Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his comments and his question. The entire response issue depends particularly on what measure we put in place.

I am certain that my colleague heard perfectly my reference to the necessity to find the terrorists, while at the same time minimizing the dramatic consequences for innocent populations.

I believe the United Nations most certainly gives precedence to applying a large dose of wisdom to the selection of actions to be taken. I also believe that NATO will understand and will choose to tell itself that, very often, military action is not necessarily what yields the best results. We can recall to mind the strikes against Iraq, and the fact that Saddam Hussein is still there.

There are, therefore, lessons to be learned from recent events, and prior to September 11, but it must always be kept in mind that we, as citizens, have the responsibility of protecting the weak, the poor and the exploited, who should not be made to pay for a horrible act. Those responsible must be found, but the very many who are not must be protected.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I wish to inform the Chair that I will split my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Just three weeks ago today, the world fell into a state of horror. By striking the very symbols of American supremacy, the September 11 terrorist attacks changed forever the quiet certainty that had until then given us the illusion of security, if not invulnerability.

The motion presented by the New Democratic Party on this opposition day reflects the public's concern about the future.

Governments have heavy responsibilities, and this is true for the Government of Canada. Managing a crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing is not an easy task. There are major international concerns relating to political and economical security and stability, and the greatest danger remains worsening the current crisis.

This is why it is essential to find the evil minds who are behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, while keeping in mind the need to reduce to a minimum the impact on civilian populations.

The September 11 attacks targeted the United States, but they hurt the whole international community. While Washington may be the main accuser, all the democratic states have cosigned the indictment.

The heinous nature of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in no obviates the need for appropriate justice. Those responsible for these crimes must answer for their actions to an international court. Unfortunately, such a court does not exist.

In 1998, the nations of the world met in Rome for the purpose of creating a universal and permanent international criminal court, whose job it would be to judge the notorious criminals of our world. This court had been created because it was necessary to find a solution to the inadequacies of the ad hoc tribunals created in the wake of the events in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately, the coming into force of the status of the international criminal court is subject to 60 ratifications. These 60 ratifications have not taken place and the international court therefore does not exist.

For the international community, the emergency situation calls for action. An ad hoc international court must be set up, for even the most heinous crimes must be judged in accordance with the principles of law and justice.

In light of recent events, how many nations are sorry that they relied on trust and a sense of non-urgency and did not put their signature at the bottom of a document which would have made an international criminal court a reality.

Let there be no mistake. What happened on September 11 was a crime against humanity and, to use the wording of the motion before us, the perpetrators must be brought to justice in accordance with international law and within the framework of the United Nations.

On September 11, thousands of people lost their lives and thousands of families entered a long period of mourning in which sadness and anger were mixed. On September 11, the world's economy was hit by a cataclysm the aftershocks of which are still being felt.

There were victims of the earth shaking events of September 11 in Canada and Quebec as well as in the U.S., France, England, Italy and around the world. The members of the Arab and Muslim community are caught in a very difficult situation.

For three weeks, these men, women and children have felt the weight of looks of reproach and distrust. Sharp and disrespectful remarks and aggressive behaviour have been directed at them. These people, who considered themselves Canadians before, have, in the space of a few hours, become foreigners in their own land.

Going to the mosque to attend services has become difficult. Taking the subway or the bus or driving a taxi becomes an exploit. Their shops have been abandoned by customers. Even school yards and public places are to be avoided.

A week ago, I met a dozen representatives of the Arab and Muslim community of greater Montreal. I listened a lot to what they had to say and I know they have a lot to say.

Like all of us, they condemn the attacks of September 11, but they are going through something we are not. They are feeling that people consider them guilty.

Terrorism knows no religion nor law. It has no borders, country or people, because terrorists are blinded and deafened by the fanaticism that drives them. They come from no country, people or religion, because any they might claim serves as nothing more than a pretext for hatred and violence.

We all fail to misinterpret looks, words or silences. The sensibilities of our fellow citizens in the Arab and Muslim communities may be exacerbated, and we understand that entirely. What we do not want is to have insignificant gestures some find meaningless pave the way to intolerance, xenophobia and racism.

It is in this spirit that the motion before us today calls for measures to fight intolerance and racism, the social consequences of the September 11 attacks. The measures proposed must ensure support to the traumatized communities. They must help educate in order to prevent behaviour that can lead to misunderstanding and ultimately injustice.

We believe the Government of Canada will act on this motion. It is true as well for humanity and for balance in our society.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14, to establish a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

The decision to establish a national holiday in honour of a parliamentarian or any other person may seem unimportant to some people, but not to the Bloc Quebecois.

This bill aims to pay tribute to the very first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, as well as to the first Prime Minister from Quebec, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

John A. Macdonald worked relentlessly for an extremely centralized federation in Canada, while Sir Wilfrid Laurier fought very hard to protect Canadian unity, at the expense of the progress of his own people.

This bill would give Canadians the opportunity to reflect on the history of their country and to be proud of the contribution of these two men to Canada and to all of its communities. Do members really think that the people of Quebec will feel like celebrating on such a day? I do not think so.

In the minds of Quebecers, John A. Macdonald wanted to give the impression he was negotiating the terms of federation with Taché and Cartier. Later on, some would go as far as to talk about a confederal treaty when talking about the so-called consensus that is supposed to have taken place before the British North America Act was passed.

It bears reminding that when Lower Canada joined Canada in 1867, it was by a very slight majority, 24 against 22. Needless to say we are talking about parliamentarians who were duly mandated to speak on behalf of the people, but the people were not consulted.

In fact, the British North America Act is drafted in such a way that instead it envisions a very centralized state made up of provinces—which is a far cry, you will admit, from the concept of sovereign states—without in fact the exclusive authority to pass and implement laws without interference from the central government. This historical ambiguity regarding the creation of a Canadian federation or Canadian confederation could only lead to numerous problems later on, both for Canada and Quebec.

Lower Canada displayed a lukewarm interest in what some mistakenly called a confederal treaty but was in fact a constitutional soup by chef John A. Macdonald, seasoned with a unitary, centralized and centralizing federal regime.

As for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he indeed worked very hard to unite the Canadian federation. His 15 year government was marked by a lot of tension: on the one side, French Canadians, who were afraid of being assimilated, and rightly so; on the other, English Canadians, who wanted to have closer ties to the British Empire.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier governed Canada by trying to find a middle ground and keep the country together. Today, the current government's approach, true to Wilfrid Laurier's ideal, espouses the strategy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who wrote that of the ways of making separatism less appealing is to spend time, energy and a lot of money to promote federal nationalism. Such is the goal of Bill S-14.

The establishment of holidays to celebrate John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is part of that strategy. All Quebecers know that the federal government does not hesitate to spend millions of dollars in public funds to promote the Canadian identity. And what about the virtual monopoly of federalist forces on the media?

In his book Le déclin du fédéralisme canadien , Joseph Facal, the Quebec minister for relations with the citizens and immigration, minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, and minister for relations with French-speaking and Acadian communities, wrote this:

The federal government takes a subtle and seemingly generous attitude when it professes to recognize the different identities, the Quebec identity included. What it refuses to this particular identity is its full access to a collective, institutional and political expression. This can be seen in the incapacity of the Canadian constitutional order to recognize the fact that Quebec is a nation, in its refusal to institutionalize its definition of Quebec's specific character, and its untiring efforts to control Quebec's international relations.

Since 1867, Quebec has been held back because of the numerous barriers the federal government has put up. All of this stifles the social, cultural and economic development of the Quebec people.

Amongst all the days celebrated in Canada, whether national or international days, only one commemorates a person. And, would you have guessed, it is Queen Victoria. No other person is honoured in such a way. Previous parliaments may have recognized that in cases like this, and many others, discretion is usually the better part of valour.

There are many ways to commemorate the role that men and women have played in politics: streets, parks, cities, government buildings, ports, airports, statues, highways, aircraft carriers, ice-breakers, stamps, libraries, sportsplexes and what not.

A national day that is not representative of a wide consensus is a moot one and it can easily be considered as arrogant.

I call upon the common sense of all parliamentarians. They should vote against Bill S-14 to prevent a precedent that could create pointless tensions. If we create a day for John A. Macdonald and a day for Sir Wilfrid Laurier now, when will we create one for the prime minister who is responsible for free trade? When will we create one for the prime minister who unilaterally patriated the Constitution? When will we create one for the prime minister who stayed in office the longest? The answer is obvious.

I find it extremely dangerous for Canada to start commemorating everything. It is clear that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. I hope there still are sensible people in this parliament.

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since Canada's decision was made before the decision of the Prime Minister of Australia, can the minister tell us if the Canadian government intends to take part in the Francophonie summit, which is scheduled to take place in Lebanon, in October?

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, whose lack of leadership at the international level can only be deplored, recently said that he is in favour of a diplomatic approach and that he would seize the opportunity provided by the Commonwealth meeting and the Francophonie summit to broaden the coalition in the fight against terrorism.

How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain that Canada is one of the countries that announced that it would not take part in the Commonwealth meeting, thus contributing to its cancellation?

[Haroun M'Barek, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with emotion and relief that on September 4, I welcomed Haroun M'Barek at Mirabel Airport.

As members will recall, this is the Tunisian student who had been denied refugee status. In spite of the support of many groups, including Amnesty International, the Association des droits de la personne du Maghreb and Université Laval's support committee, Haroun M'Barek was deported to Tunisia on January 6, 2001. Upon landing there, he was arrested, jailed and tortured.

Mr. M'Barek's return to Quebec is certainly a happy moment. The recent events that are jeopardizing international peace give their full meaning to the values that underlie the convention on the status of refugees and the convention against torture.

We are convinced that, in the future, the lessons learned from Mr. M'Barek's tragedy will help the decision-making process regarding refugee claimants, because our attachment to democracy is measured by the notions of justice, fairness and compassion.

We wish courage, and good luck to Mr. M'Barek.

[Refugees, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the situation that has been confronting us since September 11 is a source of concern for each and everyone of us. However, for thousands of refugee claimants, the uncertainty is reaching extremely high levels.

Since the decision-making process takes place over a period of several years, thus promoting clandestinity with all the social and safety consequences that it may trigger, how does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to deal with the requests of the Quebec minister of public relations and immigration, who demands, and rightly so, that we clean up the mess in the refugee determination process?

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the intervention by my colleague from Wild Rose. I sensed a lot of emotion. In this context, I wish to address my remarks to the grandfather, in the hopes that they will also remain parliamentary.

The sixth proposal in the motion of the official opposition reads as follows:

the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

I would like to speak in particular of the first group of people mentioned, that is, any person illegally in Canada, those who are said to be without papers, illegal immigrants. Detention means depriving people of their freedom. These illegal immigrants include children.

The convention on the rights of the child rejects the detention of children, with certain exceptions, and then for very short periods.

I would like my colleague from Wild Rose to tell me his views on the children who would effectively be imprisoned if this motion were adopted and implemented.

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear. We will always be opposed to having people in Canada be extradited to a country where they could face the death penalty.

We know about the recent case of Haroun M'Barek. This young Tunisian, who was denied refugee status, was sent back to Tunisia in early January, even though we had every reason to believe he would be tortured.

Indeed, once he was back in his country, our fears were confirmed. In the end, things got better for him, since he is now back in Canada. He arrived at Mirabel airport in early September, following the issuance of a ministerial permit. Canada recognized that it had an international responsibility to people who ask to settle here. In the case of Mr. M'Barek, the mistake was corrected. He is now back in Canada.

If we fight against torture, which is something despicable, should we not be opposed to the death penalty?

I will conclude with a thought. By definition, acts are like men: they are not perfect. As is the case with men and women, we must work to improve them. An act to deal with terrorism in Canada should be the result of a fair, full and vibrant co-operation between all the parties of this House. No parliamentarian wants incidents such as those that recently took place in the United States to happen here, in the United States, in Mexico, in France, in Israel, in Palestine or in Rwanda. No one wants that.

Therefore we have a responsibility. I call on our social conscience as parliamentarians and citizens to do a job that we will be proud of.

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are holding today in response to the official opposition motion obviously has an impact on everyone because for one week now Americans, as well as Canadians and Quebecers, have been directly affected. They have realized that we are no longer invulnerable. It is therefore important to take part in this debate in order to establish our values.

I will begin by reiterating what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said on the day of the attack. His statement encompasses values we hold dear:

The Bloc Quebecois considers that this barbaric act is directed not just against the United States, but against all nations. If those responsible for these horrific deeds believe that they are furthering any sort of cause, they should know that they have achieved the opposite, that they have failed, and that their cause will remain forever stained by the blood of the victims. The Bloc Quebecois will support unconditionally any initiative by the Canadian government to provide assistance to the United States and to the American people, whether for humanitarian purposes or in order to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Any discussion of terrorism has to be about trying to find those responsible for deeds such as those we witnessed on September 11. But, this is no small matter. What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist? When may one be considered a terrorist? All these questions and what we think are the answers must of course be included in a bill, whose purpose will be to prevent terrorism and foil tragic deeds because they threaten the balance and democracy which it has been our privilege to enjoy and which we wish for all of humanity.

When we look at the reality of terrorism between 1981 and 2000, we note that internationally, it reached a peak in 1987. The question which arises is this: Will 2001 be a repeat? In the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of instances of terrorist activity in Asia and in Latin America. Everywhere else, such activity has decreased. Does 2001 signal a significant return to earlier levels?

It is therefore important that Canada take into consideration the fourth recommendation of the UN security council. This recommendation was drafted shortly after the events which concern us and provides that:

Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999.

Today's debate is in keeping with this logic. As terrorism has neither nationality, border nor respect for human rights, the measures that nations such as ours may take must consider needs and the major international agreements aimed at protecting individual and human rights.

Bill C-16 is currently being considered in committee. It falls within the context of anti-terrorist legislation. We fully expect that Bill C-16 will come back before the House. One of the elements of the motion of the official opposition refers to a total ban on fundraising activities. It is clear that Bill C-16 has a long way to go to totally ban fundraising activities.

So we must look at the problem.

There is a recent international agreement on the elimination of funding for terrorism. Canada has yet to ratify it. It might be useful, if not essential, for Canada to continue to give thought to this. I do not doubt that today's debate will contribute to advancing discussions on this matter, among others.

Before continuing, I would like to recall here the values Canada considers important. I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister yesterday reminding Canadians and Quebecers, along with the international community as a whole, that Canada will not back down in matters of human rights.

The day terrorist groups succeed in making a country like Canada back down with respect to human rights will be the day Canada takes an enormous step backwards, in my opinion. Because of this, it is vital to reaffirm the desire of all citizens of Canada and Quebec, and this desire must be affirmed by parliament, to honour international agreements, including the Geneva convention on refugees and the Geneva convention on torture.

In this spirit, I am sure that the House fully understands the meaning of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, that the words “the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences” be struck from the main motion.

We are all aware that since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, the supreme court, in good conscience, rules on what is fair and in compliance with the charter of rights. The ruling handed down in the Burns case, just a few months ago, was very clear on this subject. This is therefore something to which we are fundamentally opposed.

We regret that the rigidity of some parliamentarians did not allow for this whole debate on terrorism, on ways to counteract terrorism and to come up with legislation to this effect that would be useful, not perfect, but useful, and all related aspects of terrorism to be fully examined in committee.

What is good and extremely motivating about committee work is that we can, in good faith, discuss important issues, and terrorism is indeed an important issue.

In this spirit, I would like to ask, for the second time, that the House give its unanimous consent to refer this debate on terrorism and the prevention of terrorism to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In view of the profound values we all share here, I believe, I hope that the House will give its unanimous consent, in the name of justice.