Pierre De Savoye

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime Minister has in mind, and I would be hard pressed to guess what it is.

But I can say I am offended that I am not allowed to fulfill decently my duty as a member of the House by making an enlightened contribution to the government's decisions. I am not allowed to fulfill my duty at all or decently, because I am not given the information I need and because I am denied the opportunity to vote.

I can tell the House I am for a motion during the debate, but the real decision is made when I stand in my place and vote for the motion that is before the House. In this case, I am not allowed to take a stand on behalf of my constituents of Portneuf. I am not allowed to do the work I am paid for.

Today, everything is fine, and we all agree with the Prime Minister that we should go. There is no disagreement between various parties in the House, and there is none between the government and the opposition parties. We all agree. Everything is fine. We do not have the right to express our support through a vote, but since we all agree on this, we are probably not really angry.

Let us imagine the opposite situation, where we would disagree and the government would not allow us to vote. Obviously, democracy would be thwarted. I happen to think that if it is thwarted when we disagree, it is also when we are in agreement and are denied the opportunity to vote. That is the point I wanted to make.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question from the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin, I would like to comment his statement to the effect that I contradict myself by saying that this debate is useless when I am making a contribution he described as useful.

I am happy to know what I said was useful. However, I did not become a member of parliament to be a lecturer. I used to be a teacher, and the transfer of knowledge was my job. I was paid to do that. Now I am a member of parliament, and my job is to take part in the decision making process. That is not what I am being asked to do today.

I hope that my contribution is useful. Otherwise I would not have risen up so early to come here and make my presentation, but that is not what I am paid to do. I am paid to take part in the decision making process. What upsets me is that fact that I am not allowed to do my job. My constituents do not expect me to come here just to make speeches. They expect me to take action and to make decisions, but that is not what I am doing today.

To answer the question from my colleague, this conflict will necessarily end one day, because no conflict is eternal, but for peace to be lasting, it will have to be the result of negotiations.

That is how things are done in labour relations. The same applies to international relations. The parties must come to an agreement, which agreement can only be achieved through negotiations.

In work relations, when negotiations become difficult, pressure tactics are taken. People work to rule or go on strike. In international affairs, when negotiations become more difficult or stall completely, we turn to the diplomacy of arms.

A day will come when parties will have to sit together, negotiate and reach an agreement. In the meantime, will we have to complement air strikes with ground operations? Maybe, maybe not. I have, to date, absolutely no information that would allow me to know for sure. I am left in total darkness as are all members. I cannot give my colleague an answer on this specific aspect of his question.

However, as I said earlier, when an agreement is reached between the parties, two things will have to be done: Ensure security in the region with a peacekeeping force and provide technical support by sending in engineers, workers specialized in various fields and doctors to help Kosovo rebuild and heal.

That is all I can say given the information I have and, much more so, the information I do not have.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is 5.07 a.m. this Tuesday morning, and I want to say things a number of members are thinking, which we have discussed among ourselves, but which have yet to be included in the debate.

First, the members of the House are not better informed about the situation in Kosovo than the average citizen who reads the papers and watches TV. I am here at the moment to debate an important issue and, despite the fact that I am a member of parliament, the information I have is no different than that available to the public in the papers or on radio and television.

As a member, and this is the case with all the members in this House, I did not have access to specific information. I was not better informed. I do not know whether the government agrees or disagrees with the information the media provide.

The media, with the best of intentions, do not always carry all of the information available and do not always present it from all angles.

I am no better informed than the ordinary citizen in Quebec and Canada, and it is this context that I must use my judgment to express my viewpoint.

This brings me to the second issue. I will express my opinion, but what will come of it? Will it allow my colleagues in this House to support some of my views, to oppose them, to complete them, or to improve them so that we can make a better decision? In other words, will my comments help the House make a better decision? The answer is no, because no decision will be made.

At the conclusion of this debate, there will be no vote, no decision. The decision has already been made by the government.

What am I doing here at ten past five in the morning? I am not happy. I am not happy about the way the government is treating the members of this House. There are 301 members of parliament. We represent Quebeckers and Canadians. We do our best to make a positive and constructive contribution to the business of this House, particularly today with the issue of Kosovo. Under the circumstances, I feel very useless and, unfortunately, not very knowledgeable.

Still, I realize that the Prime Minister wants to avoid a vote that might show the international community, and particularly Milosevic, that we do not stand united on this issue.

The result of this could be very different, because we are sending the message that our Prime Minister is so unsure about us being united, so insecure about the current situation, that he will not even ask this House to vote to support the positions that he is proposing to the international community.

There is a danger that the Prime Minister's decision will have exactly the opposite effect. Rather than presenting a united front, he is going to make people think there is a lack of unity when, in fact, that is not the case.

The situation in Kosovo is tragic. Kosovo is about the same size as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. It is not very large. It consists of a plain surrounded by mountains, like the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, and is home to 2.5 million people. Coming from the North, the Serbs, led by Milosevic—and I would like to say in passing that I firmly believe that the Serbs are as honest as anyone else on the planet—have received the order to expel the residents of Kosovo from their territory.

Let us imagine for a moment what is happening. We are in our home, with our furniture, our belongings and our memories. We are sitting in front of our television when there is knock at our door and someone yells that we are to gather up our things and leave the country. That is what is happening.

Right now, one quarter of the population—approximately 600,000 people, if we are to believe the electronic media—have already been forced to leave, under terrible conditions, and cross a mountain range with winter barely over.

It is not known how many people have died so far. It is not known how many have been wounded. It is not known how many families have been split up. Nobody knows how many children died. Nobody knows how many old people were left behind.

We are faced with an absolutely tragic situation I would compare to the following one: suppose we have neighbours who are experiencing family problems and they are quarrelling. Through closed doors and windows we can hear voices getting louder. We might try mediating and bring things back to normal.

But if we hear gun shots, it is time to call the police and bring in the tactical team to prevent a disaster. Things have gone far enough.

This is what the current situation is like. For ten years now there has been negotiations. They are leading nowhere, they are deadlocked. People are dying. Is the death toll 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? We do not know for sure. I am in the dark. But one thing is certain, we must intervene and do so on several fronts.

First, we must provide shelter for the refugees, particularly in neighbouring countries such as Macedonia and Albania. These countries are poor and do not have the means to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are streaming in day after day. Therefore we have to provide them with what is required in terms of infrastructure, food supplies, health care and drugs to ensure these people are taken care of.

This will not be short term. It will be a long time before the refugees can go back home, if there is anything to go back to. We hear on the news that their houses were burned down.

The first step to be considered is receiving the refugees. Then, making it possible for them to go home. This will not be possible unless Milosevic and the people around him can be made to see reason. This is precisely the purpose of the air strikes, to ensure that the Serbs realize that there is a price to pay for their actions, a price that will make them less and less able to continue what they are doing.

The day will come when, if we want the Kosovars to return to their country, support will have to be provided to them for reconstruction and to ensure their safety. So troops to ensure security will not be the only ones that will have to be sent; engineers will be needed as well. Social workers will be needed, doctors, people who will help the Kosovars rebuild what Milosevic and his army have destroyed.

We are faced with an extremely delicate and extremely complex problem. I truly regret that the government did not inform MPs more fully on this entire situation and the issues involved. I would be better able to form a clear judgment. With a better understanding of the issues, I would be able to make a better contribution to this debate.

I regret that this debate is, to all intents and purposes, only a show. We are giving the Canadian public the impression that we are profoundly reflecting on the matter in order to reach the best decision. That is not the case. We are reflecting. We are reacting, but the decision is not ours. It is out of our hands.

We are denied this democratic right we enjoy in the name of those we represent to take part in decisions. We have no part in them. That seems totally unfair.

I will return to the situation in Kosovo. At the moment, this country—which is the size, as I mentioned, of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region—is being shot up and bloodied by the Serbs. Why are the Serb troops doing that? Is it because they are inherently wicked? We have to really understand how an army works. As I was saying, the Serbs are decent and good people. But when people are in the army, they follow orders, and if they do not, they pay the price and, generally, in times of war, it is with their life.

At the moment, Serb troops are being ordered to fire on and bloody Kosovo. This country, the size of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, is hemmed in by mountains, village after village, city after city, street after street and neighbourhood after neighbourhood. The people are of Albanian origin, but have lived in Kosovo for centuries and are being expelled and pushed toward the borders. Some travel in vehicles, others take the train—and the media have showed us unbearable hardship—while others walk along the railroad tracks.

At this point, we are definitely in no position to intervene in Kosovo itself to help people migrate. We have to wait for them at the border. However, we have learned that access to the border has now been denied. What does this mean for Kosovars? It means they can no longer use roads to get to a neighbouring country. They must walk through the forest, through the woods, and while this is spring, nights can still be quite cold in the mountains.

In the hours and days to come, it is critical that energetic action be taken to welcome these refugees in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, which are Kosovo's neighbours.

Of course, this will require money and also some means of transport to bring in supplies. What role can Canada play? Our air force can bomb Serbian positions inside Serbia. But we must participate in the humanitarian effort to help the refugees. The fact is that Canadian forces have a great deal of experience in humanitarian missions.

Before there can be any thought of peacekeeping in Kosovo—this is not for tomorrow, and people should realize this—there is the humanitarian mission of taking in refugees, which is where I am sure our troops could play a role, ensuring the provision of sanitary conditions and food and, as we are seeing on television, educational facilities for the youngest, so that they are treated with respect and dignity while waiting to be able to return to their own country.

Although Canada, the United States and other countries thought they would be able to take in refugees one, one and a half or two weeks ago, the situation has now degenerated and has taken a completely different turn. One or two weeks ago, it was thought that there would be a hundred thousand refugees to take in, and that the majority of Kosovars would remain in Kosovo.

But now, all that has changed. The entire population is being driven out of Kosovo. It would therefore be completely unthinkable and unacceptable to have these refugees rebuild their lives elsewhere in the world and completely abandon their country. This would be an admission that Milosevic was right to do what he has done, to drive everyone out of Kosovo. It would signify approval of this massive expatriation of all inhabitants of Kosovo.

It is therefore imperative that Kosovars be provided with decent accommodation in the countries bordering on Kosovo, thus guaranteeing two things: first, it will show Milosevic that we are going to do what it takes to enable these people to return home, if their homes are still standing and, if they are not, that we are going to help them rebuild; second, it will show the Kosovar refugees that they can count on the international community to help them return to their homes.

It is late and I know that other members would also like to speak, so I will stop here.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, should we laugh or cry? It would appear some people are suffering from microcephaly.

First, my colleague across the way suggested sovereignist members from the Bloc were lucky to receive a salary. Quebec contributes 24% of the funds in the federal coffers. Year after year my riding alone sends around $400 million to Ottawa, and my paycheck is paid by my constituents, like every member of this House.

It is insidious on the part of my colleague opposite to suggest that because we are sovereignists we are lesser democrats, we do not do our job as well as others and we are less deserving of our salary. This is unacceptable, and I hope my colleague opposite will withdraw what he said.

Second, the motion introduced in this House by the Bloc is aimed at striking a committee to review extremely important matters regarding trade within the Americas. This issue deserves to be reviewed. It is extremely timely, which is being raised not only here, but also in Argentina and in the United States.

I point out that for years Panama's currency has been at par with the US dollar. Of course, its trade situation is very special because of the Panama Canal. In my previous life as a computer consultant, I visited Panama and realized that using the American dollar made trade a lot simpler.

Would it be the same here if we had the tools to prevent exchange rates from fluctuating? These are questions we have. They are important.

In conclusion, the Liberal member, and all his Liberal colleagues who took part in the debate today, would be well advised, instead of showing their ignorance of facts, to let such a committee do what it takes to inform us.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member opposite is trying to say that I do not earn my pay cheque. I am a duly elected member just as he is. I do my job and I ask him to withdraw his words.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the arguments of our Reform Party colleague and I was under the impression he agreed we should study the issue but then it became clear that he wished there were other priorities.

I would like the member to answer my questions. Recently, our dollar has been falling and this helped Canadian companies in the natural resources area to maintain their export levels. However, as the dollar falls, other businesses in Quebec and Canada see the cost of importing raw materials and finished products rise. Our economy is not just based on primary products. Our economy is more diversified. We have problems with the rate of exchange.

Let us consider hockey players, for instance. Earlier, another member talked about the symbolic importance of a currency for national pride. Now in our national sport, hockey, players want to be paid in U.S. dollars. I think something is wrong and we should ask ourselves questions.

Executives of large businesses also often ask to be paid in U.S. dollars. Why? Because our dollar can be worth 66 cents today and only 64 cents a year later. This represents a loss of salary of almost 3 to 4% for someone who is paid in Canadian dollars compared to U.S. dollars.

Let us consider the long term development plans of a business wishing to export to the American market in five years. How much will the Canadian dollar be worth then? Let us go back five years. Our dollar was worth 70 cents. It lost about 12%, but regained some of its value. How can we have long term export plans to the American market in those circumstances? We have problems.

There are many issues we should address and I will conclude on that. Should we have a common North American or pan-American currency? Should we have a floating dollar or a dollar on a par? Should we have new monetary instruments? The bottom line is there are solutions but we will find them only if we raise issues. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that a committee be struck.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense. First of all, the member says that, if we had the same currency as the United States, Quebec would have no input into monetary policies.

Quebec forms 25% of Canada, and we already have no input into Canada's monetary policy. Is the member making fun of us? We had no input into the Constitution or the social union agreement. We never have any input. This will not change in an American context.

Now let us look at the facts. Canadian businesses already have bank accounts in U.S. dollars. Why? Because there is a tremendous amount of trade between Canada and the United States, to the tune of $1 billion a day. What country is the United States' largest trading partner? Is it Japan? Not at all. Is it Great Britain? Absolutely not. It is Canada, and 55% of Quebec's exports go to the United States.

Our businesses here in Canada already work in U.S. dollars. They try to stabilize uncertainties due to fluctuations by buying what is called future contracts on the value of the U.S. currency. We already have a highly integrated economy.

So, Mr. Know-it-all over there, holder of the absolute truth, who refuses that a committee of the House of Commons be struck to consider these issues, really does not know anything at all and above all does not want to know anything.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder when I see our Liberal colleagues worry about the intentions of the Bloc Quebecois.

Let us look at the facts. When the issue of free trade came up, whether it was about the original agreement or the one we have now, Quebec was at the forefront of these changes. Quebec was the one with a vision for the future.

The situation here is exactly the same. Trade between Canada and the United States totals $1 billion a day, maybe more. As for trade between Quebec and the United States, 55% of our exports go to the United States.

Now imagine the problems related to the exchange rate, to a dollar that goes up, that goes down, that is unpredictable. Sooner or later, we will have to go the way of a common currency, and I would rather we thought about it now and not when it is too late. That is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing with this motion, the creation of a committee. What does my hon. colleague has to say about that?

[Radioactive Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians have paid for much of the network of nuclear plants in Ontario.

The Globe and Mail today revealed that a secret government report estimates the cost of disposing of radioactive waste, 90% of which comes from Ontario, at $11 billion.

After paying for the Ontario network of nuclear plants, should Quebeckers and Canadians expect to have to pay for the disposal of Ontario's radioactive waste as well?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks by my colleague, and I would add my voice to his indignation.

A budget is supposed to provide for the welfare of a society, and this is not the case here. For fishers and those working in the fishing industry or on its fringes in the Atlantic region, the situation is extremely precarious.

It is true that the Minister of Finance is using our tax money to pay off the debt, but in doing so he is putting people in debt. Our collective wealth is not really improved.

What is happening is that the Minister of Finance is paying off government debt by putting people in fishing in debt. That is the drama. The real drama is that there are families sinking into poverty and debt, whose heritage is being ruined, who are losing their house, their boat, their possessions, and who see no future for their children. That is the real tragedy.

I ask my colleague if he does not agree.