House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Iraq January 30th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we do not want to debate this issue forever. We want to vote. The strength of Parliament lies in the fact that it allows the people's representatives, members of Parliament, to take a position, to say yes or no. That is the strength of Parliament and that is what we are demanding. We want to vote on Canada's participation in the war. Our participation in the war is just as important an issue as the Kyoto protocol or political party finance reform. We want to vote.
Iraq January 30th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Including the war of 1914-1918—we are talking about quite some time ago, this was the first world war—Parliament has always voted before sending soldiers to take part in a war, and this was the practice until the Liberals arrived in office in 1993.
How does the government explain that it still stubbornly refuses to allow us, the representatives of the public, to vote before asking our soldiers to take part in a conflict in Iraq, when this tradition dates back to 1914?
Political Financing January 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I just want to applaud the government initiative on political financing.
In the context of introducing this bill, we all recall the serious problem of the sponsorship scandal. I think the government really needed to improve its image and do something to make Canadians regain faith in democracy and in the way things are done by federal politicians.
For many years, for nine years, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a change in political party financing. For more than 25 years, we have been fortunate in Quebec to have similar legislation to what is being introduced, legislation of openness, legislation that encourages democracy, legislation that assures the public that things are being done to the letter. If one thing is important in politics today, it is to ensure that politicians are above reproach.
The importance of lobbies in the political arena—people who have an ever-growing influence over the governments and politicians in power—cannot be denied. Fortunately, the new political financing legislation will allow the men and women of this House to be independent from the various lobbies and financial donations given in one form or another that allow groups, individuals or companies to have an inordinate influence on political decisions.
I am very pleased to tell the government that we are with it on this bill. Bloc members will support this initiative and we welcome it with great pleasure. We would simply say to people that yes, there is a price, but there is a price for democracy. We can spare no expense to assure the public that democracy will prevail, that anyone who wants to practice politics in Canada will be able to do so as freely as possible with equal opportunity for everyone. That is what we want and that is what the bill will allow us to do.
At first glance, the only problem I see with this bill is with the current leadership races. They are not covered by the rules. I know that this probably would have required specific provisions, but unfortunately, this seems to me to be a serious oversight.
As for the rest, I think I can say that as the members of the Bloc Quebecois have the opportunity to study the bill and review it, they will be very pleased to support it, as we are accustomed to living with similar legislation in Quebec.
I would invite all those who oppose this type of legislation to ask the voters of Quebec, regardless of their political stripes, if they would prefer to do without Quebec's legislation on the financing of political parties. The rate of satisfaction with this legislation—which has existed for more than 25 years now, if memory serves—is extremely high. Voters would not want to go back to the old ways. On the contrary, people are working now to enhance and improve aspects of the legislation that allow for healthy democracy, free of problems and influence.
I applaud the government's initiative. Once again, we will support the bill.
Iraq January 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, there are currently two attitudes toward the issue of Iraq: there are those who consider that the matter of war and peace is too important to be left in the hands of a single nation and that it should be put in the hands of the UN instead, and there are those who think that the U.S. can do as it pleases.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by not taking a clear, straightforward position in favour of a second Security Council resolution, he is siding with those who are leaving it up to the Americans, which does nothing to help the United Nations?
Iraq January 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, clearly the U.S. President feels he has all the evidence he needs to launch an offensive against Iraq and has no intention of holding back because of the UN Security Council. This he made quite clear in his statement yesterday.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada not understand that, by his attitude, his unwillingness to be clearer on the Canadian position, he is undermining the role of the UN Security Council, perhaps our last hope to avert war in Iraq?
Iraq January 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have the right to feign ignorance. Many people might be in favour of going to war against Iraq, but France might exercise its veto power in the Security Council.
Under these circumstances, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is up to the Security Council to decide and not the U.S.? It is the United Nations, and not the United States that must decide. Does he acknowledge that?
Iraq January 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, paragraph 14 of UN Security Council resolution 1441 states that the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter.
Does the Prime Minister understand that when the Security Council decides to remain seized of the matter, this means that it wants to reserve judgment until later and decide whether Saddam Hussein has met the conditions? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is the Security Council's duty and will he wait until it has fulfilled that duty before making any decisions?
Iraq January 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany are not answering hypothetical questions. They are taking a clear position. This is what we expect from the Prime Minister. It is his responsibility to do so.
Will the Prime Minister behave like a head of state, like the President of France, like the Chancellor of Germany, and tell us clearly whether or not he will only go to war with a second resolution, and not at the whim of the United States? Is he a henchman or a head of state?
Iraq January 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, already last week, France and Germany had a very clear position on possible military intervention in Iraq: it is no to war, unless there is a second resolution.
Since Quebeckers and Canadians are better informed of the French and German position than the Canadian position, I am asking the Prime Minister to state clearly whether or not a second resolution is necessary before we go to war against Iraq.
Sports December 11th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Nadine Rolland and Yannick Lupien have already gone through this, and now it is Jennifer Carroll's turn to experience the wrath of Swimming Canada. What do these athletes have in common, except for the fact that they are all elite athletes? They are Quebeckers.
What is the federal government waiting for to put an end to this discrimination, which is intolerable and unacceptable? We are not going to take it anymore.