Maud Debien

[Human Rights Day, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proclaimed December 10 Human Rights Day.

In honour of this, the international centre for human rights and democratic development is today awarding the 1999 John Humphrey freedom award to two Burmese activists. Cynthia Maung is a doctor who treats Burmese refugees in Thailand and Min Ko Naing is a student leader imprisoned for his activities.

On behalf of all Bloc Quebecois members, I congratulate the two recipients and encourage them to carry on the fight to reinstate human rights in Burma.

The imprisonment of 150 Burmese democratically elected representatives since 1998 speaks very clearly of the state of human rights in that country.

There is a long way to go before a stop is put to the repression and political coercion visited on the people of this planet. This Human Rights Day gives us the opportunity to renew our firm commitment to ensuring equality for all and the right to freedom.

[Chiapas, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the international civilian commission observing human rights reminds the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the situation in Chiapas is deteriorating increasingly.

The Mexican government is continuing, according to foreign observers, to seriously infringe on human rights and manifestly lacks the political will to reach a peaceful solution.

Can the minister tell us what specific action he intends to take to bring Mexico, one of Canada's principal trading partners, back in line?

[Haiti, December 2nd, 1999]

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

The Americans have already announced their intention to withdraw their troops stationed in Haiti by the end of this month. This decision may result in the withdrawal of members of the UN peace forces.

This is truly a policy of abandonment that would further jeopardize the fragile peace in that country and could lead to a situation worse than the one that prevailed before 1994.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on the peacekeeping operations in Haiti and indicate whether he intends to ask the security council to extend—

[Recognition Of Crimes Against Humanity Act, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the bill put forward by the hon. member for Brampton Centre gives me pause for reflection on a very serious issue. I am talking, of course, about genocide and other crimes against humanity that we should never forget, let alone pretend that they never happened.

As members know, these last few years, Bloc Quebecois members have supported every measure to underline and commemorate tragic events where men have shown how inhumane and violent they can be at times. We have stood up against those who tried to wipe out all memories of these tragedies.

Let me remind my hon. colleagues that, in this House, in 1996 to be exact, the Liberal government toned down a motion concerning the Armenian genocide by dropping the word genocide and replacing it with the term tragic event.

That same year, the Minister for International Cooperation pressured the mayor of Montreal to abandon his plans to erect a monument to the victims of the Armenian genocide. Again, the minister would have preferred tragic event instead of the term genocide.

At the time, I rose in the House to remind my colleagues that toning down wordings in such a context is tantamount to confirming that the final step in a genocide is to attempt, after the fact ,to deny its very existence, or at the very least to minimize its importance. That is what is called selective memory.

For the Bloc Quebecois, genocide and all other crimes against humanity must not be hushed up. There are lessons to be learned from them. Also, the words used to describe these barbaric acts must not be used as a pretext to trivialize unspeakable acts.

Let us not forget that our sense of history and our collective memory will keep alive the memory of humanity's past.

The contents of Bill C-224, which we are now debating, are pretty clearly defined in the title, an act to establish by the beginning of the twenty-first century an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity as defined by the United Nations that have been perpetrated during the twentieth century.

My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself will not oppose initiatives aimed at reminding people of past errors so they will ever occur again.

Having worked in education, I find it essential that our young people have a better knowledge of all these tragic mistakes and all these instances of genocide.

Therefore, we are interested in the idea of informing the public about genocide and other crimes against humanity through an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

It could be an interesting tool for teaching the young and the not so young.

But the teaching of history is also important, because not all Quebecers and Canadians have a chance to visit museums.

So that future generations recall these human tragedies, maybe they could be included in the curricula of our history courses. This would be another good way of ensuring that these events live on in our collective memory.

We therefore see the debate on the bill introduced by the member for Brampton Centre as a unique opportunity to recall the growing concerns of Quebecers and Canadians with respect to major crimes against humanity.

However, it is not for the Bloc Quebecois to impose themes or exhibit material on museums. It is not for politicians in this House to decide these matters.

We are here today to raise a concern that is important to the constituents we represent and to express a wish and support for a future exhibit. It is from this perspective that we feel that Bill C-224 is well-intentioned and that we support it in principle, but we feel that the Canadian Museum of Civilization should have full latitude to make any decisions.

As parliamentarians, our responsibility goes beyond supporting the idea of an exhibit on genocides and crimes against humanity. For example, we know that Canada was and still is a haven for too many people responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The Bloc Quebecois has supported measures to amend the Criminal Code to allow the removal and expulsion of war criminals. We are still waiting for another amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow us to judge these people here.

This is a concrete measure that the government and parliamentarians will have to adopt some day if they are serious about learning from the past.

Unfortunately, many genocides and crimes against humanity were committed during the 20th century. We are most familiar with the plight of Armenians, the Holocaust and, more recently, the atrocities in Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi, East Timor, Bosnia or Kosovo, to name but a few.

For people to remember, for our collective memory to remain intact, for reconciliation to be possible among people, society must remember its epic moments, but also its darkest ones.

It is in the recognition of the peoples' right to exist that justice and freedom take on their full meaning. Is justice not freedom in action?

[Liberal Government, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems pointless to ask the Liberal government questions. It is under investigation.

The Prime Minister is unable to answer for his actions during the APEC summit; there is an investigation under way.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of National Revenue are unable to answer questions about Telefilm Canada; an investigation is under way.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are unable to answer questions about the airline industry because the Canadian Transportation Agency and the European Union are conducting investigations.

One wonders whether the entire government is not under investigation. To every question of the least sensitive nature posed by the opposition, it seems that there is an investigation in the works that prevents the government from replying.

Yet the government's answers are one of the only forms of accountability it faces in our democracy. The government's refusal to answer is not serving democracy, on the contrary.

To what question will the government reply now? The bets are on.

[The Late Hon. Alan Macnaughton, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, we heard of the passing away of Alan A Macnaughton, on the eve of his 96th birthday.

He had a remarkably long life. His professional and political accomplishments were many.

He obtained his law degree from McGill University in 1926 and went on to post-graduate studies at the London School of Economics.

Mr. Macnaughton then practised law in Montreal before being elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1949, under the Liberals of Louis Saint-Laurent, in the Montreal riding of Mount-Royal. In 1958, he became the first opposition member to chair the public accounts committee.

In 1963, he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons and, in 1966, he was called to the Senate where he was to sit until the mid-1970s.

Mr. Macnaughton will be remembered as a highly talented man who is said to have had the greatest respect for democracy and its institutions. He will leave his mark as a skilled businessman and an expert in Quebec and Canadian law. Until very recently, he was still working at his Montreal office.

On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I would like to extend to his friends and family our sincere condolences.

[Semaine Des Bibliothèques Publiques Du Québec, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Semaine des bibliothèques publiques du Québec, which is taking place this week, seeks to make Quebecers aware of the multiple resources provided by libraries.

Public libraries are no longer the austere and cold places that some of us may remember. Quebec's 974 libraries offer such resources as books, records, videos, CD-ROMs and the Internet. Libraries are user-friendly and accessible. They rely on modern technology, while acting as keepers of our culture.

Also, as pointed out in a Statistic Canada study, there is a connection between reading to young children and school success. In Laval, for example, libraries organized L'Heure du conte pour les bambins, public dictations, including the famous Dictée du Nord, and readings by well-known authors.

I am taking this opportunity to thank all those people in Quebec who help make public libraries lively and thriving places to learn, discover and dream.

[Hazardous Products Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain the position of the Bloc Quebecois with respect to Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.

I congratulate and thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre for raising this issue once again in this House on behalf of her party. We want to tell her that we support her bill.

This bill is intended to prohibit the advertisement and importation of consumer products that contain a certain level of lead or cadmium, unless they are excluded by regulation. It also bans the advertisement and importation of toys containing phthalates and intended for children under the age of three.

Members will agree with me that we do not hear about phthalates every day, and yet we are probably in contact with them almost daily.

Phthalates are chemical agents representing a family of synthetic compounds used in polyvinyl chloride or vinyl, commonly know as PVCs. For example, we can think of plastic covers, food wrap, furniture, floor coverings, plastic bottles, knapsacks, raincoats and so on, all seemingly very innocent to us.

What is of concern to us today are the properties of this product used in toys for children to make them more flexible, softer and transparent.

Phthalates are often used in the manufacture of toys intended for newborns, such as pacifiers, teething rings, rattles, and other soft objects intended to be gummed and sucked by babies. Most of these toys for children contain between 10% and 40% phthalates.

The risk to health that these toys pose is easy to understand. Phthalates do not bind to polyvinyl chloride or vinyl, which are the toys basic material. Phthalates remain mobile, in suspension, and may separate from the PVCs. When a child chews on toys, for example, the phthalates may escape. Young children could therefore directly ingest phthlates.

As for cadmium and lead, a Health Canada study released last year concluded, and I quote:

Both lead and cadmium are toxic substances that are hazardous to the health and safety of children. Lead is especially hazardous to children's health. The latest medical and scientific research has shown that exposure to even very low levels of lead may have harmful effects on the intellectual and behavioural development of infants and young children.

In this same study, Health Canada went on to state that the levels of lead in certain toys far exceeded what they should be. It could well have added, and rightly so, that lead can damage the nervous system. Lead is known to be neurotoxic, and has the capacity to cause permanent, irreversible brain damage.

One might argue that there are regulations on lead, which is true. However these apply only to paint, ceramic or glass products, pencils, crayons and artist brushes. The Canadian government's altruism has led it to regulate paint more stringently than children's toys.

In response to a question from my colleague from Drummond last November 16, the Minister of Health stated here in this House:

Today as a precautionary measure Health Canada announced as a warning to all parents that they should remove from the home certain objects that are made of vinyl and that are used or designed for use in the mouth of infants and young children. We are co-operating with the Retail Council of Canada to remove those objects from the shelves of stores across the country.

We know that Austria, Sweden and Denmark are much stricter and have already regulated children's products, because they felt that children's health required more than a simple warning from the health department.

There is still more, however. PVC containing lead, cadmium and phthalates is used not only in toys, but also in the manufacture of medical devices. However, we feel that, even though scientists are divided on the real impact of using phthalates, we cannot take risks with the health of Quebecers and Canadians, particularly children.

The government has a responsibility, and that responsibility is not to sidestep the issue and attempt to discredit people concerned about these issues, but to ensure that all the scientific evidence is provided and that medical products and toys are safe.

In 1998, for instance, Health Canada investigated intravenous transfusion and injections bags that gave off phthalates. The department's conclusions were cause for concern. Health Canada has announced that the benefits of the current use of phthalates in transfusion bags outweighed the risks that might be associated with exposure to this product.

This is a far cry from scientific evidence that the product is safe and risk free. Health Canada is merely saying that the risks to health of transfusion bags are not as great as the product's benefits. The benefits would outweigh the risks, but Health Canada admits that risks do exist.

In fact, phthalates used in medical products would be even more toxic than those used in children's toys. According to Health Canada, phthalates used in intravenous transfusion and injection bags would be six times more toxic than those used in toys.

Is it not ironic that in Canada phthalates are labelled as hazardous products when they are to be shipped in barrels, but considered totally harmless and even edible when they are in the mouths of our children or in the veins of our patients? Let us be clear. Phthalates are as harmful in the hospital and in the home as they are in barrels.

While the Liberal government is twiddling its thumbs, the private sector seems to have engaged, although very partially, in a self-regulation process. Baxter International, a major manufacturer of IV bags, is in the process of replacing PVC in its products. Nike, Deutche Telekom, Ikea and LEGO have all adopted plans to gradually reduce the amount of PVC in their products.

The world's largest toy manufacturer, the American company Mattel, is doing the same thing. I refuse to believe that all these companies are taking these measures because phthalates are harmless.

Would these companies, and many others, have scientific evidence that Health Canada does not have? Should we let less scrupulous companies fall through the cracks?

On April 30, 1998 the Liberals used their majority in the House to defeat a motion requiring that manufacturers indicate on the label when toys contain phthalates.

Knowing that young children are a lot more likely to be affected by toxic substances than adults and knowing how lead, cadmium and phthalates can be hazardous to our health, one can see how the government is being totally irresponsible.

It is high time the government started to take this issue seriously and modernize its legislation on phthalates, lead and cadmium.

With this bill, we are calling on the government to be proactive. It is a government's role and duty when it comes to public health. Will the government wait for tragedies to occur before taking action?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to our colleague from the Reform Party giving examples of the changing meaning of words throughout history, and he is absolutely right. His examples were very pertinent. He also said it was the role of parliament to give a legal value to words and to their profound meaning.

Listening to the hon. member, it would appear that only married heterosexual spouses forming a family with children are worthy and capable of fidelity, love, mutual support and sharing.

I have a question for him: Does he believe that words are not the only things that can evolve over time, but that attitudes could as well?

[Petitions, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by a number of Quebecers and dealing with the Canada Post Corporation Act.

The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prohibits rural route mail carriers from having collective bargaining rights.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively are among the fundamental freedoms of every person. To deny such freedom is discriminatory against rural workers.

Therefore, parliament must repeal subsection 13(5) as quickly as possible, to comply with its own charter and to respect the right to organize and to collective bargaining.