Proposition 50K1690

Proposition de résolution relative aux droits de l'homme à Cuba.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Claudine Drion
Groen Leen Laenens

Submission date

March 13, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Cuba resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Willy Cortois (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Simonne Creyf (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Jef Valkeniers (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 28, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, Dear Colleagues, the Committee on Foreign Relations has met to examine a proposal for a resolution filed by Ms. Laenens and Drion and co-signed by other colleagues on human rights in Cuba.

Belgium is a fervent defender of human rights and condemns countries that do not respect these fundamental rights.

However, this proposal advocates political dialogue in the perspective of making progress in these matters and lifting the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States, which has proved to be an instrument that does not allow to contribute to an improvement of the situation both in terms of human rights and relations between states.

It is, on the one hand, to encourage Cuba to take concrete measures in the areas of human rights, fundamental freedoms and, in particular, the right to education, health care, the right of the child and, on the other hand, to advocate for Cuba’s accession to the Cotonou Agreements.

The Government is asked to abstain, at the 58th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which will be held in Geneva from 18 March to 26 April 2002, from the vote on the traditional resolution condemning Cuba and to encourage European partners to do the same if the evaluation regarding the evolution of human rights in Cuba proves positive.

During the general discussion in the committee, various speakers denounced Fidel Castro’s dictatorial attitude and stressed that concrete requests should be addressed to the Cuban authorities, whose human rights record must clearly improve.

In addition, it was also advanced that the embargo imposed on Cuba was counterproductive. The entire proposal was adopted by 9 votes against 2.

As the rapporteur has already cited, I consider the resolution we adopt today important for two reasons.

The first reason is that we continue on the path taken by our Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union. Then the political dialogue with Cuba was opened. This has undoubtedly contributed to a better relationship between Cuba and the European Union. It is therefore crucial that the resolution be adopted today.

The resolution calls on the government to defend, on the occasion of the next Human Rights Commission, a position that would bring Cuba out of its isolation.

Second, the condemnation of the boycott should be an occasion for a better participation of Cuba in the international community, which is based on respect for human rights and for democracy. Let there be no misunderstanding about it.

By the way, what we ask here today, we do not ask alone. In recent years, there has been continuous pressure from no less than 73,000 organizations that have called for the lifting of the blockade because, as the rapporteur has already cited, its negative effects are illustrated by numerous figures and reports. We therefore hope that the Belgian attitude is an important signal and that it will encourage other European partners to follow us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the types of work that are regularly on the agenda of the Committee on Foreign Relations. There we often have to speak of problems in one or another corner of the world. Depending on whether or not the situation is political in accordance with the norms applicable herein, we are either considered to be very happy and satisfied and to send congratulations to the government concerned, or we are considered to approve any proposal for a resolution that draws the government concerned on the fingers.

Mr. Speaker, it must be of the heart to me that such matters are so often on the menu in the Committee on Foreign Relations that it is gradually beginning to become ridiculous. We have to speak about the Indians of Kamchatka, or about the Eskimo in Oelan Bator, or I know a lot. It could all be great if it was still useful.

However, I can hardly imagine that the Government of Kamchatka or the President of Outside Mongolia is concerned about the position of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Belgian Federal Parliament, in particular the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives. This is not an anti-parliamentary language, but I have an increasing impression that we want to jump a little further than our stick is long. It is fashionable to worry about anything, anywhere in the world. Sometimes we even reach a peak, for example when we hit Austria on our fingers. What a wonderful thing! The French-speaking press ⁇ declared war on the Alpine Republic. When that heat was over, the Italians were approached, though with slightly less enthusiasm. After all, Italians are Latinos and so they must have been Democrats somewhere in their hearts. Then it was actually the turn of Denmark, which are not Latinos, but then one was already tired of it, because it is difficult to wage war against all Europe. Now that Pim Fortuyn is coming to the forefront, I fear that there will be virtually no more reaction.

I myself sin from time to time in this area, but through all these actions I still participate with some relativism in the activities of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They have no doubt their usefulness, even if it was only on a therapeutic level. However, in the discussions on Cuba, I went to work with a little more involvement. We must not exaggerate in this: had I not taken the word, the discussion would not have lasted more than five minutes, rather than three quarters of hours.

You do not need to repeat this here. You should not have a three-quarters discussion here.

Mr. Speaker, I will not do that, but there must be something from my heart. I felt more involved in the discussions about Cuba, not because I cultivate sympathy for the drinks that are brewed there based on rum, but because I was confronted with a typical stain of politically correct reaction that forms Cuba — not in Cuba itself of course, there is Castro politically correct because there is no policy other than that of Castro to be conducted. That is out of doubt. The political correctness with which Cuba was approached here is almost perfect. We all know that in Cuba there are no human rights and press freedom. No one will contest this except the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for he is only angry with Austria, not with Cuba. In Cuba there is only one newspaper, the Granna, the local newspaper of the Communist Party. Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, if you do not have the necessary mythological knowledge in this regard, then I can tell you that this newspaper is named after the boat with which Castro and his little boy shipped unregulated, including (ironically) the great film star Omar Sharif, later known as Che Guevara, in 1958 from Mexico to Cuba.

There is no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech, no freedom to oppose political opposition, the freedom of religion is permitted orally — because it is very difficult for people from the Caribbean and ⁇ Latin Americans, with their Christian-religious tradition, to keep away from their religious practices. In short, human rights do not exist. The fact that the death penalty is still in place is also a fact.

The [...]

"Elle n'est plus appliquée depuis trois ans," says Mr. Lefevre to me — and therefore we must now declare them holy! This is a new element in Fidel Castro’s hagiography: for three years he has not allowed anyone to be shot or hanged. All arguments are good!

We all know that human rights in Cuba are reduced to a vodka paper. Normally, we would have to react very harshly, because we are the champions of human rights. No one in the world can defeat us in this field. We even have legislation that allows us to prosecute anyone for crimes he has committed at any time, at any time in the world, whether or not. No one follows us this. We followed Pinochet; we missed him a little, but we did our best! We can do anything on that level, and no one takes this pearl from the crown.

Then we will see how we approach Cuba. I would like to make a comparison. I would like to acknowledge that there are still countries in the world where human rights are undermined. Algeria is another example of how politically correct one can be with respect to countries where human rights do not exist. However, there are countries where people do not wear gloves. The former Burma is such a typical country that one can really face. I have no sympathy for the regime that it currently has in Rangoon, the capital of present-day Myanmar. Only I set two sizes and two weights: the former Burma can be boycotted, Cuba will be approached with love and conviction! We will tell the men of Castro how wrong they are, so with a small finger. They will undoubtedly listen to us. There is no boycott.

I know it, one of the arguments is that we should conduct an absolutely different policy than the United States. You may be surprised, but that doesn’t bother me. If necessary, I also think that we should conduct a different policy than the United States. I can even respond enthusiastically to it from time to time, but it must be necessary. It’s not because the Americans, when it rains, say that water falls from the sky, that I’m just going to lie across the Americans, to say that the weather is perfect and that the sun shines. Such an attitude is hypocritical. Allow me to express it somewhat less parliamentary: it is absurd and even sometimes a little idiotic.

It is not because the Americans complain about the human rights situation in Cuba that we should pretend that there is no problem in that area. It is not because the Americans overreact to Cuba — they are sick in the same politically correct bed as Europe — and equally hypocritically tolerate certain other regimes, that we must do this. If we stand up for human rights in the world, we must do so consistently with all regimes, otherwise we are not credible. We must also be consistent if the regime carries an aureol of holiness with the left-progressive intellectual that it currently has for saying in our media and with the goat-haired socks that are the political extension of it.

For the Flemish Bloc, Cuba is a country where human rights are treated with their feet. If one consistently defends human rights, one should not — unlike other regimes — approach Cuba with wool gloves. On the one hand, claiming that Castro is a little wrong and on the other hand closely approaching his regime and visiting it as often as possible and pretending that his nose is bleeding is not consistent.

As a last argument to convince me, one might say that even the Pope has been to Cuba so that the situation cannot be so bad. Allow me to consistently maintain the separation between Church and State in this regard. I have always been against dogmatic thinking. I am against the dogmatic thinking of political correctness here with us. I have always been a little anti-clerical. I do not accept political lessons from religious leaders. I hope that all the people in this hemisphere who appeal to their freelance will be consistent in this area. Their

Whoever in this Parliament calls for democracy, whoever in this Parliament calls for solidarity with persecuted Christians, whoever in this Parliament calls for freedom of thought, can impossiblely agree with a text which preaches a kind of soft complicity with the dictatorship of Cuba. The Flemish Bloc is not politically correct, the Flemish Bloc has the habit of saying what is on the liver, the Flemish Bloc is simply fighting for freedom and for free expression. The Flemish Bloc will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers, Dear colleagues, we will approve this proposal for a resolution because this text is based on a balance between a requirement to improve the political situation in this country and an openness to a more structured dialogue between Europeans and Cuba. Indeed, following the visit of the Foreign Minister last summer, in the framework of the European Presidency and in the perspective of the Madrid Summit next May, Europeans are betting on political dialogue with Cuba in order to work on opening up and the evolution of this country towards more democracy.

This policy line is part of the objectives of the Belgian and European diplomatic method. This approach must be interpreted as the premises of a negotiation that could lead to the signing of the Cotonou Agreements by Cuba. But this dynamic depends on the initiatives that Cuba will take to liberalize its political system, to promote human rights and individual freedoms.

The international community must be extremely vigilant on this issue, especially in the work currently taking place within the framework of the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Without substantial and constant progress on this point, any approximation seems illusory. If the European Union is willing to strengthen its relations with Cuba, it is up to the Cuban authorities to take the necessary political measures.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to say a few words after the speech of Mr. Van den Eynde.

Mr Van den Eynde complained that the resolution does not call for a boycott. This is obvious, because there is already a boycott, and not the least, namely that of the United States.

Second, the boycott is absolutely counterproductive. Nobody less than the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has said that, citing a whole range of countries. We must strive for a meaningful boycott, but what exists now makes no sense.

Third, the demand for more human rights is...

I would like to briefly interrupt. A member of the left-progressive now says that the boycott is counterproductive. His attitude is once again one of the classic two sizes and two weights and testifies to hypocrisy. At that time, a boycott of South Africa was apparently productive, and for Burma it is too. Some countries should be boycotted, but other countries should not be boycotted. I am that Kotsbeu.

Mr. Van den Eynde, there are so many things that I am kotsbeu in your attitude, including the absolute lack of respect for human rights, but that does fit into your womb.

I would like to say the following about human rights. In the resolution, we call for the improvement of human rights.

Mr. Van den Eynde, in order to respond specifically to your comment, I would like to add the following. The political group to which I belong demands respect for human rights wherever it is appropriate. In North Korea, I promised this on the spot in the presence of North Korean parliamentarians. In Iran, I did this on Monday, March 18, 2002, on a study day organized by Iran. You weren’t there, but I did. I have called for the implementation of human rights. In Iraq and Saudi Arabia, I have also called for the implementation of human rights. Yesterday, Wednesday 27 March 2002, in the meeting of the Committee of the Palestinian Authority, I also called for the application of human rights. You cannot blame me for selective outrage.

On the figure of Fidel Castro and on North Korea, I want to say the following. I have no political sympathy for either, but you cannot deny that they alone — and that is an element to be proud of — dare to challenge great powers. Fidel Casto did so recently, by explicitly pointing out in Monterrey that poverty is genocide. That is nothing. He has had the courage to not sign the final conclusions of the Monterrey conference.

For us, the balance of supporting that resolution is more than positive. We will approve the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am pleased to conclude that from now on the United Nations Assembly can be regarded as a progressive left. On November 27, 2001, the United Nations for the tenth time condemned the U.S. blockade of Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the Dear Members of Parliament for submitting the draft resolution. This is a topic that I have worked hard on, especially during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union. Since then there has been a political dialogue. On 22 March 2002, a consultation between the European Union and Cuba took place in Geneva. During that consultation, the issues on the agenda of the 58th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission were discussed.

In principle, I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am supporting I am. Het voorstel van resolutie somt clear of various concrete maatregelen op die Belgium in the European Union of Cuba op het vlak van de eerbiediging van de mensenrechten verwachten. Of course, the implementation of this request will depend on the concrete evolution of the situation. At this stage, no country has submitted a resolution on Cuba at the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. If a resolution would eventually be filed, our position would also depend on its content. Finally, the consistency of the EU’s position in foreign policy is an element that it will be important to take into account. We do not do as if there were no problems in Cuba. The regime of Cuba is not, so far, a model of democracy. We know it and I agree with it. But I will make a number of considerations on this subject.

During the Belgian Presidency, we managed to reopen a political dialogue with Cuba, a political dialogue covering a set of elements such as civil and political rights, economic and social rights, the death penalty, the release of prisoners... There is a set of points on the agenda of the political dialogue between the European Union and Cuba that I find interesting to evaluate and important to initiate. Too often, it seems to me that in the way the European Union treats certain countries, there is a double standard. It cannot be said that the European Union always has the same unit of measure in its relations with one or the other country. It is clear that in the case of Cuba, this resolution aims to give a chance to this political dialogue and that is why I find it useful to support this resolution proposal.

I would like to add that I obviously have contacts with the Cuban authorities. I told them that Belgium’s position would depend on the tangible signs they would send us regarding progress on the various topics I have just outlined. It seems to me that this resolution proposal does not put us at risk in relation to our position. That is why I support her.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I note that the end of the Minister’s speech is, in fact, that he is right with respect to the first point of my speech. You will remember that I started by saying that what we do in the Foreign Affairs Committee of this Chamber, where we deal with so many motions and resolutions on displacement around the world, is often just a kind of therapeutic activity. The Deputy Prime Minister concludes by saying that this does not actually engage us. In other words, very far he claims not to go. He thanks us for the text, but in fact he congratulates us because we have been engaged on the basis of a text from some members of the majority such as Ms. Laenens and of the metamorphosis such as Mr. Jacques Lefevre or Mr. Willems. We have a majority and a majority. Their

What annoys me most in the Minister’s response is once again the fact that certain states are represented in woolish language. What does the Deputy Prime Minister say? He says that during the Belgian presidency — which has long been pleasedly forgotten by most foreigners because they do not have a good memory of it — talks were held with the Cubans. Their attention was focused on human rights. To promote this, we will now abstain from the vote in the United Nations on the boycott against Cuba. Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that we are dealing here with ambiguity. If we can attack with great pretence a country that has done nothing wrong to us but only voted wrong, at least according to the regime here, then we are going to overtake the heavy artillery here. You will remember that we could not even go skiing in Austria anymore.

There they will overcome heavy artillery, in a country where human rights are not threatened, where no one is convicted, and where there is no death penalty. But when it comes to Cuba, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, where the death penalty still exists and where thousands of people are in prison because they have their own opinions or because they want to profess their own religion, we must treat this with caution.

It is against this way of thinking and this approach that we protest. We remain with our position, Mr. Speaker, we will vote against.

The discussion is closed. The discussion is close.

De door de commission aangenomen text geldt als basis voor bespreking. (Rgt 66,4) The text adopted by the committee serves as the basis for the discussion. (Rgt 66,4) There will be no amendments in the future. No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. Voting over the resolution will take place later. The vote on the draft resolution will take place at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Rule 56 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to request the State Council’s opinion on two amendments. Both amendments were submitted to the committee and are of the nature to address the lack of coherence in the text and also the ambiguity associated with old and existing language notions.

It is about Amendment No. 23 on article 1 of the gentlemen Vanpoucke, Verherstraeten and De Crem?

We have already requested the opinion of the State Council on this matter. This is about the two amendments submitted after the settlement of the conflict of interest. If I remember correctly, it is the numbers 34 and

I will see if I can find them. On which article were these amendments submitted?

Amendments to Article 2 paragraph

Were these amendments submitted in the committee, Mr. Tant?

Both amendments were submitted and discussed in the committee.

Now submitted again?

As far as I know, these amendments were not submitted again because they were approved by the majority. Amendments 34 and 35 have been submitted to the committee.

If they were approved, they were included in the text.

of course .

You make it difficult for me. I have a new text, document 1458/15. Amendments have been adopted on several articles. Can you tell me exactly what your question is about?

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the two amendments submitted after the discussion of the conflict of interest, which have been explicitly discussed in the committee and subsequently incorporated into the overall text.

Are these not your amendments?

These are amendments of the majority.

Now I am there. This is document 1458/11, amendment number 34 by colleagues Janssens, Smets, D'hondt, Grauwels, De Permentier and Frédéric and then amendment number 35 to Article 2. However, I thought about your amendments when you spoke, Mr. Tant.

First, I need to determine whether 30 members support the question. Mr Erdman has the word.

Mr. President, Mr. Tant knows the Rules much better than I do. However, if I have understood it correctly, those amendments were adopted in the committee and incorporated into the text. Therefore, one cannot now ask the State Council for advice on those amendments, but must do so on the text or the article.

Mr. Tante, Mr. Erdman is right. If you ask me to consult the Council of State on Article 2, I would like to submit that. If you stick to the amendments, it will not happen naturally. You have taken us on the wrong track. You should formulate your question differently.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to put it in these terms: this is an article

Now we are there. That is one. The second is the document 1458/15. I will classify whether 50 members support the question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Erdman’s interpretation is not correct. If we read the third paragraph of Article 56 we will see that it is possible to ask for advice on amendments that have been discussed in the committee. This does not change anything. Only the case is that, if they have already been discussed in a committee, the opinion should be sought before the end of the general discussion. I think we are wide for that.

That is right. I consider this to be requested in Article 2 of the aforementioned bill. We all agree on this, right? Does anyone ask for the word on this point? I will determine the number in the classic way.

Those who want to support the request. To consult the Council of State on Article 2 of the draft vote yes.

Anyone who wants me to consult the State Council votes yes.

The others do not vote. Only those who request the consultation of the State Council vote yes. There is no negative vote or abstinence.

There is no no or abstinence. I will start with an indicative identification of the colleagues who ask it. We are moving to the electronic counting. It is the process of electronic accounting. (Voting/voting 1) 53 members support the request for consultation of the Council of State. 53 members support the request for consultation of the State Council. 53 is 3 more than 50. I will consult the State Council on the question asked to me concerning Article 2.

Mr. Speaker, let us be a little more precise with regard to the request to the State Council.

It would also be useful to examine the agreements between the amended Article 2 as a result of both amendments and the existing Article 21 of the Administrative Steel Act, since there may be a linear contradiction here. The same applies, by the way, to the text of the various paragraphs of Article 2. For a reader who does not have the Memory of Explanation, this text is filled with literal contradictions.

Furthermore, I would like to draw the attention of the members of this Assembly to the two new language notions that are being introduced, in particular the functional bilingualism. How do these terms relate to the thorough, sufficient and elementary knowledge of the language? If no answer can be given, this will result in everyone — including those who have a thorough knowledge of the second language — having to be invited to take exams again. That cannot be the intention, right?

In order to remedy this problem, it would be appropriate to ask the State Council for an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, then, for the last time, I urge that also Article 1 of the draft, which qualifies whether it is a matter of Article 77 or 78 of the Constitution, be submitted for review to the State Council. This was decided last time, but then the amendment I had submitted for that purpose was declared inadmissible. It cannot. Their

I urge that this question also be submitted to the State Council, since recent publications of some constitutional experts have clearly stated that this is a matter of Article 77. What prevents you from asking for clarity?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to Mr. Tant’s argument that it is indeed important that this article is still subject to the opinion of the State Council. Their

I think the Minister of Public Affairs is very happy with this. Indeed, after the conflict of interest was invoked by the French-speaking Community and after the French-speaking people unanimously submitted amendments supported by the majority parties — including the Dutch-speaking parties — the Minister repeated several times that that amendment in itself undermines the coherence of the law, in other words, that the balance is disturbed. I thus assume that the Minister of Public Affairs today is a happy man, since we ask that all this be reviewed by the State Council.

I propose that the State Council be consulted — which, by the way, would still be lacking — and that the full report of this meeting should also be submitted to them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to draw the attention of the State Council specifically to the article

The text submitted to the State Council stipulates in Article 1: "This law regulates a matter referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution". The State Council has seen the text.

No, Mr the President. The current draft is part of a larger whole which was initially submitted to the Council of State as an original draft and which there was qualified as Article 78.

Subsequently, the Government judged wisely that the draft should be divided into a part draft on the judicial organization and a part draft on the language legislation in administrative matters. Well, the State Council has not made any comments on the qualification of Article 78. Now she does, but then she did not make any comments. However, the Government submitted the second part as an article 77. How do you explain this?

First, I think it is appropriate to consult the State Council as a whole. The text must be sent.

Second, I suggest that you attach the report of the committee. You can send to the Council of State as an excerpt from the plenary session the speech of Mr. Tant. It is, to my knowledge, unusual to ask the State Council how it is with any article or law. You mentioned the language law. This will be reflected in the minutes of the plenary session.

Third, as regards the prehistory, the government originally submitted the two drafts to the State Council in one draft. You remember the misunderstandings about Articles 77 or 78 and whether or not the urgency of the case. Eventually, the government divided the draft. The judicial part has become Article 77. The State Council, in its first opinion, said that the part on justice must at least be an article 77. The other part has not been discussed. Their

The problem does not arise if you submit the entire draft to the State Council. It must then only advise you on those elements that may or may not arise from the text and are also cited in this discussion of the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, if you submit fragments from the plenary session to the State Council, you may be able to signal to the first chairman of the State Council that the Minister of Justice does not like to always advise the French-speaking Chamber on these matters.

Everything I say will be added to my letter.

Mr. Speaker, I will no longer test the patience of the Chamber, but I have something to say to colleague Erdman. I think he will agree with me. If an original text has passed the locks of the Chamber and was amended, then it may be useful to think about any re-classification of the text in question. That is an even more reason to ask, when submitting amendments for advice, what the State Council thinks about as a whole.

I agree with this. I will also master the documents of our debate. Colleagues, it is useless to open the general discussion. There is no point in giving the speaker the word. We will do this at the appropriate time.

I will ask for the opinion of the State Council. It would be absurd to have a general discussion now.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on behalf of the Government, I would like to join in the tribute you have just paid to the memory of the former Minister, Alain Van der Biest. For about twenty years, the deceased was an excellent mayor, deputy and minister. He was an eminent member of the Socialist family. In all his functions, he has rendered many services to the country, to his community and to his political ideal. by

On behalf of the government, I express my sincere condolences to his family and friends. The House observed a minute of silence. It takes a minute silent in eight.

The Service for Assistance to Minor Disabled Persons in Brussels — in the Zwarte Lievevrouwstraat — is responsible for handling applications for Assistance to Disabled Persons. This service struggled for many years with problems of underoccupation, resulting in a large backwardness. Disabled people sometimes had to wait two years for their legal disability benefit. Due to a legislative intervention of our group, the treatment period was strictly legally fixed at 180 working days. In the event of exceeding this treatment period, the State must pay the person concerned a fine, a court interest.

The amount of these fines has increased from 10 million per year to 16 million per year. This is bad news. The processing of the files begins again. This is unacceptable and unethical. We can anticipate the problem before it takes too large forms. This motion, Chairman, colleagues, calls on the Government to take the necessary steps to better staff this service and to make all the arrangements necessary to prevent further disasters.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 2) Yes 80 Oui No 52 Non Abstentions 4 Abstentions Total 136 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I submitted a motion following an interpellation concerning the intervention of the Minister responsible for Wezembeek-Oppem. In this motion, I ask the Minister to initiate a disciplinary procedure against the mayor of WezembeekOppem for non-compliance with the language legislation as applied in the facility municipalities.

We know that the Minister of Home Affairs has repeatedly said that he would watch over the application of language legislation in those facility municipalities. We must conclude that the arrangement that was eventually drafted by the Flemish Minister of Interior Affairs Van Grembergen, although under pressure from Prime Minister Verhofstadt and Minister Louis Michel as he himself has admitted, has become the initiative for the full implementation of the language legislation as it currently applies in the facility municipalities.

After all, shortly after a consensus was reached between Minister Van Grembergen and the mayor of Wezembeek-Oppem, the latter said that it was possible for him from now on that French speakers from other municipalities than facility municipalities would come to his municipality to attend French language education there. We have now also received the call from the mayor of Linkebeek in which he says that in the future more French will be used in the municipal councils.

Colleagues, it is clear that the solution drawn up by Minister Van Grembergen is absolutely unacceptable, but that is now a fact. Furthermore, it has also led to a further consolidation of the language legislation in the facility municipalities. Therefore, this should be stopped immediately. We therefore ask the Minister of the Interior to initiate the disciplinary procedure against the mayor of Wezembeek-Oppem in order to set an example for all other mayors of the facility municipalities. That is the scope of the motion and I ask you to approve it.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote.

(Voting/voting 3) Yes 86 Yes No 44 Non Abstentions 8 Abstentions Total 138 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to address first and foremost the colleagues of the majority.

Colleagues, many of you are mayors or ships, or are directly or indirectly involved in municipal policy. I do not make illusions. I know that you will immediately approve the simple motion. You should be aware that you take on a heavy responsibility. In fact, you say to Minister Duquesne: “Don’t touch anything the opposition says, your policy on firefighters is good.”

But, colleagues, then you should read the text of the interpellation of Mr Vanvelthoven, who is also a member of the majority. His criticism is as harsh as mine. In fact, he says the same as me: the policy on firefighters needs to be updated. By the way, you may have noticed that in the last few days such reactions have emerged from all sides: from the firefighters from various regions of the country, from various governors, from mayors. Colleagues, with our motion, we want to obligate the Minister to finally work on the reorganization of the fire department, not according to the Minister’s schedule — for it is shot down everywhere — but according to the emergency cries that sound from the fire departments. There are emergency crimes about the statute, about the legislation, about the organization of the fire department, in short, there are a lot of them.

The government has carried out a police reform following the dramatic Dutroux case. Should a serious fire reform really wait until another catastrophe occurs? I hope, colleagues of the majority, that you will think about this when voting.

Long live the spring! The sun, the Ardennes and the sea! The green nature colored yellow everywhere! The crocus, the forsythias are at the party! Everything is yellow, even my neighbor Richard. The narcissistic, also yellow, Guy Verhofstadt, accompanied by Eddy Merckx, proudly wears his yellow shirt under the eyes of the Chinese yellow. Condemned to remain in the country, the DD — it is not the future ecologist magazine but the Defeyt and Duquesne — laugh yellow! ECOLO Federal Secretary, Philippe Defeyt, at first, poorly received from the negotiations on the ISOC decided "to confront the dominant male rainbow". Who would it be? Minister Duquesne, himself, is increasingly engaged — dear leader of the Socialist Party group — in the police reform with its budget surpluses, the concerns of the police staff, the growing doubts of the population and the concerns of the mayors and municipal councillors.

The organization and funding of both volunteer and professional fire services has been completely neglected and the anger has grown in the barracks. In 2000, in a visit to Theux, in particular to Deputy Frédéric, Minister Duquesne had promised, however, "to go to the fire, to improve the status of firefighters, to strengthen the financial means made available to the cities and municipalities to modernize the 250 casernes of Belgium in vehicles, elevators, large scales and more traditional intervention equipment". by

Efficient equipment serves to better attack the fire but also, I recall, helps to guarantee firefighters the best possible conditions in terms of personal safety. Are there people more committed to serving others than professional and volunteer firefighters?

Can we really talk about political will when the budget of the Minister of the Interior has been reduced within the framework of equipment, vehicles and lifting equipment, all included to 10 million euros for 10 million inhabitants. This is 1 euro per person. The federal state acts as if it bought 2 chips at the corner cafe or 6 eggs at the farm.

The federal state fails to fulfill its duty of partnership with regional, municipal security services and receives — it is almost indecent — for its sole benefit VAT on purchases of equipment.

Mr Smets, I ask you to conclude.

You are interrupting me, well.

I ask you to conclude. I’m trying to “disconnect you.”

You have “disabled” me. I thank you.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 4) Yes 84 Yes No 51 No Abstentions 2 Abstentions Total 137 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is void. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Charles Janssens for this and next vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Maurice Dehu. Voting on Amendment No. 16 of Trees Pieters c.s. by article

Mr. Speaker, Minister Vande Lanotte had taken, following the municipal council elections of October 2000, a rather populist measure, but until today, eighteen months later, this law has still not been voted. This delay was caused by the government approving a number of amendments from the Senate. Until today, we have still not voted on a law and still have not been allowed to receive a correct cost sheet of this measure. The Minister of Finance is really lacking. By amending this law, we have tried to add a sustainable element. This sustainability can be achieved through the establishment of a petroleum fund, so that, in the case of similar facts, one can fall back to a definite structure. Their

Finally, I would like to refer to what Government Commissioner Zenner stated in his recommendations, in particular that no retroactive laws will be applied. I call on the Chamber to promote common sense and deliver sustainable logistics work.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 6) Yes 87 Oui No 0 Non Abstentions 52 Abstentions Total 139 Total Consequently, the House adopts the bill. It will be submitted to the King for approval.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I am neither a euro-integrist nor a euro-pessimist to take back the two expressions that were used to me by the Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday in the plenary session or in the Committee on Foreign Relations. by

I am simply a convinced and enthusiastic European citizen who believes, to repeat an expression of Jacques Delors, that the art of politics is the art of being the inventor of simplicity. The Nice Treaty is the opposite of simplicity. It is not with him that we will remedy the democratic deficit of the European institutions.

I explained in the plenary debate the reasons why my group will not ratify this treaty. Let me quote another quote from Franklin Dehousse, which correctly summarizes these reasons: “Logically, an enlargement treaty should have drastically reduced the right to veto, simplified procedures, facilitated decision-making procedures, opened up more enhanced cooperation and fundamentally deepened the community method. Basically but obscurely, the Treaty of Nice is the opposite!"Do we want our Union to be reduced to a mere free-trade zone with a single currency or do we want to go further? If our ambitions for Europe are different, then we should dare to say that in Nice, we failed. More than ever, we need a Europe of citizens, a social Europe, a strong Europe in external relations and defence, capable of responding effectively to security errors of another great power. by

Ratifying the Treaty of Nice is granting a permission to do wrong, it is granting a premium to mediocrity, it is confirming the triumph of the absurd obstruction that our eurosceptic partners have implemented with the success that can be seen. In short, in a word like in a hundred, to ratify the Treaty of Nice, is to miss the car of enlargement.

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 7) Yes 106 Oui No 24 Non Abstentions 7 Abstentions Total 137 Total Consequently, the House adopts the bill. It will be submitted to the King for approval.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, for my part, I would like to vote against the two "readmission" projects concluded with the Republic of Estonia, on the one hand, and with the Republic of Lithuania, on the other.

Mr. President, that means that Mr. Decroly would like all those people to become refugees in orbit because he does not want them to be taken back.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, we can say the same thing about outright liberalization as the journalist Hugues Le Paige said this morning in his chronicle "Multiple Thoughts" of the public service radio about the new Italian right. “It is the product of the most simplistic and radical values of the deregulated market, values dominating and far more pernicious than regional racism or amended post-fascism.”

I am extremely concerned to see our federal parliamentary assemblies vote on the basis of rachetic reports, when there are, or discussions reduced to their simplest expression, of bilateral investment agreements which are nothing more than a quite precise resumption of the multilateral investment agreement that had been rejected victoriously and very opportunely, at the initiative of trade unions and several policies, four years ago, by these same assemblies.

What is enshrined in the bilateral investment agreements under your review is the principle of the most comprehensive free movement of investments and the removal of the last limits to the action of private companies to maximize their profits at the expense of States and their fundamental competencies in respect of human rights, social rights, the environment or simply in respect and promotion of the general interest.

To the transnational corporations, all possibilities, all faculties; to the states, all obligations! The strongest thing is that these bilateral investment agreements, whose affiliation with the Multilateral Investment Agreement is fully proven, will have the same devastating effects on investment as this multilateral investment agreement when they are terminated.

“It is necessary to go back to the most Leonian colonial treaties to find exposed with so much dominating arrogance the imprescriptible rights of the strongest and the draconian obligations imposed on the peoples.”

I will conclude by questioning the government, which yesterday promised me an answer to the questions I asked him about these reports of direct affiliation between fire AMI and the new ABI.

I would also like to ask those of us, in particular the socialist parties (in the plural) or the Greens who, in 1998, conducted a useful, effective and – not so often – victorious campaign against the multilateral investment agreement.

Will they vote here like in 1998? Will they vote here as they did in Porto Alegre (p rotestations) where they were seen marching, just two months ago, in front of demonstrations that denounced deregulation, liberalism and war (Protestations).

Mr. Decroly, you are exceeding your speech time.

We do not always speak in parliaments, we do not always vote there. But there you sometimes die for your ideas, to defend the ideas that you say you support. Decroly removes his jacket to show a t-shirt worn at the protests in Porto Alegre and shaves a hat from Porto Alegre.

Mr. Decroly, that is enough. The rules are also seen here. I ask you to stop.

Dear colleagues, I ask you to wear your cap of Porto Alegre and vote accordingly, because in Porto Alegre, I met Mr. Di Rupo, I met Mr. Deleuze and I met Mrs. Lizin.

Mr. Decroly, it is over, I ask you to leave the tribune. I give you a first warning. In this parliament, the substance prevails over the form. We cannot ridicule the parliament.

Mr. Speaker, if you want me to provide psychiatric assistance, please invite me to do so!

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked their vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote. (Voting/voting 10) Yes 119 Oui No 1 Non Abstentions 18 Abstentions Total 138 Total Consequently, the House adopts the bill. It will be submitted to the King for approval.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have refrained from repeating what I stated during the discussion in the committee, namely that we must resort to this agreement to encourage the authorities of that country to more respect for human rights. In any case, this issue should be addressed to the Yemeni authorities, based on the findings of Amnesty International.

Mr. Decroly, do you want to remove this hat, please?

by Mr. Deleuze wore it in Porto Alegre.

I ask you once again to remove this hat, Mr. Decroly! First warning, Mr Decroly! The second warning. Please leave the house, Mr. Decroly! This is an order from the chairman of the House.

Mr. Speaker, before you impose this sanction, I would like to encourage you to reflect, because we have discussions here within five years about the chadors and the like. Therefore, it is recommended that you reflect before you start.

No, no, I consider that Mr. Decroly’s attitude is not consistent with the dignity of the Chamber. The point.

by M. Decroly is evacuated manu militari) (Some Ecolo MPs leave the district) (Brouhaha)

I ask for the suspension of the meeting.