Lost her last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Supply February 10th, 1998
No, not frustration. It is true that we have everything we need in hand, and have proven it with all of the decisions, all the organization of our political structure in Quebec, everything we need to continue to determine our own future without waiting for someone else to do it for us.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I will continue the heartfelt words of my hon. colleague. It is true—
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has raised a very important point. If we do not have the agreement of our colleagues in the House today, we will probably be facing an even greater impasse than the one we faced when the Constitution was unilaterally patriated in 1982.
Talking about working towards rapprochement and understanding is one thing, but I think that if members oppose the most basic step of allowing a people to define themselves and be able to say what they wish to become, if they ignore this issue, I really wonder how this could ever be put behind us later on. I see some very sad times ahead.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I would never have thought that I would speak about the very foundation of democracy in our society that I considered a democratic one until today.
Today, I would be ashamed if I were a Quebecker and an elected Liberal member of this government. I will therefore bring to the attention of Liberal members elected by Quebeckers the consensus that was achieved in Quebec.
Despite their allegiance to federalism, their fellow citizens never denied the right to decide for themselves the future of Quebec, their Quebec. I invite these members to respect their constituents and the consensus of the people and of the major political stakeholders, including those of the Liberal Party of Quebec, and to support the motion moved in this House by the 44 Bloc Quebecois members. I address them—you—directly as a part of the Quebec society.
The decision of the Quebec government to respond to the possible choice of the people of Quebec in favour of sovereignty is a political decision, not a legal one. A court of justice will never be able to replace the will of a people. A court will never be able to impose on a whole nation a road it did not choose to take.
In fact, public remarks made by former leaders of the no side fully demonstrate that there is a strong consensus in Quebec. I remind this House once again of the statements made by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson, because I think that, as the day gets closer, it is better to recall the essential things.
Mr. Ryan said: “I support a most elementary principle, namely the primacy of democracy over any other consideration in an issue as fundamental as determining the future of a nation”. He even stated that it would be a tremendous victory for democracy if the Supreme Court clearly confirmed that the right to self-determination is fundamental and must be respected by all means.
As for Daniel Johnson, leader of the opposition in Quebec and leader of the no committee in the 1995 referendum, he said that the Supreme Court should not deny Quebec's right to self-determination. And I quote: “Quebeckers will decide what will become of them, and it is they who must determine the referendum question”.
The wisest thing the court could do is to give politicians the responsibility of finding democratic answers to the questions that were submitted to it. Quebec politicians have demonstrated their ability to steer the debate on Quebec's political future with the utmost respect for democracy.
On many occasions, Canadian politicians have shown respect for the approach taken by the people of Quebec. But after the close results of the 1995 referendum, the rules have changed. The old rules were no longer applicable and valid. That is when the federal government decided to set its plan B in motion, that is the hard line strategy.
It seems clear to me that the future of seven million people cannot be decided by nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
This misuse of the court by the Prime Minister and his associates shows that they seek victory at any cost, regardless of democratic principles. Plan B reflects a unitarian vision of federalism, in which the historic equality of the two founding nations is scorned.
The referral asking the Supreme Court to rule on Quebec's right to secede is illegitimate since the federal government's real objective is not, as claimed, the respect of the rule of law. The government is using that pretence to try to have the Supreme Court judges take part in lowdown dirty tricks. This referral is an attempt to fraud democracy. It is an attempt to put our democratic institutions under state supervision. This referral denies the existence of the people of Quebec.
There is still time for the court to avoid undermining the Quebec democratic and political process. In order to do so, Supreme Court justices must refuse to answer the questions submitted by the federal government. I am referring in particular to the judges from Quebec, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, and Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier. We urge them to refuse to play the game of a federal government running out of arguments and strategies to stop the sovereignist project.
If I rise in this House to ask Supreme Court judges not to answer these questions, it is because the referral to the Supreme Court is a basic demonstration of the inability of Canadian federalism to meet Quebeckers' historic demands.
Let us talk about history, the official one and the other one. Historically, Quebec's gains were made within the political sphere, in the respect of democracy. Let us remember the nationalization of electricity, the Caisse de dépôt, the creation of the local community service centres, the powers relating to culture, language and immigration. These development tools were not given to Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada. We got them by occupying the political space, in the respect of democratic rules. The result is that we have now become a modern democracy.
The other history concerns the heart of Quebeckers. It has to do with the very fabric of the people of Quebec.
I am a native of the lower St. Lawrence region and my family, the Lizottes, owns the same land since the 17th century. Like other families, over the years, it has welcomed the unfortunate survivors of the great famine that struck Ireland and Scotland. We are tolerant, generous and open. My great-grandfather was a seagoing captain. At the time, the motherland was constantly in contact with our founding people.
I grew up in this environment, and I learned to understand and to protect my people. This is where my political commitment comes from. With a pride reminiscent of that of my ancestors, I am asking Supreme Court judges to refuse to answer the three questions, and to let Quebeckers decide their future themselves.
Student Loans And Grants Program February 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, given that the Government of Quebec has the necessary know-how and the infrastructure to effectively manage student loans and grants, which do come under its jurisdiction, will the minister undertake to unconditionally transfer to Quebec its fair share of any new funds put into the program?
Student Loans And Grants Program February 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On December 2, the minister stated that even though Canada made a huge contribution to Quebec's student loans and grants program, it enjoyed little visibility.
After chipping away at transfer payments for education year after year, does the minister not find it shameful that his government is now planning to start investing again for the sole purpose of increasing its visibility at the expense of students' basic needs?
Sable Island Gas Pipeline December 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The National Energy Board has just approved a proposal for a pipeline that will go directly from Sable Island to the United States. However, in June 1996, the prime minister wanted, and I quote “natural gas to first serve the needs of the people of New Brunswick and Quebec, before it goes to the United States”.
Since cabinet must decide on the pipeline route, is the prime minister prepared to set the decision aside, as long as the second proposed pipeline, which passes by Quebec and New Brunswick, has not been—
Research And Development December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general deplores the fact that the foundation is not required to submit to Parliament an annual report on how it uses this $800 million.
Will the minister agree to have the foundation report its results to Parliament on a regular basis, so that taxpayers know whether or not they are getting their money's worth?
Research And Development December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
After several years of cuts to the research and development sector, the government tried to save face in its latest budget by announcing the establishment of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, with an $800 million budget over a five-year period.
Since the foundation has now been in place for ten months, how can the minister explain that the foundation's board of directors just met for the first time?
The Late Michel Bélanger December 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Michel Bélanger has just died. Recruited in the early sixties by the key players of Quebec's quiet revolution, he became an economic adviser to René Lévesque. Under Mr. Lévesque's leadership, Michel Bélanger initiated the bold plan to nationalize electricity.
Michel Bélanger was the first francophone to become president of the Montreal stock exchange, then president of the Provincial Bank, before becoming the architect of the bank's merger with the Bank Canadian National, and then president of the new Banque nationale, until 1989.
Following the failure of Meech Lake, Mr. Bélanger agreed to form, with Jean Campeau, the commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec. Mr. Bélanger was a staunch federalist, but he did not hesitate to refute the comments of those who used scare tactics when talking about the economic risks relating to sovereignty.
In September 1991, he said “I have always believed that sovereignty could be achieved, but was not necessary. However, if no one is prepared to find another solution to the problem, then it must be done”.
The Bloc expresses its condolences to Mr. Bélanger's family and friends.