Odina Desrochers

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Yes, I have. It is my custom, when I hear something, to respond regardless of whether it is an off microphone comment or not. It is an idiosyncratic holdover from another career.

It is important to talk about one of the amendments by my colleague from Sherbrooke, that is the one on consultation. Here again, I will speak of the government's consultation practices.

I have travelled twice across Canada with the Standing Committee on Finance. It would have cost the Minister of Finance a lot less to take the Liberal Party's program and publish it in its entirety. A lot of money would have been saved. The consultations were bogus. What we wanted were democratic consultations, consultations in which the public would be heard and would see there can be responsible people in a political party.

The way the party opposite could show it is responsible is by listening once in a while. We realize it does not. These people do not listen. I know that when we speak the truth, it is disturbing. I note that, as I advance in my remarks, the other side—pardon the expression—fidgets. Do you know what I mean, Mr. Speaker?

When we have to resort to using such expressions, it indicates how sad a point democracy has reached on the other side. It is to show that there is no responsibility. When serious things are being discussed and people are fidgeting, it means they are not part of the debate. It is they we are talking about when we say they are fidgeting. They are always on the outside of the real debates.

[Nuclear Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will also speak to this important bill, Bill C-27, an act respecting the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

What I am seeing mostly is the way that my party has analyzed this bill. Our party has a long term vision. When someone has a long term vision, he or she is able to provide, through sound regulations, a framework for a project such as the one proposed with Bill C-27.

If our party has moved new amendments today, it is because, when the committee studied this bill, all the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois were once again opposed by the Liberals.

It is as though this government, which should normally be more transparent, was not able to accept any idea put forward by another party. These people think they are totally controlling all the democratic decisions here in this parliament. If our parliament became the model of what the Liberals want, there would be no more democracy here. The only democracy here is when we have the opportunity, like now, to make ourselves heard and to put forward interesting proposals, but that is all.

When we work in committee, I often notice that we have trouble getting started on time because these people are so serious we cannot even have a quorum. However, when the time comes to reject motions, there are seven, eight and even ten liberal members there to quash our proposals. That is what they call democracy.

I want to refer back to one amendment in particular which I think should have been accepted. With that amendment, Bill C-27 would have created a transparent management committee. The proposal gave some people the opportunity to participate in transparent and fair management.

Let us look at the proposed membership for the board of directors. We asked for two representatives of nuclear energy corporations, which is normal when dealing with nuclear energy; one representative from the government, once again a normal request since the government is responsible for the implementation of the act; one representative from the aboriginal community; and one from a recognized government agency active in the environmental area. As far as I know, nuclear waste management does have an impact on the environment. As the issue is very specific and highly technical, we also requested one representative from a scientific and technical area related to nuclear waste management and one expert in public affairs in the field of nuclear energy.

From the expression on your face, Mr. Speaker, it sounds reasonable. Everybody agreed with that. It was good common sense. Unfortunately, our proposal was rejected at committee.

Let me give an example. When a child goes through negativism—the infamous no, no, no phase—we figure he will soon grow out of it. As far as I can see, negativism has such a great hold on members on the other side that it will be years before they reach political maturity. When they do, they will be capable of openness and they will understand that we too, on this side of the House, can have good ideas and move a bill forward.

We can hope that one day there will be political maturity on that side. However, since my election here, on June 2, 1997, I have often despaired of the fact. I would like to return to two amendments introduced by my colleague from Sherbrooke.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in a position to keep detailed track of all the requests to attend international meetings held in Canada.

But the tolerance and openness for which our country has always been known was not in evidence last weekend. I do not know whether the images of demonstrations, of police conduct on the weekend, were shown throughout the world, but I can say that our image of tolerance was far from representative. Our image took a beating.

Under no circumstances should a legislature prevent people, who could represent added value, from attending an international meeting. It should certainly not be the case that legislation prevents people from coming here to do their job properly in a diplomatic context and particularly from trying to find solutions to the problems raised in these international meetings which these people are addressing.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very complex and very hypothetical question. But, once again, we always have trouble understanding the real objectives behind legislation introduced by the government. We always have trouble understanding where it will lead. We always have trouble understanding what purpose the legislation will serve.

The problem raised by the member may be complex and hypothetical but it could arise. And we do not know how the government might handle it.

As I said earlier, we are about to give the police incredible powers but how they will use them is not clear. How can the police do their job clearly?

Because of all these laws, and particularly because of the historical context in which we now find ourselves, we should spend much more time debating these diplomatic, immigration, terrorism and transportation issues.

There is a sense of urgency across the way that I have trouble understanding. The government is in such a hurry to pass legislation that it is as though the world were going to stop turning after Christmas. But, later on, we will have to live with the consequences.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, a bill introduced by the federal government to modernize in various ways the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

It should be understood that the legislator had no other choice but to modernize the act since it dates back to 1991. Increasingly, society is changing; there is more talk about globalization. Over the past ten years, we have seen a range of organizations being created and meeting on a regular basis all over the world. This caused the Canadian government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to look at this new phenomenon.

Among the various international organizations created during this period, there is the OSCE, the G-8—which will meet in Western Canada next year—, APEC, which met here in 1997. We all recall the unfortunate events which marred this international meeting held here.

One should also realize that this international phenomenon has triggered protests all over the world. We are living in a democratic universe, or at least we are fighting to keep it that way, and increasingly these large diplomatic events are attracting demonstrators who come to voice their disagreement about these international meetings.

Before getting further into the debate on Bill C-35, I would like to draw your attention to the way our Liberal colleagues are behaving in general, which is becoming increasingly obvious.

Since the September events, this government has tried very opportunistically to take advantage of the situation to set in motion a steam roller with, as a sole purpose, the trampling of every civic right and every gain for which we have fought so hard here in the Canadian Parliament over the past few years.

Last Tuesday night, I did not have the time to take part in the proceedings of the standing committee on justice but I was able to take 30 to 45 minutes to watch them on television. As for the behaviour of the government across the way, I must say that it is increasingly more undemocratic, and that was obvious that night. You should have seen how the chairman of the standing committee on justice was pushing through the amendments and also how the Liberal members ganged up and voted against every single amendment moved by our party, and this during the all important debate on Bill C-36.

In Bill C-35, even though this legislation is needed, here again, we are taking advantage of the attacks on New York and Washington. We are trying to give the police and RCMP officers powers they do not need. Our legal system already has all the powers it needs for dealing with these kinds of events.

It is clear again that the situation is being exploited and that the RCMP are being imposed everywhere they can be. They are not only being imposed, but they are being given the authority to rummage around in the personal lives of Canadians and Quebecers. Furthermore, these laws are so important that a time limit on them is out of the question. So we are moving toward the creation of a police state where they will have powers that will allow them to do whatever they want. I do not agree with that.

I do not know what has happened since September 11. There must have been bills on the back burner because, ever since, excessive security measures have been implemented anywhere Canadians might want to show their dissatisfaction with global and globalizing tendencies that they oppose. Where are we going with this government?

Today, we are debating Bill C-35. My colleagues and myself are against clause 5. We will, therefore, vote against Bill C-35, even though at the outset we were favourable to the basic principle. Members have also heard our views on Bill C-36.

This morning the Minister of Transport has done it again with yet another bill. Once again, this is a bill that reduces the powers of the public. He is going to give an unbelievable amount of leeway to our police forces. When the events of September 11 have been settled—one has to remain optimistic—at the rate things are going, what is the Canadian government going to do with this series of measures with no time limits that it has steamrollered through? We will need three to five years to get back to where we were after years of effort.

I would like to point out as well that other countries' laws are often said to be better. That is certain. Once again, during the debate on second reading, the Liberals claimed that this codification of the powers of the RCMP concerning the security perimeter was fully justified and was inspired by similar legislation in Australia and New Zealand.

The Australian legislation, passed by the state of Queensland, is temporary in nature, not permanent as the people over the way would have us believe. It addresses security perimeters for a specific event only. The same holds true for New Zealand. It was for the APEC summit in Auckland in 1999.

As well, the New Zealand legislation set limits on the size of the perimeter, and how long it could be in place. Bill C-35 has nothing of the like. Absolutely nothing. This government functions—and the hon. members will understand this example—like a NHL team suddenly demanding that the league change the rules. Instead of having three forwards and three defencemen, they want four players on defence and one on offence. That would not produce much of a game.

With the bills the government is presenting, and with Bill C-35, this means we are going to turn into a passive democracy rather than an active one.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to take part in this emergency debate, which was requested by my party and deals with the economic crisis affecting Quebec and my region because of the softwood lumber issue.

First, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for all the efforts he made over the last few months to try to prevent this crisis, as well as my colleague from Laurentides, who travelled to Washington twice to try to resolve this issue.

Personally, I made representations at the Canada-United States parliamentary association, particularly at the annual meeting that was held last May in Blue Rivers, British Columbia, and just recently, on Monday morning, in the presence of a representative from the U.S. congress.

Once again, despite all the diplomatic and political efforts, Quebec and Canada are facing economic turbulence. Once again, Quebec is facing a problem that was created by the U.S. government.

The Americans are increasingly protectionist, and I would even say increasingly selfish. They ignore the free trade agreement and impose economic measures that slow down softwood lumber production considerably.

In recent years, the U.S. government has become the killjoy of bilateral and multilateral agreements by not complying with trade rules.

I would like to address the Americans' attitude as far as agreements in the agricultural area are concerned. The U.S. has not even respected the GATT agreements by maintaining the heavy export subsidies and grants to sustain their domestic trade, which results in a market distortion. Most countries that do business with them are forced to constantly appeal to the WTO tribunals to get their rights respected.

While Canada is battling before the courts to win its case, thousands of jobs are being lost in Quebec.

As the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, I have risen in the House on numerous occasions in defence of the economic interests of my region. Today, the decisions of the U.S. government on softwood lumber are jeopardizing hundreds of jobs in my riding.

When they were already reeling under the 19% countervailing duties, the U.S. government last week delivered the final blow to companies directly or indirectly connected to softwood lumber, by adding anti-dumping duties of 12.5%.

In our riding of Lotbinière, a number of companies were already severely affected by the U.S. countervailing duties. In Daveluyville, Doucet Machineries has experienced a considerable drop in purchases and orders. Since the countervailing duties have been introduced, the company has been operating on a job-sharing basis.

In Plessisville, countervailing duties have had an impact on the For-Min group, which includes Carbotec and Vibrotec, which is also slowing down production. Forano U.S.N.R is also suffering as a result of the U.S. government's decision.

The Government of Canada must demonstrate much stronger leadership when dealing with the Bush government, which is not at all shy about interfering with all kinds of economic measures to slow our economy. The Prime Minister needs to tell President Bush clearly that he is wrong on the softwood lumber issue.

It is American consumers who are directly affected by their government's attitude. In fact, as we know, our softwood lumber is of better quality, and costs less to produce than the lumber from U.S. mills. American families who want to build a house are being penalized because they are being denied access to our 2x4 lumber.

On behalf of the thousands of employees whose jobs are threatened, I urge the Government of Canada to demand that the Bush government return to free trade for softwood lumber, and that the U.S. respect its signature.

Softwood lumber producers cannot afford to wait for 10, 20 or 40 days. The U.S. government must immediately suspend the countervailing duties that are choking our provincial and regional economies.

The Bush administration knows that it is wrong. I am asking the Minister of International Trade to settle the issue quickly and efficiently, not through negotiations that will drag on interminably. Time is of the essence. Quebec's economy, the Canadian economy, and regional economies are already suffering in the wake of the attacks of September 11. Quebec, and Lotbinière—L'Érable cannot afford to wait. The United States has the power and the responsibility to act immediately. And it must.

The softwood lumber crisis has become cyclical. We need to come up with a permanent solution for this issue.

The Minister for International Trade should not be going it alone here. He should immediately call all stakeholders to a meeting in order to hear what they want and to work out a common strategy with them in order to resolve this issue for once and for all.

In the last few minutes, I have been critical of the U.S. government in this issue. I would now like to address the Minister of Human Resources Development, who seems unaware of the softwood lumber crisis in our regions. She too must do her job.

In fact, the minister has the authority to relax the EI rules by removing the waiting period, and increasing the number of eligible weeks and the amount of benefits. This would show her solidarity with workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis.

Every time a crisis hits the regions of Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development drones on about Bill C-2, which made only small improvements to the EI system, which is leaving our regions poorer every year.

Again this afternoon, the auditor general pointed a finger at the current EI system, which is building up a surplus year after year. The minister therefore has the financial leeway to take action now.

A treasury board document shows clearly that, since 1998, the surplus in the EI fund has grown at the rate of $7 billion a year. So, over the past three years, this surplus has grown to $21 billion. Despite this huge amount, the minister is still waiting.

Perhaps we should ask the person who decides everything in her department, the Minister of Finance, why the government is doing nothing.

Again, I call on the Canadian government to find a speedy and permanent solution to the softwood lumber issue. Quebec, the second largest producer of softwood lumber in Canada, with over 25% of Canadian production, must receive massive and tangible support from the Canadian government in order to end what I would describe as these unjust and unfair actions by the U.S. government, which are now paralyzing a vital sector of our economy.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I would like to say that, when I got elected in June 1997 and when my constituents renewed their confidence in me in November 2000, I never expected that, as a member of parliament, I would have to take part in a debate on the security of Canada and Quebec.

On September 11, the terrible attacks on the United States have changed the worId. Since that tragic day in our contemporary history, the people on the North American continent and those of the major allied countries involved in the fight against terrorism are worried. American media broadcast 24 hours a day images and news programs reporting on the fragility of world peace.

Here, in parliament, our work has changed. We now have to devote more time to House proceedings. On that subject, I have been very clear with the people of my riding of Lotbinière--L'Érable, when I told them that the time split between my riding and Ottawa had changed in response to that historic situation.

As a federal member of parliament, I find it important and even essential to take part in all proceedings, to debate and vote on every decision taken here in this House to combat terrorism.

First, I want to reiterate the position of our party following the September 11 events. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said, and I quote:

We must remember that the attack on September 11 is an attack not only on the United States, but on democratic values, on freedom and on every country that defends these values. It is an attack on all peoples of the world who aspire to justice, freedom and democracy, and especially those living under the yoke of tyrants and cranks, such as the people of Afghanistan, who face the totalitarian terror of the Taliban daily.

He also said:

A response is required—

The response must reflect and respect our democratic values. We must not fall into the trap of a civilization or religious war.

Already back then, our party was saying that a response and some measures were required. It asked the government to legislate to combat terrorism.

Our party also supported the efforts made by the federal government to freeze the bank accounts of groups or individuals directly or indirectly connected to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups supported by bin Laden.

The Canadian government, like the governments of all the countries affected by the September 11 events, just introduced a bill, Bill C-36, which seeks to provide tools to fight terrorism more efficiently.

I want to say that I will support the principle of the bill at second reading. However, there are several irritants in this legislation.

First, can anyone say how long this conflict will last? The bill sets a rigid three year period, and this is dangerous. At a time when the situation is changing by the day and even by the hour, it is very important that parliament legislate with a degree of flexibility, so as to adjust to the daily or monthly changes of events.

We are currently in a crisis and we know that. However, Bill C-36 must not go against everything that was done to protect the fundamental rights that relate to individual freedom.

I am very concerned about this issue. This morning, I read in the newspapers that arrangements are already being made to ensure that the Senate begins its review of the bill at the same time as the House of Commons.

A special Senate committee was formed yesterday, before the Minister of Justice had even appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice. This is a departure from the normal procedure in the passage of a bill. It is a sign that the government means to move quickly.

I realize that this is an urgent situation, but the legislator should not take advantage of this context to make amendments the ramifications of which we will have to live with for years to come. I get very worried when I see that the Senate has already begun looking at the bill. There are fewer and fewer agreements reached with the other side of the House and now we see the federal government fast-tracking. I know that legislation is required. But we must take the time to analyze the situation.

There are a number of irritants in this bill. However, the best thing would be if we began right now by at least saying that we will introduce this bill for one year. At that end of that period, it will be brought back to parliament, analyzed and the necessary amendments made.

As I mentioned earlier, no one knows how long this conflict will last. Could the present strikes and the economic action being taken against terrorist movements produce results more quickly? If they could, so much the better, but the Canadian parliament will be stuck with a rigid piece of legislation cast in stone for three years. It makes no sense to proceed in this way.

Furthermore, according to this morning's edition of Le Devoir , there was even dissension on the other side of the House. The newspaper reported that:

--the member for Mount Royal, an ardent defender of human rights, expressed certain concerns about the new powers of investigation the legislation will confer: “Preventive detention and mandatory court hearings are two of my concerns, and perhaps a sunset clause is needed for provisions such as these--”

That is where the hon. member for Mount Royal stands. Some members opposite have at least enough courage to speak out. We are proceeding too fast with Bill C-36. While being fully aware that this is a matter of urgency, we must take the time to listen to experts and to ensure that we are not giving too much power to the Minister of Justice and this government.

If the bill, as drafted, is ever passed at third reading, history will deal harshly with Canada, and its parliament, because it will be said that, contrary to other countries, in order to benefit from an exceptional situation, it sacrificed some vested rights to protect Canadian citizens.

I was a reporter for 16 years and I know how important it is to know the meaning of the words we use. But I am very nervous when I look at the present definition of terrorist. It is so vast that it makes no sense. Right now, Bill C-36 does not have a clear definition of terrorist.

This is why the political party I belong to is supporting Bill C-36 in principle, but has serious reservations about several irritants that are included.

In conclusion, let me say that once we have studied and debated this legislation, we will have to deal with what is at the root of terrorism.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion by my colleague for St. Albert, the present chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I have been a member for the past year, within the second mandate entrusted to me by the people of Lotbinière-L'Érable.

I have had numerous opportunities to comment on auditor general reports, in particular those by Mr. Denis Desautels, who left that position last spring.

On many occasions, Mr. Desautels criticized the behaviour of the present government, and in particular the accounting system used by the Minister of Finance, who has often been faulted for his lack of accuracy in his budget statements to this very House of Commons since his appointment in the fall of 1993.

Last March, in his document “Reflections on a Decade of Serving Parliament”, Mr. Desautels described his experiences as auditor general, concluding that the power of elected representatives over budget choices and budget monitoring had decreased considerably. He voiced serious reservations concerning the creation of various crown corporations or agencies to replace existing departments.

Indirectly, the creation of these new government organizations prevented him from doing his job properly, given the administrative restrictions included in the statutes and regulations of those organizations.

I would like to draw to your attention the following comments by Mr. Desautels, first of all on the accountability of crown corporations:

I encourage Parliament to be more active in calling Crown corporations to account for their performance, their effectiveness in fulfilling their mandates, and the ongoing relevance of their mandates

In connection with the matter of control and accountability, he continues by saying:

As government moves more and more to delivery of services by arm's-length entities, it is essential that it do so with provisions for sound control and accountability. I urge it to draw on the successful accountability and control framework for Crown corporations and similarly establish new alternative service delivery and governance arrangements—many of which are now operating without an adequate regime of accountability and control.

Mr. Desautels' concern about the creation of crown corporations or agencies in place of departments is clearly reflected in the following comment:

Further, when the federal government reorganizes, it can create other problems. In 1997 the government established the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as a separate employer, merging parts of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans.

These three departments transferred over 4,500 employees to the new Agency and expenditures of about $330 million a year. The Agency was granted certain freedoms to manage its finances, human resources and contracting, in return for improving accountability through a corporate plan that included objectives, performance expectations and an annual report on its actual achievements. After three years, the Agency still is not providing a clear and complete picture of its performance to allow Parliament and others to judge how well it has carried out its role.

As regards the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Mr. Desautels expected more concrete results, this time:

In creating the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the stated goal again was to improve services to Canadians. Eligible taxpayers wanted their child tax credits returned faster, importers wanted faster clearance of goods at the border, and corporate taxpayers wanted audits to be expeditious. While the structure set up to manage the new Agency appears sound, its first performance report is not due until later this year.

This report has yet to be published.

The former auditor general also commented that the government must ensure good management of its operations and support its ministers in this regard. Once again, I quote Mr. Desautels:

The federal government does not have a head office like those of corporations; our system of government makes Cabinet ministers individually accountable for many of the government's activities and collectively responsible for many important decisions. Nevertheless, to be efficient the government must co-ordinate the management of its operations and help departments improve their management practices.

Mr. Desautels spoke as well of his concern about the transparency of crown corporations and their finances. I conclude with the final remarks of the auditor general. On the need for transparency, he said:

Special examinations, agency performance reports, and the annual financial report by the Minister of Finance could all be used better to open up the operations of government to Canadians.

I took the time to cite the main themes of the report marking the departure of Mr. Desautels, because the motion being debated today relates to the comments made by the former auditor general. In the context of this motion, we are also addressing the report entitled “Completing the Circle of Control”, a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which proposes a solution for consolidating follow-up of the estimates by each of the standing committees of the House of Commons.

In its introduction, the report alleges that, according to a number of witnesses, departments and officials often consider appearances before the a committee to discuss spending to be a real trial. Sometimes members seem unaware of the efforts made by the departments to provide their services, despite cuts, or of the difficulty of the decisions to be made when plans and priorities are being set.

Oftentimes, in committees, witnesses and experts debate broad policy thrusts, passing quickly over the whole matter of estimates follow-up. The report is clear in this regard in pointing out that, since 1968, the standing committees of the House have examined the estimates. This is the most efficient way to put government requests for funds under the detailed scrutiny required. However, it has been clearly established that, in recent years, the standing committees have devoted little effort to this aspect of their work.

Let us come back now to the recommendations in the report by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee given the task of analyzing this situation undertook the task with three objectives, namely to increase individual member participation in the working involved in budget forecasts and supply, to increase the House's ability to demand an accounting from the government and to better examine the government's estimates.

For, with the way things are organized at the moment, the estimates of each department and agency are sent automatically to the standing committee involved. Although it is very logical, this approach, as indicated in the document under debate today, has had very disappointing results. Therefore, a new committee must be set up with very specific objectives and terms of reference, as indicated in the document we are considering today, to be called the standing committee on the estimates.

This new committee would have the mandate to examine the estimates and supply review process and to report to the House on at least an annual basis on the operation and improvement of the process; to provide, upon request, advice and support to standing committees engaged in the review of the estimates; to review certain estimates and proposed expenditures on a program basis when more than one department or agency in responsible for delivery, with the agreement and support of the appropriate standing committees; to review the mechanisms used by crown corporations to report to parliament and to its committees on their annual projected expenditures; to coordinate its activities with those of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to avoid overlap and duplication; and to sit jointly with these committees to discuss common issues.

I will elaborate on several of these recommendations. Since time is limited, I will give another example of the importance of this committee. This standing committee on the estimates would make recommendations so that a maximum of 5% of the amount of the credits for each of the estimates could be reallocated. If the government rejects these recommendations, it should justify its attitude right here in the House.

I feel that this report and its conclusion to establish a standing committee on the estimates would be a step forward to improve democracy in this parliament. This is why my party supports this motion.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question to my colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

Members will recall the events which took place in Quebec during the summit of the Americas. The Prime Minister, seeing himself as the great champion of democracy, said that he would do everything he could to ensure that there would be democracy in the Americas.

Does the hon. member not think that there is a lack of consistency of the part of the Prime Minister, since he committed himself openly to act as a champion of democracy, while today he is going the opposite way?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions this week we have called upon the Prime Minister to consult parliament and to take advantage of the opportunity to democratically adopt within the House the government's participation in this fight against international terrorism.

Every time the Prime Minister has remained vague, accepting consultation perhaps, but not allowing a vote in the House. His attitude is in total contradiction to the objective he is pursuing as are we all: to promote freedom and democracy.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he cannot claim to promote these fundamental values when he is not attaching the necessary importance to the institution that is the embodiment of those values and to the elected representatives who sit there?

On behalf of democracy and freedom, we are calling upon him to respond to our legitimate demands and to take advantage of the consensual strength of this parliament in order to add weight to his international undertakings.