Yvon Charbonneau

[Unesco, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce in this House that UNESCO and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or IPU, have launched an international network of parliamentarians to support UNESCO's mission and activities.

This network was officially launched on October 6, in Paris, during UNESCO's General Conference. The IPU will appeal to its 140 national branches to each designate a member to act as a focal point with UNESCO and its national commissions in 190 countries.

This international network will allow parliamentarians around the world to become more familiar with UNESCO and to better publicize this essential UN organization dedicated to the promotion of education, culture and science, and to humanizing globalization.

This network is totally consistent with the wishes of our own UNESCO Friendship Group of Parliamentarians and the Ottawa Declaration that closed the conference held here in June.

I am very pleased with the step that has been taken. Parliamentarians around the world will be able to contribute more to debates on current issues at UNESCO, such as the protection of cultural diversity, ethics and genetics, and the information and knowledge based society.

[Unesco, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Friendship Group of Parliamentarians for UNESCO, I would like to point out that tomorrow and the day after, Ottawa will be hosting an international conference of parliamentarians on strengthening relations between UNESCO and the parliaments of the world.

In addition to its primary mission, which is to promote education, science and culture, UNESCO has been given several broad mandates, such as the promotion of a culture of peace, dialogue of cultures and civilizations, and protection of cultural diversity. In a word, UNESCO has taken on the duty of humanizing globalization, which constitutes an essential reference point.

There is considerable overlap between what parliamentarians and UNESCO do.

The Ottawa conference is sponsored by UNESCO and the Department of Foreign Affairs. It will lay the foundation for an international network of parliamentarians for UNESCO which, in conjunction with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, will help parliamentarians familiarize themselves with UNESCO and contribute to its policy direction and programs.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Jean for seeing the central element of my speech. I am pleased to see that this speech is shared by many other people.

I believe we must invest in plans for cooperation, which might touch on education, health, development and also arms. I am talking about plans that should go just so far, and not far-fetched plans where anyone can do anything to get around them. There must be plans that apply to all states who have these weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or other kinds. They must apply to both the big countries and the small countries, in all regions of the world. I think that we can develop such plans and that they are the road to security.

I believe that Canadian sovereignty is important. We are ready to make adjustments on matters of sovereignty withother countries, in order to produce valid international tools.

[Supply, May 15th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to commend the Bloc Quebecois for having raised in the House the issue of the American proposal asking Canada to take part in the U.S. missile defence plan.

I also congratulate them on following up on the Prime Minister's suggestion that this be a public debate, because it could well have been limited to a few parties within Parliament. After this opposition day, many Canadians will be paying closer attention to these very serious questions.

I also wish to recognize the very careful work of the hon. member for Yukon, who chaired the committee of our national caucus on these questions, whose report was tabled in the House earlier. This is a very balanced report, which reflects the differing and totally legitimate points of view we hear when we embark on this kind of a debate.

In our parliamentary system, it is incumbent on the government to make decisions in these matters. But the government bases its decisions on debates within the Canadian public, in Parliament and within its own ranks; it has done so and is doing so now.

Personally, I am totally comfortable with the positions taken by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as set out previously by our party, against the militarization of space. In other debates, we have stressed the importance of mobilizing against terrorism. We also strongly support mobilization against the doctrine of pre-emptive war inspired by unilateralism, which the government of our neighbours to the south is promoting.

What we want to know is this: how useful will the missile defence system contemplated be against hostile countries, or rogue states as they are called, terrorism in all its forms and weapons of mass destruction? Can one seriously claim that this system can be used and have some degree of effectiveness against these threats? Some paint the world in terms of good states and evil states. Could missile defence be of any use in this context?

I think that there is a great deal of confusion between defence and security. We say that we want to achieve security through increasingly sophisticated technological defence systems. In my opinion, there is a certain imbalance in the debate that has to be emphasized at this point.

We are saying, “Will this work? Will there be so many missiles of such and such a category? Since when have they been around? Approximately how much will that cost? What are the advantages and the disadvantages?” We are fixated on technical considerations when the issue is much more important than that. It is a matter of security. And it is a matter of security not only for the United States and the northern part of the North American continent that includes Canada and United States, but for humanity.

In my opinion, it is not through the building up and the escalation of technologies, however sophisticated they may be, that we will achieve greater security in Canada, in North America or on planet earth. It is not through such escalation that we can reduce the gap between good states and evil states. I do not think that building a fortress here in North America will solve these sorts of issues, which are vital to the long-term security of humanity.

We are in a situation similar to the one in which those people living behind barricades and in fortresses find themselves. Sometimes, when we visit certain countries, we realize that rich people have beautiful residences that cannot be seen from the street because they are hidden behind high walls. Are these people really safe behind those high walls? They claim they are. And when things get bad, they simply add a few more rows of blocks and make the wall higher.

Then they install barbed wire, control towers and radar to watch over everything. But when they leave their fortress, are they safe? They have to be escorted by armed guards to get to an airport to travel. They have to be escorted for their own safety to get to their offices downtown. Are they safe? They can defend themselves as long as they are inside their fortress. Once they leave, real life is waiting for them.

The same thing is true on an international level. It is possible to build a system where you are almost invulnerable as long as you stay inside your own walls. As soon as you leave, real life is waiting for you. Is it really any good to have a fortress in which we see ourselves as invulnerable? If, in the future, we run out of water, if the land around becomes a desert, if disease devastates the entire country and other continents, where is the security in that?

Some people, some countries and some elite groups can believe they are safe, but this does not move the planet forward. In my opinion, we are all in the same boat. As earthlings, we are on a space ship. The survival of one means the survival of all. We will all live or we will all die.

All the escalating and ruinously expensive technologies will not help us one bit in this regard. Instead, it will take international cooperation, the development of multilateral tools, rebuilding the UN and the Security Council, a better balance between the haves and the have nots and between the continents and the superpowers. The creation of new tools will put us on the road to achieving this security, which is much more important and encompassing than the stockpile of defence weapons that only temporarily protect our own fortress.

There are battles ahead. The battle for a clean environment and for sustainable development around the world, for the eradication of poverty afflicting pockets on each continent, for access to water, food, shelter, physical security, and education. These measures are the ones that ensure security in the middle and long term.

Canada should send this message to the U.S., international public opinion and UN forums. It should send the message that this is our first choice. Those are the terms of this debate, in my opinion.

[Iraq, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the British-American assault on Iraq is an unjustified war. It was unjustified before it began and nothing has changed. The UN Security Council did not support this war. Canada has not acknowledged the link between this war and the war on international terrorism. Weeks or months of systematic and tough inspections could have neutralized and disarmed the Iraqi regime, which is what we all want.

Instead, this assault is going to galvanize Iraqi resistance and unfortunately, it may give rise to a fundamentalist and anti-American Islam throughout the world.

We are now talking about helping and rebuilding Iraq. I hope the UN and Canada will play a primary role in this. However, I think that the UN, Canada and other peaceful powers should devote their energies to the even more strategic task of rebuilding relationships of cooperation with all Arab and Muslim countries, where Canada enjoys undisputed respect and esteem.

Canada must take the initiative of building these bridges and expanding its circle of partnerships and friends around the world.

Democracy and respect for human rights will not come about through war and B-52s.

[Situation in Iraq, March 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when there seems to be every indication that the Bush administration and a few allied forces will be attacking Iraq in a matter of hours or days, I wish to say how sad, distressing, revolting and, more importantly, dangerous this situation is.

These feelings are shared by those people of my riding who have contacted me these past few months. They are also shared by hundreds of thousands of who rallied in the streets of Montreal and a dozen other cities in Quebec last Saturday and over the past month. All these people to whom I wish to pay tribute today share these feelings, which I want to reflect in my remarks.

I will take a moment, however, to say how pleased I am with the position taken by the Canadian government and our Prime Minister with respect to both the basic issue and the approach throughout this past year. Canada's position has always been clear, contrary to what we may have heard. It was based on three main elements.

First, as far as Canada is concerned, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime must comply with UN resolutions. Canada does not have any sympathy for this regime and has consistently supported the UN's approach and objectives.

The second pillar of our policy is as follows. To ensure that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to its neighbours and the international community, Canada supported renewed and increased inspections. This process produced results.

In practical terms, Saddam Hussein's regime is paralyzed, surrounded and rendered powerless. Canada has proposed a very strict work schedule for the teams of weapons inspectors over the next few weeks. This program would still take several more weeks. This initiative received the support of all the international inspectors. Therefore, we put forward a progressive process to reach the goal, without war.

The third pillar of Canada's position is to preserve the UN, to preserve the only international organization able to ensure that certain rules of law are respected around the world. I am proud of the responsible and conservative attitude taken by our government and our Prime Minister.

Remember that, in September 2002, President Bush did not want anything to do with the UN. Our Prime Minister and other political figures persuaded him to seek the UN's approval. We know that Mr. Bush approached the UN very reluctantly. Nonetheless, he got a resolution, the famous resolution 1441, passed unanimously.

Inspections are coming to fruition. According to the U.S., it is because of all the pressure it exerted. Why not then benefit from the pressure that was exerted? Why not keep pushing in the same direction for another few weeks, since we are making progress? Why is the U.S. so eager to go to war?

At 8 o'clock tonight, we heard President Bush say that he wanted all discussions to stop. Over a month ago, he told us “the game is over”. We have been hearing about this for a month now. Tonight, unconditional surrender by Saddam Hussein is what he demanded. He is setting the U.S. up as the supreme court for the international community. Not only the UN—which he called irresponsible—but the whole international community is not taking its responsibilities. He says “I, George Bush, will set out the responsibilities we have to assume. I will speak on behalf of the whole world and submit our fair demands”.

How arrogant of him, since we know that the international community, the bishops, the churches and the Pope do not agree with him. Last weekend, major U.S. newspapers said no to war.

President Bush is playing a very dangerous game. By riding roughshod over the UN to defend his country's right to attack, to launch a pre-emptive strike, and to make unilateral decisions on everything, based on its own interests, Bush and his government are acting in a very dangerous and irresponsible manner.

Hence, the U.S. is paving the way for other super powers who want to settle things with their own neighbours or minorities. The U.S. is also setting itself up as a new world power that can dictate to others what to do and take whatever it wants from whomever it wants.

As Canadians we live in a country full of resources, abundant minerals, water, oil and gas, more than anyone else has. We must, more than anyone else, support strong international institutions and the establishment of world governance, where the smallest—we are not among the weakest, but we are among the smallest countries in terms of population—will never be at the mercy of the largest and their neighbours. This is an important message that we as Canadians must send to the international community.

The Americans and their allies are taking a terrible risk. In addition to the horrible massacres, the suffering and destruction that comes with any war, Bush is playing with fire by giving himself the mandate to invade Iraq and overthrow its regime. What will the ramifications be for Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey, the Arab world and the Muslim world?

Bush is in the process of giving Islamic fundamentalists the very momentum and unity they seek to try to impose their vision on their own people and destroy any glimmer of democratic or social progress that has been achieved here and in their country.

What gives Americans under the Bush administration the right to dictate international law, when for the past 30 or 40 years they have supported, trained and armed dictatorships on all continents, including in association with bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

This war is unjustified and unfair. It is illegal and illegitimate. It is a terrible and dangerous mistake.

As for Canada, thanks to the careful and informed position that we have taken, we must advocate for the side of international law, now more than ever, we must back the UN and its institutions, promote the necessary reforms, participate in humanitarian aid, open our doors to refugees and contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.

Not only will we need to rebuild the roads that have been ruined, the factories and bridges that have been demolished and wrecked, but we will first have to try to rebuild good relations with the Arab and Muslim world. These communities have values that are similar and comparable to ours, based on humanitarianism, fraternity and openness.

Our Arab and Muslim friends in Canada and in other countries must know that there are peace-loving people in North America, in the United States and Canada, and that they, too, dream of building a world that is balanced and sensible. A world where new international relations will be based on cooperation. These relations will allow us to work in a healthier environment that will allow everyone to eat their fill, to get an education and to be healthy and free.

We have all the means to reach these objectives. President Bush is always saying this:

It is a matter of resolve.

Let us put that resolve at the service of peace.

This is the message that Canada must send despite these difficult times, a message of hope.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the argument raised by our colleague from the New Democratic Party. He says he is against an identification card, when all we are doing today is debating the issue. He must suspect that the minister is in favour of it, although it is just a suspicion at this point. He says he is against it; he does not know what an ID card would entail, but he is against it.

Is that how he would contribute to the democratic process? Would it not be more reasonable to agree to a debate and, if there are good arguments against this plan, they will come out when the committee considers it and hears from witnesses? We, too, have some concerns. All the parties have questions.

Why would he not agree to a debate? If he is so sure of himself today, why are we not voting on the motion, since we are obviously launching into a debate.

[Community Access Centres, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce the opening of seven community access centres in the federal riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie to the tune of $119,000.

The community access program, which has been in operation since 1995, has funded more than 8,800 community access centres in Canada.

This program, implemented in cooperation with community organizations, the private sector and provincial and municipal governments, provides thousands of Canadians with affordable Internet access in places such as schools, community centres and libraries.

This program is also part of the federal government's Youth Employment Strategy.

Our community partners are essential to the success of this program. They help us not only by identifying the needs of the community in terms of information technologies, but also by acquiring resources, expertise and the sponsorships needed to set up and operate the centres.

We applaud them for their commitment.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I will say to the hon. member who just asked that question that if people were less ignorant and less biased in our country, in the United States and in other countries, we could move a little closer to tolerance and understanding. If there were greater awareness in our country, in the United States and elsewhere, we could build lasting ties. Biases would disappear and dictators would not last as long.

As for human rights, we could also talk about them. There is a whole context. If we want to change certain things over time, we will not do it with bombs and wars. This only increases opposition, increases polarization and deepens resentment. There is enough of that as it is. Only by trying to work in another direction can we hope for a brighter future.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, this question is often raised. Opinions vary within the various parties. Personally, I think it is important enough to warrant a vote being taken in this place.

The Constitution is said to provide that the government may make decisions on this matter, which does not mean it does not have the right and responsibility to check how the members of this House feel about it, through a vote. I think it would be interesting to go that far. Each member could vote according to his convictions and reflect the mandate they were given by their constituents. We get to vote on much less important issues. Several times each week, we vote on issues whose importance is questionable.

We are considering entering into war and getting our country involved in a war. We are talking about the lives of people in the war zone and Canadian troops. We are talking about enormous expenditures, to the tune of billions of dollars maybe. And we would get involved without seeking the advice of parliamentarians through a vote? I think there is very broad support in several parties for a vote on this issue.