Benoît Sauvageau

[Quebec Premier, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for some days federalist circles have been on red alert, because Mr. Bouchard's economic mission to France has been a success on all counts, which disturbs the federalists across the way.

Yes, this mission is a real success. Again yesterday, Mr. Bouchard spoke before 500 world business leaders, and a few minutes later some 30 economic agreements with a total value of $170 million were signed between French and Quebec businesses.

The ultimate goal of the undertakings by Mr. Bouchard and the ministers accompanying him is to make Quebec a focal point of trade exchanges between Europe and the rest of America, and we believe this project has every chance of success.

This unprecedented support for Quebec democracy and the contracts and jobs for Quebecers arising out of this mission by our premier ultimately benefit all of Quebec. Anyone who would dare minimize this good news would be showing bad faith, nothing more.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the petition is from Suzie Robitaille, whose five children are being held in Egypt, and it is signed by 2,423 people.

[Business Of The House, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have just received a petition from the clerk of petitions. I know this may well be my last opportunity to table it. Unfortunately, this petition does not quite meet the requirements of this House.

I ask for unanimous consent to table this petition in this House, nonetheless.

[Foreign Affairs, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we conclude then that the discussion has not been held yet.

I remind the minister that Egypt is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, as such, has obligations to meet.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if he will invoke the Convention on the Rights of the Child with his Egyptian counterpart to convince him to send back to Canada the eldest Robitaille child, who is seriously ill?

[Foreign Affairs, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he intended to contact his Egyptian counterpart within a day or two to take urgent action to have Mrs. Robitaille's eldest child, who is seriously ill, brought back to Canada.

Can the minister inform us of the outcome of the discussions with his Egyptian counterpart to bring back the Robitaille children who are still being held in Egypt?

[Child Abduction, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a law. Egypt is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and is not respecting that convention.

Given the health status of Mrs. Robitaille's eldest child, which continues to deteriorate, can the minister, at the very least, implement emergency repatriation measures for this seriously ill child?

[Child Abduction, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On April 10, the official opposition brought up the tragic case of Suzie Robitaille, whose children are still in Egypt, having been abducted by their father nearly two years ago. In this case, as in many others, the government is dragging its feet, even though one of the children is seriously ill. We have learned that Canada is currently involved in negotiating a bilateral agreement with Egypt concerning child abduction.

Does the minister commit to making signature of the bilateral agreement with Egypt conditional upon the settlement of cases in dispute, in particular the one concerning the children of Suzie Robitaille?

[International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, you are right. It is still Terrebonne for a few weeks because, as I mentioned to your alternate a few days ago, after June 2, or thereabouts, it will be Repentigny.

I made an omission I want to correct before addressing Bill C-77. The last time I rose, I thanked the residents of the five municipalities in the riding of Repentigny, but I forgot to also thank the residents of the two former municipalities in my riding, namely Terrebonne and Bois-des-Filion, for the good times spent together during the past three and a half years. These are people with whom, under Irénée Forget, in Terrebonne, and Paul Laroque, in Bois-des-Filion, we were able to co-operate, work and bring several issues to a successful conclusion, and thus improve the quality of life of the residents of these two municipalities. This was achieved with a great deal of enthusiasm, drive and interest.

The last time I rose in this House to speak, I forgot to thank the mayors and the people of these two municipalities. I just wanted to correct this oversight.

That said, as my hon. colleague pointed out earlier, the purpose of Bill C-77 is indeed to remedy an omission. In February 1994, the federal cabinet agreed to contribute to the Global Environment Facility Fund and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The implementation of this decision required that the institutions in question be included in the International Development Assistance Act. An order in council to that effect was therefore approved on November 15, 1994, and published in the Canada Gazette on November 30 of the same year.

By law, an order has to be tabled in Parliament within 15 days of its signing. Earlier this year, after the standing joint committee of which my hon. colleague is a member discovered the omission as part of its regulatory review, the Department of Foreign Affairs was notified. An order was indeed published in the Canada Gazette , but the legislation was never implemented so that the two organizations mentioned previously, namely the Global Environment Facility Fund and the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, could receive the money it was supposed to get from the government.

Oversights happen even in the best of families. Several very important issues are before this House, and we understand the need for urgent action to restore funding to these two organizations.

As the previous speaker said, he will ask the House to fast-track Bill C-77 so that the two organizations mentioned earlier can receive the money they need to improve the environment and even encourage developing countries to become more environmentally conscious.

[Helms-Burton Law, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for a year now, the minister has been waffling and for a year he has followed in the wake of the European countries.

Given that the minister is still refusing to fight the Helms-Burton law under NAFTA and given that there is no guarantee the OECD negotiations will lead to an agreement, could the minister tell us what is preventing him from filing a complaint under NAFTA?

[Helms-Burton Law, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the United States and the European Union concluded an agreement on their dispute over the Helms-Burton law.

This agreement provides for a relaxed application of this law in exchange for the suspension of the proceedings instituted by the European Union with the World Trade Organization and the establishment of global rules preventing investment by companies in properties expropriated by other governments.

My question is for the Minister of International Trade. As the Liberals' record says that Canada was the force behind international opposition to the Helms-Burton law, could the minister explain how it is that Canada is not a signatory to the agreement reached last week by the European Union and the United States?