Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not even know the difference between an absolute majority and a simple one. A simple majority is 38%.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Referendums November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not even know the difference between an absolute majority and a simple one. A simple majority is 38%.
Referendums November 25th, 1999
Professor Henri Brun of Laval University states that the clear majority to which the supreme court refers is nothing more than the 50% plus one rule Moreover, Professor Brun bases his argument on the fact that the court refers to a qualitative majority.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that the court has never challenged the 50% plus one rule and that the qualitative majority of which it speaks relates to the referendum process itself and not the number of votes required?
Referendums November 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in a legal opinion released by the Bloc Quebecois this morning, Laval University professor Henri Brun states that—
Referendums November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to important issues, the supreme court said that the majority should be a clear one, but at no time in any part of its judgment did it state that the majority was not 50% plus 1.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say in this House that this rule is not the acceptable one in a democracy?
Referendums November 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister stated his intention of unilaterally dictating the rules for the next Quebec referendum. Once again, the federal government is trying to control the right of the Quebec people to decide freely on its own future.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Can the minister, who is the one behind this, tell us where exactly in the supreme court judgment he finds any indication that the 50% plus 1 rule has been set aside?
Referendums November 23rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if democracy means more than simple majority rule, I would ask the Prime Minister, who has the support of only 38% of the Canadian electorate and of 36% of Quebec voters, which is even less, how can he usurp the powers of the National Assembly and want to impose a rule other than that of 50% plus one?
Referendums November 23rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, all referendums on Quebec's political future have to date been governed only by Quebec laws and have passed the test of Quebec democracy.
Is the Prime Minister not aware that, by saying, and I quote “that 50% plus one is not enough”, he is acting contrary to a number of precedents, including the one of Charlottetown where the rule of 50% plus one was accepted by all, including the Prime Minister himself?
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of participating in the work of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the parliamentary secretary.
I too noted that, contrary to what Reformers are saying, a number of individuals, groups and even other first nations support the Nisga'a agreement, although we should be concerned about problems of overlap that certain nations have drawn to our attention.
I wish to comment on what the parliamentary secretary said, to note that the federal government does not appear to want to hold a referendum, to take the approach proposed by Reformers, because not only does it want to respect the will of the provincial government to consult and take the decisions it sees fit in this regard, but also, and particularly, because it wants to respect the decision of the Nisga'a nation, which has itself opted, through a referendum, for the new political status conferred on it by the Nisga'a Final Agreement.
I am therefore very pleased to note the will of the federal government to respect the popular and political will of the Nisga'a nation.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to take part in two of the five days of consultation in British Columbia last week. I noted a lot of individuals and groups, including native groups, supported the agreement.
Some aboriginal nations were concerned about issues of overlap. These concerns will no doubt have to be taken into consideration.
What distresses me a lot in the position of the Reform Party is what my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, tried to get this House to understand. They seem to want, for totally inappropriate reasons, to involve all British Columbians in a referendum the federal government would organize, whereas the provincial government, which represents all of the people of the province, has said and considered that this was not appropriate.
I therefore ask my colleague from the Reform Party why the federal government should meddle in the affairs of British Columbia, impose a referendum and impose a question, when the B.C. government itself does not want to organize such a public consultation?
Intergovernmental Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Quebecers are represented by three parties in the Quebec National Assembly.
Before he imposes a referendum question, is the minister aware that all the parties represented in the National Assembly oppose intervention by the federal government on this issue?