Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Laval Symphony Orchestra, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on October 22, the ADISQ recognized the extraordinary talent of the Laval symphony orchestra by awarding it with its album of the year award in the classical music, orchestras and large ensembles category.

Entitled Mozart , the award-winning album brilliantly illustrates the unique personality of the LSO and the energetic spirit of its conductor, Jean-François Rivest.

Claude Gingras, a music critic who usually is quite parsimonious with his praise, was so taken with Jean-François Rivest and pianist Alain Lefèvre, that he wrote, with reference to them, that both conductor and pianist imbue the musical passages with an exquisite chamber music quality. Listening to Rivest or Lefèvre, it could even be said that, with their extremely subtle artistry, they take Mozart's music one step further .

The LSO sets itself apart with its enthusiasm, freshness and sensitivity; despite the fact that it has been around for only 15 years, it demonstrates remarkable maturity. This recognition by the ADISQ gives us every reason to believe that the orchestra has a brilliant future ahead of it.

Bravo to the LSO and to its conductor, Jean-François Rivest. The people of Laval are very proud of you.

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, all of today's speakers have demonstrated their sensitivity to the Armenian genocide, even if they did not all use that term, regretfully, but I am appreciative of their participation in this debate.

I am sure that, had this motion been votable, it would have obtained the support of the majority of MPs. Unfortunately, on several occasions voices from the government side have prevented parliament from expressing its view on a motion that, apparently, interests all members of this House.

I profoundly regret what I would term an “insufficient view of reality”, the view of those in power.

The genocide of April 24, 1915, is a reality even if certain people wish to deny that reality. The planning that led up to it, the number of deaths that resulted from it, the eyewitness accounts, the research by competent historians, the political recognition by a number of states and multinational organizations and by the Vatican, all of these realities fully justify the appeal made on March 24, 1998, by Robert Kotcharian, prime minister of the Republic of Armenia at that time.

He called for international recognition of the genocide, which was not, and I quote “the tragedy of the Armenian people only” but a tragedy for “all of humanity and a heavy burden for the Armenian people because it has gone unpunished and, worse yet, has not been condemned as it ought”.

The time has come for Canada to respond to this request because only international recognition of the genocide will allow this painful wound to heal, thereby promoting reconciliation. It is up to all of us to remember. The Armenian people are very conscious of this fact, and Robert Agazian, who travelled to Armenia to celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the establishment of Christianity last September, attests to this. He said:

When I come here, alone or with pilgrims, I am always very moved. I am reminded of my parents, my grandparents, of all of our families that were separated and scattered around the world randomly due to the exodus and the convoys. I am also reminded of all of the stories told and heard, all of the accounts that I have read and that describe the tragic events of our Armenian history. In coming here, I am fulfilling my duty to remember and I am expressing my desire for justice.

Regardless of where they live, Armenians recall this painful wound. I would like to say to them today that these memories contain life. Without them, the events that nourish our existence become lost beyond the limits of the consciousness. The respect they have for their history and for freedom is an example for us all, because it is the memories of the living that push back the boundaries of death.

Émile Henriot wrote “the dead live on in the memories of those they leave behind”. I thank ythem for their faithfulness to their people.

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

moved:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

Madam Speaker, it is with some emotion that I rise this evening to begin this first and only hour of debate on Motion No. 328, which reads as follows: “That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity”.

It is on the strength of the support of the parliamentary arm of the Bloc Quebecois and with the support of many colleagues of all political allegiances that I speak to members in the hope of drawing their attention in this House so that all together we finally, may act responsibly, with compassion and justice.

The term “genocide” at the heart of this motion was used for the first time by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who said, in 1943:

By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group...In general, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. It means, rather, a co-ordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

Two years later, in 1945, the term “genocide” was included in the indictment by the Nuremburg tribunal at the trial of Nazi war criminals. It provided that the accused “...conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories...national, racial or religious groups”.

A few years later, in 1948, the term “genocide” was given a legal definition by the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which was ratified by Turkey just 50 years ago this year. Its use by governments in the recognition of the tragedy suffered by the Armenian people is not without significance, as is the refusal to apply it.

Did the Armenian genocide occur? Some people deny it. However, internationally renowned historians, whose reputations are beyond doubt, confirm that the events of 1915 and 1916 were indeed genocide.

Indeed the operation planned by the prefect of the Constantinople police, Bedri Bey, for the night of April 24-25 was intended to eliminate the Armenian elite. On that night and during the days that followed, some 600 persons, intellectuals, writers, poets, journalists, physicians, priests and lawyers were imprisoned, gagged and unable to alert international opinion to the massacre being prepared.

Arnold Toynbee, a world renowned British historian, estimated that two out of three Armenians living in the Ottoman empire were killed or died while being deported. The final death toll was 1.2 million. Yves Ternon, author of Les Arméniens: histoire d'un génocide , also estimated that two-thirds of the Armenian community was killed, although he based his figures on the official Ottoman census, which listed the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Republic in 1914 at 1,295,000.

In 1919, Turkey's minister of the interior placed the number of dead at 800,000. Nowadays, the figure given by Toynbee is used.

The Armenian genocide did indeed take place. It was deliberately and knowingly orchestrated by a government which, in an enactment dated May 27, 1915, authorized the deportation of the Armenians, thus giving the insidious go ahead for the massacre of over one million people. The deportation was a legal cover and orders to execute were given in secret.

I would like to read a few lines from a letter addressed to U.S. President Wilson by a German Red Cross officer named Armin Wagner:

After depriving them of leaders and spokespersons, the executioners drove the populations out of the cities at all hours of the day and night. Groups which had numbered in the thousands when they set out from their homeland in Upper Armenia were down to a few hundred upon arriving in the outskirts of Aleppo, but the fields were littered with corpses.

The deportees were forced onto the highways until thousands were reduced to hundreds, and hundreds to a small band, which was still hunted down until it no longer existed. And then, they had reached their final destination.

When one knows that the ultimate destination of the deportees' long journey was the Deir Ez Zor desert in Syria and not the lush banks of the Euphrates, how can one not see that the purpose of this deportation was none other than the final solution, death?

How can survivors of this massacre be expected to forget? Seeing the calm tenacity with which they seek to have the Armenian genocide recognized, Hitler's cynicism just a few days before the invasion of Poland by troops of the Third Reich, can only horrify us.

In fact, in front of his staff on April 22, 1939, Hitler did not hesitate to ask if anyone still remembered the extermination of the Armenians.

Foreshadowing the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide is the first genocide of the 20th century. There is no excuse for refusing to use the term “genocide” to describe the terrible catastrophe that the Armenian people experienced in 1915-1916. Many parliaments have recognized this genocide, including the parliaments of Russia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lebanon, Belgium, Argentina, Uruguay and Australia.

The European parliament and the UN Commission on Human Rights have also recognized it. More recently, on January 18, 2001, it was France's turn. Legislation was passed unanimously by the national assembly and the Senate.

In North America, the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have also recognized the genocide. The Quebec national assembly and the legislature of Ontario have done the same. Given that the populations of Quebec and Ontario combined account for 60% of the population of Canada, it is hard to understand why Canada still refuses to describe the Armenian genocide as such, and refers to it instead as a tragic event.

Why is the Canadian government so cautious? One can only speculate. Perhaps the Armenian diaspora living in Canada does not have enough demographic clout. There are more than 100,000 Armenians living in Canada; 60,000 of them are in Montreal and Laval and the rest live in the Toronto area.

Being lucky enough to live in close proximity to the Armenian community in Laval, I can say, to their credit, that they have done a wonderful job of integrating into their host community. They have every reason to be proud of their social and economic contributions.

The reputation of the Armenian community in the arts is well established. Take the example of Maryvonne Kendergie, a well-known musicologist who, through her teaching and boundless energy, has made a major contribution to the field of contemporary music.

Filmmaker Atom Egoyan, whose talent is celebrated, joins other renowned artists such as conductor Rafi Armenian, soprano Isabel Bayrakdarian, violinist Catherine Manoukian and Yousef Karsh, the extraordinary photographer who took the famous picture of Winston Churchill.

I believe we owe it to Canadians and Quebecers of Armenian origin to officially recognize the genocide of 1915. Is it completely farfetched to think that some diplomatic reservations based on economic considerations might weigh in the balance? If so, how can we explain the numerous European countries in relative proximity to Turkey having had the courage to do so? And what about the European parliament, which after recognizing the Armenian genocide on June 18, 1987, reaffirmed in connection with the discussions around Turkey's membership in the European Union the necessity for the latter to recognize the Armenian genocide.

Moreover, paragraph 10 of the resolution passed November 15, 2000, contains the following:

Calls, therefore, on the Turkish Government and the Turkish Grand National Assembly to give fresh support to the Armenian minority, as an important part of Turkish society, in particular by public recognition of the genocide which that minority suffered before the establishment of the modern state of Turkey

Is Canada going to wait until Turkey recognizes this reality before adding its voice to those of the other parliaments?

Since 1993, the question of genocide has been debated a number of times before this House. The Bloc Quebecois position has always been clear. It has made us the target of objections from the Turkish embassy. It is was easy to imagine what comments were directed to the party in power. I have trouble, however, believing that a country like Canada, whose commitment to human rights is well known, would bow to diplomatic representations on something of such gravity.

It is noteworthy that, following the adoption of its legislation by the French national assembly, the government of France stated that it made a clear distinction between the Ottoman empire and contemporary Turkey.

After the political recognition by the various states and international organizations, I would like to touch on another recognition before I close. This was the position of Pope John Paul II. On November 27, 2000, the Pontiff signed a final declaration on the occasion of the visit to the Vatican of His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, whose apostolic church comprises seven million faithful. The text could not be any clearer. The following are just a few excepts from it:

The extermination of a million and a half Armenians, generally considered genocide, and the annihilation of thousands more under a totalitarian regime are tragedies which must still live on in the memories of the present generation.

In these troubled times, the recent visit to Armenia by Pope John Paul II, which coincides with the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity by Armenians, has a very special significance.

Some were disappointed that the Pope did not use the term “genocide” in his sermon at the mausoleum. He preferred to use the expression “Metz Yeghern”, the great catastrophe. For 86 years, these words have described, among Armenian families, the 1915 genocide.

The international press reported on the intense emotion that could be felt when Pope John Paul II read the names of the 29 martyr cities of the genocide, including Ani, Marach, Var and Mouch.

It goes without saying that this visit by John Paul II was criticized by the Turkish diplomacy, which expressed to the Vatican ambassador in Ankara its “consternation following the condemnation by John Paul II of the Armenian genocide”.

It is certainly no coincidence that, on October 7, John Paul II beatified Archbishop Ignazio Maloyan, the Armenian Archbishop of Mardin, Turkey, who was killed with 400 faithful during the 1915 genocide.

The pope said “Faced with the dangers of persecution, the blessed Ignazio did not make any compromise. Let his example inspire those who, today, want to be true witnesses of the Gospel”.

Six weeks to the day, America and the whole world found themselves in the eye of the storm. Through very well orchestrated actions, terrorism fully showed its anger and hate with total disregard for innocent victims and their grieving families.

The purpose of these actions was to destabilize our capitalist society. Since then, our outlook on things has changed, because beyond the actions, we have a duty to understand, so as to fully assume our responsibility to the poor on this planet.

In 1915, a deliberate action effectively destroyed a community to destabilize the Armenian society.

I call upon the will of my colleagues so that we finally recognize the Armenian genocide.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, particularly since this is one aspect of the official opposition motion with which we are in agreement. We believe that immigration officers, as well as customs officers, must be properly trained and competent professionals.

Borders are, of course, a kind of gate through which people enter or exit a country. It is an advantage for those at our borders to be properly trained, abreast of the latest technologies. Far be it for us to oppose this.

I must, however, also acknowledge that this is virtually the only thing in the entire motion with which we are pleased to say we agree.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, exactly six weeks ago today, the world was rocked by a quake whose magnitude exceeded anything on the Richter scale. With an epicenter located in the New York-Washington area, the terrorist acts of September 11 have led to especially great concerns in Canada, since they took place in our backyard, so to speak.

The motion brought forward by the official opposition today provides us with a good opportunity to debate the need to reconcile democratic values and security in what can only be described as horrible and cruel circumstances.

This is the fifth opposition day since the reopening of parliament. All but one of these days dealt with votable motions, and all dealt directly with the repercussions of September 11.

I would now like to read verbatim the motion by the leader of the official opposition, and member for Okanagan--Coquihalla. The motion reads as follows:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency;

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks; and

(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants.

Everyone recognizes that because it is generating real anxiety in all spheres of society, the current international situation is ripe for extreme reactions. These are never productive and rarely do anxiety, anger and panic help us think straight.

As parliaments reflect on effective and realistic ways to fight terrorism, it is important not to lose sight of the values that underpin our democratic society. I will therefore be studying the opposition motion with the values of justice, freedom and compassion in mind, taking into consideration the international conventions that Canada has ratified, including the UN convention relating to the status of refugees, the torture convention and the convention on the rights of the child.

I would like first off, if I may, to comment on the preamble to the motion. It refers to the continental perimeter initiative. The Bloc Quebecois has expressed its opinion of this perimeter. We believe such a perimeter should exist only in conjunction with the three primary signatories to NAFTA, namely, Mexico, the United States and Canada.

We understand that the aim of this motion is primarily Canadian and American security and the assurance of continued trade relations. However, I saw no reference in the motion to this last objective. We must therefore face the fact that the motion is off the mark. While the events of September 11 raised the issue of security, can we allow the security measures to apply just to refugees, as if they were the guilty parties?

Let us move on to paragraph (a). It reads, and I quote:

provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced training—

The responsibilities of these officials are important and we support their being given training that will enable them to do their day to day work properly, upholding the law and treating individuals with respect. This is a worthy objective.

In April 2000, the Auditor General of Canada made the following comments “Training is a key element in providing customs staff with the knowledge and skills to speed the entry of travellers and manage risk”.

He asked customs to “ensure that the training needs of all employees are assessed on a regular basis, training plans are developed annually and appropriate training is provided in a timely manner”.

He considered it important as well that “training for term and student employees take into account their skills, experience and the job requirements”.

And he recommended that “training records be complete and be used to assess whether employees have received the training they need”.

Clearly, we will support the first part of paragraph (a).

However, we have some concerns about the second part of the motion which reads, and I quote:

(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers...full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

What is the current status of these two groups of public servants? Subsection 110(1) of the Immigration Act reads as follows:

110.(1) An immigration officer has the authority and powers of a peace officer to enforce any provision of this Act, the regulations or any warrant, order or direction made under this Act or the regulations respecting the arrest, detention or removal from Canada of any person.

Therefore, how do we define full peace officer status?

As for the Customs Act, it provides the following in subsection 98(1):

98.(1) An officer may search if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his person anything in respect of which this Act has been or might be contravened, anything that would afford evidence with respect to a contravention of this Act or any goods the importation or exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under this or any other Act of Parliament.

(a ) any person who has arrived in Canada within a reasonable after his arrival in Canada,

(b) any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time prior to his departure, or

(c) any person who has had access to an area designated for use by persons about to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not leave Canada, within a reasonable time after he leaves the area,

The Customs Act also provides that the customs officer has the right to seize goods. Moreover, some agents are designated as having peace officer status for the enforcement of certain provisions of the criminal code, such as those on arrest without warrant.

Section 2 of the criminal code defines a peace officer as follows:

“peace officer”

(d) an officer or a person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act or the Excise Act,

As we can see, immigration agents are deemed to be peace officers when they enforce the provisions of the Immigration Act, while customs officers are also deemed to be peace officers and they have all the necessary powers to enforce those of the act for which they are responsible.

Since we have just finished debating a bill to amend the Customs Act, Bill S-23, which was debated at report stage in the House of Commons last Friday, it is hard to see why the Canadian Alliance did not take the opportunity then to present the amendments to the bill that it thought were necessary.

As we can see, both immigration and customs officers have the necessary powers to enforce the provisions of the legislation, particularly since the Immigration Act also provides that, in certain specific circumstances, an immigration officer may detain an individual.

The difficulty probably lies in the word “full” peace officer status. Perhaps this will become clear later in the debate.

Not only am I uncertain what “full” peace officer status means, but I am hardly reassured when I read that they should be allowed “to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border”.

What is a suspicion? Le Petit Robert defines it as conjecture by which blameful intentions are assigned to someone. It seems to me that the present situation may cause us to be more suspicious and that the very broad wording in the motion is hard to square with the 1986 Landry decision, which defined the notion of “reasonable grounds”. Furthermore, the 1999 edition of the criminal code provides, and I quote:

In order to arrest a person without a warrant, a police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person has committed an indictable offence. This subjective belief on the part of the police officer must also be justifiable from an objective point of view.

We can see how far apart the criminal code, the existing legislation and the Alliance motion are.

Paragraph (b) of the Alliance motion proposes that customs officers be moved into a law enforcement agency. This in itself is not without interest, although it raises a number of questions concerning conditions of work, the administration of customs duties, and budgets.

At this point, it is probably interesting to quote what the national president of the Customs and Excise Union said in his recent appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill S-23:

I believe this was proposed under the Conservative government, some six or seven years ago [--]

It must be a good eight years.

—perhaps longer—I forget now. At that time the Customs Excise Union fully supported that concept for customs officers. We do see customs officers as being a group of individuals that is becoming more and more oriented towards enforcement. In fact, the approval of Bill C-18 in 1998 has made that even clearer—

As for Denis Desautels, who was auditor general at the time, he stated that the role of customs offices “has evolved ...to one of facilitating the entry of travellers and goods, while protecting Canadian society”.

Now we come to what strike me as the two most worrisome paragraphs, (c) and (d). Their objectives seem very clear to me.

The first stipulates that any refugee claimant without proper documentation is potentially dangerous. The second is equally disconcerting, because it radically limits the reception of refugees, even if this represents a break with the Canadian tradition of compassion and openness.

Paragraph (c) reads as follows:

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks.

We are opposed to automatic detention of refugee claimants without papers.

The reason is a simple one. What reasonable person can believe that a refugee without documents represents such a risk to Canada's security that he or she must be imprisoned? I do not think so. Nor am I the only one, because it would make no sense for anyone who had any ill intentions toward Canada or any other state not to have official identity documents, or at least ones that looked authentic. Why not three or four different passports? We have already seen that. Why would anyone run the risk of an investigation? If I wanted to do some evil deed, I would come across as innocent as possible. That is elementary.

We do not think that this measure will in any way improve Canada's security coefficient. What it will succeed in doing is to treat the innocent unfairly, and we will thus be failing our duties under the charter of rights and freedoms, which is a source of Canadian pride.

We feel that our present procedure meets Canada's needs and requires no changes.

Right now an immigration officer uses the following procedure. He asks for the claimant's identification and the claimant states his true identity. The immigration officer then questions the claimant to determine whether he can provide identity papers. The claimant has to complete a form in which he provides information as to his identity. Finally, the immigration officer can detain the individual if he is unable to establish his identity to the officer's satisfaction.

Should the immigration officer find that the claimant is not properly answering the questions put to him, appears confused or refuses to answer certain questions, the officer may detain him for a period of seven days.

Interestingly the Canadian Council for Refugees notes that it is exceedingly rare for a person seeking asylum to be detained for not having identity papers or for having forged ones.

With paragraph (c) of the motion, we move to an extreme that is unacceptable. We oppose the systematic detention of persons claiming refugee status, since the practice is contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms, which applies to every citizen.

I will move on quickly to the last point, the request to establish a list of third countries. Once this list is drawn up, Canada will no long accept refugee claimants who have come through a third country.

Forty per cent of those claiming refugee status arrive in Canada from the United States. Forty per cent is a lot. What I understand from this is that we do not want any more refugees. I oppose this, especially since applications for refugee status in the States are given much more restrictive treatment than they are here in Canada.

Are we consciously, as a parliament, going to destroy what has been a port of peace and life for many who have suffered through wars and undemocratic regimes? We need only think of the millions of Afghans who are trying desperately to leave their country. Can we say “No, we will allow only those who arrive via Vancouver or Montreal or St. John's, Newfoundland”?

We also oppose this fourth paragraph strongly. I call on all parliamentarians who recognize the importance of compassion, justice and respect for the fundamental values of our society to oppose the Alliance motion.

[Broadcasting Act, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Bill S-7, which I am speaking to today, aims to amend the Broadcasting Act to enable the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to make regulations establishing criteria to determine how the CRTC may authorize the reimbursement of the costs incurred by a party appearing before it.

According to the CRTC, an official designated by the commission would examine the costs and determine their eligibility. The parties covered by Bill S-7 are primarily members of the public and consumer groups. At the moment, the CRTC is empowered to compensate individuals appearing before it regarding any matter under the Telecommunications Act, but it cannot intervene in the same way for matters arising under the Broadcasting Act.

If passed, this bill, introduced by my colleague Sheila Finestone, the former member for Mount Royal, and I recognize the member who has replaced her, now a senator and for whom I have considerable esteem, would harmonize these two laws and broaden the capacity of consumers or consumer groups to better assert their rights in the matter of broadcasting.

As we know, the big broadcasters and telecommunications companies have phenomenal sums available to them. According to the senator, the radio-telecommunications industry has annual revenues of some $20 billion.

Clearly, the situation is very different for consumers, given the cost of collecting data, and paying honoraria for experts to do quality research and the time required for drafting briefs.

The gap between the public and the major industries is measured in light years. Individuals whose rights have been infringed should be able to demonstrate the injustice they have suffered. Obstacles of a technical nature cannot be allowed to prevent them. The right to fair and equitable treatment is a basic principle of our democracy.

Bill S-7 would give consumer groups the right to properly defend their interests with the CRTC when there problems involve the Broadcasting Act. This bill would enable the CRTC to make decisions based on properly documented briefs, since the means for their production would be assured. In addition, the means involved to permit costs should not be excessive, because the regulations must provide criteria for awarding costs.

In other words, the CRTC must ensure that the amount spent on preparing a brief is reasonable, before reimbursing the individual or consumer group appearing before it.

According to Action réseau consommateur, a group which has met with the Bloc Quebecois, the situation is as follows:

The principle for appearance costs is to reimburse qualified interveners for the work associated with an intervention based on market value. The CRTC has always followed this practice, which was confirmed and approved by the Supreme Court in 1986. This means that clearly identified cases and detailed invoices must be prepared by the lawyer, expert witness or analyst working for a group of interveners, for submission to the charges assessor. This estimate is set in accordance with a fee scale which generally reflects the maximum market charge for similar services. It is important to note that the payment is for services rendered by recognized professionals and does not go into the coffers of the organization. Frequently, the intermediary organizations hire experts and consultants who are in private practice. Under these circumstances, the reimbursement is for invoices from these individuals for appearance fees, and the involvement of the intermediary organization is merely administration of that reimbursement. These fees do not constitute income for the public interest organizations; they are merely a reimbursement of the costs incurred in making an intervention in the public interest.

We have seen that this amendment to the Broadcasting Act is supported by citizens and by organizations that represent them.

In May Action réseau consommateur and the Fédération des associations d'économie familiale du Québec appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in their examination of Bill S-7.

In their brief, these organizations brought up another important point. Beyond re-establishing a balance between corporations and citizens, these two organizations amply highlighted one of the reasons why citizens, or the organizations that represent them, must be able to voice their concerns to the CRTC at a time when the television industry is undergoing a complete makeover.

For several years now, the cost of accessing television has climbed steadily. Since the advent of digital television, cable operators have been selling specialty channels separately.

Despite the fact that consumers do not appear eager to pay more for these channels, the CRTC recently approved operating licenses for 283 new specialty digital channels.

Action réseau consommateur and the Fédération des associations d'économie familiale du Québec asked themselves the following question. Conventional television, which was free of charge, was mandated to serve the public interest. How is the public interest better served today?

With the complex issue of analog television channels migrating towards digital, and the resulting rate increases that may ensue, the constant increase in the number of American channels on the Canadian market and all of the questions closely linked to these changes, it seems more than clear to me that the bill currently before the House will allow us, to some extent, to better cope with these challenges, thereby ensuring that consumers' rights are respected.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore support Bill S-7, since it contributes to encouraging consumer groups in their efforts with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

[Canadian Museum of Civilization, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Museum of Civilization launched an exhibit entitled “The Lands within Me”, in reference to the many places that have shaped the works of the 26 artists of Arab origin, of whom more than half have chosen to live in Quebec.

The works presented, both in their choice of medium and in the texts that accompany them, clearly illustrate that artistic expression cannot be dissociated from the human experience. All we need to do now is take the time to recognize how it affects us.

I would recommend this exhibition to everyone. There are pieces that are both stunning and significant, such as Karim Rholem's magnificent photograph, entitled “A Family Resemblance”. Rholem is a Quebecer of Moroccan origin who introduces us to the Giroux family, a family of 11 living in Sainte-Rose de Laval.

The exhibition's curator, Aïda Kaouk is right in stating that “The Lands within Me” invites us to broaden the view we have of others, who may be different in their origins, but who are similar in their human experiences.

[The Parliament of Canada Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today to address a bill from the other place, which was initially sponsored by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine and then by the hon. member Saint-Lambert for, whom I salute.

This very short bill seeks to amend the Parliament of Canada Act by creating the position of parliamentary poet laureate. This is a really nice idea and I can understand why such an initiative looks attractive to Canada, since it is in line with Anglo-Saxon traditions. This is reason enough for a large number of parliamentarians in this House to proudly support this legislation.

However, the Bloc Quebecois will not support this brilliant initiative. This is another example of the different perspectives of our two solitudes on the same issue.

In opposing Bill S-10, we asked ourselves three questions. First: What is poetry and what is the role of a poet? Second: Is freedom not a poet's most precious asset? Third, can a price tag be put on the value of a poet?

What is poetry and what is the role of a poet?

After reading very carefully the speeches made both in the Senate and in the House of Commons, I have to admit that I still do not know what poetry is, and I know even less what the role of a poet is in real life. In order to see if there is a correlation between these realities that transcend parliament and the purpose of Bill S-10, I could have come up with my own definition. However, given the seriousness of this issue, I felt it would be wiser to consult le Petit Robert under the term “Poésie”, for poetry.

Here is what I learned “Poetry: the art of language used to express or suggest something through rhythm, harmony and image”.

How could a poet seriously try to express in a poetic way the rhythm or pace of parliament, its harmony, or better yet, its image? In any case, since I wanted to adopt a rigorous approach and since I hold poetry and poets in high esteem, I decided to consult a great poet, who was also a great parliamentarian. His name is Victor Hugo. Everyone will agree that it is at least worth listening to. “The poet must have only one model, nature, and only one guide, truth”.

If we believe him, the poet of parliament should express the true nature of parliament. This would be a huge undertaking and it would likely be more worthwhile to do something else, such as express the true nature of Bernadette according to the recommendation of Guillaume Apollinaire that, with curiosity and a sense of adventure, a person can write poetry about anything.

Could the great adventure that Apollinaire is proposing to the poet be really to write all about parliament and its hill, which is green or white according to the season?

The second question concerns me most. Is freedom the poet's most precious asset?

I know that it is for me, and there is no end to the number of people who have chosen to die for freedom.

What about poets? Some of the greatest have mouldered in prison in the defence of freedom. As prisoners, they were no less free. Who can name a single poet who agreed to trade freedom for money or power? Honestly, I cannot think of one.

It is true that Bill S-10 would give the poet laureate the great responsibility of writing poems to be read in parliament at official ceremonies.

Could we conclude that the poet laureate is non partisan? Probably. And yet, it is hard not to imagine that finding oneself promoted to the position of poet laureate of parliament for two years would not of necessity create obstacles that, insidiously, would limit later speech and give it serious bias.

How to be free when the choice of poet laureate would be made by a few persons, some of whom had received political appointments? As the saying goes, “Don't bite the hand that feeds you”. “Elementary, my dear Watson”.

I am prepared to bet that the members of the committee will not have many candidates to choose from, because few of them would trade their poet's freedom for a nomination. I have a hard time not laughing at the thought of Fernand Ouellette, Michel Garneau, Gilles Vigneault, Michèle Lalonde or Anne-Marie Alonzo accepting this tantalizing offer.

Those are simply my pretentions, and it will be readily apparent then that I have no problem subscribing to the following extract from the preface of Victor Hugo's Orientales to the effect that art has no need of edges, shackles and muzzles; it says “Go”, and sets one loose in this great garden of poetry where no fruit is forbidden.

The last question is the simplest, finally: can a monetary value be put on the poet's role? My answer is clear and unequivocal: a monetary value cannot be put on the poet's role, for poetry is the soul of a people, it is the awareness of beauty and a revolt against injustice; it is the expression in words of joy, of sorrow, of pain.

Poetry holds a mirror up to us, and that is why it is beyond price. The bill has clearly grasped this well, for it does not seem that the stipend of the parliamentary poet can be lead to any deficit whatsoever. Especially, since some bottles of ice wine could be added, which is totally delectable along with some foie gras or Roquefort.

Who knows, if he or she had such a gift, it might inspire the creation of another poem in praise of wine, another Bateau ivre or Romance du vin . To be convinced of that , I would need take a couple of bottles of ice wine as well, if not more. The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me that the official parliamentary poet will be in a pretty funny position, in his minstrel's gallery or his wine cellar. So why not give him some company. What next? When will we be getting our official parliamentary dancer and musician? Both the dance and music have the enormous privilege of being without words.

Of course, the poet will be at a disadvantage because he uses words, in a country that is bilingual and multicultural. This is no simple matter. But I have come up with the solution: the official parliamentary rock singer. Who has ever heard one and been able to understand the words he is singing, or even what language it is in?

Closing on a somewhat more serious note, I would offer a brief reflection. If it is felt that poets should be given the recognition they deserve, let parliament enact measures that recognize their right to earn a decent living.

If their role is essential, why not guarantee them a tax exemption on the first $30,000 earned, or why not abolish the federal tax on books?

This would require a true political will, and no one is naive enough to think that appointment of an official poet to parliament will make people forget how badly the government neglects our artists.

This bill is an unequivocal demonstration of the fact that it is easier to try to subjugate our creative people than to treat them with respect.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, now, at the beginning of October, I have just lost another illusion of mine, but not to worry, I will keep on smiling.

I am pleased to take part today in the passionate debate on Motion No. 241 tabled by my hon. colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

I am even more pleased to speak to this issue because a lot of people have taken the time to express their views on this motion, which has become very significant because of the importance it has for many of our citizens.

There are two points I want to make here. Because of the great number of comments that have been made, I cannot guess as to the political stripe of all the people who made them. But given the law of averages, I would find it very surprising and even unthinkable that all these people share my political opinions.

However, each and every one of them supported this motion unconditionally, as if it were the most natural thing to do in the world.

The people watching this may ask why I am making these two points. It seems that this issue has become the focus of the debate on the motion, although it should not even be addressed during our discussions.

Moreover, there was an unfortunate misunderstanding during the weeks following the tabling of this motion. Some people have suggested that my hon. colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes was playing petty politics by putting forward Motion No. 241, while others showed more respect and simply stated that they would wait to find out the position of the Acadian community on this issue.

Now that this misunderstanding is behind us, the situation has cleared up. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has publicly demonstrated that there was absolutely no partisanship behind his tabling of Motion No. 241.

Moreover, the consultation process in which Acadians took part ended yesterday with the tabling of the report of the advisory committee set up by the Société nationale des Acadiens.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this issue will unfold in the next hour of debate. You can count on my being here.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, knowing how wise the hon. members are, I wish to seek unanimous consent to use the 10 minutes provided to speak to motion No. 241.