Antoine Dubé

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask you whether the words dark deeds, as used by the government House leader, is parliamentary.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

--despite the protests of the House leader. As all members have noticed, we are dealing this morning a huge legislative void, for which this government is responsible. Fortunately, we have this debate. The party in power obviously has nothing new to propose, at least for the time being.

Since we are given the opportunity in this debate, and we hear a lot about it in the news, we will discuss the issue of secret ballots in committees. I would like the hon. member who introduced this motion to explain his position on this point.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for his speech and most of all for the initiative he took this morning by introducing this motion--

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, although I do not share some of the member's views, I must admit that I agree with what he had to say about the debate we are having on Bill C-3, namely that because the House was prorogued we have been forced, as it were, to do again what we had already started, a waste of time that could have been avoided if the House had not been prorogued.

One wonders why we had to have a throne speech when several bills still remained to be considered. And last, these bills are being brought back to the House and committee work will have to be done all over again. On this point I agree with the previous speaker.

However, he also mentioned the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and the fact that the caisse had problems one year with some of its investments. It is true that there was a drop once, but to my knowledge it has happened only once in over 30 years since the caisse was created; and during all that time it has been making investments and profits. It is extremely profitable.

I would like the member to give us the opportunity to somewhat change his opinion of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. In keeping with his party's ideology, he favours both private and public investments. Is he criticizing the current pension plan? He is critical of the government's position, which we support since, for all intents and purposes, it is the same as what we have in Quebec with the Caisse de dépôt et placement.

I would like the member to tell us what solution his party is advocating to make sure that, at the end of the day, taking into account demography, the demographic deficit and so on, our young people too will able to enjoy a pension. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

Moreover, as I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Rights, I know that the member is concerned about how little money is being invested abroad. I would like him to reassure me as to what his party's position is regarding ethical investment, that is refraining from investing in businesses around the world when it goes against human rights.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-14, an act providing for controls on the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. While it was the minister who introduced the bill today, everyone knows that it was the hon. member who raised this issue last year.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Manicouagan, who addressed this issue earlier today. He gave an excellent speech and presented the various and very important aspects of this activity, while also stressing the need to do this properly, using controls. There is the whole issue of certification, among other things. The hon. member for Manicouagan is right when he says that, when it comes to protecting the interests of his region and of Quebec, he does so vigorously, as he did this morning, for which I congratulate him.

As members know, this is a very important activity. The rough diamond industry is a US $7.5 billion industry. It is said that 70 million jewels are created every year in the world, for a value in excess of US $58 billion. So, this is a very important issue.

The point raised by the hon. member is that part of what was done within the Kimberley process by NGOs and others has identified a minimum of 4% of this economic activity as going to purchase weapons. In one specific region, Africa, the three countries mentioned most often are Angola, Sierra Leone and the Congo. Trading is done through neighbouring or other countries.

Africa may seem far away, but what goes on there concerns us all. I do not see it as a waste of time to debate this subject today. The more debates there are in the House, and the more press coverage there is, the greater public awareness of the importance of this issue will be.

If I may draw a parallel here, last Friday I was with a secondary school class studying Amnesty International. These young people are very much attuned to what is going on in the rest of the world. They were quick to ask “What can we do?” People may feel helpless, but there is a lot that can be done, particularly public education so that people can be better informed and take action indirectly, even if this only means making their opinions known publicly.

The debate was raised by NGOs and by MPs, but many people took an interest, resulting rather quickly in pressure which culminated in the Kimberly process. There have been 12 international debates on the topic, some here in Ottawa, and things got moving pretty quickly.

It is urgent for this bill to be passed in order to ratify Canada's commitment in connection with this process. We in the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of this bill. We acknowledge the impact it will have. That impact has already begun to be felt, even if it has not yet been implemented, but it is a step in the right direction.

Many other things should be done. For example, over the last ten years, 500,000 civilians have been victimized by weapons and human rights violations in the three countries that I mentioned. I am referring to civilians who have died, but there are also civilians who have been injured. Other members have mentioned this. There have been atrocities and we must do something.

However, in terms of a broader policy, we must also consider the sale of weapons. There are countries that continue to sell weapons to groups and even to armies from certain countries, sales that are not always made under proper trade conditions.

There is also another way. I am referring to international assistance. There has been much talk of late of the crisis in Afghanistan and in Africa. Now the possibility of a conflict with Iraq looms. All too often, we forget about civilians.

I do not wish to be partisan, because not all issues are matters for partisan comments, but we have to face certain facts. In 2001, of 22 countries in the world that provided assistance, Canada ranked 18th. The country that ranked last, in 22nd place, was the United States. When it comes to aid, Canada must not view the U.S. as a model, because they may be the least generous country in terms of international assistance.

However, there are other countries that could serve as better models. For example, Denmark, in that same year, gave more than 1% of its gross domestic product; Norway gave 0.83%; Holland also gave 0.83%; the little country known as Luxembourg gave 0.8%, Sweden gave 0.76%. In the end, these are the only countries that reached the standard set by the United Nations, the famous 0.7% of GDP in international aid contributions.

With these conflicts, the reality is that the victims are people who have been displaced, people who are hungry, and there are health problems. We must keep this in mind.

As I said, we support the bill. Naturally, it is a step in the right direction, and is was urgently needed. We are therefore in agreement. We will make no attempt, either in the House or in committee, to slow down the passage of the bill. On the contrary, we will be very cooperative.

Pending ratification, people are still dying because of diamonds. In this respect, I will draw a parallel with the impact of oil around the world. Where there is oil, there are often conflicts. Oil fuels conflicts. It may not be the root cause, but it fuels conflicts around the world. That is number one.

There is also illicit drugs—let us not forget them—in Colombia, in some Asian countries and elsewhere. The diamond, however, because of its small size, combined with enormous value, is easy to market, especially under the current conditions.

Incidentally, I wish to respond to the question raised by students from the group representing the Commission scolaire de Lévis with whom I met on Friday about what young people can do. Of course, they must raise their own awareness. And often, interested young people are in a position to influence their parents at home.

I would add another element here, namely ethical investment. Sometimes, people unwittingly contribute to activities in certain countries which are more or less dubious from an ethical point of view, whether they concern oil or other economic goods such as diamonds.

One must be very aware of this possibility. One can ask questions at one's mutual fund managers' meeting: Where are we investing? It would seem that large corporations are increasingly aware of this. The impact is extremely important. There are also our actions as consumers.

Let us take the example of diamonds. In Canada, buying diamonds is probably done properly, but again the Kimberley process must be more closely followed. We often hear people say that, when they visited certain countries, they were able to buy goods—I am referring to jewels—for such and such a price, but that they did not pay any tax. They probably got these jewels on the black market. First, it is a risky thing to do. Also, not only are these people not sure of the quality of the diamonds, they are also contributing to an underground economy that can serve non-humanitarian purposes.

Today, I would like to bring my small contribution to this debate. After hearing our party critic and the other hon. members who have spoken on this issue today, I can see that that the House is off to a good start this week. I heard reasonable, intelligent and useful comments. This is an issue on which every citizen should reflect. As we know, not everyone listens to the debates of the House of Commons. However, most members of Parliament can use the various means put at their disposal by the House of Commons to convey to targeted groups information on important issues such as this one. This is a very relevant issue, one that is of real interest to our constituents. Even though the bill was introduced by the minister, I congratulate the hon. member who, through his initiative, helped ensure that all parliamentarians support the Kimberley process.

I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill. We will be very cooperative regarding similar initiatives that relate to human rights and to humanitarian issues around the world. We should ask the public to do the same.

[Taiwan's National Day, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on October 10, Taiwanese worldwide celebrate their national day. Many celebrations will be taking place in Taiwan, the highlight of which will be a huge gathering in front of the presidential building in Taipei. Unfortunately, these peaceful celebrations will not ease the fears of the Taiwanese people, with more than 350 Chinese missiles, some equipped with nuclear warheads, apparently pointed at their island.

The European Parliament passed a resolution calling for the removal of these missiles, which threaten the safety of the entire region. The Bloc Quebecois adds its voice to that of the European Parliament in calling for an end to this threat.

Happy national day to all Taiwanese people.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we can tell the member's speech was well prepared. Obviously, people can say anything they want in a democracy.

Right from the beginning, she had questions. She wanted to know if members opposite always scrupulously toed the party line and did what they were told to do.

I want to put the same question to her. Does her speech reflect the party line and does she sometimes decide not to follow her whip's orders?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the new member for Windsor West on his speech.

In short, what is being proposed by the government is to take responsibilities away from financial institutions with regard to any future needs for decontamination.

I would like to hear the member's views on that. It seems obvious to me that financial institutions fear the effects and the impossibility of eliminating nuclear waste. That in fact is why they have asked the government to introduce this amendment.

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate, first as a member of the sub-committee on human rights and international development, but also, obviously, as the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I say this because I see my role as a member of parliament first and foremost as a representative, or reflection, if you will, of our population. And, despite the fact that the make-up of Lévis, located in the Quebec City region, is 98% francophone, the people there are very worried about this possible new war against Iraq. They are very concerned because they followed what happened during the gulf war in 1990 and 1991, and subsequently.

There were a number of troubling circumstances. Indeed, Canadian and Quebec soldiers returned from the gulf sick. Apparently, they were exposed to depleted uranium. As a result, they suffered from health problems and psychological after-effects. So much so that they were compensated by the government.

Obviously, we have to be concerned about what happened to the others, particularly the people of Iraq who, in addition to the hardships of the war, suffered through economic sanctions, bombings and more. We must not forget that hundreds of thousands of people died.

It must also be realized that the concerns are now diverging. At the time, hon. members will recall that the war against Iraq was in reaction to its invasion of Kuweit. Today, what we are talking about is a preventive attack against Iraq. Preventive, because the Americans and the Bush government claim to have proof that Iraq has instruments of mass destruction. They imply that it collaborated with the terrorist groups responsible for the events of September 11, 2001. In this connection at least, it must be admitted that no proof has been made public.

Now for the point I would like to raise. I was delighted that there was a debate on Iraq as soon as Parliament got back in session. Last night's debate was interesting and worthwhile, I would say. I heard the various parties' and members' points of view. In particular, I noted that the members across the way held differing views. Many had concerns along the same lines as those of us on this side.

At 10 p.m., however, I stepped out for a few minutes only to learn from the CBC French network's Téléjournal that the Prime Minister of Canada had just given his support to the American government's attempts to obtain a new security council resolution in order to have some manoeuvring room, to have the go-ahead to take action, to attack Saddam Hussein, a mandate to do what it wanted to do. Today, moreover, we learn that it has obtained the support of the U.S. Congress for taking unilateral action if it so desires.

Even in this context, at the very same time as we are holding this debate here in the House, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs telling us at the onset that “we need to know what members think; we want to know if you have any solutions, suggestions, activities, actions to be taken”, this very same evening the present Prime Minister of Canada is in New York getting an award. His support to the American government is nearly unconditional.

Of course, he pointed out today that this support did not mean that he condoned unilateral action. Still, he supported the idea of a new resolution by the security council, this a mere few hours after the coordinator for the inspectors who will travel to Iraq reached an agreement with Iraqi authorities allowing for unconditional access to the various sites that they may want to inspect.

Today, we saw the reaction of France, Russia and China. These countries are taking good note of this openness and this opportunity.

We are parliamentarians, and those who elected us are asking us to represent them. They want us to speak on their behalf but, considering his action, it looks as if the Prime Minister is saying “Parliamentarians may talk as much as they want to, I will do what I want and decide as I please on this issue”. Of course, under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is not required to hold a vote in Parliament.

It is rather odd that in the United States, President George Bush needs a resolution and a vote by Congress, that in France, they need a resolution and a vote by the national assembly, and that in England, Prime Minister Blair needs a vote from parliamentarians, but not here in Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada claims to be a protector of democracy. We often talk about protecting human rights, but here in Canada, this component of democracy, namely a vote and the opinion of parliamentarians, is ignored.

This evening, like yesterday, we are given an opportunity to speak and we will speak. It is interesting to hear parliamentarians from all sides of this House express their thoughts, share their concerns and make suggestions. But at the same time, I sense that there is contempt toward this institution, because Canada's parliamentarians cannot vote.

Under the circumstances, this is fairly strange. When the Liberals were in opposition, during the gulf war, the former House leader and the Prime Minister said that there should be a vote before deploying troops to Iraq. However, now that they are in power, nine years later, it is no longer necessary, it is no longer required. They have had a change of heart. Of course, it is a majority government; of course, there will be a vote in cabinet, but it is the Prime Minister who chooses his ministers.

We saw what happened with the former Minister of Finance. Those who express disagreement cease to be ministers. This is a fine lesson in democracy. It needs to be said, and that is why I am saying so.

I find such an attitude contemptible. Debate is permitted, but members are not given the right to vote on it. Again today, the leader of my party twice gave him the choice. He asked him “Will you allow a vote”? His reply today was not no, but not once did he answer yes.

We have got to be careful. When there was the offensive against Afghanistan, there was no vote. Yes, there was a debate; we were allowed to talk, and yes, the members will be able to talk tonight and in the coming days. However, what good is it if parliamentarians are told they can talk, but they cannot vote? How can we defend this among our constituents, when in the United States, England, France, Australia, and in most western countries, a vote is required, but not in Canada?

I will conclude with this, and perhaps also with one more comment. Yesterday, a member from the Canadian Alliance invited us to speak up. I invite the Liberal members, and members from all parties to speak up. Doing so means not automatically saying yes to the United States, but affirming what our constituents in our ridings are telling us.

[Iraq, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our colleague from Saint-Jean for a very clear and eloquent speech, as usual.

I would like to ask him a question that is relevant to this debate, albeit indirectly, since he is defence critic.

We heard the Minister of Defence talk tonight as if Canada could brag about having extraordinary military equipment.

I read recently in the newspapers that other countries have expressed concerns about the lack of equipment, particularly for transporting troops and military equipment. We know that, last year, a particular piece of transportation equipment was rented and that, in the end, the shipment was not delivered like it should have been.

In that regard, what does the member think of this type of equipment and resources, when some people are full of themselves and say that they are ready to attack just anybody, as the Minister of Defence did tonight?