Pierre Paquette

[Petitions, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in this House signed by 45 young Quebeckers and Canadians who are calling on the federal government to make a better effort to listen to and represent young Canadians and Quebeckers.

I applaud their initiative, and I had the opportunity to listen to their requests. I am pleased to represent them before the House today. I hope that the Conservatives will follow the Bloc's lead and listen to what young Quebeckers and Canadians want.

[The Conservative Government, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are accustomed to not receiving satisfactory answers to our questions. However, last Thursday, the Conservative ministers reached new heights of ineptitude. Their answers had absolutely nothing to do with the important questions we asked.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development was particularly adept at this when he spoke about the Mental Health Commission in response to a question on social housing. When asked another question about the fiscal imbalance, he spoke about the student loans program. His colleague, the Minister of Justice, spoke about the tackling violent crime act in response to a question about a young girl who was able to leave Canada and go to Morocco unaccompanied and without permission.

This type of attitude demonstrates the disregard of the Conservatives for citizens who find themselves in difficult situations. The lack of interest in the questions of opposition members and the failure to take them seriously shows a lack of respect for the House and is an insult to the Quebec nation, which democratically chose to be represented by a majority of Bloc Québécois MPs.

[Ethics, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman's wife and daughter are not the only ones contradicting the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister contradicted himself in a recording that we all heard in the media this morning, in which he confirmed that he knew about financial considerations offered to Mr. Cadman by legitimate representatives of the Conservative Party.

How could the Prime Minister knowingly allow his party's representatives to attempt to buy Mr. Cadman's vote, which is formally prohibited in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Criminal Code?

[Ethics, February 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with respect to the Cadman affair, the Prime Minister claimed that all Mr. Cadman was offered in exchange for his vote on May 19, 2005, was the nomination. That is what he said in this House. But that version of events has been contradicted by Chuck Cadman's wife and his daughter, both of whom claim that two Conservative Party representatives offered him a $1 million insurance policy.

Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that these allegations of corruption reveal his government's true colours, and that they are no better than those of the Liberals who preceded them?

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the member's ignorance of the Bloc's positions. We are the ones who have had a consistent position from the beginning. We support participation in the Afghanistan mission, but not the participation being imposed by the Conservatives, blindly accepted by the Liberals, and warned against by the NDP with its irresponsible position.

We wish to honour our commitment until February 2009. After that, our role in Afghanistan will change. We never considered leaving Afghanistan. Those are lies and false information. That is exactly what I was saying to you, Mr. Speaker: this government puts a spin on information in favour of a wrong-headed military approach.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many fabrications in the question that was asked that I am going to focus on the Manley report. Obviously, I know my Conservative Party colleague and he is somewhat like the motion. As I said, it is incomplete and riddled with vague words and assumptions.

I would like to tell him about the Manley report. When Mr. Manley was appointed, it was very clear to us that this process was also politically motivated, that is, appointing a former minister, particularly the previous government's Minister of Foreign Affairs, to lead such a commission. Yet, upon reading the Manley report, it is interesting to note that 75% to 80% of the report is a clear criticism of the Conservative militaristic approach in the Afghanistan file, and that, contrary to all expectations—in my opinion, in response to a political directive—manages to come up with a series of flimsy conditions that allow the Prime Minister and the government the possibility of extending the mission from February 2009 to 2011, thereby laying a trap for the Liberals, which they fell into.

If I may, I would like to read part of the Manley report, from page 32:

It is essential to adjust funding and staffing imbalances between the heavy Canadian military commitment in Afghanistan and the comparatively lighter civilian commitment to reconstruction, development and governance.

This is what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for from the beginning and what we continue to ask for: a rebalancing of the mission, with a shift from a military focus to development.

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you immediately that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the government motion on extending the mission in Afghanistan. Unlike other debates we have had in recent weeks, I have the real impression that I can express my opinion in this debate and be the voice of Quebeckers.

I would point out that before the parliamentary recess, we were considering bills that were really matters of details. I am thinking, for example, of the bill relating to consultation for appointing senators. At that point, I really had the impression that I was speaking on relatively pointless subjects, while this time, on Afghanistan, I believe it is extremely important for the Bloc Québécois, for the Quebec nation and for the Canadian nation to debate this issue in depth. The Bloc Québécois has in fact been calling for an in-depth debate on this issue for a long time.

Behind the Afghanistan issue there lies a world view, a view of international relations and of the way to build peace. The question is, how we are going to be able to assist countries with economic, social and political problems to get onto the road to prosperity, democracy and the common good. At bottom, what we are debating today is Canada’s current vision of all of those topics.

I admit that I am a little disappointed with the approach the Liberals have taken to this. In the case of the Conservatives, we have known the essence of their thinking for a long time now. In fact, the Speech from the Throne talked about extending the mission to 2011. The repeated announcements by the Prime Minister concerning rising military expenditures, with yet another one last week, clearly demonstrate that this government takes a militaristic view of international relations that is closely modelled on another regime’s. I am not talking about the regime in Afghanistan, although I could talk about that too; rather, I am talking about the American administration, which has itself been disowned by a large proportion of its population, and also by a large proportion of America's Republicans. We can see this clearly at present in the debate about Iraq and the debate that is taking place around the Democratic and Republican primaries.

I am not surprised by the position taken by the Conservative government, but the position taken by the Liberals does surprise me. In a way, their opportunistic approach—I have to call it that—is based on one important issue: Afghanistan. Our vision of Canada’s place in the world—and obviously, for us, of a sovereign Quebec’s place in the world—and the approach that Quebec will take, but that Canada should also take, must reflect all of the issues I have just referred to: development, security, progress toward democracy and prosperity for peoples who are in great need of them.

I would have expected the Liberals to stay within the parameters that should govern this debate, that is, those issues. To avoid an election, by raising totally spurious arguments, they are trying to avoid this debate. The speeches given yesterday are good examples, in particular the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, but also the speeches by some members of the government and the Liberal Party.

For example, the motion itself is riddled with vague words and assumptions. In fact, it is playing fast and loose with the truth, as did the first motion introduced by the Conservative government. They have made it even worse in the second motion, introduced at the end of last week, which we are now debating.

Here is an example:

—the House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension—

First of all, that statement placed too much emphasis on diplomacy and development assistance because we know that up until now, the nature of the mission has been military.

Worse still, it fails to mention one thing. It suggests that at the time, there was unanimity or near-unanimity in the House and that today, the extension approved in May 2006 should be turned into a new extension from February 2009 to February 2011.

The wording is misleading. It fails to mention that on May 17, 2006, when the House voted on a government motion to extend the mission to February 2009, the motion was adopted by a margin of only four votes. At the time, there were 149 votes in favour and 145 votes against, a difference of four votes.

The vast majority of Quebeckers are in favour of ending the military mission in February 2009. Poll after poll has shown that, and the numbers are going up. When I travel around Quebec, I like to tell Quebeckers that if they had put just five more Bloc Québécois members in the House, or even just three more, the extension would not have been passed. Quebeckers get the message, as we will see in the next election, which we hope will happen very soon.

It is not true that on May 17, 2006, the House voted by a convincing majority to extend the mission. The motion was passed by a margin of just five votes.

That was true in 2006, and it is even truer now in early 2008. We have not been given any more good reasons to support it. On the contrary, we have more reasons than we did in May 2006 to be against extending the mission.

We were told that the vote will be in March. I find it very hard to understand those Liberals who said in 2006 they were opposed to extending the mission until February 2009 but are going to rise now and vote in favour of extending it until 2011. The Prime Minister said the troop withdrawals would begin in June or July but would finish in December 2011. If we were so divided in the House on this issue in 2006, it is very hard to understand how there could be such unanimity now among the Liberals, unless it is just political opportunism.

At least the Conservatives demonstrate a certain consistency in their positions, even though I do not agree with them. When it comes to the Liberals, there is total confusion. This shows Quebeckers that there is really only one choice in Quebec for people who are in favour of a humanistic approach, a cooperative approach that puts the emphasis on diplomacy and development. They want to put the military aspects aside, ensuring security of course but not having a fundamentally military mission. There is only one voice representing these people in the House because the Conservatives and the Liberals are in bed together in this regard. This single voice is the voice of the Bloc Québécois. A good portion of Quebeckers and of the Quebec nation understands this already.

I want to add one final comment. On February 19, 2007, the Liberals tabled a motion asking the government to end the mission in February 2009, which was the date to which we had committed ourselves with the international community. The Bloc Québécois has always wanted Canada to keep its commitments to the international community. When Quebec is a sovereign country and makes commitments to the international community, we will want it to see its commitments through to the end. We are applying the same principle here to a decision that was made democratically, although only by five votes, as I said before.

The Bloc Québécois has always wanted to abide by this decision. At the time, it was the NDP that saved the Conservative mission in Afghanistan. They are the ones who put us in the situation we face today. Back then, the Liberals had their own, consistent view on Afghanistan and had proposed that the House pass definitive legislation requiring a military withdrawal from the Kandahar area in February 2009. The NDP were the ones who helped the Conservatives extend the mission, not just to 2009 but to 2011. That is why their amendment is as irresponsible as their position has been since the beginning. They, too, are being political opportunists. That should be deplored and condemned. If we look a little more closely at the NDP's position, it is not really immediate withdrawal they want, even though they constantly say so. If we push them hard enough, we discover it is immediate withdrawal in complete safety.

What does complete safety mean? It means that one or more NATO partners will have to take our place in the province of Kandahar. That is why we want to have a vote on this motion very soon. We want it defeated and our NATO allies informed that they will have to replace the Canadian troops in February 2009.

[The Environment, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know that a real plan to address global warming contains absolute targets for reducing greenhouse gases and not the current intensity targets that will allow the tar sands industry to practically double its emissions by 2020.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that to stop this environmental disaster, his government must comply with the Kyoto protocol and adopt a plan with absolute targets?

[The Environment, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report by Environmental Defence, the development of Alberta's tar sands is the most destructive project on Earth. According to the agency, the pollutants from this project could cancel out all efforts made elsewhere in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases. The main reason for this disaster is the Conservatives' flawed plan that rejects the Kyoto protocol.

Instead of catering to its friends in the oil patch to the detriment of the environment and future generations, will the government finally come up with a real plan to address global warming? Time is of the essence.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his very pointed question.

We need to remember that insofar as political representation in the House of Commons is concerned, Quebec has always been disadvantaged by the rules instituted over the years by the majority of members. The last time there was a change, in 1985, the Conservatives were in power as well. It was the time of the beau risque. As a result of the change, however, 48 members have been added to the House of Commons since 1985, but not one from Quebec.

As we can see, there are procedures in place to ultimately marginalize the Quebec nation within federal institutions. The House’s and Canada’s recognition of the Quebec nation should lead the hon. members to agree to ensure that a minimum of 25% of the members come from the nation of Quebec. These members should reflect the debate that has been going on in Quebec for at least 30 years. If we go back further in time, it was already there. I am speaking of the debate between those who think that the best solution for Quebec is to repatriate 100% of the powers, in other words the sovereignists, and those who think we should content ourselves with a continually shrinking piece of the pie, that is to say unfortunately, the federalists and their counterparts in Quebec as well.