Michel Gauthier

[Iraq, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence announced yesterday that he would be withdrawing officers from the unified command in Qatar because they could possibly take part in the conflict in Iraq and that he did not want that. However, the soldiers that are integrated with both American and British combat units will be directly involved in combat.

Why remove officers so that they are not involved in combat, and let soldiers remain involved in combat?

[Iraq, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, given that Canadian soldiers are integrated with combat units, and given the official position of the Government of Canada, would it not be best, and would it not send a clear and meaningful signal, if the Minister of National Defence were to bring them back, to prevent them from taking part in the war in Iraq—a war that we do not support and that the government is not supposed to support? I think this is a clear request.

[Iraq, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government made the decision to opt out of an armed conflict in Iraq. We supported this position, but we know that Canadian soldiers are in fact integrated with American and British combat units.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the official position of Canada, why are these soldiers not being brought back?

[Iraq, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker—

[Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether he intends to go any further? I mean, he has some credibility with the United States; he has always stood very close to the American position.

Does the Prime Minister intend to use Canada's status as a neighbour, to now condemn an illegitimate and illegal intervention that is tantamount to an aggression? Will Canada take steps to condemn such a thing?

[Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the international community as a whole is massively opposed to the use of force in Iraq at this time.

Given that such an aggression, if it took place, would be illegal and illegitimate, does the Prime Minister intend to go further and go to the UN and to the U.S to demonstrate that it would be illegitimate and illegal, and to protest with all his might?

[Iraq, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament will not be sitting for two weeks. Instead of cracking bad jokes, could the government commit with the greatest possible seriousness to allowing Parliament to have a say before our soldiers are sent off to war? That is what we want to know.

[Iraq, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Quebecois wants, to make it perfectly clear, is for no Canadian troops to be sent to fight in Iraq without the House having voted on it first.

Since we will be on vacation for two weeks, I am asking the government whether it can guarantee that this House—

[Iraq, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the deadline suggested by Canada is so imminent that it could be rejected by those who are our partners, that is those who want peace.

That might mean the United States could decide to go to war solely on the basis of resolution 1441, supported by Canada, which means war in the very near future.

In this event, will the government commit to call back the House, since we will be off for two weeks, before any irrevocable decision is made?

[Gasoline Prices, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about the budget of 2000, we can certainly do so. In 2000, just before the general election, the government was in a panic and sent cheques to all citizens of Quebec, including some who were dead and some who were in jail, to reduce the price of the litre of heating oil, which stood at 50¢. Yesterday, the price of a litre of heating oil was 60¢.

Why did the Minister of Finance not think about helping those who are paying 60¢ for a litre of heating oil? Is it because the next election is still a long time away?