It is always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to take the floor when you are in the chair.
I would like to express our great disappointment with this throne speech. I believe it can be characterized quite simply as a throne speech offering little in the way of concrete solutions to people's concerns. It is the mark of a government that is coming to the end of its time.
I invite the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to reflect on this, and I trust that he will have some questions to ask me at the end of my speech, because I am always pleased to exchange views with him. I invite him to remember how different things would be in this House if the Bloc Quebecois were not here to promote the legitimate interests of Quebec.
If we were not here, the government would be left to its own device, with its rather monolithic view of Quebec. I am taking this opportunity to tell you that we will not let the government interfere in the referendum debate.
I am well aware that, if it were up to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, given his penchant for controversy—and I believe he will allow me to say this—he would want to legislate here, in this parliament, on the referendum question, even though, as we all know, Quebec already has a referendum act. The decision will be made in a democratic fashion.
Guess what percentage of Quebecers took part in the 1995 referendum? Some 93.5%. This compares favourably to the figures obtained where voting is compulsory.
I am asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to calm down a little, to control himself, to not add fuel to the fire and to accept that this issue will be dealt with by the National Assembly and by Quebecers, who will have to make a choice.
Incidentally—and this will be of interest to my friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—this past weekend I attended a congress with the rank and file in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Whenever my constituents were given the opportunity to vote for sovereignty, they did so in very interesting numbers.
I am not an illegitimate son of sovereignty. I am a natural son of sovereignty, considering that every time the people in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had an opportunity to vote for sovereignty, they did so. In fact, the minister know who the first Parti Quebecois member elected at the National Assembly was. We will recall fondly that it was Robert Burns, who now sits on the bench.
I want to tell the House about a victory for democracy that took place in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I put the following idea, which will interest the minister, to those attending the congress. In the coming days, I would like to campaign to have the Commission des institutions convene a constituent assembly with a four-fold mandate.
First, I would like Quebecers to be consulted about the wording of the next referendum question. Naturally, it would still be up to the National Assembly to decide whether or not to adopt it, but it would be interesting for Quebecers to be consulted. This would prevent the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and all the other ministers in this cabinet from saying that the question is not legitimate, because it would be based on what people wanted.
Second, I would like a constituent assembly to look into what could be called “new democratic practices”. In a sovereign Quebec—it should not be long now—what kind of ballot do we want? How can we ensure that decision-making is a truer reflection of representation? These are questions that could be raised in the context of a constituent assembly.
Third—and I know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be interested in this as well—we must give some thought to a question facing modern nations. This is not something limited to Quebec or Canada. It is a question that I would say all modern nations must consider. How are we to define “citizen” as a concept? In Quebec, the view which I think is most widely held right now is that, in a sovereign Quebec, citizenship will be defined in relation to participation in a shared public culture.
This shared public culture has a number of components. First, of course, it must be rooted in French. The language of democratic participation in a sovereign Quebec will of course be French. Naturally, we hope that there will be wide participation in democratic life and in institutions. We also hope to benefit from the contribution of other communities in a context of genuine collaboration and mutual dialogue.
A constituent assembly could therefore make proposals for the wording of the referendum question, examine the issue of new democratic practices, and consider the concept of citizenship by consulting people about participation in institutions. I myself spent a few days in the United States and was trained by former congressman Kennedy, who has since left political life—but I confess I had nothing to do with it—and he explained very clearly to me the benefits of a law that, in the end, permits American legislators to measure the involvement of banks in poor communities.
I must say, to my great satisfaction, that this proposal was greeted with barely contained enthusiasm. It will now make its way through the regional bodies to the Bloc Quebecois Year 2000 congress. I would very much like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to agree to exchange views with me on these matters.
Now, returning to the Speech from the Throne, although I do not believe I have ever strayed away from it totally, finally, as far as the government's constitutional strategy is concerned, we can see an imprecise outline of the underlying agenda of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
I would once again caution him against the desire to legislate here, in this parliament, on a matter that does not concern him in the least. Moreover, I am told that the minister—a likeable man, as is common knowledge—is a man becoming increasingly the only one on side with his strategy. I trust that we will have the opportunity to discuss this together, he and I.
I would have liked to have seen some concrete measures contained in this throne speech, lacklustre as it is, with no bite, no relief, a total lack of imagination. What would prevent the government from including in the Human Rights Act—not in the Charter, since this would require an amending formula, as we know—social condition as a forbidden grounds for discrimination?
Seven provinces already have such a thing in their legislation or in their human rights codes, and it would be a formidable weapon in the battle against poverty. We are very well aware that social condition refers to people's degree of wealth, their position in society, their place in the means of production. What would have prevented the government from passing legislation, as the United States did in 1977, on community reinvestment by the banks?
The Americans have what they call the Community Reinvestment Act. I myself spent a few days in the U.S. and was instructed by former congressman Kennedy who, since then, has left politics— and I had nothing to do with that—and who explained to me in very practical terms the benefits from this Act, which basically allows American lawmakers to measure the banks' involvement in disadvantaged communities.
I will now focus on another issue, namely tainted blood. This is a stigma, a matter of shame for all parliamentarians. So long as the government does not correct the situation, there will be a pall over all of the House of Commons. The government ought to correct the situation, and I am referring, naturally, to the Krever commission.
This is a scandal, a real catastrophe. In the early 1990s, Canadian blood supplies were contaminated for all sorts of reasons. It is nevertheless true that, in its report—a report not prepared by the Bloc Quebecois, a report by a royal commission of inquiry that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and needed to be called—the Krever commission called for a no fault compensation system. That means that everyone contaminated either through a transfusion or through the use of blood products would be compensated.
I would like everyone to stay, but acknowledge that is impossible. I know that those who must leave always do so out of necessity. I would have liked a debate with the minister, but that is not possible. We will have it in other forums. I think he may be a bit afraid of a confrontation with me, but that is part of parliamentary life.
I close by saying that I wished the Krever commission had been heard and that we were establishing a compensation plan without regard to the fault of those contaminated before 1986 as for those contaminated before 1990. It is a matter of humanitarian consideration. Quebec and Ontario have already compensated these categories. The government is turning a deaf year, and I think it is shameful it is taking such an attitude.