Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Point Of Order February 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, you know that Bill C-20 is currently being debated in committee. As we speak, Jean-François Lisée is testifying before the committee.
To enlighten all members of the House, I have here the results of a Léger & Léger poll on the referendum and on Bill C-20. If it is the pleasure of the House, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could table the results of this poll.
Points Of Order February 18th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the government that it was introducing a bill drastically altering the rules of the game should a referendum be held in Quebec, I ask for the consent of all members present in this House to table a document that will enlighten it.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member was elected in 1997, like most of us. He should know that we are here as members of parliament, not as association presidents.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Speaking about democracy, in the last election in Quebec, in 1995, the riding of Beauce-Sud elected Mr. Quirion with a majority of 68 votes. In the riding of Beauce-Nord, Normand Poulin was elected with a majority of about 100 votes.
These are not overwhelming majorities, but it was democratic. We had judicial recounts and all citizens in Beauce accepted the verdict, even with such narrow victories.
I have two questions for the hon. member for Beauce. If Bill C-20 is so clear, why is he refusing to travel with the committee to his riding? That is what all his constituents want. Why is he refusing?
In Bill C-20, the majority is not indicated anywhere. From his seat in the House, can he tell us whether the majority will be 79%, 59% or 50% plus one? If he has any idea, let him tell us. If not, he should not say a word. But he should tell his constituents that he has no idea.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Beauce is next to mine, and I know the people from Beauce very well.
I think that, today, all the people in that riding must be quite disappointed with their member.
Naming Of Member February 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 9, the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane said during Statements by Members that communities in his riding fully supported the regrettable actions that have taken place in the Department of Human Resources Development.
This member of parliament from Ontario listed messages he had received, including some from the towns of Cochrane, New Liskeard, McGarry, Iroquois Falls, Kirkland Lake and Charlton.
To inform all the members of this House and for reasons of honesty on the part of that member, I am asking the Chair to demand the tabling of the documents that are so complimentary to the member—
Petitions February 15th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I also have a petition signed by several of my constituents who are asking parliament to adopt as quickly as possible an act providing for the mandatory labelling of all foods that are totally or partly genetically modified.
Like my fellow citizens, I believe we have the right to demand to know what we are eating. It is very important, when we buy products, to be adequately informed.
Points Of Order February 15th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document relevant to the debate on Bill C-20. This bill was introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who is, of course, in cahoots with the Prime Minister.
It is an article published in the December 2 issue of La Presse entitled “Quebec alone must see to the clarity of the question”.
Questions On The Order Paper February 11th, 2000
With respect to the federal government's sponsorship for La tournée des 20, a cultural event taking place in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi in 1999, can the government tell us: ( a ) which federal government bodies contributed to the sponsorship; ( b ) what amounts were awarded by these federal bodies to make up the sponsorship; ( c ) for how many years the federal government has been contributing financially to La tournée des 20; and ( d ) what amounts were contributed by Ottawa in each of these years?
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference February 10th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, as a teenager, I was drafted by my aunt Annette to campaign for the Liberal Party of Quebec and I had the opportunity to get to know the Prime Minister when he was first elected in Saint-Maurice.
In those days, his local opponents were the Creditists led by Réal Caouette. As early as 1963, I was barely 17 years old then, the Prime Minister was known to go after his fellow Quebecers pretty hard. As the years went by, he even spit repeatedly on his people, the people of Quebec.
I also remember when he was Minister of Finance in 1977 and wanted to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction and to deal directly with the municipalities. The government of the day, under the direction of René Lévesque, was adamantly opposed to it. Reaffirming his intention to humiliate his people even more, he directly distributed cheques in the amount of $85 to all Quebecers.
When he was Minister of Justice, a few years later, in 1982, the Prime Minister worked with Pierre Trudeau—the ineffable Trudeau to whom no one is indifferent in Quebec—to patriate the Canadian constitution, with complete disregard for Quebec, even though he knew that a resolution had been passed almost unanimously by the national assembly condemning the Trudeau government.
In those days the Prime Minister was the Minister of Justice and he was right beside the Queen to sign the patriation papers. We remember him on the pictures.
In 1990, with his two faithful allies, Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, and Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, he succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake accord, which included only the five minimum conditions, as the then Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa, liked to described them. That was a minimum. The Prime Minister, the then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake accord.
No wonder this Prime Minister is so unpopular in Quebec. Some will say: “Sure, but he succeeded in getting elected in the riding of Saint-Maurice”. We know that his election in the riding of Saint-Maurice has had a very high cost for Quebec taxpayers. Besides, the Minister of Human Resources Development is now disclosing little by little what has been the cost of the 1997 election in the riding of Saint-Maurice to allow the Prime Minister to win his seat, by a very narrow margin incidentally.
He was very grateful indeed for, a few months after becoming Prime Minister here in Ottawa in 1993, he appointed Sharon Carstairs to the Senate. As you know, this is a very nice gift. She is still young. Up till the age of 75, she will enjoy job security and a nice income with great working conditions.
In 1992, what role did he play in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord? The trademark of this Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, has always been that of spitting on and belittling his people, the Quebecers.
I also like to recall, in case some of my colleagues opposite might have forgotten about it, the famous legislation initiated by the Senate, Bill S-31, which forbid the Caisse de dépôts et placements du Québec to take control of Canadian Pacific. A ceiling of 10% was set. Shareholders could not hold more than 10% of the shares.
This same Prime Minister was willing to change this agreement, this legislation, to allow his friend Schwartz from Toronto to take control of Air Canada and Canadian. When it is good for others, he agrees. His trademark has always been to clobber Quebec to gain important supporters outside Quebec.
In 1982, while 73 Liberal members agreed to the patriation of the constitution here in the House of Commons, elected representatives in the Quebec National Assembly voted almost unanimously to condemn this unilateral move.
Today, fortunately, there are 45 BQ members from Quebec in this House who will oppose Bill C-20 as strongly as they can and try to bring amendments to the bill. After that, we will hope Quebecers will decide their own future.
In 1968, the Liberal Party of Canada took office with a francophone, Pierre Trudeau, at the helm. Our country has been run by a francophone from Quebec, a Quebecer, for the past 32 years, except for the nine months during which Joe Clark was in office. Of course, there were a few prime ministers who were designated, but I am talking here about those who were elected.
Once again, Bill C-20 was initiated by one of our own, and this is sad for Quebecers. It was initiated by the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, and his colleague and friend whom he recruited in 1995 in a byelection and who serves as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a distinguished professor. Both are francophones from Quebec, and they are clobbering us.
Bill C-20 is undemocratic. It does not respect the will of the people. It is an undemocratic bill because it makes the democratic will of Quebecers dependent on all of Canada.
At present, 101 of the 103 hon. members on the Liberal side are from Ontario. If we were to follow the spirit and letter of the Prime Minister's bill, the Ontario members of this House would have a veto over Quebec's future. That is undemocratic, because the federal government gives itself the right to refuse to recognize the vote of Quebecers.
If 56% of Quebecers voted yes, the very next day they would say that 57% was required. If we had 57%, they would say that 58% was required.
Earlier, a member from Ontario said “We have the right to do everything we can to keep Canada as it is right now”. Everything we can. That “everything” is a very dangerous word in the mouth of that man. We do not know to what extremes that government may be prepared to go to try to keep Canada as it is right now.
Bill C-20 is also undemocratic because it gives more weight to a federalist vote than to a sovereignist vote. With 50% plus one, one person equals one vote. However, if the limit is set at 60%, a federalist vote is worth 1.1 or something like that. At 70%, that vote would be worth 1.2. That does not make any sense.
In my family, we are seven. There is one federalist and six sovereignists. The federalist could boast “It takes two of your votes to cancel mine”. That does not make any sense.
In the co-op system, the rule was “one man, one vote; one woman, one vote”, and now the government wants to change this rule. I hope we will not let it do this.
I would like to quote what Mackenzie King said after the 1949 referendum in Newfoundland, where 52.3% of the people voted to join Canada. Incidentally, the other provinces had not been consulted to know if they wanted to have Newfoundland join the Confederation.
So, shortly after the Newfoundland referendum that showed 52% support for that option, Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, said “The result of the plebiscite in favour of the union between the two countries is clear beyond any potential misunderstanding”. Mackenzie King was satisfied with 52.3% and did not see any reason to persist in believing there might possibly be some disagreement.
I suggest the Prime Minister take a look in the mirror tonight, that he think, get out of his official residence and travel to Quebec. If he is afraid to go to Quebec, he should at least visit his riding of Saint-Maurice. He should go to restaurants in Shawinigan and have breakfast with Quebec people to hear what they think of his Bill C-20.