Gilles-A. Perron

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a case to the attention of the minister.

What is the minister currently doing for employees at Noranda Mineral-Horne Division in Rouyn-Noranda? They have been on strike for more than a year. They are losing their houses and may well end up on the street. What were you doing when the Noranda mine—

[Supply, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Minister of Labour, a full-blooded Acadian, if I may say so, for whom I have a great deal of respect, particularly in this regard.

I would first like to make a comment. In 1993, British Columbia signed, as Quebec has done, a ban on strikebreakers or scabs. That same year, the work time lost fell by 50%, which is almost a record.

That being said, there are a few things that I would like to ask the minister on behalf of the people of New Brunswick. What does she have to say to the New Brunswick members of the Canadian national council? What does she have to say to the New Brunswick members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees? What does she have to say to the New Brunswick members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada? What does she have to say to the members of the New Brunswick Brotherhood of Engineers, Division 162, when all those people ask her to include anti-scab legislation in the Labour Code? Is the minister not moved by those people? Is she not interested in what her fellow New Brunswickers have to say?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since March 19, there hase been cause for great sadness. The United States and Britain have committed their armed forces to a war against Iraq. The Prime Minister of Canada said that this war is unjustified, illegal and illegitimate.

I would like to point out that more than 750,000 Quebeckers marched on the streets in Montreal, Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Rivière-du-Loup, Gaspé, Gatineau and many other communities, I am sure. Every region of Quebec is against this war. As well, last week, 1,162 students from the polyvalente Deux-Montagnes in my riding asked me to deliver a petition against this war to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which I did.

This weekend, the Les Patriotes scouting association in Saint-Eustache, the Les Patriotes continuing education centre in Saint-Eustache and the high school in Oka all sent me petitions asking the Prime Minister not to change his mind and not to involve the Canadian military in this war. Clearly, since the outbreak of hostilities, human beings, civilian and military, from both sides, have died. Such a tragedy. Such an atrocity.

Today we ask ourselves the question: why is this war being fought? Is this a pre-emptive war? That makes no sense. As it was already mentioned, we do not know whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors, having left the country in 1998, were starting over with the inspection process. Obviously, there are some in the United States who were convinced that the answer to this question is yes. They feel that the United States and the world should intervene militarily to ensure everyone's security. So far, the inspectors found nothing to confirm that Iraq had re-established its nuclear program.

Of course, Saddam Hussein would have loved to get his hands on a nuclear weapon and he probably has chemical and biological weapons in his arsenal. However, does this justify a so-called military intervention? Is it justified?

Of course, we do not want to discover that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons only when he uses them. However, this attack is illegal under international law. No country has the right to attack another country because it thinks it should for whatever reason. In fact, there must be solid proof for any intervention. This is akin to what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor.

But the greatest danger of a pre-emptive strike is the precedent created. Now that the United States has attacked Iraq, what will prevent other countries from intervening to stop much greater threats? Japan could attack North Korea, India could attack Pakistan, and so on.

It should also be said that all this seems a bit simplistic. How many other regimes have or could have weapons of mass destruction? Should they be attacked?

How many other dictators represent a threat to their region? So, we are stuck in a very pragmatic, selective and, by its nature, unstable policy. In answer to this argument, the United States can only flex its muscles and tell the world that it is an exception on the international scene.

In terms of the war against terrorism, is this war part of the fight against terrorism? This is another question that must be asked. The inspectors could not find conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein's regime is helping or helped Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. However, the war provides plenty of reasons to resort to terrorism.

In terms of disarming Iraq, I think that the international community, through diplomacy, was on the right track. In fact, on March 17, UN inspectors said that 72 al-Samoud missiles had been destroyed, approximately half of Iraq's stockpile of such weapons. The destruction undertaken constituted a substantial measure of disarmament, according to chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, indicated, during the same session, that he had found no evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq nor that Iraq had attempted to import depleted uranium or uranium.

On March 10, the UN chief inspector announced that he would be prepared to submit a new report to the Security Council next week. Unfortunately, March 19 put an end to that.

There is one more question one might well ask: why this war? To get Saddam Hussein out of power? Yes, getting rid of Saddam Hussein might be a good reason, but I think that diplomacy, coupled with pressure from neighbouring countries, could have pushed him into involuntary retirement.

There is another question: might this have something to do with controlling the region's oil? No sooner asked than answered, that one.

Now, having asked those questions, I have one very important and highly complex point to raise: what about after the conflict? I agree that we need to acknowledge the complexity of the question, as well as the regional and international impacts of the situation, and will raise a few points in this connection.

Other Arab countries are seeing public demonstrations, and some other governments might fall if they were to support the United States too openly. This would clearly be a backward step.

There is the question of transition, the post-Saddam era. The United States will stay there. The Kurd issue is of concern to Turkey, which has its own problems with its Kurdish minority. Syria, with an ethnic mix similar to Iraq's, is concerned about the possible disintegration of Iraq. The Palestinian question is also of great importance to any assessment of the situation. Let us keep in mind that Saddam Hussein is trying every way possible to mobilize the Arab world against the Americans and their Israeli allies.

In closing, Canada must speak out loud and clear before important decisions are made on the future of Iraq.

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, speaking in the House this morning is a sad occasion for me. I would like to remind all the hon. members in this House that I am opposed to the war and that I represent people in my riding, young people, who have taken a stand against the war.

I also want to remind the Minister of Foreign Affairs that, last week, I tabled a petition signed by 1,162 young people from the Polyvalente Deux-Montagnes, distributed by Ms. Marie-France Phisel. Also last week, I went to the Lake of Two Mountains English high school in my riding. Students at this school asked their elected representative to come hear them voice their opposition to the war.

My concern is what happens after the war, and I would like to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to say about this. This war is already dividing the European community and is the source of serious division within the UN. This war is sowing the seeds of future terrorism. I would like to know what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to say about my concerns.

[Peace, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate a student of Polyvalente Deux-Montagnes, Marie-France Phisel, who took it upon herself to circulate a petition for peace and has gathered 1,162 signatures of young people opposed to the prospect of war on Iraq and any potential participation by Canada in such a conflict.

The petition was handed over to me last Friday to be passed on to the Prime Minister, which I have done.

The wording of the petition is a reflection of the great wisdom of today's youth. It reads as follows:

Peace and freedom are fundamental values. If we are to have a better world, there must be peace and unity among the nations. The world we want to live in is one that promotes peace, freedom, justice and equality, and we wish to express our total disagreement with any armed and violent intervention in Iraq. We wish to express our support for peace between peoples.

This shows the great social conscience of our youth.

[Canada Elections Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-24, which I could perhaps describe as plagiarizing the provincial legislation in effect in Quebec. I will not, however, since the bill before me today is not a carbon copy of the Quebec electoral law, which has been in effect for 26 years.

All week, I have been pleasantly surprised to hear my colleagues opposite speak highly of the late René Lévesque. To hear people across the way speak of René Lévesque like that warms the heart of a sovereignist, very much so.

Twenty six years ago, René Lévesque had a vision of the democratic political process. He had a vision of how to ensure that political parties are not bought, through contributions. Lévesque had a vision indeed.

The problem I have with this bill we are debating concerns the amount an individual may contribute, namely $10,000. That is a huge amount. I believe it is still a substantial enough amount to enable lobbyists to influence certain decisions.

I will give an example. Take the Minister of National Defence, a former vice-president of the Royal Bank in Toronto. He can very easily call up 20 of his friends and ask them to each write him a cheque for $10,000. Twenty times $10,000 is $200,000 that the Royal Bank would have contributed through the back door, or the side door.

Similarly, the Prime Minister of Canada can very easily pick up the phone and call Paul Desmarais at Power Corporation, asking him for $10,000. His friend Paul and his gang would come up with the $10,000.

The hon. member for LaSalle--Émard can very easily call up his buddies in shipping companies and say he needs $10,000. These are buddies from the shipping industry. Once again, only people in a certain category will be able to afford this kind of contribution. This $10,000 will allow them to continue influencing government decisions.

This is unacceptable. We are proposing that the limit be $3,000, the same as in the Quebec electoral law.

The other problem is also a serious one.

I would like to, if I may, come back on the issue of individual contributions. We in the Bloc Quebecois do not support corporate contributions. However, this is the 21st century, and contributions of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 as proposed in the bill could be considered acceptable. However, we recommend instead that there be no corporate donations at all.

The other problem I see, and that I am compelled to talk about, is the famous issue of the appointment of returning officers in each riding. The current practice will be continued, namely that the governor in council will appoint all returning officers. Currently, with the Liberal Party in power, it will appoint its Liberal cronies, former MPs, former corporate directors.

As a result, when I have to discuss anything with my riding's returning officer, or if I have a complaint to file, I am dealing with a political opponent.

As is the case in baseball, I am starting out with two strikes against me. The system should be as it is in Quebec. Allow me to explain how things are done in Quebec.

The appointments of returning officers are done in several stages. First, the position is advertised in newspapers. Anyone who reads newspapers in Quebec can learn about the position. Candidates for the job undergo a written and oral exam. Afterward, a selection committee makes a decision. There are no representatives of political parties on the selection committee. As a result, returning officers in Quebec are apolitical. They do not talk about politics, just about how to apply the Act Respecting Electoral Lists during the election. That is what they do.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the bill before us in principle. However, the Bloc Quebecois would like to see the changes I have just mentioned.

[Taxation, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has just stated in the House that she could not confirm or deny whether a tax rebate plan of up to $60 million to save the Ottawa Senators hockey team was in the works.

Is the minister telling us that her government could hand $60 million over to the Senators without anyone being the wiser? Is that what she is doing behind our backs while hiding behind the confidentiality of tax matters?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious concern this morning and I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

I am concerned that 49% of Quebeckers say they are against sending soldiers to Iraq under any circumstance and that 38% of all Canadians say no. That is the same percentage the Liberals had in the last election.

Are all the members of this House not starting to be concerned about the polls on whether or not soldiers should be sent to Iraq?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I most heartily commend my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who I thought was one of the great environment ministers of Quebec. Among people of the same calibre who deal with the environment there is my colleague, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. He takes the issue very much to heart and passionately devotes his time and energy to it. I congratulate them both.

I would like our colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis to develop one aspect of his speech. He said that he agrees with members of the Bloc who argued that the ratification of Kyoto is one thing that we must put behind us. However, he also said that implementation would come next. I have a little trouble understanding that point. I would like our learned colleague to help me on this.

As Quebeckers, can we be assured that the Kyoto protocol will be implemented fairly and with respect for provincial jurisdictions, with recognition for the work that has already been done in some provinces? Manitoba and Quebec have already started reducing greenhouse gases. I would like to hear the comments and impressions of my colleague on this.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I only said that to bring some levity to the House.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the member's suggestion. However, in his comments, he neglected to mention the Senate. The House is aware of my opinion on the Senate: it should not exist.

If tradition is to spare the Senate, does he believe that senators should be elected or appointed? I would like to hear his comments on the Senate.