Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Bill C-20, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday, ten Bloc Quebecois members have been criss-crossing Canada with a letter to MPPs from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

They want to bring home to Canada's elected representatives Bill C-20's threat to democracy, specifically the hijacking of the prerogatives of legislative assemblies and the double standard that the federal government wants to apply to the votes cast by Quebecers.

In his letter, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois points out that, with Bill C-20, the federal government is granting itself the power to judge the validity of decisions taken democratically by elected representatives of legislative assemblies. By calling into question the 50% plus one rule, it is contradicting its own foreign policy, under which it recognized the results of the referendum in East Timor.

Bloc Quebecois members will be reminding provincial representatives that Bill C-20 provides no solution at all to the Quebec question and that, for there to be any resolution, Canada will have to admit that there is a Quebec people and that it is entitled, if it wishes, to have its own country.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will just make one comment.

The third millenium is starting in this House in a very sad way. The reputation of democracy in a developed society like ours, at least that is what it is claimed to be, was tarnished with passage of Bill C-20 on third reading last night. As if it were not enough, we are dealing today with a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker.

Clearly that does not suit the government, and we can understand that. Why this non-confidence motion?

This motion is before the House following a ruling made by the Speaker on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis about a lack of confidentiality between parliamentarians and legislative counsel. The right to confidentiality is a fundamental right for any parliamentarian. If this right does not exist when all parliamentarians actually believe it does, there is a problem. It is a bit like the veto for Quebec.

For years, we believed that Quebec had that right. But Quebec was faced the hard fact. Quebec has never had, does not have, and will never have a veto within Canada as we know it today.

I know it was not easy for the leader of Bloc Quebecois to move this motion on March 13. Nobody in my party could have done so lightheartedly.

Like quite a few of my colleagues, I have been in this House since January 17, 1994. I remember quite well your first election to the Chair. You were chosen by your peers. In doing so, they said they totally trusted your judgment, the judgment of an experienced parliamentarian able to rise above the crowd and serve the interests of democracy, which each and every one of the 301 members democratically elected to the House stand for.

Over the years, as a member of this House, I have often appreciated the quality, the moderation and the clarity of your rulings. Of course, you have not always pleased everyone, but we all know that it is impossible, and not always a good thing, to try to please all of the people all of the time, especially peers.

Mr. Speaker, I can easily imagine how hard this whole situation is for you, but I also think that adversity brings out the best in us.

What I am asking of you is that you acknowledge the importance of confidentiality in the conduct of professional discussions between members of parliament and their advisers in the best interest of Canadians and Quebecers.

I would ask you, as the prime and most important servant of parliament, to restore this confidentiality.

Healthy parliamentary democracy demands its restoration. Each and everyone of us will have the certainty of being fully equipped to best serve the interests of those who elected us.

In acting on this request, which I know to be supported by all parliamentarians of good faith on both sides of the House, you will show yourself to be a great Speaker and your prime objective to be the provision to all of your members of services appropriate to their duties.

It is your responsibility, it is within your power, and I sincerely believe that your decision will reinforce the confidence placed by this House in the Chair, since it will leave no doubt as to the manoeuvring room you must have in the performance of your duties.

Through your courageous act, you will show that, in this parliament, there is but one class of member, men and women able to assume to the best of their ability the responsibilities given them. You are the agent of parliamentary democracy, and I know you will prove this to be so, in stellar fashion.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Mississauga South and is very simple.

Most members of this House deeply believe in the need for confidentiality in some professional relationships.

I want to ask my colleague this: Does he believe confidentiality is essential to the role we have to play as parliamentarians? Also, does he believe that it is the role of the Speaker to insure that this confidentiality be restored if it can be clearly demonstrated that it has been questionable?

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to read an article published in the December 11, 1999 issue of the daily newspaper Le Devoir , in which Henri Brun proposes an immediate appeal to the international community, further to the introduction of the bill last week.

Considering the importance of the stakes and the fact the article is rather short, and therefore will not require a lot of effort from our colleagues, I beg for the unanimous consent of the House to table this article.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thought you were saving the best for last, but my turn came too soon.

I have here the working document of the focus group on partnership, produced by the Bloc Quebecois, which shows a new way to view the relations between Quebec and Canada, one based on mutual respect.

Since the government tabled a bill negating the fundamental rights of the Quebec people, I am asking for and hope to get the unanimous consent of the House to table a document—

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this bill whose purpose is to deny the Quebec people their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to table—

[Referendums, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister began his political career, Quebec sovereignty was supported by 6% of voters. At the last referendum, over 49% of people voted in favour of sovereignty.

Given these results, are we to understand that the Prime Minister has come to a conclusion that justifies, in his mind, the tabling of a bill which seeks to put Quebec and its National Assembly in a straitjacket?

[Divorce Act, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-235. For the benefit of those who may have tuned in to CPAC, I will take the time to read the very short summary of that bill. It reads as follows:

This enactment amends the Divorce Act to require spouses to attend marriage counselling before a divorce is granted. This requirement does not apply where the grounds are physical or mental cruelty—

Lucky for us. My colleague from Mississauga South was elected to the House in 1993. In fact, I have known him since that date. Someone looking at the bill would be very surprised to learn that the sponsor belongs to the government majority because his approach to the harsh reality of divorce is more conservative than liberal in nature.

The bill is not a votable item, but if it were, we could not vote for it. Let me outline some of the reasons why we would oppose it.

We would oppose it because we believe that, when a couple is seriously contemplating divorce, it is useless to force them to see a marriage counsellor in the hope to make them change their minds. It is very rare that a couple decides to divorce on impulse. That decision usually arises out of a long series of events. To “require” individuals to do something totally disregards the freedom of those concerned, their right to see things their own way. Note that this is not the first time we see something not make sense.

This morning, the government came up with a draft bill designed, for all intents and purposes, to force Quebec to remain part of Canada. This no longer makes sense.

Divorce is a federal jurisdiction. When the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access tabled its report in 1998, the Bloc Quebecois presented a dissenting opinion to recognize and stress that the responsibility for family, education and social services comes under the provinces, and that it is an anachronism to have the Divorce Act still under federal jurisdiction.

I will quote what Senator Beaudoin, an eminent constitutional expert recognized as such by just about everyone, wrote in 1990 about the Divorce Act, and what he said is interesting:

One may wonder why the constituent of 1867 granted to parliament exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It seems that it was for religious reasons. Under section 185 of Lower Canada's civil code, marriage could only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the spouses. That principle was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Catholic Quebecers—

I might add “practising” Catholic Quebecers.

—Protestants wanted the opposite, namely to allow the Canadian parliament to legislate divorce.

Even at the time, there was a clear difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Hence section 91.26 of the Constitution Act of 1867, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada over marriage and divorce.

What may have been appropriate back in 1867 no longer is. Religion does not have as much importance as it used to, and our legislation should reflect this reality.

Let me quote again Senator Beaudoin's remarks:

The question begs to be asked: Should the jurisdiction over marriage and divorce be given to the provinces, so that Quebec could have more control over its family law, an important part of its private law which is different from that of other provinces?

That is another difference that should be considered.

Some experts see advantages in leaving this jurisdiction under section 91. Decentralization here would be a paradox, in their view, while our neighbours to the south appear to be moving toward centralization. Americans are not alone. Our friends in the west would also like to centralize.

Concerning centralization and standardization of divorce laws, they may be forgetting—and the prime minister should also be reminded of this—that we have to different legal systems in Canada, and the arguments supporting their position may be a little less convincing in Canada. That is what Senator Beaudoin was saying back in 1990.

The Bloc Quebecois did participate in this joint committee, because the problem of children in family with relational difficulties is indeed a serious issue. But our opinion is that the whole jurisdiction over divorce should be given back to the provinces. Quebec's family law reflects its own circumstances and meets the needs of its citizens. Counselling has been available to couples for a long time. Spouses freely choose to use these services. In this area just like in so many others, things can change only if people really want them to change.

I am sorry to inform the House that Bill C-235 will not be supported by my colleagues or by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Canada Elections Act, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the same paper, the minister said he intended to include a ban in this area “to make doubly sure that there will be no more gifts of this sort”.

Why today is the minister content with an empty order preventing only organizations other than Crown corporations from contributing to election campaigns, unless it is because the order has limited scope, may change and gives parliamentarians no control?

[Canada Elections Act, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 1999, following a question by the Bloc Quebecois, the government leader in the House of Commons was reported in Le Devoir of March 6 as saying “The government or government agencies should not give money to political parties”.

If the minister really wanted to prohibit government funding of political parties, why did he not include this prohibition in Bill C-2?