Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the words of the Prime Minister that, in June, he intends to discuss with his provincial counterparts the percentage which the rest of Canada would deem acceptable to impose on Quebec for the next referendum?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 57% of the vote.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the words of the Prime Minister that, in June, he intends to discuss with his provincial counterparts the percentage which the rest of Canada would deem acceptable to impose on Quebec for the next referendum?
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Prime Minister is dismissing out of hand the 50 plus 1 rule, what percentage does he have in mind?
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government does not want to hear our questions, but hon. members could perhaps listen.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has cast doubt-and once again we in this House have heard him do so-on one of the fundamental rules of democracy, one that is universally recognized. According to him, the rule of the absolute majority, 50 per cent plus 1, is not sufficient for the verdict of the people of Quebec to be accepted.
My question is a very simple one. Since the Prime Minister-
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec, federalists and sovereignists alike, is hit head on by the government's plan B, its hard line of confrontation with the Government of Quebec.
How can the Prime Minister claim that, for him, the 1982 Constitution-one that was never signed by Quebec, remember-can take priority over democracy?
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if we follow the Prime Minister's logic, Quebec ought to ask all the provinces in Canada for permission to determine its own future. Just imagine. The refusal of a single province, Newfoundland for example, could block the will of the majority of Quebecers.
My question is as simple as can be. Is the Prime Minister aware that, with his new provocative constitutional strategy, he is seeking to encroach on Quebecers' right to decide their future for themselves, their fundamental right?
Referendums May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec never signed the 1982 Constitution and its amending formula.
Can the Prime Minister offer any justification for his constitutional about-face other than that he has now decided to implement Plan B, a hard line approach with Quebec?
Referendums May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the last referendum campaign, the Prime Minister told Quebecers, so that they would vote no, that their decision was irreversible and that he would respect their decision. Now, six months later, he is launching his government into a court challenge to deny Quebecers the right to decide on their future democratically.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister admit that the strategy he has adopted is one of confrontation, the sole purpose of which is to provoke the people of Quebec?
Referendums May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada is only a third party, it should let Quebecers decide their own future and withdraw from this case without going to a higher court, period.
How can the Prime Minister-since the Prime Minister is here, I take this opportunity to question him-how can the Prime Minister reconcile his provocative attitude toward Quebec with the mandate he gave his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to travel across Canada preaching the gospel of national reconciliation?
Referendums May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I think the government forgets that, in the Bertrand case, the Government of Quebec is the respondent, while the Government of Canada is only a third party. Perhaps a distinction should be made between the two.
Unable to deliver the goods or to give clear answers to our questions, the Prime Minister continues to improvise his constitutional position, as is obvious again today.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by referring to the federal government's possible involvement in the Bertrand case, he is putting himself in a position of confrontation not only with the Quebec government, but also with his federalist allies in Quebec, Daniel Johnson first of all, who recognize the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?