House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Human Rights March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, here we are now with the theory of throwing out crumbs to the people. "One crumb now, and perhaps another before the elections".
How can the Prime Minister explain the hesitancy of his Minister of Justice, if not by saying that his own caucus is deeply divided on this question?
Human Rights March 20th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human rights commissioner accused the Liberal government of lacking the courage of its convictions, of dragging its feet. He even said the government ought to tidy up its own affairs before preaching to the rest of the world about respecting human rights. These are extremely serious accusations.
What explanation does the Prime Minister have for the fact that he has still not kept his promise-despite its being down in black and white in the red book, that book he is waving in our faces in the House all the time-to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds for discrimination?
Manpower Training March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, after so many negative experiences, how can the Prime Minister fail to understand that it is precisely because of this tendency to stall and delay the federal government's withdrawal from manpower training that it cannot come to an agreement with the Quebec government, because the federal government is never able to make up its mind when it should?
Manpower Training March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Prime Minister realizes that his government is imposing, once again, negotiating terms on Quebec that can only lead to failure, since he is offering to withdraw from manpower training provided that Quebec signs an agreement confirming the federal government's role in the area of manpower and job training, which is totally unacceptable to Quebec. And the Prime Minister knows it.
Manpower Training March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in response to his Quebec counterpart, Louise Harel, confirmed the federal government's intention to maintain a presence in the area of manpower, thus maintaining costly and ineffective overlap and duplication, contrary to the consensus so often expressed in Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister confirm that his Minister of Human Resources Development's position formally contradicts his referendum commitment, reiterated in the throne speech, to withdraw from job training?
Unemployment Insurance Reform March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the eyes of the Minister of Human Resources Development, justice means making cuts that are equal for everyone.
A Canadian Press report tells us that the government has launched a $2 million publicity campaign aimed at counteracting the protests against unemployment insurance reform, in the hope of triggering a debate between western Canadians, many of whom feel that the unemployment insurance scheme is too generous, and eastern Canadians, for whom unemployment insurance is a socio-economic necessity.
Are we to understand that the Minister's new strategy for winning out over the unemployed is to divide and conquer or, in other words, to provoke confrontations between west and east in order to get his reform and his cuts across?
Unemployment Insurance Reform March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with the figures advanced by the Canadian Labour Congress, which claims that the government's cuts to the unemployment insurance plan may mean only 35 per cent of those without jobs will collect benefits when the new plan comes into effect, if more than substantial changes are not made?
Unemployment Insurance Reform March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development's unem-
ployment insurance reform continues to stir up anger among workers nearly everywhere, particularly in regions where there is the most seasonal work.
The Minister's reform, by cutting benefits back $2 billion dollars more each year for the next three, will keep very many people without jobs from collecting benefits under the plan.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm the figures given in this morning's Globe and Mail , namely that last January no more than 46 per cent of Canada's jobless were collecting benefits, whereas the figure for 1990 was over 87 per cent?
Privilege March 13th, 1996
Did you think for a moment that we would let the parliamentary system deteriorate to the point where a colleague of
ours can be named in a parliamentary release without any restriction, without any sort of protection? Did you think that we would let our colleague stand trial without being afforded the protection normally afforded to anyone who has dealings with the law? Do you think that we will let a puppet court decide the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who is guilty of having made our political vision known? Never.
I shall remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members opposite that further thought needs to be given to this. To vote for the new motion we have before us, which makes a few changes to the motion put forward by the Reform Party, is to enter into a dangerous partnership with the third party. Politically, the Liberal Party of Canada will never recover from such act of infamy. In Quebec, the people, including federalist Quebecers, will never forget what federal Liberal members will have done. It is plain unthinkable that we would go along with this kind of game.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg did his job as a member of Parliament. The official opposition is doing its job in this Parliament. We are looking after the interests of Quebec.
We are publicizing our sovereignty plan, as we have been asked to do by the other side of the House. The Prime Minister regularly says to us: "Tell the public about your plan". Yes, we are telling Quebecers about it. No, we have not finished publicizing it because our presence here is designed to do precisely that. This plan that is so dear to us and that we will soon, furthermore, succeed in bringing about is our reason for existing.
There is not one member of the official opposition in this House that would stand for it, if one of our colleagues were dragged before a committee, without rules, with no protection whatsoever, handed over to the Reformers, who would like nothing better than to occupy our seats, handed over to the members of the Liberal Party who could blindly take positions that are absolutely unacceptable in the democratic system in which we operate.
Referring to committee the case of the member for Charlesbourg and the press release in question would be to brand him guilty, in advance, of sedition, without actually using that term, because it would not fly in Quebec. It would allow the member for Charlesbourg to fall victim to the ire of certain people who cannot accept that a political plan such as ours is allowed to be expressed freely in this country and in this Parliament.
It would be as if 50 per cent of Quebecers were dragged before this committee without rules to defend themselves simply because they have committed the crime of being sovereignists. Sixty per cent of francophones in Quebec are represented by the member for Charlesbourg, they think like he does and they want him to explain to the members opposite that our political project makes sense.
Never will we accept that our colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, be attacked by fellow parliamentarians before a puppet committee, a puppet tribunal, simply because he took the time to honestly explain our political project with the parliamentary means at his disposal. Never will we accept that 50 per cent of Quebecers be dragged before this committee without rules. Never will we accept that a fundamental right that parliamentarians in this country have always enjoyed, namely the right to express themselves and present their ideas even if the government does not agree, be taken away from us.
To vote for this motion as amended by the government is unacceptable because it is a direct infringement upon our right to represent our constituents and to present our option with all the implications it would have if Quebecers decided to have their own country. We will never be able to vote for this motion because after that, in this House, Liberals and Reformers alike will ask sovereignists "O.K., who is next?". We do not accept that, and Quebec does not accept it.
Privilege March 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this would be like signing his own death warrant.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the press and of the television, I hereby announce that our party intends to start a rebellion in Canada". It makes no sense. This is a public action taken by a member of Parliament who, within the context of his duties, explains the structure of the department of defence in a sovereign Quebec.
Now everybody, all the members in this House, all the journalists on Parliament Hill, everyone except maybe the reform party members who have not yet understood it, everybody knows that the main reason why Bloc Quebecois members were elected to this House, their main political goal, is for Quebec to become a real country as soon as possible.
Some people could say: "Yes, but if we read a little further on in the communiqué, the member for Charlesbourg wrote that Quebec will need all the Quebecers who are currently in the military; he added that Quebec will be part of NATO, that we share concerns for democracy and for the respect of civil and human rights". What offence did the member for Charlesbourg commit? He announced that we intended to respect our international responsibilities in the defence area, and that in Quebec we respect human rights. Is he guilty of sedition because he said that we would respect human rights?
"The day after a yes win," he says, "Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces "while keeping their rank, seniority-", etc.
It is also public knowledge-and the communiqué must be interpreted in that light-that Quebec's plan to achieve sovereignty will become a reality-it was announced throughout the referendum campaign-after a yes win and a one-year period of negotiations during which we will offer the rest of Canada a partnership in an appropriate, responsible and honest way. And it is only at the end of this process that Quebec's sovereignty will be proclaimed and that Quebec will put in place its defence system, its army and the whole structure of a real country. I repeat, after.
Is it reasonable to think that the hon. member for Charlesbourg is guilty of high treason for announcing to all newspapers in Canada that, after a yes vote in the referendum and a year of negotiations, Quebec will give itself a defence policy? Is it treason to tell those
citizens who were asked to support our goal what the future will be like in our new country? That, Mr. Speaker, is sheer nonsense.
The reality behind this motion is that, for Reform members in this House, being a sovereignist is a crime. According to Reform members, 50 per cent of Quebecers should be charged with treason, since, as sovereignists, they want their own country.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the reality behind this motion is that, for over two years, the Reform Party has wanted to form the official opposition but has been unable to earn this position. That is its problem.
Reform members will have an opportunity, during the coming by-elections, to become the official opposition if they wish. They should behave like democrats. It is only by running in the ridings in question and defeating the Bloc and Liberal candidates that they can be taken seriously and have any hope of becoming the official opposition. Not before.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which I deeply respect, calls for the House to consider and vote on this motion. We in the official opposition had felt and hoped that Liberal members, acting a little more sensibly, logically and responsibly than third party members, would fight this motion which does not make any sense and is totally unfounded, which goes way beyond what the hon. member for Charlesbourg has done and even infringes on the official opposition's right of free speech.
Instead, they disguise the main proposal. It is hypocritical to try to disguise a proposal like this one on the pretext that talking about sedition is not quite politically correct, that it does not look good in the Quebec ridings where those people have representatives. They know very well what the people of Quebec would think of their colleagues in every riding, because no one in Quebec, not even non sovereignists, will ever tolerate that sovereignists be called traitors and accused of sedition for making our goal known, a goal in which we believe.
They know very well that they would be judged harshly in their ridings. That is why they resorted to a totally, and I would say obviously, artificial artifice. An unspeakable artifice. That is the word I was looking for. They tried to do some window dressing by saying: "Let us refer the matter to the House committee. It will examine the matter involving the member for Charlesbourg. We will look at the press release like good children. We will assess the situation. We will determine whether or not the member for Charlesbourg is a traitor for speaking of sovereignty". That is what we are hearing from the across the floor.