Jean-Paul Marchand

[Flangers Rock Group, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I pay tribute today to the performance of Flangers, a group of four young rock musicians from the Quebec City area.

Fred Asselin, Serge Poulin, Julien Martre and P. O. Gosselin were a knockout in California's Battle of the Band 3, placing second in the finals on February 3.

The only Canadian group to make it to the finals since this event first began, they scored a perfect 100% in the Dallas semi-finals. With some 4,000 Canadian and American groups entered in this prestigious rock music competition, the largest of its kind in the world, their achievement was all the more impressive. In addition, a number of international celebrities told them that they were very talented and predicted that they would go far.

I congratulate the members of Flangers on their talent and their determination. All Quebecers—

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have here an article from the Canadian Press in which we read that “Mr. Ryan felt that, by making a decision on the clarity of a referendum question, the federal government would, to say the least, interfere directly with the drafting of the question. He added that this attitude was not real federalism but a trusteeship system. Such a system, he said, if not contrary to the federal government's responsibility should—”

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, actually I would like to table a document, which I have here, published in Le Soleil on December 4, under the title—

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I only had a few lines left to read, relating to the 1995 referendum campaign and other data in this very interesting article, which could enlighten members of this House.

I would indeed ask for—

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article published in Le Devoir on January 27, entitled “Ontario after a Yes Vote”.

The article states:

After a three year legal saga, Toronto's Globe and Mail has obtained documents from Ontario's Department of Finance, in which an assessment is made of the impact for Ontario of a yes victory in the 1995 referendum.

What was presented as a series of studies is merely notes jotted down for use by the Department of Finance. These documents list the Quebec-Ontario agreements—very few of them, in fact—that would be in jeopardy as a result of Quebec sovereignty.

By using estimates already made by various experts, there was an attempt at determining potential losses of employment caused by the breakup. However, these documents do not have much value as estimates and are rather more speculative. For example, there is half a line on the involvement of the Canadian army, without any explanation.

It is estimated that sovereignty could result in the value of the Canadian dollar going down to between 65 cents and 70 cents U.S., something which is presented as a catastrophe.

Since these notes were written, the Canadian dollar has—

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will change a few words. “The Prime Minister can wait until the next Parti Quebecois convention in May 2000 to do anything about setting the parameters of another referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The Prime Minister of Canada has proposed a swap. If Mr. Bouchard says he will not hold another referendum during—”

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand an article that appeared in Le Soleil of November 29 entitled “Chrétien Haggling” and written by Jean-Jacques Samson, which says:

Jean Chrétien can wait until the next Parti Quebecois convention in May 2000 to do anything about setting the parameters of another referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The Prime Minister of Canada proposed a swap yesterday to Lucien Bouchard. If Mr. Bouchard says he will not hold another referendum during his present term of office, Mr. Chrétien promises to make no further reference to referendums, the clarity of the question or the decision by the supreme court. In short, if you don't move, I won't.

Coming from anyone else, who had devoted the first part of his speech before 1,000 delegates from the Quebec section of his party to citing his duty and his responsibilities as the head of the Government of Canada in order to justify his having no choice but to intervene, this would have looked like a crudely set trap. But coming from Jean Chrétien, he is simply showing his true colours once again.

Mr. Chrétien is not motivated by a desire to settle this issue once and for all before passing on the leadership, as some said he would last week, he is apparently ready for a dirty deal—

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Talk about closure.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for speaking out on this issue of the utmost importance for Quebec.

I would like to ask him a question regarding the fact that there are Liberal members from Quebec who are taking part in this attack on Quebec.

I would like to know what he thinks of members who were elected for the Liberal Party in Quebec and who support Bill C-20.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that a rally will be held tonight, at the Ramada Inn on de la Couronne Street, in Quebec City, to denounce the bill of the intergovernmental affairs minister. That bill, as we all know, denies Quebecers their fundamental rights.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten this House. It is an article published in the daily newspaper Le Soleil on January 6 entitled “Legislation on Referendum Rules”, in which we can see that Joe Clark, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, remains opposed to the bill—