Yvon Charbonneau

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

They are guided by Parizeau, who is pushing them towards independence and they talk about rebuilding Canada with a new partnership. This option is totally illogical and the people of Quebec see it quite well—

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Their problem is that their option has lost all or most of its supporters. Parizeau said these people were the spearhead, but the spear has separated from the head.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

They have no respect whatsoever for the partnership forged throughout our common history. These people are in a state of total disarray and they want to hide it with shouts and insults. They deny that the rest of Canada has any interest in the issue. For them, the approach is unilateral “Hello, thank you, we are leaving”. Even separatist Quebecers have no right to do that.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

These paragons of clarity keep talking about self determination. We all accept the principle of self determination. But a unilateral decision is not the way. One just does not get out of a country like one gets out of a shopping centre. They do not accept that Quebec self determination is counterbalanced by other things. They do not recognize the heritage we share with all Canadians, our common history, our economic and social links.

All that does not count. They just want to have a vote and get out. It does no work that way; not in a co-operative, not in a marriage, not in a workers' union and not in a professional association. These people are irresponsible. They want to restructure the partnership with Canada. The member for Joliette said “We want to rebuild Canada”.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

It was not an agreement with Canada, but with the Action démocratique under Mario Dumont. The referendum question was on that agreement. These people are afraid of clarity. Their leader, Parizeau, spent the whole summer saying he wanted to trap Quebecers like lobsters, and use lots of tricks and tactics to confuse people. Parizeau was even ready to make a unilateral declaration of independence after he had refused to use the word country in the referendum question.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are yelling, as you can hear, and they are desperate, because they do not like clarity. It scares them.

I was a member of the national assembly in 1995 when the Quebec Liberal Party tried to have the Parti Quebecois say clearly that the referendum vote would be about the creation of a new country but the amendment was defeated. These paragons of clarity refused to say that they wanted to have a brand new country. They hid behind the June 12 agreement and had Quebecers vote on that.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

The leader of the Parti Quebecois had an option. Now, these people have options and we could have seen them outline their contradictory options.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there were 10,000 fewer votes in both ridings next to mine and 500,000 fewer votes across Quebec. Liberal members from Quebec can represent those Quebecers who do not want a referendum and do not want sovereignty.

The Bloc Quebecois is talking about a travelling committee. If we were cynical, we would have accepted its proposal. We would have had the pleasure of seeing the Parizists, the Bouchardists, the Liséists, the Monières, the Bellefeuilles—

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

It was 10,000 fewer votes, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this debate at this point. As we can see and hear, it is at the request of the Bloc Quebecois as well as of my constituents.

This is a rather painful debate, because it is based ultimately on the assumption of a desire by Quebec to separate and the negotiations that could follow. It is very painful because, in my opinion, it would be a step backwards for Canada and Quebec. It would also plunge the people of Quebec and Canada into problems we have no idea how to resolve. It is also very painful because the people of Quebec are less than ever interested in the option of the people opposite.

After the remarks made in the fall by the Quebec Premier and by Minister Facal, who were continuously threatening to hold a referendum during their current mandate, our government has decided to bring the matter out in the open. Even though it is painful, even though this time could be given to other priorities, this is a debate that was forced on us and one that had to be held because it is useful for everyone now.

This morning, I heard the leader of the Bloc Quebecois setting himself up as the sole champion of Quebecers, saying “Quebec does not want Bill C-20”. He was talking about Quebec, its separation, and so on.

I would remind the Bloc Quebecois that it is an election and even a referendum behind. In Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, the Bloc Quebecois was defeated in the latest election by 7,600 votes. This was the case in Bourassa, in the northeastern part of the island of Montreal, as well.

The people of the Bloc Quebecois tend to say “Yes, but there are the English. You were elected where there are anglophones”. For them, votes are not equivalent in ridings if there are a lot of allophones or anglophones. In both Bourassa and Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, there cannot be more than 1,000 people of anglophone origin.

In Mercier and Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, neighbouring ridings, Bloc Quebecois members were elected, but with a majority of 10,000 votes fewer than before. In Québec, the Bloc Quebecois had 500,000 votes fewer than last time.

I would also point out that the referendum was in 1995. As the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies—