Vivian Barbot

[Canadian Forces, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am astonished that it is necessary to make such a motion.

In my opinion, and no doubt in the opinion of most members of our society, because our soldiers are required to work in such dangerous conditions, it follows that they must have the best possible equipment and the support they need.

Could it be that, for years, we have so neglected our basic duty to these soldiers, who risk their lives to preserve others' lives, that a motion is needed today in order for the government to provide them with an essential: quality equipment?

But we are not talking about updating the army's equipment annually to keep step with technological advances, even though I feel that this is necessary in many respects. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable that soldiers should be at the front with outdated or non-operational weapons or equipment.

However, this motion is warranted, because Canadian soldiers do not have the best weapons or the best equipment to do their jobs. An example of this would be the fact that Canadian soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan not long ago with the wrong type of camouflage. Such negligence puts them at greater risk and compromises their safety.

In addition, soldiers are increasingly fighting for their survival, especially during the increasingly dangerous missions they are called on to undertake. They need equipment adapted to these new situations and the specific risks they face. For example, the Iltis jeeps proved to be unsuited to the Afghan mission. We must not forget that this cost the lives of at least three soldiers.

Moreover, Canada lacks the clear foreign and defence policies that are needed before troops are sent on dangerous missions. With such policies, Canada could set specific parameters and more effectively plan for missions for which it would be called on to deploy troops. Preliminary studies would help in accurately determining needs, the type of assistance required from Canada, the number of soldiers we actually have and the appropriate equipment for conditions in the field.

It goes without saying that the conditions in Kosovo were not the same as they are for the soldiers in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the lack of forecasting in our foreign policy and our defence policy indicates that the Conservatives are amateurs at this, just like the Liberals were.

We realize there are budgetary constraints. We are in favour of mechanisms that ensure that we have the best equipment at the best price, namely by having open and honest tenders. In June, the government did not respect this principle in every procurement contract. The Bloc Québécois would like to see the taxpayers' money used wisely, which is why it is recommending the implementation of adequate control mechanisms, including the review in committee of contracts worth more than $100 million. I want to remind hon. members that the former Canadian Alliance members, who now make up the Conservative Party, were in favour of this measure when they were in the opposition.

It is also important to plan for maximum spinoffs from the military contracts to benefit Canada and Quebec. The government's behaviour on that front has us concerned. It did not think it was a good idea to adopt measures to ensure that a significant portion of the planes would be made in Canada, in Quebec in particular, where 55% of Canada's aerospace industry is found.

Furthermore, we find that one way to minimize the need for military intervention is to focus on achieving the UN target of investing 0.7% of GDP by 2015 in official development assistance programs. This objective was adopted by the United Nations in 1970 and Canada promised to respect it.

Nonetheless, since the early 1990s, the official development assistance envelope has not stopped shrinking, going from a little less than 0.5% in 1991-92 to 0.25% in 2000-01. In 2004, Canada ranked 14th out of the 22 countries that make up the OECD Development Assistance Committee, when it was sixth nine years earlier.

In summary, weapons and materiel are only part of the equation. A good strategy on the ground, based on a proper concept of the international situation, is vital. Adequate development assistance is also a vital prerequisite. It seems clear that what is currently lacking in Afghanistan is not just equipment, but the means for reconstruction and programs likely to improve the living conditions of the average Afghan. That is what will ultimately keep the soldiers alive and make their mission a success.

[Les Québécois, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, November 27, 2006 will forever be a historic day for Quebeckers. For the first time, the people of Quebec were recognized as a nation. The motion adopted by the House of Commons was accepted by an overwhelming majority of members.

This recognition, which we had long been calling for, acknowledges the fact that Quebeckers form a nation.

What distinguishes the Bloc Québécois as a political option in this House is that we see Quebec's future differently. It will be up to Quebeckers to determine their future.

The step that we have taken will inspire and guide the Bloc Québécois in its mission, which is still to defend Quebec's national interests and promote its sovereignty.

[Music, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lucille Girard, an octogenarian and co-founder of the Maison des Grands-Parents de Villeray in the riding of Papineau, contradicts the notion that the young and the not so young in our society have little in common. She is the delightful founder of a project that brings together generations through their love of music. Since last May, she has been introducing the tam-tam to young people who do not always channel their energy in a positive way.

Another activity that they can join is the Chanter pour chanter group, a group of singers of all ages, accompanied by a piano, violin and guitar. According to Mrs. Girard, this is a leisure activity that brings people together, helps develop friendships and dispels the isolation of the various generations.

Thank you, Mrs. Girard, for your determination and contagious enthusiasm. You are proof that it is possible to bridge the generation gap.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see how aware the member is of what is going on in Quebec. Not only is he aware, but he has a special fondness for Quebec, of which he knows all the institutions by heart. He will be a choice candidate when we achieve our independence. He can apply for immigration and we will pay special attention to his application.

I would like to ask the member if he understands the fact that in the motion proposed by his party, Quebec is being boxed into a reality. The motion we are proposing does not say anything else but that we are Quebeckers and that Quebec is a nation, without any condition. The rest is all hypothetical. Right now, what the members opposite are trying to make us say is not at all what is in the motion. I want to know if the member fully understands that.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to respond to my colleague and to tell him that we are indeed within Canada. That is stating the obvious.

We, the 50 members of the Bloc Québécois, would not be here if we were not within Canada. The redundancy only accentuates the fact that there may be something fishy here. The fact that motives are being impugned to us is also part of the game. It is like an old movie that is shown to us again and again, but this time we will not be fooled.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we Quebeckers from the Bloc Québécois tabled in this House today reads as follows:

That this House recognize that Quebeckers form a nation.

What we want to debate is the recognition of the fact that we, in Quebec, form a nation, nothing more and nothing less. The Prime Minister deemed appropriate to add the mention, “within a united Canada”. We are prepared to present an amendment that would say, “currently within Canada”. Indeed, we recognize that we are within Canada and that, currently, Canada forms a country. As people know, we Quebeckers want something else. When we say that we want Quebec to be recognized as a nation, we are asking that this feature of Quebec be recognized. This does not question the features of the other nation, and it does not put an end to anything. It is simply a matter of recognition. This recognition should be treated with a little more respect than it has been so far.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by adding “within a united Canada”, he will trigger issues about Canada's unity? We consider that Quebec is a nation and, regardless of what anyone may say, that is our reality. The other parties should try to understand that. In my view, this is a tactic, but people will not be fooled by it.

The Prime Minister and the other parties are interpreting the intention that we had when we proposed this motion. Yesterday, in his speech, the Prime Minister said:

—the real intent behind the motion by the leader of the Bloc and the sovereignist camp is perfectly clear. It is to recognize not what the Québécois are, but what the sovereignists would like them to be.

In this regard, it seems to me that we are the only ones who can tell what our intentions are. The Prime Minister really cannot know those intentions, and by presenting things in this fashion, he is attempting to get us stuck with a vision that is not ours. We have a right to consider that Quebec is a nation, with or without Canada.

In Quebec, there has for years been a consensus that Quebeckers form a nation. On October 30, 2003, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

The motion does not say that we form a nation if we remain in Canada. Neither does it say that we form a nation if we leave Canada. It says that we form a nation, period. The National Assembly is stating that it reaffirms the existence of the nation of Quebec. In fact, this resolution echoes what governments of Quebec have been saying for decades. I will read some quotes from governments of Quebec.

In April 1946, Maurice Duplessis said:

I firmly believe that Canadian confederation is a pact of union between two great races.

In November 1963, Jean Lesage said:

Quebec is not defending the principle of provincial autonomy because a principle is involved, but for the more important reason that it views autonomy as the concrete condition not for its survival, which is henceforth assured, but for its affirmation as a people.

For his part, Daniel Johnson Sr. said in February 1968:

The Constitution should not have as its sole purpose to federate territories, but also to associate in equality two linguistic and cultural communities, two founding peoples, two societies, two nations, in the sociological meaning of the term.

Later, René Lévesque said:

—Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination...This right to control its own national destiny is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has.

In December 1994, Jacques Parizeau, to whom the Prime Minister referred yesterday, said:

To date, Canada's basic law has failed to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, a people or even a distinct society.

That is a sad commentary.

Finally, in October 1999, Lucien Bouchard said:

Quebec is the only majority francophone society on the North American continent with a well-defined land base and political institutions which it controls. The Quebec people has all the classic attributes of a nation... The Quebec people adheres to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration—

The product of immigration myself, I am one of those who have been welcomed on Quebec soil as a full-fledged Quebecker. I have been here since 1967. I can therefore echo the last part of what Mr. Bouchard said and confirm that the Quebec people to whom I proudly belong “adheres to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration”.

This goes to show that Quebec has been a nation for quite some time. We are not interested in forming a nation provided that we remain within Canada. No one should force a people to stay in a system that it does not believe in. Things will unfold democratically. But what we are looking for today is full and complete recognition of what we are, nothing more, nothing less.

[Quebec, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying he wants to have a federalism of openness. Since his election, it has been hard to see any concrete examples of that.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how his approach is any different from that of the previous government, which did its best to deny the existence of the Quebec nation?

[Quebec, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, true to their old habits, the Liberals are tearing themselves apart trying to figure out if they are going to acknowledge something that is obvious, that Quebec is a nation. For his part, the Prime Minister refuses to talk about it and simply utters empty words that allow him to deny the Québécois difference.

Instead of continuing to dodge the issue, can the Prime Minister tell us whether to him Quebec is a nation?

[Canada-EU Summit, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, it is becoming more and more difficult to ask questions when the government members do not even understand what they are being asked.

The Prime Minister does not hesitate to attend APEC and NATO meetings. Furthermore, his government refused to support a unanimous motion to defer votes during his absence. Yet the Prime Minister claims that his government's minority status justifies postponing the Canada-EU summit.

Is the real reason for this the fact that the Prime Minister is afraid European leaders will confront him about his pathetic climate change record?

[Canada-EU Summit, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister's absence from the Canada-EU summit had nothing to do with his fear of being confronted in public about his U-turn on the Kyoto protocol because he did not know what was on the agenda.

Yesterday, the Finnish ambassador said that the agenda has been known for months and that the Kyoto protocol is on it. Does the government have a new story for the House now that the ambassador has discredited its previous story?