François Langlois

[The Environment, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of the Environment the need to add to the Canadian fleet a ship equipped to respond quickly and efficiently in case of a spill in the St. Lawrence River or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

It is common knowledge that Quebec is totally unprepared to respond to an environmental disaster that would have disastrous consequences on the river's ecosystem.

This type of ship would fill a real need in addition to helping the shipbuilding industry.

As the member for Bellechasse, I know that many of my constituents who work at MIL Davie, in Lévis, are expecting a quick decision on this matter.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

In his speech, the hon. member for St. Boniface asked questions and suggested alternatives. Was it to give a different spin to his presentation in this House? Did he say that his answer to the question the government is asking us would be no and that he is not favourable to continued cruise missile testing?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. member for St. Boniface as I refrained from making more interventions in order not to disrupt the hon. member's speech?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thought that the period following the speech by the hon. member for St. Boniface was reserved for questions and comments. I think that the hon. member has joined the debate itself.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we have been dealing with the concept of sovereignty on the opposition side for some time now and obviously we are in a good position to place the debate in the context of protecting Canadian sovereignty. Our concept of sovereignty is not, however, fragile or timid, but open to the world. Our vision of sovereignty would allow us to get along with our neighbours and friends, and particularly in this instance, with the United States.

Because we have a great deal in common with the United States, Quebec sovereigntists can easily understand why the Americans did what they did two centuries ago. We too will soon be taking similar action, that is clear. We also understand that the defence of a country cannot be confined to geopolitical boundaries that begin at a certain parallel. The issue here is the defence of a continent which we share with the United States of America and we will continue to defend it and be good friends with the U.S. when we achieve sovereignty.

This being said, I have a question for the hon. member for Peace River. I did not quite understand the thrust of his remarks in support of cruise missile testing. I got the impression that he was in favour of allowing testing to continue simply because we have already signed an agreement.

Can the hon. member for Peace River tell me if he agrees with some of the substantive arguments put forward in support of continued testing or if he simply feels bound by the legal and technical aspects of the question and believes we must respect the existing agreement with the United States?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is twofold but I will be brief in order to enable the hon. member for Calgary Southwest and leader of the Reform Party to provide an answer.

At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member said that we should establish criteria to decide when Canada should participate in international missions. Would the hon. member specify which criteria he would like to use in the present case? Also, at the end of his speech, the hon. member suggested-at least it is my understand, but I would like some clarification-that Canadian troops could stay there under certain conditions. If these conditions, and I believe there are three, are fulfilled, does the hon. member for Calgary Southwest suggest that Canadian troops should stay in the former Yugoslavia?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands reflects accurately what has been agreed upon and it is with pleasure that the Official Opposition gives consent.

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order. The next speaker for the Official Opposition is the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. Like every woman sitting in this House, she is very active and only sickness or some mishap would slow her down just a little. Unfortunately, she broke her ankle during the weekend. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to show some leniency and allow the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata to stay seated while she makes her speech.

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, part of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard has eluded us. We do not reject his proposal but we would like him to repeat it so that everything is clear.

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Okanagan to explain briefly what he has in mind when he says that the government should create a climate that is favourable to job creation instead of lending money to businesses. What does he mean exactly by that?