Lost her last election, in 2004, with 6% of the vote.
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I thought the hon. member was making a speech, so he kind of lost me there. I can tell him, however, that those who promote peace cannot have enemies anywhere in the world.
Because of all the people who marched for peace in the world and who promoted peace, notwithstanding what the Alliance believes, we will have to promote peace. That is the only way to settle conflicts around the world.
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Matapédia—Matane.
Yesterday, at 9:35 p.m., the first U.S. missiles reached their targets in Baghdad. These targets of opportunity were fired on in an effort to eliminate the Iraqi regime and more particularly Saddam Hussein, his sons and his senior officials. These people appear to have survived. The only victim was a Jordanian citizen. He was the first victim in a war that will cost the lives of hundreds if not thousands of women and children, all innocent victims.
Today, we find ourselves in a situation that could have been avoided. Withresolution 1441, which had been adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council, Iraq could have been disarmed in a peaceful way. In a speech he made yesterday morning, the chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, stated in a resigned voice that progress had been made and that he was sorry to see all his good work annihilated by the impending war being initiated by the Americans and the British.
Pursuant to the resolution, Iraq would have had to let UN inspectors in. Before leaving Iraq, these inspectors had found no trace of any chemical or nuclear weapons. Destruction of the few Al-Samoud 2 missiles that had been found in Iraq had begun.
Yes, Saddam Hussein has made his people suffer and is still making them suffer. He is a small local dictator whom we must condemn. But this is not a good enough reason to make war when the international order is not threatened. The action taken yesterday by the Americans and their allies was unilateral.
We set up structures such as the UN and the Security Council, which are aimed at maintaining international order and ensuring that the major powers come to a unanimous agreement before proceeding with economic or military sanctions against a state. Unfortunately, and despite the positive effects of inspections in Irak, the United States and their allies still decided to act unilaterally, which threatens international order.
This precedent is very significant. We now have a new kind of war, the pre-emptive war, that is, attacking a state that might attack us one day. What will be the next step? Will Israel invade the neighbouring Arab countries? Will China attack North Korea?
This principle is quite different from the one that prevailed until last night, at 9:35 p.m. The old principle allowed military intervention against a state only if it had violated the sovereignty of another state. Let us call this the rule of the musketeer, “One for all and all for one”.
Indeed, in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, the other states of the world had the moral and legal right to make war on Hitler. The same happened in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kowait. A massive international coalition was created to force Iraq to withdraw. The coalition and the military intervention of January 1991 were justified on moral and legal grounds.
Today, this is not the case at all. The American intervention is illegal because Saddam Hussein did not attack anyone. I am not the only one to think this way. The Russian president, Vladimir Poutine, asked the United States and Great Britain to quickly put an end to the war in Iraq, saying that it was not justified in any way and that it was a serious political mistake. The same goes for China, which accused the Americans of violating international standards of conduct. The spokesman for the Chinese department of foreign affairs said:
The Iraq issue must be returned to political settlement mechanisms within the framework of the United Nations.
He stressed that the military offensive in Iraq had begun despite opposition from the international community.
In January, I polled all my constituents. The question was very simple: “Are you in favour of a military intervention in Iraq”? To date, I have received over 1,200 answers, and 85% of respondents say they completely oppose military action.
These are very serious times. In January, my constituents said they were overwhelmed by the possibility, now a reality, of armed intervention in Iraq. They said that we should not get involved in other people's affairs, and they absolutely opposed Canada's taking part in such a war.
The result could therefore not be clearer. People said they were fully aware that Iraq was not a threat to us.
I would like to read some of these comments. Suzanne Tremblay, aged 38, wrote:
Why, in the year 2000, can we not find other solutions than resorting to violence? We are forever telling our kids not to resort to violence—
Gilles Gagnon, aged 48, advised George Bush, and I quote:
There is a way to disarm Saddam without making the Iraqi people suffer. Use your imagination.
Jocelyne Tremblay, aged 60, said:
Negotiation is preferable.
Erika Dioskali said:
What right do we have to invade another country or interfere in its affairs when we have not been attacked?
Lisette and Alain Tremblay, aged 53 and 57, said:
If there is a war on Iraq because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, all countries with such weapons should also be attacked.
Yolande Gendron said:
Peace does not come out of the end of a gun.
Finally, Normand St-Gelais, aged 47, said:
No to war. Even if Iraq has weapons of mass destructions, it is not the only country that does.
Members can see how astute and logical are my constituents. They think, and rightly so, that this illegal war is unjustified. Many of them wondered if controlling oil did not have something to do with it.
Of course, the main justification given by the U.S. and Britain is the fact that Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has brutalized his people. I am not calling this into question. However, it needs to be said that the inspections were producing results and no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq up until yesterday. The fact that this is a unilateral action makes this conflict illegal and Canada must not get involved in this war, and even more importantly, we must not condone this intervention, which is in no way justified at this time.
In the last hours we have witnessed explosions over the Iraqi and Kuwaiti skies live on television. There is only one thing to say: it is terrifying.
I urge all members of the House to support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which reads as follows:
That this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.
We need to think about after the war. Members will recall that after the first war in Iraq, in 1991, the UN imposed a military embargo against Iraq to prevent it from importing any more weapons. Everyone supported that. However, there was also an economic embargo, and Iraqi civilians suffered enormously. Iraq could no longer import certain products that were designated as “dual use products”, in other words, products that could be used for both harmless and military purposes.
Take chlorine, for example. Chlorine can be used to manufacture bombs. However, the proper and normal use of chlorine is in treating water to make it potable. Because of the economic embargo, Iraq could no longer import chlorine. More than 50,000 civilians have died since 1991 due to disease and malnutrition.
Men, women and children who had nothing to do with the war have died. We must keep this terrible fact in mind during the reconstruction of Iraq to avoid repeating it.
Do you know what an employee of the House said to me this morning? He said that we all had a problem, a sickness: we no longer have a heart. Let us show him today that we still do have a heart, and let us take the legal and moral high road. We must say no to this war. Someone has already died. There will be more deaths. Iraqis will not allow their country to be invaded without standing up for themselves. They will defend their territory, their women and children—
Citizenship and Immigration February 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, demonstrating a complete lack of compassion, will deport Fatima Marhfoul to Morocco, her country of origin, where she faces the threat of a severe prison sentence because her application for permanent residence in Canada is considered an insult to Morocco's monarchy.
Knowing that Fatima Marhfoul was shamefully exploited as a domestic in Canada for 10 years, does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not feel that he should demonstrate humanity in her case and cancel the deportation procedure before it is too late?
International Women's Day February 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, March 8 is International Women's Day and the theme chosen this year by the Fédération des femmes du Québec is “women in solidarity for equality in the world”.
I want to bring attention to the importance of the role of women and their solidarity to the advancement of our society. Over the last century, women have struggled and made immeasurable gains, but these gains are constantly threatened by the impact of globalization.
Globalization affects women particularly, through their working conditions, increasing poverty, health and education.
If they are to preserve their gains, women have to be alert to the negative effects of globalization and ensure that their voices are heard in the debate on this phenomenon.
Today, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois join me in paying tribute to the women who have helped build, and who continue to build Quebec each day.
I invite the women from organizations in my riding to join me for a brunch in their honour on March 9.
Women's solidarity is a means for improving the world of tomorrow.
Softwood Lumber February 26th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, is Canada unable to stand up, to stop grovelling before the Americans and start defending workers and businesses hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis? The workers have had enough. Do something.
Softwood Lumber February 26th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources answered yesterday that if additional measures were needed to assist victims of the softwood lumber crisis, he would provide them. Entire regions are suffering from this trade war. Industries are in danger, and thousands of families are hit by unemployment.
Will the minister open his eyes and realize that phase two of the initial plan is needed now more than ever?
Income Tax Act February 21st, 2003
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (public transportation costs).
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce my bill to allow individuals who use public transportation to deduct from their taxes some of the costs of travelling by bus, subway or commuter train.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
National Sex Offender Registry Act February 21st, 2003
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, An Act to establish a national registry of sex offenders and to amend the Criminal Code (sex offences against persons under the age of fourteen years).
Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of petitions signed by 40,000 residents of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I am introducing this bill, which deals with pedophilia and provides much harsher sentencing for sex offenders, psychological support for victims and their families, as well as creating a sex offender registry to facilitate police supervision of such offenders.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Elections Act February 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-24, the purpose of which is to change political party financing.
From the outset, I want to say that the Liberal government has finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel. Quebec adopted similar legislation over 25 years ago.
So, before I go into the substance of my remarks, I would like to inform the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance who just spoke, as well as the hon. member who preceded him, that we heard the same thing in Quebec in 1976 and 1977 from the opposition parties. They objected to the financing system that Quebec has had in place for over 25 years now.
I would invite the hon. member to come to Quebec. He says that this bill will create paperwork, but this is not true. There is never too high a price to pay for democracy and transparency. Why do people criticize our governments so much these days, be it Liberal or otherwise? The whole sponsorship scandal was an example of a lack of transparency. The government's cronies had contributed to a slush fund.
After 25 years, Mr. Blanchet, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, said that the legislation in Quebec had an extraordinarily positive impact. Looking back on 25 years, he said that although it is wonderful, there is still room for improvement. It is still a work in progress.
It is time for this government to say to Canadian voters, “The time has come to turn the machine off, to stop having secret slush funds and to start being accountable to the Canadian public who finances us”.
In 1997, my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois, introduced a motion in this House saying that the Liberal Party of Canada should establish a public financing system. I will read the wording of the motion introduced on October 9, 1997:
That this House condemns the attitude of the Government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
In 1994, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour introduced a motion in this House that said:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.
This means that nine years later, the government, through the Prime Minister, finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel. I give credit to the Prime Minister of Canada, who gave credit to a great visionary, the former Premier of Quebec, the late René Lévesque. He was indeed a visionary. He believed that all political parties should be financed through the sale of $5 membership cards. This way, every taxpayer could say, “No one is more influential than I am”. This is another way of saying, “My hands are not tied”.
It is regrettable that the legislation will not apply to the Liberal leadership race. Imagine the amount of money that must be pouring into the Liberal coffers right now. This legislation should have been made retroactive to January 1, 2003. That is the amendment I would like to see made to the bill, to show that the Prime Minister wants to be transparent to the very end. I commend his political courage.
Over the holiday season, people in Jonquière were asking me, “Jocelyne, what will you say about the bill the Prime Minister will be introducing?” I told them that I would congratulate him, because it was high time that similar legislation was introduced. He may have looked at the bigger picture because he is about to leave and wants to leave a positive legacy. It is never too late to do a good thing. He may have acted late, but he acted, and that is worth pointing out.
I think we can never raises objections about what this might cost. And there is democracy to think about. There has been a lot of talk about democracy, lately. Reference has been made to the popularity of politicians. I have heard that we politicians are less popular than car salesmen. Imagine that.
If this bill enhances our credibility with our voters, that is great; I applaud that. I would like the Alliance members to visit Quebec—I will gladly go with them—to see how we have been doing things for the past 26 years, and how great and transparent our democratic system is.
Our system is not perfect, you know. The other day, I met the government House leader in the elevator, and he told me, “I have checked in Quebec. We have drawn great inspiration from the Quebec legislation”. I say way to go.
We are not all bad, we have some good points as well. But there are some irritants in this bill, for instance the appointment of returning officers. I have always found the way this is done very disturbing. In Quebec they are selected by competition. This is all part of a democratic election.
On the federal level, returning officers for a riding have a political affiliation. I find that reprehensible. I hope that this government will accept these amendments relating to partisan appointments. If the Election Act is revised, it must be done thoroughly so that the credibility of returning officers is improved.
I have always been active in Quebec elections and have always been very close to the returning officers because I knew they were apolitical. They could of course vote as their conscience dictated, but at least I knew they had been appointed by a democratic process.
I feel that this part of the bill is serious and that the government House leader must, if he wishes to show good faith, revise the part relating to these appointments.
Then there are the contribution ceilings. We in the Bloc Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, feel these should not exceed $3,000 per individual.
This is a great victory. Today we can say it is a victory for a sovereignist party serving in Ottawa, which has told the federal government and federal politicians that it is high time political parties got their funding from individuals and were not held hostage by large corporations.
I congratulate the government once again. The Bloc Quebecois will be there to help improve this bill. I do, however, feel this is an excellent step forward. I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois members who were part of it.
The Budget February 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, an amount of $57 billion is needed to repair sewers, treat waste water, or develop public transit in our cities.
How can the Minister of Finance be taken seriously when he claims to want to improve the quality of life of Canadians if he only allocates $100 million, for one year, when $57 billion is needed?