Daniel Turp

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to join in a debate which is the prelude to the political mobilization of Quebeckers in support of the consensus re-emerging in Quebec which, as stated in the motion moved today in the House by our party, holds that it is for Quebeckers, and Quebeckers alone, to freely decide their own future.

Contrary to what the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs is saying, the Government of Canada has put three questions to the supreme court dealing with the future of Quebec and phrased them in such a way that it has shocked and troubled the chair of the UN International Law Commission, Alain Pellet, and I quote “on account of the partisan manner in which they are asked”, not because it wants to clarify the rule of law and become its champion.

No, this is a political move. So political in fact that it might jeopardize the credibility of this same court held hostage by the law, according to the prominent lawyer Jacques-Yvan Morin. This strategy is aimed mainly at discouraging Quebeckers from opting for sovereignty when the time comes because it would be illegal.

However in Quebec nobody, not only federalist allies, such as Daniel Johnson and Claude Ryan, is being fooled by such shifty tactics, such trickery, which, as Hannah Arendt put it, “never conflict with reason, because things could have happened just the way the liar claimed they happened”.

This strategy is probably also aimed at influencing the international community, which Canada will ask to oppose any action the supreme court might have ruled illegal. However, the international community is not and will not be fooled by this none too subtle federal stratagem. One day it will recognize the will of the Quebec to have its own country and to become a full-fledged member of the international community.

The international community will recognize a sovereign Quebec, a Quebec that will reassert, as it has stated for decades, its intention to abide by the Charter of the United Nations and the other international instruments ratified by Canada, guarantee the English speaking community and the native people the rights they need to develop within a sovereign Quebec, as well as respect all relevant commitments to ensure the stability of the continent and the whole world.

The Bloc Quebecois has been trying and keeps trying to expose this legal tactic that undermines democracy in Canada and it will intensify its discussions with foreign representatives, here in Ottawa and abroad, to politely and patiently explain to them why Quebeckers will soon opt for sovereignty, why Quebeckers no longer want to deal with the Canadian impasse and why they want a state where people speak French and enjoy a Quebec culture.

When the time comes to decide its own future, Quebec will have legitimacy on its side, as always. Canada, or at least the part being represented by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his entourage, believes that it has the law on its side. The minister argues that the rule of law is crucial, but allow me to digress here for a minute.

To be so crucial, it would have to be understood. Last week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs showed us that he does not understand anything about international law. When he was talking about unilateral decisions made by Canada, he said things that exposed and brought to light his lack of knowledge in this area, which we will continue to decry.

The law is not crucial. Democracy is, the will of the people is crucial, and that is what the Canadian government is about to learn at its own expense. There is today a large consensus which the international community will take note of, a large consensus that it is for Quebeckers to decide, and Quebeckers will soon have another opportunity to decide their own future.

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you first of all that I shall be splitting my time with the hon. member for Laval East.

We are here this evening for a debate on the United States' invitation for Canada to take part in military interventions in the Middle East. If the Bloc Quebecois considers it essential for parliament to be involved in a debate, nevertheless the conditions under which this evening's debate is being held leave no doubt about where it is headed, about the decision the government appears to have already reached on this matter.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have, moreover, been far too uncommunicative this evening in informing the hon. members of this House of the steps taken in favour of a peaceful solution to the dispute which is pitting Iraq against the international community, and the House has not been given sufficient information on the arguments behind intervention by us and by the U.S.

What is more, in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' speech just now, he suggested that the hon. members of this House, the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as well as of the Standing Committee on National Defence, had been invited to attend information and discussion sessions on the situation in Iraq.

Since being elected and since taking part in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I was never invited to participate in such sessions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is suggesting that consultations took place when, in fact, this was not the case.

Since members of Parliament were not consulted, and given the obvious lack of related information, we have questions to ask the government, questions that have not been answered but that must be answered before we take a stand on behalf of Quebeckers, whom we are representing in this debate.

The first thing that concerns the Bloc Quebecois is that Canada did not truly real participate in a process to convince, through peaceful means, Iraq to comply with the security council's resolutions, including Resolution 687, which provides that Iraq must not produce weapons and must destroy all existing stocks.

Again, in spite of his eloquent speech here this evening, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not demonstrate, nor did the Prime Minister, that Canada had, to this day, contributed to a sufficiently sustained diplomatic effort to this end. However, the minister did more or less confirm that he was leaving it up to other states to search for such a peaceful solution.

It is not enough to talk to the United States, to listen to the request made by the U.S. president. Calling the British Prime Minister or talking to our Australian counterparts is not enough.

If we are really seeking a peaceful solution, it is important that Canada look at our allies' positions on this issue. Canada should know and take into consideration the fact that several of its NATO and OSCE allies, including France, Belgium and Italy, have serious concerns about the military intervention favoured by the United States and supported by other powers, to say nothing of the reluctance shown by two other members of the security council, namely Russia and China. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out during question period today, Canada's efforts in seeking a diplomatic solution must not be limited to the discussions that took place two weeks ago with the Russian foreign affairs minister.

Canada must above all add its voice to the chorus of countries seeking first and foremost a diplomatic solution. It should get more actively involved in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict opposing Iraq to the international community.

We therefore call on the international community to make a more sustained effort to resolve a conflict that has endured for several years and in which no military action appears imminent. All nations acting in good faith should get more actively involved in seeking a peaceful solution to this conflict.

The second point on which the Bloc Quebecois must get the facts, and every member of this House should have sufficient information, is one that should lead the government to make public the legal basis for such military action. Actions taken by the United States, Canada and any coalition of nations could obviously have a moral or political basis.

No one, except those who have not understood and not properly read the Security Council resolutions, is disputing the fact that Iraq has, by its actions in recent years, violated both the spirit and the letter of the Security Council resolutions. There is, therefore, an obvious basis for any intervention that would arise as the result of the lack of diplomatic solutions and Iraq's refusal to settle this conflict through diplomatic channels.

The moral authority of those who wish to ensure that the Security Council's decisions are respected is undeniable as well. We do not deny that there is such a moral authority and political authority and that the moral and political basis cannot be disputed. But what can be said about the legal basis for the intervention being proposed by the United States, and seemingly desired by Canada as well, barring a peaceful and diplomatic settling of the dispute?

In the address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs a few minutes ago, he suggested that this basis lies in a resolution according to which any violation of Iraq's obligations under Security Council Resolution 687 would constitute a threat to international peace and security, and would consequently pave the way for intervention of a military nature.

That statement was insufficiently explained and documented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and some feel another Security Council intervention would be required. That Council would have to specifically authorize the use of force in order to ensure compliance with the resolutions the United States and other countries consider to have been violated by Iraq.

We wish to see the government enlighten parliament and the hon. members of this House on the true legal basis for intervention and inform us as to whether it has sought legal opinions, whether it has in its possession legal opinions, or whether legal opinions have been provided to it by those desiring this intervention, the U.S. in particular, so that this House may be convinced that the Government of Canada, by committing to such intervention, is not violating international law and is not diminishing the authority of the United Nations. If military intervention by the United States, participated in by Canada, did diminish the authority of the United Nations, that authority and that decision might impact very badly on the future of the organization.

Like others, the Bloc Quebecois believes that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with international obligations under United Nations resolutions. This is a head of state who without doubt deserves to be punished for his actions. However, as the famous diplomat Henry Kissinger expressed it with a Spanish proverb, and I quote: “Traveller, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking”.

The Government of Canada has no—

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a number of Canada's allies do not support a military intervention.

France, Italy and Belgium continue to oppose a military solution to the conflict with Iraq. Did Canada, a member of the OSCE, have discussions with these three countries, which all continue to believe in a negotiated solution to the conflict?

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

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

Russian president Boris Yeltsin believes that a military strike in Iraq at this point could lead to a global conflict. His remarks are troubling, especially because they come from a member of the UN security council. Again this morning, upon arriving in Rome for an official visit, the president of Russia reiterated his support for a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis.

Before establishing its position in the matter, did the Canadian government try to find out the position of the Russian government, which continues to promote a negotiated solution to the conflict?

[Violence In Algeria, February 2nd, 1998]

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

More than 1,500 people were reported killed in Algeria during Ramadan, and there seems to be no end in sight for the massacre of Algerian civilians, including women and children, while there is still no clear picture of who is responsible for these massacres, and the reasons behind them.

Can the minister tell us what he knows about the situation in Algeria at the present time, as well as when he plans to release the report by his special envoy?

[International Human Rights Day, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join forces with the other Bloc Quebecois members in drawing attention to International Human Rights Day. This event is even more meaningful this year since it coincides with the start of celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Every day, events remind us of the importance of these fundamental rights and freedoms. There is no doubt that they have contributed to legitimizing the principle of the constitutional state, to democratization, and to the broadening of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Despite these real advances, however, there is still much to be done. The tragedy of the Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, the scandal of the loagai in China, the denial of the rights of the aboriginal communities in Chiapas, are all examples which rightly trouble the international community.

For this reason, governments, the Government of Canada included, must loudly reaffirm the inalienable and universal character of human rights, the rights of women in particular, and must continue to remind—

[France-Quebec Agreement On Support Payments, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec cannot be party to an agreement between Canada and France when it has already negotiated an international agreement with France.

Does the minister not realize that his radical position goes against the position taken by the previous federal government and the Quebec Liberal Party and the resolution unanimously endorsed by the Quebec National Assembly?

[France-Quebec Agreement On Support Payments, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I wonder if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cares more about women. No fewer than 200 Quebec women are without support payments because Ottawa still has not approved the draft agreement between France and Quebec on this subject.

In accordance with the principle of extending Quebec's jurisdiction, will Ottawa finally see reason and stop standing in the way of an agreement between France and Quebec on this subject?

[Arms Sales, December 5th, 1997]

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

Yesterday, the minister stated in this House that Canada had, and I quote:

“The toughest export controls in arms of any country in the western world”.

If these controls are so tough, how can the minister explain that arms sales to Indonesia totalling approximately $2 billion have been authorized when Amnesty International reports that, in East Timor, a number of people have been killed under dubious circumstances by security forces?

[International Arms Sales, December 4th, 1997]

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

We recognize that the Canadian government has played a positive role in the development of the anti-personnel land mines treaty. It must not be forgotten, however, that Canada continues to be a significant player in international arms sales.

How can the government square its efforts to ban anti-personnel land mines with its foreign arms sales?