House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Citizenship and Immigration November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is totally inexact. This is not a two measure system. It is very simple. The new law states that those who are adopted from abroad will obtain immediate citizenship. That is good news for prospective people who want to adopt.
Highway Infrastructure November 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the Quebec minister responsible for the Outaouais region, Sylvain Simard, concerning highway 50, generated confusion among Outaouais residents. The allegations made by the minister were not accurate.
I would therefore ask the federal Minister of Transport to inform the Quebec Minister of Transport that Quebec has the option of including highway 50 in the national highway system, since highway construction is a provincial jurisdiction.
Moreover, the Quebec government has not yet deemed it necessary to ask for the $108 million currently available under the strategic highway infrastructure program.
If Quebec wants to use the $108 million put at its disposal by the Government of Canada, it must have highway 50 included in the national highway system. Then, highway 50 can be included in the strategic highway infrastructure program.
Committees of the House November 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Competing for Immigrants”.
Foreign Affairs October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, each case is studied individually. There is no blanket deportation. Each case is examined by the Department of Immigration, which does so compassionately, and recognizes all humanitarian cases.
Foreign Affairs October 21st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the reason the moratorium was lifted was to regularize the system. Canada has no intention whatsoever of either organizing a blanket deportation or granting a general amnesty. Each individual case is examined on its own merits, with compassion and on humanitarian grounds.
Immigration October 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be able to answer the hon. member's question when she returns.
René Cousineau October 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on September 10, the Gatineau community lost one of its sons, René Cousineau.
Mr. Cousineau was a notary by trade and he taught that discipline at the University of Ottawa. He was elected to Parliament in 1979 and re-elected in 1980. The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau appointed him deputy government whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
Mr. Cousineau was a dedicated person and he was always available to his fellow citizens. He was a member of the Knights of Columbus and of the Rotary Club in Gatineau.
I wish to reiterate my most sincere condolences to his wife Paulette, his daughters Danielle and Sylvie, and the members of the Cousineau family.
Iraq October 3rd, 2002
Madam Speaker, it is a combination of all those different things. The target was Afghanistan and bin Laden. Now it is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I listened to an editorial by a journalist from Le Monde last week on the CBC French network where he said this whole thing has an odour of oil.
Iraq October 3rd, 2002
Madam Speaker, I will take the second question first.
If, through the United Nations, they want complete access to all sites, nobody disagrees with that. They should have total access to all sites. If they find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction or biological warfare, they should act upon it. Nobody disputes that.
In the first question the member brought out the fact that the United Nations in the past, be it in Rwanda or other countries, did not act. That is true, it did not act. However, quite often, especially in the Security Council, some nation put a veto. Unfortunately it has been the case too often in the past where the veto has been used against the United Nations and therefore, it could not act. We have to keep that in mind.
I do not want to have to say who has used the veto more than anybody else in the United Nations since its creation, but they are very close to us.
Iraq October 3rd, 2002
Madam Speaker, many of my colleagues on this side, and colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the member from Edmonton, have spoken out quite courageously against Canada's involvement in a unilateral military strike against Iraq. Such action would compromise, and more or less minimize, the role of the United Nations efforts to maintain at least an equilibrium and avoid military methods that would kill more innocent civilians than active combatants of a regime. Needless to say, it would destroy an infrastructure in Iraq that is already so weak that it would plunge the population into more dire misery.
Canada in the past has gained recognition in the world as a peacekeeper, not as a powder monkey. I often feel that if we cannot adhere to the charter of the United Nations, what hope is there in this world to eventually have peace?
I am expressing what many in the past have probably said in this chamber. A civilized world cannot have one or a few nations with incredible military might imposing their methods or ways. One powerful and supported international body like the United Nations is really the only solution to curb and dismantle regimes of tyrants and madmen, and the case in point is Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Many of my colleagues here and across the way have shown the dangers that we could be involved in with a unilateral strike. It certainly would not be in the interests of the whole of the Middle East. It could destabilize some of the other countries over there and plunge us into a situation that could be disastrous to all nations in the world.
I was reading some American editorials and one that I read a few weeks ago appeared in USA Today . A rather interesting observation was made by the man who wrote the editorial.
He said that of all those in the present administration under President Bush, all those that are the hawks, not one of them has ever served in the military. They have never worn a uniform. They have not got a clue in the world about being a combatant or being in a situation like many hundreds of thousands of Americans were, be it in the Korean war, the Vietnam war or the second world war. On the other side, senators, some members of Congress, the house of representatives, and even the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and other people who have served in the military and know what is implicated, are constantly trying to explain that there is a serious danger.
I find that rather interesting. Those that know what warfare is about and what it can project us into are very weary. They are the people we should be listening to. I hardly have any faith in people who know nothing about military life or engagement in combat yet they are the most hawkish that we have.
My colleague from Edmonton gave me a document which I believe was written by a former ambassador to Canada from Europe. He had some very interesting comments about the situation. He stated that we have to remember that Iraq is a country of 23 million people. Ethnically speaking there are 75% to 80% who are Arab and 15% to 20% who are Kurdish. Of course 95% of the population are of the Islamic faith.
He went through some of the history of Saddam Hussein, how he seized power in 1979 and his war against Iran that caused nearly one million deaths. Then there was the war with Kuwait that was so destructive. Of course we are dealing with a tyrant and a madman.
We look further and see that some of his comments are quite interesting. He said that in reading the British intelligence dossier on Iraq, one could see that the grounds used to justify a war against Iraq are not so much based on actual weapons or facilities for which evidence is presented, but rather on potential developments that may or may not occur in the future. No instant overwhelming menace is offered and the possibility of other options is unmistakable. He said that evidently going to war would unquestionably be excessive. There is no doubt about that.
The United Nations and the whole idea and principle of the charter was to at all costs avoid conflict like this where the lives of innocent people are taken.
These are his observations and he has had a long experience as a diplomat. We could go into detail and talk hours on end. We could go back into history, but essentially we should focus on this particular issue. His conclusion was that Iraq has been destroyed through war and embargo. A United States military unilateral operation against this already wretched country would, he claimed, constitute an act of state terrorism that would be likely to cause thousands of civilian casualties, adding to those that we had in 1990. It would increase the threat of terrorism dramatically because there is no doubt it would put a frenzy into a lot of maniacal people who feel that they have no alternative but to sacrifice themselves and bring about destruction on others. He said that there is no doubt in his mind it would destabilize the whole region.
We know that because of the strategic importance of the Middle East and the oil reserves, if there was a serious destabilization in that part of the world, it would have repercussions throughout the whole world. There is no doubt that it would plunge us into a recession and not only a recession but it would create such turmoil and conflict, it would take us years to get out of it.
In conclusion, let us hope and pray that the United Nations and the nations of this world realize that any unilateral action is against the best interests of all nations. With moderation and with the help of the United Nations, it can perform all the inspections it needs to ease our minds about this threat in Iraq.