Pierrette Venne

[St. Hubert Military Base, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister does not intend to use the upcoming campaign to announce the payment of compensation, which we estimate at several million dollars, for the loss of 1,400 jobs, when all we want is for the government to give St. Hubert what it is entitled to.

[St. Hubert Military Base, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

On a number of occasions, we have called for the federal government to set up a fund to compensate for the negative effects of the closure of the St. Hubert military base and we have insisted that the region be treated just like other Canadian communities, where bases were closed, like Cornwallis, for example, which received over $7.5 million.

Could the minister confirm today his government's intention to provide compensation for the closure of the St. Hubert base?

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Does the person replacing the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is the current Prime Minister who is guilty of going against the wishes of Quebecers in 1982, that all attempts to rectify the situation since have failed and that the only solution this government accepts is to ensure that Quebec no longer has the means to decide its own future?

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising to hear the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs say that neither Bourassa nor Johnson believed in Canada. It is very surprising indeed.

[The Constitution, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 15 years after the Constitution was unilaterally patriated, after two abortive attempts at constitutional reform, after a series of unkept promises made on the eve of the 1995 referendum, the federal government has nothing more to offer Quebecers. It has therefore decided to take the hard line and fight the Quebecers' right to self determination.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister or whomever is replacing him whether he acknowledges that there is a constitutional problem given that no government in Quebec, federalist or sovereignist, has wanted to recognize the Canadian Constitution in the past 15 years?

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, just having a school bag does not make a person smart.

When the Government of New Brunswick was calling for a constitutional amendment in 1993, Ottawa held no public hearings.

How can the Prime Minister justify his acting without any public hearings, in the case of New Brunswick, while he refuses to do the same in the case of Quebec?

[Linguistic School Boards, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Denying the democratic legitimacy of the National Assembly in the matter of linguistic school boards, Ottawa will be launching public hearings, while all of the stakeholders in Quebec have long ago made their opinions known on this matter. Yesterday Quebec spoke in the National Assembly; now it is Ottawa's turn to listen.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his government is taking refuge behind the unelected Senate in order to preclude any possibility of this constitutional amendment being passed before the coming election? After the Supreme Court, now the senators, who are not elected, are the ones to set Quebec's education policy.

[The Constitution, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister, it was the 1982 Constitution that was the future. We can see that.

Does the Prime Minister realize that there is a consensus in the rest of Canada regarding Quebec's status within Confederation, that Quebec was put in its place in 1982, and that there is no question of this changing?

[The Constitution, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said yesterday that Canada would never have been able to patriate the Constitution without Ontario's agreement. This patriation, as we know, was carried out despite the opposition of all political parties in Quebec. And the 15th anniversary of this event next Thursday will be a dark day for Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister agree that, in the end, there is no difference between Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? That the Liberal Party has not altered its position on this issue one iota in 15 years?

[Linguistic School Boards, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister deny the consensus expressed by the National Assembly's unanimous draft resolution, when he himself patriated the Constitution in 1982, against the virtually unanimous will of the National Assembly? Does he think a consensus in Quebec means the exact opposite of what the National Assembly wants?