Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good day, Ms. Dawson. I am pleased to meet you for the very first time. When Bloc Québécois members first read your resume, they were rather surprised to see that you had been nominated by the Prime Minister, first, because of your close involvement in several federal government projects that ran counter to Quebec's deepest aspirations. You say that you have provided legal and legal policy advice on all matters related to Canadian unity and to the Quebec government's secessionist policy and that you led a team of lawyers and other Justice Department employees.
Judging from your resume, you have been associated with every major anti-Quebec offensive. As for Option Canada, the least we can say is that it did not prove to be an appropriate model for managing public funds. The program in fact was marked by considerable laxness and complacency.
Minister Jacques Brassard had this to say about the Constitution Act, 1982: “To achieve its objectives, the federal government has no qualms about changing the rules of democracy [...]”
Mr. Brassard was referring to the Supreme Court reference, but it is all the same, in any event. The inalienable right of Quebeckers to decide their future continues to be disregarded.
On the subject of the Clarity Act, a prominent lawyer and constitutional expert, Henri Brun, was quoted as follows in Le Devoir:
Canada's federal Parliament is poised to adopt a very unusual piece of legislation, the sole purpose of which is to impede the right of a people to exercise freely their most fundamental right, namely the right to decide their political future.
Mr. Brun goes on to say this:
By attempting to consign this notion of clarity to a perfectly abstract legal framework, the federal Parliament is in fact acting in a thoroughly unconstitutional manner.
According to what you are telling us, Ms. Dawson, you advised the government on this matter. These are not the words of the Bloc Québécois or of the Parti Québécois, but of a constitutional law professor. It does not bother me if this amuses you. He also had this to say:
[...] it represents an effective way of preventing Quebeckers from getting another opportunity to decide their political future [...] Through intimidation [...]
Ms. Dawson, you have been associated with Option Canada, with the Constitution Act, 1982, with the Clarity Act and with the Supreme Court reference. Surely you can understand that the Bloc Québécois, which defends the interests of Quebec—and dare I say those of the Quebec nation—in Ottawa, cannot possibly endorse the candidacy of an individual who has been directly associated with the activities and laws of this government that have disregarded the rights and privileges of a people, or entrust to that individual the mandate of ethics standard bearer.
Thank you.