Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the following text, written by one of Canada's top constitutional experts, Professor Henri Brun, who, incidentally, was one of my teachers when I was a law student at Laval University.
He published a text in yesterday's edition of Le Devoir , the favorite newspaper of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, which reads as follows: “The Clarity Act is Unconstitutional”.
It is important that members opposite listen. He wrote: “The federal Parliament of Canada is about to adopt a very unusual act, an act that has no purpose other than to impede the exercise of the most fundamental collective right, namely the right for a people to express its will in complete freedom regarding its political future.
This act seems innocuous under the French title “Loi donnant effet à l'exigence de clarté formulée par la Cour suprême dans son avis sur le renvoi sur la sécession du Québec”. This title suggests that, in its opinion in the Quebec secession reference, the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a requirement for clarity on the federal parliament.” In fact, this is not the case at all.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me the opportunity to go on, because this is important. So, can I continue?