Jacques Saada

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is the kind of comment that reminds me of the position of someone who is so preoccupied by preparing a question he has forgotten to listen to the one who is speaking.

I said very specifically in French, and I will now do so in English, if this motion were to be adopted and if I decided not to have a flag on my desk, the question was clear, should that mean, would that mean or could that mean that I am less patriotic than someone else who has it? I say putting the question is totally absurd.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when one moves a motion, one should logically have a reason to do so. And if so, it is my duty, as a parliamentarian, to make a value judgment on that reason. I am not imputing motives. So, I stand by my comment to the effect that this is a red herring. It is not a debate on patriotism, but a debate that has absolutely no substance. Again, I deplore this.

I was going to conclude by saying I sincerely hope that everyone in this House will agree on the eminently respectable character of the Canadian flag. However, I will conclude by asking this question: If the motion is passed, if those who want to display a flag on their desk are allowed to do so, and if I do not want a flag on my desk, would this mean I am less patriotic than other members? This is totally absurd. I condemn it and I deplore it.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the opposition, given a day of debate, uses the whole day to talk about flags, when there are so many national issues and concerns. I consider this opposition party is paying us a remarkable compliment on the work we have done.

Perhaps I could point out that I consider respect for patriotism is also expressed through respect for the language of those who make up our country and I can only deplore the fact that the text of the motion, which arrived by electronic mail, contained so many mistakes in the French as to insult me personally.

Patriotism is a fine thing, but it starts with respect for those who make up this country and respect for my language.

On the subject of patriotism, I would like to mention two or three very brief experiences demonstrating that patriotism does not always find expression in a flag. It is something we feel very deeply.

Last July 1, my first Canada Day as a member of Parliament, I was given the honour of an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony. I spoke with the new Canadians saying “Look, I arrived here twenty years ago and like you I ended up here on these chairs; today I represent the Government of Canada”. That was a symbol of pride for me. That is my patriotism.

At the great demonstration in Montreal before the 1995 referendum, my daughter Jessica had the honour of singing the national anthem. I was behind the podium when she did. I saw the crowd. I saw the emotion. That is what patriotism means to me.

In 1991, I was elected to chair the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when it was very difficult being a federalist in Quebec. And for my daughter to have sung the national anthem and for everyone to have risen with tears in their eyes, that for me is patriotism.

My patriotism is not the show off type. It is deep and genuine. It is not made up of symbolic values artificially displayed for purely political reasons.

I realize that symbols are very important. I noticed, in Quebec in particular, that the Quebec flag was appropriated by the separatists, as if it belonged only to separatist sympathizers. I have deplored that.

The word “Quebecois”, as in Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois, was also appropriated by the separatists, as if the other parties in Quebec were not “Quebecois”. I know how powerful symbols can be, but beyond the symbols, there is something greater, there is what we feel deep down. To fight about flags in this House is to use a highly respectable symbol for partisan reasons of opposition and appropriation, which I vehemently condemn.

This seems to me to be a pointless motion. It seems to be counterproductive, unnecessary. What saddens me above all is that we are wasting so much time debating it. It is as if we were giving Canadians the signal, or symbol, that we parliamentarians are prepared to waste precious time that would be better spent serving the people of this country.

I find it most unfortunate that this flag debate has been turned into an exercise in demagogy. I want to believe that, when the flag is used, there is a modicum of sincerity—

[Canada Economic Development, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, the body known as the Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec became the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Regions of Quebec, or simply Canada Economic Development.

This new title will better reflect its mission and our government's strategy for ensuring the growth of Quebec's businesses and regions.

Today's economic context offers businesses in the regions of Quebec the possibility of expanding their influence throughout the entire world. Canada Economic Development will therefore devote itself fully to supporting their efforts to develop their potential and gain their fair share of the world economy.

This is one more example of an excellent initiative by our government to create employment, enhance collective wealth and ensure the economic development of the regions of Quebec.

[United Nations Security Council, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Canada is once again in a position to be named to the UN Security Council. Will the minister explain to the House how members in a non-partisan manner can assist in promoting Canada in this endeavour?

[French And The Internet, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for Science, Research and Development, and it could be put by any francophone or francophile member of this House.

As we all know, access to the Internet is overwhelmingly in English. Could the secretary of state tell us what he is doing to facilitate access to the Internet in French for Canada's francophone communities and for all Canadians who wish to avail themselves of this service?

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Democracy is all about letting people speak when it is their turn. There is talk of consensus. Has somebody forgotten to mention the fact that Mr. Ryan, whose intellectual contribution to this debate I always welcome, was very definite on the need for a clear question and solid rules of interpretation? There is no mention of that, because it does not serve their purpose.

The insult was trying to get Quebeckers to swallow the affront of an unclear question, an unclear interpretation and no plans from Mr. Parizeau. That was the insult.

Now what I find totally hilarious is the arrogance I see. If the members opposite are so sure of winning, why do they fight the principle of a clear question with clear rules of interpretation and a clear context? Why are they trying to fool the people if they are so sure? René Lévesque must be rolling over in his grave.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am much more concerned about Quebeckers than about the separatist government of Quebec. I hear talk of a consensus, when—

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first, I am pleased to see that some members are listening to what I have to say. Second, I want to condemn all attempts, for dubious technical reasons, to stop me from addressing the issue. I will not stand to be muzzled.

I want to make it clear that I recognize the freedom of Quebeckers to decide their own future, but with freedom come some responsibilities. The first is to ensure the security and stability of the people of Quebec, these Quebeckers, and I am one of them, who have already expressed their opinion twice on this issue.

I have confidence in the choice Quebeckers will make if the question is clear and shows respect for the rule of law and guarantees democracy for everyone. I am confident, but I am not sure my opponents are ready to put as much faith in their fellow citizens.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, our society, both in Canada and in Quebec, has a tradition of promoting democratic values, and I do not mean only at home. I am speaking here of our influence around the world. The role that Quebec and Canada play abroad is marked by this desire to promote democratic values throughout the world.

How is it that what is good for others is not good enough for us? How can we refuse that any debate be based on a fundamental and inescapable premise, which is respect for democracy for all? If that term is not included in this motion, then I cannot support it.

The supreme court was put down in just about every speech made by members of the Bloc Quebecois today, but this was not the first time. I am not trying to make the point the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made this morning but, if the supreme court has so little credibility, why is it that, less than two weeks ago, Serge Ménard, a Quebec minister, the former justice minister as I recall, was quoted in Le Devoir as stating that, following a separatist victory in a referendum, should Quebec declare its independence or sovereignty, he would be prepared to repatriate the three supreme court judges who are Civil Code experts.

There is a contradiction in there, a double standard. The same argument is twisted around.

The amendment providing that the rule of law be respected was defeated. As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, there are only two alternatives with the rule of law. Either you have it or you do not and face anarchy or dictatorship. The rule of law is fundamental, so much so in fact that, regardless of political affiliations, it has been a fundamental basis of our lives for centuries.

Not only as a Quebecker, a francophone and a federalist, but also as a human being who advocates stability for the people, I find it deeply disturbing when an amendment concerning respect for the rule of law is defeated. There is a fundamental contradiction.

Granted—