. Indeed, the softwood lumber issue that comes up regularly, where the Americans impose excessive surcharges on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United-States, clearly shows the negative and unfair consequences of decisions made in the context of fierce competition.

Another example, just as flagrant as the previous one, is the poor state or even the non-existence of air service to remote communities due to the fact that Air Canada has a quasi-monopoly on air service in this country.

The only way to calm those with an insatiable appetite for profit is to legislate both domestically and within international trade organizations and to be ever vigilant in all spheres of human activity.

Everyone recognizes that Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction, but we could go even further. Indeed, many aspects should be considered by the legislator, including price fixing practices and the merger review process, as well as proceedings before the competition tribunal.

In that spirit, I will read an excerpt from testimony given before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on October 17 by a representative from the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole. He raised a real concern with regard to the fact that, and I quote:

—access to the Competition Tribunal [would be closed] except in situations of “usual trade terms”. We put it to you that suppliers of petroleum products would only have to illustrate that they cannot supply products because of abnormal trade conditions to stall access to the Tribunal.

We propose instead that the new provisions for access to the Tribunal provide for markets where trade terms are not usual. For example, should there be a relative shortage, supply should be provided to all undertakings on a prorated basis, in keeping with the way that the market usually operates. If, for instance, the amount of product available makes it possible to respond to only 80% of normal needs, the majors and the independents should each be able to obtain 80% of their regular supply. In this way, both types of undertakings would be subject to the same conditions and none would be forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of stock. Given the uncertain international situation at the moment, such a situation might easily arise.

Therefore, it was my great pleasure to introduce in the House, seconded by my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, an amendment to respond to the concerns of small independent retailers. Since the Speaker did not treat us by reading the amendment in her lovely voice, I should like to take a moment now to read it for the House:

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 28 the following new clause:

“11.31 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 77:

77.1 (1) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business or are precluded from carrying on business due to their inability to obtain adequate supplies of a product anywhere in a market may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 75.

(2) A person who alleges that they are directly affected in their business by exclusive dealing, tied selling or market restriction may, with leave of the Tribunal, make an application under section 77.

(3) No application may be made under section 75 or 77 by a person referred to in subsection (1) or (2) more than two years after the practice has ceased.

(4) Any person making an application under section 75 or 77 shall serve the person in respect of whom the order is sought and the Commissioner with a copy of the application for leave.

(5) The Tribunal shall give notice to the Commissioner of its decision on an application for leave pursuant to this section.

(6) Within thirty days of the granting of leave to a person to make an application under section 75 or 77, the Commissioner may become a party to the application but, after thirty days, may do so only at the request of or with leave of the Tribunal.

There are two sections left that I will read quickly:

(7) Where an application is made to a court for an order under section 75 or 77 and the parties agree on the terms of the order and such terms are in accordance with the terms of this Act, whether or not any of the terms could have been imposed by the court under this Part, the order agreed to may be filed with the court for immediate registration.

(8) On being filed under subsection (7), an order shall be registered and, when registered, shall have the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken, as if the order had been made by the court.”

This is an amendment in which we recognize the great work done by our colleague from the riding of Ajax—

[Immigration, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to the recent joint declaration of co-operation between Canada and the United States, the concept of safe third country implies that a refugee whose application is rejected by the United States can no longer apply in Canada.

Can the Minister of Immigration confirm that, had this agreement been in effect in 1973, none of the Chileans fleeing the Pinochet regime would have found asylum in Canada had they initially been denied asylum by the United States?

[Border Agreement, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps talking about Canadian values and says that the legislation which will apply to Canada will be passed by parliament.

Will this government's laissez-faire attitude not ultimately lead to the Parliament of Canada passing legislation that is nothing but a carbon copy of American legislation?