Daniel Turp

[International Women's Day, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on this day celebrating the place and role of women in our society, I would like to add my voice to theirs.

During the recent conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, rape was widespread and it was used as a veritable weapon of war. To judge those who committed these atrocities, the international community established an international criminal court. For the first time in history, rape, one horrendous act among many, will be considered a war crime.

But while charges have been laid against them and their whereabouts are known, the alleged offenders have yet to be arrested, in spite of the fact that security forces from several countries, including Canada, are participating in the SFOR operations. This complacent attitude has lasted long enough.

I sincerely hope that those who committed rape will be arrested. I also hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence will encourage SFOR to participate more actively in arresting criminals so that justice can be done for all women.

[Iraq, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of this crisis, the government has said, sometimes half heartedly, that it favoured a diplomatic solution.

Since a diplomatic solution has now been reached, negotiated by none other than the Secretary General of the United Nations, does the minister intend to promote this approach among his partners, including the United States?

[Iraq, February 23rd, 1998]

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

Over the course of the weekend we learned that the Secretary General of the United Nations was successfully negotiating an agreement with the government of Iraq on the application of the UN resolutions. In other words, the diplomatic solution we advocated is within reach and the Security Council will be asked to vote on this solution tomorrow.

If the members of the Security Council move in one direction and the United States in another, which direction will Canada take?

[Iraq, February 19th, 1998]

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

In a letter sent a few days ago to Canadian nationals in Lebanon, Ambassador Daniel Marchand implies that they ought to be prepared to withstand a siege or to evacuate the country, because of the imminent armed conflict with Iraq.

From this initiative by the ambassador, are we to conclude that the minister considers armed conflict with Iraq not only inevitable, but also liable to spread throughout the entire region?

[Iraq, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are singing from very different song sheets.

In 1991, he wanted military operations to come under the control of the UN. In 1998, he has changed his tune. Back in 1991, he wanted members to be able to vote on Canada's involvement. In 1998, that too has gone by the boards.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain this about-face between the fine words of 1991 and the government's actions in 1998?

[Iraq, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, we learned that the federal government is indeed involved alongside the United States in setting up the strike force against Iraq.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that Canada is already jumping with both feet into the upcoming conflict alongside the United States when most of Canada's international partners are still seeking a diplomatic solution to this conflict?

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give our friend from the Reform Party an opportunity to practice speaking French in this House as he does on a regular basis.

He probably noticed recently that, in Quebec, federalists are joining with sovereignists to state that the Quebec people should decide their future, that the supreme court has no business interfering with the freedom of speech of Quebeckers and that it is up to them to settle the matter in a future referendum.

I would like to know what the position of the Reform Party is on this issue in light of the emerging consensus among Quebeckers, including federalists like Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson.

[Iraq, February 10th, 1998]

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

During last night's emergency debate, the minister pledged “to follow through on the kinds of continuing dialogue and exchange of information to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in the ensuing developments”.

My question is simple. Is the minister considering holding a vote in the House, as was done during the 1991 debate, to give all parliamentarians an opportunity to express themselves before the government authorizes Canada's military participation in—

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague that I was not there but I understand that the amendment was not accepted because it was deemed not to be in order by the chair.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First I will say that the politicians whom the member calls irresponsible are those who, for more than 30 years, have been proposing reforms to federalism without ever being able to see them through.

It is not as if Quebeckers, and several of their governments, have not sought to take part in reforms aimed at changing the federation in order to bring it in line with Quebeckers' expectations. The ones responsible for the division today are the politicians, and I agree with you that the Liberals of Canada are without a doubt the ones who must accept the bulk of the responsibility, in particular Prime Minister Trudeau, who we are not upset to hear is now losing his popularity in Quebec. The Liberals are the ones who created the stalemate and they are the ones who continue to maintain positions that perpetuate it.

The sovereignist politicians have their faults, but they also have their good points, and one of their good points is definitely that they wanted to find an alternative, and alternative within a federalism which has reached a dead end and continues to be stuck there. Our alternative, since René Lévesque founded the Parti Quebecois, is the one proposed to the people of Quebec, sovereignty plus an offer to Canada in all friendship and respect to those who make up Canada, an offer of partnership or economic association.

We have done so, and will continue to do so, giving priority to the democratic approach and inviting Quebeckers to reflect on their future and to decide on that future after sober reflection. Quebeckers have the right to decide their future, as they did once in 1980, a second time in 1992, a third time in 1995, and they will still be free to decide their future again, and soon we hope, so that Quebec may be a country by the year 2000.