Nick Discepola

[United States of America, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States are coping with a tragedy. Following the terrorist attacks against the United States, more than 5,000 people have disappeared. These people, people like us, were going about their daily business when the unexpected occurred.

My thoughts are with these people, those who will be found and those who will remain in our memories. My thoughts are with the families and friends of these victims. I bid them the strength required to get through this tragedy. It has changed our lives forever.

Last Friday's national day of mourning allowed all Canadians to express their most profound sympathies for the victims' families. I was deeply moved by the compassion and solidarity that Canadians showed toward our American friends. I am convinced that our prayers will be heard and that we will be able to bring some comfort to all those affected by this great tragedy.

On behalf of myself, my family and my constituents, I extend our greatest sympathies to the American people. May God be their guidance in this very difficult period. Our hearts are with them.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition signed by 58 people in my riding calling for the withdrawal of Bill C-23 and a better definition of marriage.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot in my riding, I would like to present a petition.

These people are complaining about all the planes that fly over their houses, some times at about one in the morning, and others after six in the morning. The petitioners would like these planes to change their flight path so as not to disturb the peace of the residents of this municipality.

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

I will continue with my remarks, Madam Speaker. Such a statement in support of clarity in a law voted on by the representatives of the people of Canada, who are all democratically elected and who, therefore, speak for the people, cannot but serve democracy and the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of our country.

In its opinion, the supreme court reminds us of the issues of a decision on the secession of a province or a territory of Canada, and I quote:

In the 131 years since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economically, socially, politically and culturally) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk.

This statement reflects the true impact of a secession, which would affect not only the social, political, economic and cultural fabric of Quebec, but of all of Canada. It would be an irreversible decision which could not, for all intents and purposes, be reconsidered in any way, in spite of what the Bloc Quebecois leader may have said about this in the past.

When a portion of a country's population decides to separate from the rest of the population, it is because that group believes, rightly or wrongly, that it is impossible to continue to live in that country, that its living conditions and the full enjoyment of its rights and freedoms are in jeopardy. Is this currently the case in Quebec? I doubt it very much. Are the talents, skills and pride of Quebecers not drawn on, and are they not, as they should be, a fundamental component of our country's success and of its recognition around the world?

Our entry into the 21st century is marked by an economic, social and cultural interdependence that is essential to the development of our resources and to our quality of life. Is the success of each region of Canada, which are all so unique and distinctive, not a guarantee of our country's economic, social and cultural success?

Our country is a whole in which all the parts contribute to its identity and to the promotion of its values. Bill C-20 ensures that it will only be possible to alter our country's integrity if one of its regions were to decide unambiguously, through the expression of the will of a clear majority of its population on a clear question, to separate from the rest of the country and to assume the economic, social, cultural, political and financial responsibilities resulting from such a decision.

This is what we would call a clear choice, void of any ambiguity. It would be a choice based on reason, good judgement and intelligence. It would not be a choice made as a result of manipulation to get the public all confused about its deep convictions and its interests.

The Government of Canada sincerely believes that we must claim the right to preserve the integrity of all the institutions on our territory. We must also, and I say it again because this is critical, preserve the integrity of the rights and freedoms of all those who live in our country, regardless of their origin and beliefs.

All political actors agree that clarity is essential in a referendum about secession. A clear question is one which leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the person who must answer it.

All political actors also agree with the supreme court's opinion that the principle of clarity also applies to the result of a referendum vote on secession. A clear majority is the expression of a will that leaves politicians and all citizens in no doubt as to how results are to be interpreted and what the vote means. One does not half leave a country. One leaves it completely, forever, irrevocably.

One leaves because the decision taken by a large majority of the population prevails on any legitimate opposition to secession and because the government is accordingly justified in giving effect to that will, without irreducibly threatening social order.

Any negotiations that would end this union, that would destroy the links uniting us all, would certainly not be easy and would leave their share of wounds and bitterness.

With Bill C-20, however, our government wants to ensure that, in the event of secession, both the public and the so-called political actors will base their actions on reason, good judgment and common understanding.

Today our country is a world leader in its efforts to build a new economic order that will benefit us all.

Let us stop wallowing around in the murkiness of the Parti Quebecois' political project and unite forces to take up the major education, health and economic development challenges awaiting us in all communities in Canada.

Reason and common sense must prevail. Let us leave behind the ambiguity of the Parti Québécois' project. We all stand to gain.

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we have just set foot into the 21st century, and I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, which deals with the requirement of clarity in the event of a referendum on the secession of Quebec.

I would, moreover, invite all my colleagues here in the House to reflect seriously on this matter and to bring their reason and good judgment to bear in understanding the legitimacy of this bill and in putting an end to the troubling ambiguity of the sovereignist project.

Bill C-20 is a call for clarity, clarity in our individual and collective choices, clarity in our feelings, and clarity above all in the expression of our will to all Canadians, to remain united in order to face the economic, social and cultural challenges facing us.

I would like to remind all members of the House of Commons that, in bringing in this bill, the Government of Canada is acting responsibly and with the greatest respect for Canada's political institutions. This bill does not in any way represent a threat to the integrity of either the national assembly of Quebec or any other legislative assembly in the other provinces and the territories of our country.

In its opinion on the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada stated, and I quote:

However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes “a clear majority on a clear question” in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.

The Government of Canada being one of those actors, it therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the integrity of our country is neither threatened nor, indeed, made to disintegrate as a result of political manipulation and semantics concealing the true intent and scope of the referendum choice.

In the throne speech of last October 12, our government reaffirmed its commitment to all Canadians in Quebec and all other Canadians to ensure that the principle of clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada is respected.

For our government, there is no doubt that the most sensible and reasonable way to meet its commitment is to include in an act of parliament the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to both the referendum question and the result of the vote.

Therefore, the Government of Canada is just doing its duty to the people of Quebec and other Canadian provinces and territories by making sure that the spirit of the supreme court's decision is reflected in legislation designed to remove any ambiguity as to the choice that could be made by the people of part of its territory in a referendum.

The legitimacy of Canada's decision to embark on this path cannot be challenged. Need I remind the House that the court's task was to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions must be made under the constitution and not, as some would have us believe, to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces acting within that framework?

The Canadian government's approach does not threaten the integrity of provincial institutions, including the National Assembly of Quebec. On the contrary, it is aimed at preserving the integrity of the parliament and the government of all Canadians.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, December 14th, 1999]

Four out of four.

[Tvontario's French Language Network, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on November 19, Impératif français gave its conditional support for the arrival in Quebec of TVOntario's French language network, TFO, so long as Quebec subscribers did not have to pay extra.

A fine mess in order to actually say no to the arrival of TFO in Quebec. I would have preferred to see more courage and determination by Impératif français. It is committing the same mistake as the Bloc Quebecois and treating francophones outside Quebec with total disdain.

Once again, Impératif français has fallen into the trap of declining the invitation to stand up and defend the cause of francophones in Canada. It prefers to erect a barrier between francophones.

I would like to reassure francophones outside Quebec of the solid support of the Liberal Government of Canada for their cause.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Are you going to resign?

[Quebec Minister Of Finance, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists obviously keep shooting themselves in the foot these days.

This morning, we learned that the Quebec Minister of Finance now feels that outright independence is old fashioned. He just discovered that the Parti Quebecois' option is outdated. This is some discovery.

That same finance minister served under Jacques Parizeau, someone who pulled no punches when stating that Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada was something necessary. Bernard Landry also tried to downplay the polls indicating that separatism is on the wane.

In light of these developments, sovereignists should quickly hold another convention to find out if everyone is aiming in the same direction.

[Jean-Louis Millette, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, to quote Edgar Fruitier, Jean-Louis Millette, man of the theatre, relentless perfectionist and actor extraordinaire, let his audience down for the first time in his career when he made his final exit on September 29.

Jean-Louis Millette the actor also left his mark on the culture of Quebec, through Quebec television. He also enjoyed a career in film where he often played seedy, disturbed or downright fiendish characters.

When interviewed last year, Millette himself said the best way to keep death at bay was to work passionately for as long as one's strength and time permitted.

We offer him this richly deserved tribute, along with our sincere condolences to his family members. Thanks so much for all the memories, Jean-Louis Millette.