Jean-Paul Marchand

[Bill C-20, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, sovereignists are not alone in denouncing Bill C-20 as anti-democratic. Early this week, they were joined by other Canadians.

Now a former U.S. diplomat has criticized the federal government for its anti-democratic tactic. David Jones says that the purpose of Bill C-20 is to strengthen the legal chains binding Quebec to Canada.

The former minister, an advisor to the American Embassy in Ottawa, wonders about the concept of majority as understood in Bill C-20. Is a clear majority 50% plus one, 66%, or 75%, he wonders, and says that nobody knows.

He even concludes that, with this bill, no referendum results will be accepted as clear.

In short, another person who thinks that the bill on clarity is a masterpiece of ambiguity.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who never smiles, of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it. It is entitled “Quebec, the partner of the future in America”.

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement by the prime minister that he would introduce a bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I would like to table a paper by Guy Tremblay, a professor at Laval University's Faculty of Law, presented to the Commission Bélanger-Campeau, stating “I share the feelings of all those who believe in—”

[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 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I was very much intrigued by what my colleague had to say, because it contains contradictions.

The hon. member describes Canada as a success story. How could Canada be a success story if one quarter of the population, namely Quebec, has been trying in vain for more than 30 years to obtain some recognition of its distinctiveness?

It can now be said that half of this distinct people wants to separate from English Canada, precisely because it has always been denied recognition this obvious and fundamental fact.

How can Canada be said to be a success story when the federal government just introduced a bill whose main purpose is to threaten Quebecers, frighten them and force upon them what we already know will be unacceptable criteria for a referendum?

For instance, the bill requires the question to be clear while we all know very well that the questions asked in previous referendums were very clear. The 1995 question was “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?” This is a rather clear question. If questions asked in the past were clear then obviously future questions will always be seen as unacceptable by English Canada.

I ask the hon. member the following: how can he truly and seriously declare that Canada is a success story when we have reached the point where the federal government has introduced a bill that threatens Quebec and in a way deprives the Quebec people of some of its rights and has every appearance of an antidemocratic measure?

[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 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to my hon. colleague's remarks. He talked mainly about the requirement for clarity and democratic principles.

My feeling is that the main purpose of this bill is not so much to establish the need for a clear question, or the respect for democracy, but rather to strike a blow against Quebec and its citizens' interests. It spearheads a plan B that involves making no concession whatsoever to Quebec. The government does not want to have a clear question and a democratic process—we always had that—but to make sure the next referendum is unacceptable for English Canada. That is the purpose of this bill.

The government wants to make both the question and the majority in favour of that question unacceptable. In other words, it is a direct attack against Quebec. The government is setting rules that will make any referendum unacceptable in English speaking Canada so that it will not pass in Quebec.

It is a bit like going into somebody's living room and telling him how to should place the furniture. It is invasion. It is a show of strength. The requirement for clarity has nothing to do with this.

In the past, the referendum questions have been clear, and people in Quebec understood quite well what it was all about. This bill is an insult to Quebeckers. It treats them like ignorants.

Why this show of strength? Why force on Quebeckers referendum rules without respecting their basic rights and their democratic rights?

[Caroline Brunet, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecer Caroline Brunet, the best kayaker in the world, has just been named as the winner of the Lou Marsh trophy, awarded annually to the top Canadian athlete of the year.

This athlete has been turning out exceptional performances for a number of years. In the world kayak championships in Milan last August, she captured three golds and one silver. Over the past three years, Caroline Brunet has totalled no fewer than eight gold medals in individual events in her discipline at the world level.

As well, she earned a silver in the sprint at the Atlanta Olympics. This athlete has every chance of carrying off the gold medal at the Sydney Olympic Games, and we fervently hope she will. All Quebec is proud of Caroline Brunet. She is a model of excellence for young people.

Caroline, congratulations on this new honour. Keep up your amazing performances.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has introduced a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a very informative document.

It is an article published in Le Soleil on December 11, 1999, announcing the bill introduced last Monday. Its title—

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his speech the member said that this bill is an admission of failure by Canada because the government, whether it is Liberal or Conservative, cannot succeed in improving the constitution nor the country to accommodate Quebec and to do what Quebec has always requested.

It is indeed an admission of failure. Obviously, the federal government wants to reject Quebec and to treat it like any other minority instead of recognizing that Quebecers really form a single people. It is an admission of failure, and I must say to the Conservative Party member that it does not matter whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, because Canada does not accept Quebec.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think you were very unfair to me. When I tried to table my document, I did not even get a chance to read its title. I think I can and I must tell you—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The voters in my riding have asked me to table a document for the federalist members from Quebec who are denying the voters of Quebec-East their fundamental rights.

I respectfully ask that you allow me to table this document, which is not very long and which—