Antoine Dubé

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, one could wonder what the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is doing in this debate.

I am speaking up by solidarity because the situation the hon. member for Laurentides is describing, and I commend her for her speech, is somewhat similar to the one that the Davie shipbuilding people are going through. They have known insecurity for a long time and we are aware of the many problems that employees may experience, both individually and collectively.

I would like her to have the opportunity to expand on that point.

[Petitions, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition that I had signed by about 60 people yesterday.

The petitioners are asking the government to support Taiwan's legitimate request to be admitted as an observer at the annual general meeting of the World Health Organization, which will be held on May 14, 2002, in Geneva.

The fact that Taiwan is an important tourism and business destination that receives 10 million travelers a year makes it more vulnerable to epidemics. At the same time, that state—since it is not a country—has developed an expertise in the area of vaccination, particularly against hepatitis B.

For these reasons, we are asking the government to follow up on various statements and to recognize Taiwan at the WTO.

[Armenia, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today, April 24, the international community is commemorating the Armenian genocide of 1915, which resulted in the death of one and a half million people.

In France, the National Assembly, the Senate and President Chirac recognized the genocide of 1915. France even passed legislation stating that just as we cannot deny the Holocaust, nor can we deny the Armenian genocide. Any person who denies it may be accused of distorting history.

In North America, Quebec's National Assembly, the Ontario legislature, and the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have all recognized the Armenian genocide.

The Government of Canada has had numerous opportunities to do so in the past, but has never officially recognized the Armenian genocide. It is the hope of the Bloc Quebecois that the House of Commons and the government will finally have the courage to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915.

Let us stand in solidarity—

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear that you had acceded to the request for the emergency debate we are having tonight on the crisis in the Middle East. This request was made yesterday by my colleague from Mercier, our foreign affairs critic. First, I would like to congratulate her on this initiative and on the speech she made tonight. Her speech sought balance and peace.

I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who will speak immediately after me. He too thinks he has important things to say.

Second, I would like to say that if I am taking part in this debate tonight it is not because of my personal experience or because I know people on both sides, but rather as a member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Rights are extremely important to me. Unfortunately, however, these days, and for some time now, human rights have been and are being trampled by both sides in the Middle East.

I would like to focus on the rights of displaced people and the problems they face. Even if I am not as well versed in history as my colleague from Mercier, I believe that at this point in time and after several speeches, it is appropriate to point out a few historical facts.

First, the territory now occupied by the Palestinians and the Israelis has been the scene of many conflicts dating back to at least 2000 BC. So things go back a long way. It is a long-standing conflict. Other areas in the world have also experienced conflicts. It is not the only one. It is, however, fair to say that this area has a special tradition when it comes to conflicts.

The territory in question, especially the city of Jerusalem, saw the birth of three major religions: Catholicism, of course, Judaism and Islam. However, the idea of a Jewish state goes back to 1896 and comes from Theodor Herzl, who wrote on the subject. The concept was being discussed at the time and he wrote about it.

In those days, the Palestinian territory was under the Ottoman Empire. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain occupied and administered this territory. It was a more extensive territory though. After World War II and the Holocaust, which the Jews remember today—nobody can deny this genocide, which I too deplore, because it is a an event in history nobody would wish to any people—the Israeli-Palestinian issue was brought before the UN in February 1947.

We have the feeling that the international community, though perhaps not out of guilt, wanted to do something to make up for certain lack of action during World War II. Several months of discussion ensued during which a former Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, had a prominent and influential role. He played a crucial role before the adoption by the UN General Assembly of resolution 181(11), which partitioned the Palestinian territory into eight areas, in which Israel was to be included. Three zones were given to the Jews, and three to the Arabs. The city of Jaffa was to be an Arab city, and Jerusalem was to be under international control.

But the situation degenerated. War broke out between the two parties in 1948. Fleeing before the Israeli army, Arab populations from Palestine sought refuge beyond the borders. In 1949, the number of refugees reached 725,000.

In December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 194-3, which stated that refugees wishing to return home and live in peace with their neighbours should be authorized to do so as soon as possible, and that compensation should be provided in payment for property or for damages to the property of those who did not wish to return.

An analogy can be made with situations we have experienced here. It is not entirely comparable, but it explains what happens when people are forced to move outside their region, or lose their property. This situation can be compared to that of Mirabel, where people were expropriated. There is also the case of Forillon park. Quebecers who are watching will tell us that those who experienced this experienced hardship and anxiety.

In the Middle East, the hardship and anxiety are over more than money: it is about their very existence, about their lives. From 1948 to 1960, the issue of Palestinian refugees came up every year at the UN.

The reason I am dwelling on this important aspect of displaced persons is to explain that this type of situation is a breeding ground for terrorism. I cannot accept terrorism, and I believe that parliamentarians do not accept it either, but it is an important fact.

Because I am running out of time, I will leave out the more recent history. Everyone knows that they have reached a deadlock in the region. Unfortunately, with the current parties involved in the conflict, it is difficult to foresee a solution resulting from bilateral negotiations. We cannot simply put the two parties together and hope for the best. The international community needs to act.

Was it not, incidentally, the international community that allowed the two peoples to exist, Israelis, the Jews, and Palestinians? I believe that by accepting this principle, we must denounce the Government of Canada's approach of sitting on the sidelines, content to follow the Americans.

However, the value of that initiative and its importance for the future must be recognized. I do not wish to criticize, but at the same time, on April 5, at the human rights commission in Geneva, Canada was one of two countries that opposed the sending of a mission to observe the situation in Palestine and in the surrounding area. Canada objected, and that did not look good. Canada should redeem itself.

Given the inalienable right of Israel to exist and the right of Palestinians to a viable state, there is no military solution to this conflict. Dialogue and negotiation alone will lead to peace.

Terrorism, whatever its origin, must be denounced. The Palestinian authority and Yasser Arafat must play an essential role in resolving this situation.

In the short term, Israel must heed the calls of the United States, the European Union and many other countries and it must comply with UN resolutions 1402 and 1403. It must also stop Operation Protective Wall and withdraw from Palestinian cities.

The Palestinian authority must also do its part, by officially condemning suicide bombers and other terrorists, while the United Nations must seriously consider deploying an international peacekeeping force.

Canada must promote the idea of an international peacekeeping force and continue to fight for a fair solution to this problem. In a conflict, there are often two versions of the facts and responsibility on both sides. The government must strongly object to the use of excessive force and terrorism by both parties. The Prime Minister must also take the opportunity afforded to him by his current tour to ensure that Canada's voice is heard, and parliament must be used to support the voice of the government on the international scene.

[Battle of Vimy Ridge, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Monday April 9, 1917, at precisely 5.30 p.m. was a landmark moment for Quebecers and Canadians.

EIghty-five years ago, while still a colony of the United Kingdom, Canada engaged in the first world war, without the experience some other countries had already had with war.

On that night of bone-chilling cold, four Canadian divisions, that is 20,000 Canadian soldiers, including several Quebecers, surged out of the trenches and up the shell-strewn southwestern slope of Vimy Ridge. They succeeded in pushing a six kilometer segment of the front line back four kilometres. This mission, considered secondary when it was assigned to them, was transformed into a success that was all the more remarkable because it was unexpected.

Vimy Ridge was one of the dominant points on the plains of northern France. The German hold on it had already been challenged by the French and the British in 1915 and 1916. It constituted the main objective of these first offensives, but was not to be retaken until the third, in April 1917. In 1915, the French were nearly successful, but were beaten back by the Germans and sustained heavy losses. During the subsequent attempt, the British set off enormous mines within German lines in an unsuccessful attempt to open up a path for their troops.

The offensive by the troops from Quebec and Canada led to Vimy Ridge finally being taken and contributed to the Allied victory.

The losses were extremely heavy. VImy Ridge was taken at the cost of 10,000 dead or wounded. These were volunteer soldiers, it must be remembered. Conscription was instituted after Vimy Ridge. Quebecers were, it must be pointed out, unwilling to fight in a war they did not feel was theirs. They did not want to see conscription imposed. There were demonstrations in Quebec City which were harshly put down. Even Wilfrid Laurier took a stand against conscription. Several Quebec leaders, however, encouraged the Canadian effort and were in favour of Quebec's and Canada's contribution to the victory of France and Britain.

Even though a number of Quebecers were forced to take part in World War I, we can only be proud of the contribution made, first by volunteer soldiers, and then by those who were drafted. It was also following the capture of Vimy Ridge that Canada gained recognition and began playing a greater role internationally. In that sense, the battle in which Quebec soldiers valiantly took part had a much greater impact than those who gave their lives might have thought.

The strength and courage of the soldiers who fought at Vimy and in World War I must be recognized. We must ensure that the memory of those who gave their lives, who did not want to go to war but answered the call nevertheless, is honoured.

Canada's two nations both contributed in a very significant and painful way, through the loss of lives, to the allied victory over the German invader. The moral duty to commemorate the wars of the past century brings us to meditate and respectfully remember those who died during the capture of Vimy Ridge and in World War I.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to pay tribute to the soldiers from Quebec and elsewhere who fought at Vimy and helped end World War I more quickly.

[Aids, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while visiting South Africa, the Prime Minister refused to comment on how money contributed by Canada for the fight against AIDS should be spent, stating that he had no comment to make on how programs are set up in any given country.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain such an unconcerned statement by the Prime Minister, when AIDS has wreaked such havoc in South Africa?

[Softwood Lumber, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, considering the intransigence of the Americans in the softwood lumber dispute, Canadian negotiators had no choice but to reject their final proposals.

The Prime Minister may boast that he will talk again to President Bush, the fact is that we are as far from a negotiated agreement as we were at the beginning of the crisis.

In light of the current situation, will the government finally put in place a plan to help the industry and its workers?

[Shipbuilding, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the entire area of Lévis fought to save Davie Shipbuilding Limited, and now the shipyard is in danger of falling victim to a grave injustice by the federal government, which is apparently contemplating awarding a frigate repair contract to the second lowest bidder, in Halifax.

Given that we all fought for this shipyard, does the minister of public works intend to assure us that this contract will be given to the lowest bidder, Davie Shipbuilding, and not to another yard?

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our Liberal colleague wants us to applaud. Most of all I think he wants members of his party to applaud because we are all aware of his hopes for the presidency of the Liberal Party of Canada.

However, with all due respect, I did understand that he was telling Quebec to tax lotteries and alcohol even more if it wants to replenish its treasury; he did not mention tobacco, but that goes without saying. The bottom line is that the member is suggesting that Quebecers pay for their health care by making themselves sicker. That is the member's theory. As a national vision it is not very impressive.

He said that by our motion—he attacked Bloc members—we want to talk about sovereignty. What about his very partisan attack on the NDP member who basically asked the same question as we did?

In closing, I would like to ask the member what he thinks about the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdictions, and especially about the last thing the Minister of Finance dreamed up, financing the municipal infrastructure program through a foundation in order to get around provincial jurisdiction. I could also talk about the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation but there is little time left. I will just ask him to answer the question.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier for his unique contribution to this debate. Naturally, he spoke about globalization and the pressure it is putting on the federal government which, in turn, is increasing its efforts to centralize, to the detriment of the provinces.

I know, as he is the critic for intergovernmental affairs, that he is well informed on the subject, so I would like him to talk some more about the abusive use of the federal spending power. This has grown progressively over the years, to such an extent that, nowadays, it is nowhere near what it was at the beginning of confederation. That spending power is now excessive. This fact is recognized by every consensus the member just referred to. I would like him to expand on the issue of the federal government's abusive recourse to its spending power.