Maud Debien

[Zaire, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The rapidly escalating conflict in eastern Zaire between Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army is on the point of culminating in a human catastrophe far worse than that in Rwanda in 1994. More than one million Rwandan refugees have been cut off, and 500,000 of them are fleeing the country.

With aid workers forced to leave the area and the planned airlift to rescue refugees in danger of being called off, can the minister give an update on the situation and indicate what his government intends to do to help avoid a repetition of the 1994 tragedy?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-29 the this government is set to pass exemplifies its ad hoc approach to environmental management. Indeed, Bill C-29 has been introduced at a time when nothing has been clearly established, when the so-called scientific opinion is divided.

As we know, the scientific approach is based on rigour, critical thinking, analysis, precision and objectivity. The least we can say in this case is that Bill C-29 is based on considerations of interest instead of reason.

What is this bill all about? Bill C-29 prohibits the commercial use of MMT, which is, as we know, a manganese-based substance added to unleaded gasoline to increase its octane level, thereby making car engines more efficient. The bill also regulates the interprovincial trade in and importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

At this stage of the debate, we must recognize that there is water in the gas line. Opinions are in fact mixed on the relevance of prohibiting or allowing the use of MMT. Some, like the Minister of the Environment and his predecessor, are for banning manganese-based products because they suspect MMT of being a health risk and impairing the operation emission control systems on cars.

At the time of this bill's tabling, they also wanted this bill passed to harmonize Canadian legislation with that of other countries, the U.S. in particular. As for Ethyl Corporation, the only company producing and exporting MMT to Canada, it believes that, on the contrary, the use of MMT results in a decrease of up to 20 per cent of emissions of nitrogen oxides harmful to the environment. These emissions are responsible for urban smog.

As for auto makers, they claim manganese adversely affects the smooth functioning of new antipollution devices in cars. To this, those who support the use of MMT reply that the findings of scientific studies on this issue are contradictory and that the problems are due primarily to other factors.

Oil companies now support the use of additives. According to them, manganese reduces the consumption of crude oil, increases the octane levels in gasoline, improves engine performance and reduces polluting emissions. We also know that ethanol could become a substitute for manganese. The ethanol industry is located in western Canada and in Ontario, primarily in the region represented by the Deputy Prime Minister, which would therefore benefit from another market.

This is where the problem lies. Remember the announcement made last year by the former environment minister and Deputy Prime Minister about a $70 million investment program to develop ethanol. We are going full speed with nothing to guide us, except the interests of some. Beyond the diverging opinions and studies, some facts remain.

In 1994, the health department conducted a review of these issues. The conclusions reached by Health Canada stress that exposure to manganese does not pose a threat to the health of Canadians and Quebecers. In fact, had the results been different and had MMT been proven to be toxic, Health Canada would have prohibited its use. And, given the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we would not be here debating Bill C-29. Everything would have been just fine.

Second, everyone, including those who oppose the use of MMT, agree that this product helps reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, even though results of studies may vary. Some talk about a 20 per cent reduction, while others say it is 5 per cent. According to others still, prohibiting the use of MMT could trigger an increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides equivalent to having one million additional cars on the road by the year 2000. Who is right? Which of these estimates is correct? We still do not know.

Third, this bill will generate costs of several million dollars. It will, among others, result in enormous costs to the oil industry, which will have to start making gasoline free of MMT. Once again, consumers and taxpayers will be footing most of the bill.

Finally, there is another factor of no small importance concerning the development of the situation in the United States. A November 1995 ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeal recognized that MMT was not harmful to health or to antipollution systems in vehicles. Because of this ruling, MMT can be reintroduced in the United States.

The Minister of the Environment and his predecessor have thus been deprived of one of their main arguments, harmonization with U.S. policy. Now that MMT has been authorized in the United States, Bill C-29, prohibiting its importation, will constitute a unjustified protectionist measure, contrary to the free circulation of goods, the cornerstone of NAFTA. For it is indeed the importation of and interprovincial trade in MMT that is the focus of Bill C-29.

Thus, Bill C-29 will allow national production of MMT and its sale and use within a province. If this product is as harmful as the government claims, why authorize it? The policy is obviously inconsistent.

By prohibiting international and domestic trade, the government is contravening NAFTA and once again trampling on provincial jurisdiction. Despite the Minister for International Trade's warning to the Minister of the Environment last February, the latter is pushing ahead with Bill C-29. The result is that, last September 10, Ethyl Corporation in the United States issued a notice of its intention to file a complaint under the Free Trade Agreement and to seek compensation from the Canadian government of, get ready, almost $300 million, money that may be thrown out the window because of the pigheadedness we are seeing.

While the Liberal government is slashing budgets as never before, it is knowingly gambling with the public purse. This is not right. At the very least, government members should think about what they are doing and put a bit of manganese or ethanol into their arguments, in order to boost their credibility rating.

I would also like to comment on another aspect of this bill. Unintentionally, I imagine, the member for York-Simcoe, in a speech in November 1995, gave the Bloc Quebecois another reason to be critical of the inflexibility of Canadian federalism.

Commenting on an American court ruling in favour of MMT, the member for York-Simcoe said, and I quote: "30 per cent of the United States will continue with the ban on the use of MMT in fuel".

In Canada, the federal government alone decides what additives will be allowed in gasoline. Despite strong opposition by six provinces to Bill C-29, the Minister of the Environment has his mind made up and is refusing to listen to his provincial counterparts. In a country that claims to be the most decentralized in the world and in light of the supposedly new flexible federalism-Plan C, you never know-this attitude is astonishing.

The reasons given by the environment minister for banning the importation of MMT no longer stand up. Whether for reasons of health, damage to antipollution systems, environmental issues, or harmonization of Canadian and U.S. policies, Bill C-29 fails on all counts.

The current debate proves that there are a number of questions outstanding. But the federal government is charging full steam ahead, preferring expediency to any serious logic. There is no doubt that this government is running on empty.

[East Timor, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for over 20 years, the international opinion has ignored the East Timor tragedy.

Since this former Portuguese colony was violently annexed by Indonesia, over a quarter of the 600,000 Timorese may have died. No one can ignore this genocide, or the Indonesian authorities' policy of reducing native populations, notably by forcibly sterilizing young Timorese women.

Last week, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Jose Ramos-Horta and Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo for their sustained efforts to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict in East Timor.

By giving them the Nobel Prize, the international community is paying tribute to and greatly encouraging these resistance workers.

The Bloc Quebecois condemns the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia and calls for the withdrawal of Indonesian forces. We urge the Liberal government to do the same.

[Return To Canada Of Karim Noah, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to accept the opportunity to speak today in support of the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont.

This motion deals with a subject very close to my heart: child welfare. Even if the wording of the motion refers to calling upon the Canadian government to undertake negotiations and political representations in order to ensure the return to Canada of a child kidnapped by his father, nevertheless the individual really at the centre of any such matter is the child.

I shall therefore focus my speech on that aspect. As I have already said, we are speaking of a three year old who has had his mother brutally taken away from him. This is how we need to focus any discussion on the abduction of children.

The very real consequences, to get down to earth, to get down to the every day nitty-gritty of it, is that little Karim has not seen his mother for three years, is growing up without her, without her presence, without her care, without her love. All this because one adult has decided that is the way things will be, for reasons that have nothing to do with the child.

This is a cruel reality, with the risk of very negative consequences for the child. I am not saying, and am far from believing, that it would be more acceptable for a child to be deprived of the care of his father. On the contrary. The presence of both parents is necessary for a child to develop properly, but that presence can take a number of forms, depending on the circumstances. In the case of concern to us today, one of the two parents disappears completely from the child's life, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with him.

Unfortunately, children are often the victims of the bitterness and anger which eats up a family during and after a separation. According to the 1995 annual report of the RCMP'S Missing Children's Registry, often the abductor tells the child that the other parent no longer loves him, or worse, that the other parent is dead.

As well, the abductor often neglects the child's education and health, not to mention that he or she is left alone for long periods of time, which predisposes him or her to antisocial behaviour. In the case of Karim, we are told that he is ill. He was seen again this summer for the first time since January 1993.

Such situations are unacceptable and in fact criminal. They are criminal and punishable under the law. The Criminal Code provides a maximum prison sentence of 10 years for a parent who acts like the father of Karim.

With this legislation, our society recognizes how important it is for a child to live in a stable emotional environment, irrespective of the quality of the relationship between the adults who take care of him. Our society recognizes the importance to the child of having access to both parents.

Finally, our society feels it is important, in case of a conflict, to let a third party, in this case the courts, take on the difficult task of determining how the interests of the child are best served. A parent who abducts his child and deprives him of the presence of his other parent is a criminal who only thinks of his own interests and causes considerable damage to the child.

Little Karim is unfortunately not the only child to have been taken abroad illegally. In recent years, cases of child abduction and taking children to other countries have increased. This is partly due to the greater ease with which people are able to travel quickly over large distances.

In these cases, dispute resolution procedures are complicated because of their international nature. Even if one parent has been given legal custody of the child in Canada, we cannot be sure that this decision will be respected elsewhere. Consequently, and this is particularly true in the case before us today, a parent or guardian may be tempted to abduct a child, expecting to be safe from the Canadian justice system abroad, as in the case of Karim's father.

There are no statistics in Quebec today that establish with any accuracy the total number of Quebec children that have been displaced or are being detained abroad annually by one of the parents. After checking with the Missing Children's Registry of the RCMP, it seems the situation is the same at the federal level.

Figures are of course available. However, these indicate the number of abductions committed by a parent and brought to the attention of the police, but they do not indicate which of these abductions are international in nature.

In this context, it is still difficult to evaluate how widespread the problem of international child abduction really is.

However, even if the number of Quebec and Canadian children who are abducted is relatively low, we should not lose sight of the hardship suffered by these children.

Again, the real victim of an abduction is the child himself. In this particular case, it is young Karim, who has suffered and is still suffering from a loss of balance and stability caused by the trauma of being separated from the parent with whom he had always been. He is the one who has to put up with the uncertainties and the frustrations related to having to learn a new language and adapt to a new culture.

The ability to make contact with the abducted child and the chances for a quick resolution vary greatly, depending on whether or not the country of refuge is a signatory to the Hague Convention. The convention aims primarily to prevent the international movement of children by promoting close co-operation between the legal and administrative authorities of the contracting states.

However, Egypt, where Karim was taken, is not a signatory to the convention. We also know that, to this day, a small percentage of children abducted and taken to a country which is not a contracting state of the convention have been returned to Quebec and to Canada. In such cases, the co-operation and legal mechanisms established by the Hague Convention and by the Canadian legislation are not available to those parents who need help.

Locating a child becomes more difficult and may require the use of private investigating agencies. The parent must also seek legal representation abroad and pay for the related costs, as is the case for Karim's mother.

In addition to all these problems, the legal battle is subject to the national laws of the state, where the rules greatly differ from the ones that we have here.

Given this situation, I join the hon. member for Rosemont in asking the Canadian government to really do something about Karim's plight, and to show its support to the mother by exerting all appropriate political pressure on the Egyptian government to ensure the immediate return of young Karim.

[Income Tax Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member for Mississauga South, which have prompted his Motion No. 30. This motion proposes an amendment to the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

You are, no doubt, aware that women generally invest more time than men in the care and nurturing of children, and this, for many of them, results in increased difficulty in entering the work force and in reduced earnings. During their lifetimes as well, they generally devote more time than men to the care of dependent members of their extended families, the sick, the disabled, or the elderly.

According to Nancy Guberman, in Actes du colloque , the proceedings of a symposium held in Montreal on May 5, 1995, women are responsible for 85 per cent of the assistance provided within families. According to Canadian Social Trends , in 1992 virtually all of the 3.4 million people whose principal activity was caring for the family home were women.

An examination of these statistics clearly shows that the measures in Motion No. 30 would, for the most part, affect Canadian and Quebec women. It is therefore important to compare the demands being made by those most concerned by this with the objectives of the motion we are addressing at this time. But serious attention must also be given in particular to the means which will be used to achieve those goals.

The aim of the motion proposed by the member for Mississauga South is to recognize the child-rearing done by the parent at home. We entirely agree with the member regarding the need for society

to recognize the considerable value of unpaid work performed by women at home, on the farm or elsewhere, whether it be housework, the care and nurturing of children or providing care to the aged.

People who work at home are extremely resentful of the lack of understanding and social respect from which they still suffer today. Changes are therefore necessary in order to attach more value to unpaid work and to the social role that those people play. This is what Motion No. 30 proposes. This why we support the motion of the member for Mississauga South, which responds with good intentions to the legitimate claims of those people.

But, in order to achieve these goals, the government must be guided by two key principles: the search for equity or social justice and the search for an efficient allocation of resources.

We support this motion, although we still have some concerns about its implementation and implications.

It would be unacceptable, for instance, if this motion were to send women back to their kitchens, that is to say encourage them to stay home and discourage those who are working outside the home.

It is important to support women's legitimate aspiration to full participation to society, whatever their place of work.

Women are free to choose to stay home to take care of someone in their immediate family, but they are also have a fundamental right to work. We must recognize that being away from a paid job has long-term consequences, because women who leave the workforce not only have to do without the income but, upon returning to work, they will never earn as much as they would have if they had not left.

Motion M-30 would help make up for this loss of income. In most cases, women work outside the home because they are single mothers, have to supplement their partner's income or because they want to contribute to society the knowledge and skills they have. It is important to support those who work at home, but it is equally important to support women who are in an occupational setting or would like to be.

Our second concern has to do with the adverse effects the changes proposed in Motion M-30 could have if they are not implemented with care. Yes, we should help women working in the home, but it is important to watch out for a tax system that would introduce further inequality and exclusion. We must categorically oppose a system that seeks to realize savings by eliminating jobs, and reducing the demand for daycare places and services. Such a system would be a disincentive to jobs and training, and would limit women to the status of part-time workers or make them dependent on their spouse or the government.

Today, and there are a number of reasons for this, the care and raising of children no longer usually require the full-time presence of the mother in the home for the greater part of her working life. We tend to have fewer children, and our children leave home for school at an early age. The phenomena of separation and divorce, and the increase in single parenthood, have also meant that a woman's ability to earn her living has become the best guarantee of economic security for women and children. But let us never forget that this ability is strongly dependent on academic training and work experience and whether women have sufficiently remunerative work.

Motion M-30 is rooted in a good intention, in wishing to provide a tax credit for those looking after relatives at home. It is a way of promoting the equality and autonomy of these women. But let us take care that measures such as those proposed in M-30 do not lose sight of the fact that women are people in their own right and not dependents of a spouse, or people whose identity is lost in that of the family.

My third reservation concerns the beneficiaries of the assistance proposed in Motion M-30. Such measures must, of necessity, be directed towards individuals working in the home. In the demographic and economic context we are now facing, the tax system and transfer payments must support the movement of women towards economic autonomy, by encouraging them to take training, to acquire relevant work experience and to develop their knowledge and know-how on a life long basis. We must be wary of fixating on measures that force individuals to maintain family solidarity, and remember the importance of basing the tax system on individuals first and foremost. The work of a person providing care in the home for children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the aged must be recognized independently of family income.

Any measures likely to slow down women's participation in the labour market and to increase their economic dependency on their spouse or on the government risk having a high social cost over the long term.

Motion No. 30, I repeat, should not be used as an excuse for confining women to home nor as a justification for removing government commitment, which could reduce the benefits already enjoyed by certain categories of people such as seniors or handicapped people.

It should not be used either to make savings on the backs of workers who could lose their jobs because of a decrease in the demand for services. This is no way to create jobs.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its comments on how important it is for Quebec to give itself a comprehensive family policy, something it cannot do right now within the federal system. Indeed, the existence of two levels of government in many areas affecting women's life is cause for overlapping and duplication of programs and structures and, as a result, a waste of taxpayer money.

As for me, I think the interest of Quebec women would be best served if there were only one decision maker and only one provider of funds. For Quebec, it would mean that it would be possible to give itself a consistent and comprehensive policy dealing with the status of woman and the family.

We are convinced that only sovereignty for Quebec will allow us to reach these goals.

[Jerusalem Tunnel, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Co-operation just told us that the Canadian government, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, intends to ask for a ceasefire. I asked a very specific question, namely whether he intends to ask for the tunnel to be closed.

Furthermore, does the minister also intend to support the request by Yasser Arafat for immediate intervention by the Security Council on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip?

[Jerusalem Tunnel, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

The opening of the tunnel in Jerusalem sparked a wave of violence which so far has claimed nearly 100 casualties. In a situation where Jewish colonization has started again and negotiations on the definitive status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are threatened, the opening of this tunnel constitutes a genuine provocation that further compromises the peace process in the Middle East.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether, as other governments have done, the Canadian government intends to ask Israel to close the tunnel in order to restore calm and thus contribute towards resumption of the peace process?

[Le Mouvement De Libération Nationale Du Québec, September 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Raymond Villeneuve, a founding member of the Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec, made totally unacceptable comments about Quebec's Jewish and anglophone communities.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to condemn Mr. Villeneuve's comments, which are intolerable in a democratic society. I remind him that Quebec sovereignists condemn all acts of violence against others. A dispassionate, rational debate on Quebec's future can only be held in a climate of respect for democracy.

Yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemned Mr. Villeneuve even before the hon. member for Saint-Denis raised this matter in the House. The Bloc Quebecois will always condemn those who make racist comments, whether it is Mr. Villeneuve or Mr. Galganov. The Bloc Quebecois urges the hon. member for Saint-Denis to do the same.

[Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-54, which is meant to offset the extraterritorial effects of the Helms-Burton legislation on Canada and Quebec. In fact, we support the action by the Canadian government to protect businesses and corporations in Canada and Quebec, against retaliatory measures taken by foreign countries.

Unfortunately, we see that our neighbours the United States resort more and more often to threats of retaliation against businesses in third countries, even against friends like Canada, in order to isolate countries they have differences with.

The present case involves a political dispute between Cuba and the United States, which is deteriorating into a trade war with extraterritorial consequences. Furthermore, the Helms-Burton legislation could jeopardize the efforts of many countries, including the United States, to further free trade. Finally, we cannot tolerate any country dictating the foreign policy of another.

Bill C-54 is certainly the first step in a reply to the American legislation, but the Minister of International Trade and the Liberal government still have a lot to do in this matter.

Let us see what factors brought about Bill C-54 so that we really understand its scope, utility and shortcomings. The President of the United States signed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, commonly called the Helms-Burton legislation, into law in March 1996.

This law is aimed at stopping foreign businesses that own or use American nationals' properties or interests that were expropriated by Cuba from doing business in that country, on pain of retaliation by the United States. Canada, as well as Quebec, and many countries and organizations such as the OECD, the European Union and the Organization of American States, have already positively opposed to this law, which imposes American jurisdiction outside U.S. territory on non-American businesses and people.

The Helms-Burton law contravenes the principles of international law and the sovereignty of countries on their own territory. The Bloc Quebecois believes the American government would vehemently oppose any form of external interference in the conduct of its affairs. The same applies to Canada. It is therefore important to counter the Helms-Burton law so that the principles established by trade practice relating to disputes between states be respected.

Through Bill C-54, the Liberal government proposes to amend the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act of 1985 to counter the effects the Helms-Burton law would have in Canada and in Quebec. But we must ask ourselves if this response will be sufficient. Will Canadians and Quebecers doing business with Cuba be able to find in it the means to protect themselves against potential American legal action?

To answer this question, let me comment on the titles of the American law that are prejudicial to businesses in Canada and in Quebec, and the measures proposed in Bill C-54 to counter them.

There are two titles in particular in the Helms-Burton law which affect Canadian and Quebec interests: titles III and IV. Title III allows American citizens whose property was expropriated during the Cuban revolution to bring legal action against anyone, American or not, who has invested in the properties they used to own in Cuba. This title was to come into effect on November 1, but the U.S. president has decided to suspend its application until February 1997. Nearly 6,000 lawsuits in this connection are already pending, a good number of them, no doubt, involving Canadian or Quebec companies.

As for Title IV, which came into effect this past August 1, it blocks entry into the U.S. of any person who has invested in expropriated American properties in Cuba. In Canada, the directors of a Toronto firm, as well as their family members, have already been refused entry into the U.S. under this section.

We feel that the problem lies in the fact that the amendments to the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act proposed in Bill C-54 are not complete and are a bit late in coming.

I have just referred to the fact that two specific titles of the Helms-Burton law threatened Canadian and Quebec interests: titles III and IV. Although Bill C-54 addresses the effects of title III, implementation of which is suspended until after the U.S. presidential elections, it proposes nothing to help the cause of Canadians and Quebecers affected by title IV, which is the one that has already caused problems to some Canadians.

The Bloc Quebecois wonders why the Canadian government refrained from taking any action to deal with the ban on entry and residence in the United States, which, as you know, penalizes the executives and shareholders of these companies as well as their spouses and minor children. Why did the government fail to react to this section of the Helms-Burton law?

We all condemn the U.S. Helms-Burton law and deplore the unfortunate impact it may have on the good relations we have with our U.S. neighbours.

We must not forget, however, that this law was not passed yesterday, and that is the problem. It has been one year and seven months since the red flag went up, so the government knows what will happen if it does not act promptly.

In February and in the fall of 1995, the Helms-Burton bill was introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In March 1996 the Prime Minister finally expressed his opposition to this legislation, and it took six more months for him to transform his verbal opposition into a bill.

We are familiar with the delay involved in the NAFTA process for dispute settlement. However, today it is clear there is no excuse for waiting any longer. That being said, the U.S. election should not prevent the government from taking action. That is why we urge the Minister for International Trade to ask for a special panel to be charged with settling this dispute under the auspices of NAFTA. If it refuses to take action to have the U.S. law invalidated under the auspices of NAFTA, the Liberal government will continue to expose Canadians and Quebecers to the adverse effects of the Helms-Burton law, especially title IV.

After expressing its opposition verbally during the past six months, it is perhaps time for the Liberal government to starts some concrete action towards the invalidating the U.S. law.

[Parliament, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently inaugurated her department's new web site on the Internet. According to her press release, a video camera will transmit images of the Parliament buildings on the World Wide Web 24 hours a day.

The minister justifies this expenditure by arguing "that the Peace Tower is one of the most widely recognized symbols of Canada, just like the beaver and the maple leaf". Perhaps she wanted to announce the imminent appearance on our screens of interactive maple leafs and beavers.

What the minister is not telling us is the number of loonies taxpayers will have to shell out to promote the beaver. This new web site is nothing more than another element in the strategy of her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to promote artificially and at great cost a feeling of belonging among Canadians.

Since the referendum, the people of Quebec know that Canada is living on borrowed time, but what we did not know is that its Parliament has now become a virtual reality.