House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 26% of the vote.
Business of Supply April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the member may consider it naive, but what I said earlier is that there is a situation throughout the country. We do not understand why only Canada is contributing in the combat zone. Our citizens want us to work on development. In Afghanistan, there are areas where that is happening and we could be there and put more emphasis on that aspect. We should not put all our money into the war effort; it should also be allocated to reconstruction and development efforts.
Business of Supply April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, what I understand is that Canada is one of the partners in Afghanistan. What our party is saying about the war is that we believe our efforts have been sufficient in that regard. Our citizens want us to be engaged in reconstruction and development. Other countries are involved. Canada could perhaps use diplomacy to ensure that others contribute what is required to the war effort.
As far as we are concerned, our citizens are asking the Government of Canada to now put itself in the reconstruction and development mode. In my opinion, the Canadian government should respect the will of the people.
Business of Supply April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I believe the hon. member has misunderstood what I said. We oppose the motion as it is currently worded.
Furthermore, for the past few days, the government has been telling everyone that the Bloc, in particular, does not support the soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are proud of the soldiers fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people and we support the work they are doing. Soldiers do what they are asked to do. What we are questioning, however, is how the government can get away with, first of all, not providing our troops with the tools they need and, second, not giving them realistic objectives.
We are saying that war is one thing. Sending our soldiers is one thing. But it is another thing altogether to focus only on one way to achieve results. There is also the whole development aspect that is extremely important and deserves an equal amount of attention.
Business of Supply April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the motion introduced by my NDP colleagues concerning the future of the mission in Afghanistan.
The Bloc Québécois' position can be summarized as follows: we oppose this motion because it calls for a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan. Canada must inform its allies before withdrawing its troops. On the basis of the information available at the moment, the Bloc believes that the mission should end in February 2009. Between now and then, we are calling on the government to reconfigure operations there. Unfortunately, the use of force is necessary, and at this stage, a solely diplomatic and humanitarian solution is bound to fail.
We believe that NATO must be informed now that Canadian troops will not remain in Afghanistan beyond 2009.
That being said, sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan would be irresponsible toward the people and the government of Afghanistan, as well as toward our allies, who are counting on Canada's collaboration until then.
However, it would be just as irresponsible to carry out this international mission without modifying our approach or accepting criticism, as the Prime MInister is doing. We must find a better balance.
The Quebec nation has its own set of values and interests. The Bloc Québécois' role is to express these values and interests internationally and in Parliament. Every time the Bloc has to take a stand, it tries to imagine what a sovereign Quebec government would do, given the same circumstances.
We are not like the other opposition parties. We have won a majority of the seats in Quebec in each of the five elections in which we participated, which means that we represent Quebec in Ottawa.
Quebeckers have everything to gain from advances in international law, multilateralism, and better distribution of wealth among rich and poor countries.
We do not believe that we should respond to terrorism with force, but that when force becomes necessary, it must be grounded in international law and the principles underlying the charter of the United Nations.
Those are the guiding principles we have applied in the case of Afghanistan.
The international community's activities in Afghanistan are a test for the United Nations, for NATO and for the future of multilateral interventions around the world.
The reconstruction efforts are focused on fighting poverty, injustice and corruption, all of which create fertile ground for terrorism and instability.
This is why the Bloc Québécois supported this international intervention from the beginning, and continues to support it.
However, we have no intention of blindly supporting the Canadian government, its policies and its decisions.
This explains our refusal to give the government a blank cheque at the vote in May 2006 on extending Canada's mission.
The Conservative government would like to engage us in a never-ending “war on terror” alongside the American administration.
The Minister of National Defence said that Canada was at war in Afghanistan in retribution for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He does not realize that we are long past September 11 and have moved on to a new stage.
In the beginning, western countries decided to intervene in Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda from carrying out more terrorist attacks under the protection of the Taliban regime. In doing so, we had the opportunity to stop the atrocities being committed against the Afghan people. At the time, the Bloc Québécois supported this international intervention.
Once the Taliban had been removed from power and the terrorists had been scattered, disrupted and driven into hiding, the nature of the intervention had to be drastically altered.
After the departure of the Taliban, the priority was to help Afghans rebuild their country, to not return to how things were before 2002. The United Nations then came into the picture.
At the 2001 Bonn conference and the 2002 Tokyo conference, the international community set the objective of focussing international intervention on reconstruction of the country.
Rebuilding the Afghan state requires ensuring security until the Afghan government can take responsibility for protecting its territory. However, it is unrealistic to believe that security can be provided by military means alone. Defeating the Taliban regime was relatively easy; achieving peace and rebuilding a viable Afghan state is a far more demanding task. The fundamental objective of the international coalition and the United Nations is to reconstruct the economy, the democracy and a viable Afghan state enabling Afghans to take control of their country and their development.
Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished and devastated countries on the planet. Per capita income is less than $1 per day, child mortality is very high and life expectancy is no more than 45 years. We are talking about a country with the youngest population in the world. We must give these young people hope for the future. It was in this context that the London conference was held in early 2006, bringing together the Afghan government and the international community. On that occasion, the participants adopted the Afghanistan compact, and set goals and a five-year timetable to improve three key areas: security and governance; the rule of law and human rights; and economic and social development.
The Canadian government must explain to the people that we are not in Afghanistan to serve American interests or to wage war. The Prime Minister must also clearly recognize that the situation is about to become critical in southern Afghanistan and, that if nothing is done to address it, we run the risk of getting stuck there. He must acknowledge the urgency and the need for real progress in the areas of development and humanitarian aid before the summer and the next Taliban offensive.
The Prime Minister must show leadership on the world stage and convince NATO and our allies in Afghanistan to change the direction of the international intervention quickly and thoroughly, and to do more.
He should also quickly correct the deplorable way he is conducting his foreign policy. The Conservative government has alienated a number of Canada's partners on the world stage. It has done so at the worst possible time, when it should be convincing our allies to contribute more to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Some changes are essential, and these changes are necessary and urgent. The reason for the urgency is that the situation has deteriorated since 2006, especially in the south and the east.
Between 2002 and 2005 there was some notable progress: free elections were held; the foundation for rule of law was laid; the economy grew; real progress was made in the creation of an Afghan army; there was significant mine clearance; schools and clinics were built; and infrastructure was restored. However, since the beginning of 2006, things have been spiralling out of control. There is still time to change the direction of international intervention, but it is becoming an urgent matter. We will not earn the support of the Afghan people simply by fighting the Taliban with weapons and chasing them into the mountains. I must say that the first major change that needs to happen in Afghanistan is to make clear and tangible development aid a top priority. The objectives of the international community must first and foremost be the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan and its democracy.
Since I am short on time, I will not take this any further, but these are a few of the reasons why we are voting against today's motion.
Afghanistan April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence claims to have reached an agreement recently with the authorities in Kandahar to allow Canadian emissaries to visit Afghan detainees and make sure they are being well treated.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to make sure that all the prisons, even the ones outside Kandahar, can be visited, so that Canada does not violate the Geneva convention?
Afghanistan April 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot guarantee that this verbal agreement his colleague is talking about will turn into a written agreement that he can table here in this House.
Can the minister assure us that this agreement will lead to compliance with the Geneva convention, which Canada has signed, and that he will make sure it applies throughout Afghanistan?
Interparliamentary Delegations April 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the parliamentary delegation of the Canadian section of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which attended the meeting of the AFP political committee in Pré-Saint-Didier, Valle d'Aosta, Italy, from February 28 to March 3, 2007.
Afghanistan April 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit here in this House that he and his fellow ministers deliberately hid the existence of that report? Why did he and his fellow ministers, when asked about this matter, fail to inform the House? Will he admit that he and the other ministers knowingly hid the truth, not only from the public, but also here in this House?
Afghanistan April 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told this House that he was looking into this issue and that the allegations of torture had not been confirmed. Yet, we now know that he had a copy of the report in his possession and that it was senior officials from his own department who informed him of the matter.
How could the minister cover up evidence on Monday concerning the allegations, when we now know that he had received the report from his own senior officials?
Patriation of the Constitution April 17th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, a constitution was forcibly imposed on Quebec.
At the time, with the exception of Louis Duclos, the federal member for Montmorency—whose name should go down in history—the members of this House from Quebec voted in favour of that law, demonstrating that defending their own people took second place for them. Fortunately, now there are Bloc Québécois members, for whom Quebec comes first.
Our predecessors fought for recognition of our people and equality for Canada's two founding peoples. Instead, Canada imposed its Constitution on Quebec. Today, the ball is in the federalists' court. We, the Quebec sovereignists, want all the powers of a sovereign nation. Until then, we will take back all the powers Quebec can get. Quebeckers have tasted freedom, and anyone who tastes that fruit can never have enough of it.