House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 47% of the vote.
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 212
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) Two years after this Act comes into force, and every five years thereafter, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall cause a review to be made of the provisions and the administration of this Act.
(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall submit to Parliament a report on the review.
(3) The report shall be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.”
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 145
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within six months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within four years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 28 on page 5.
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 March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 2 with the following:
“1. (1) The House of Commons shall, not before 100 days after the government of a province”
Human Resources Development March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week, the Prime Minister was in his riding. Since then, everyone claims that he is as pure as the driven snow, even though the RCMP is conducting at least three investigations in his riding.
Out of solidarity with the Prime Minister, who seems to be in deep trouble with this scandal, should the minister not immediately order an independent public inquiry to protect him from his political buddies in his riding?
Points Of Order February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, during this debate on Bill C-20 introduced by the conceited Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I would like to table a document on an article from the February 21, 2000 edition of La Presse , which is entitled “Yes, Time Has Run Out”.
This article summarizes the press conference called by the Mouvement national des Québécois where its president, Louise Paquet, said:
We think that Ottawa has no intention of giving anything to Quebec. We must explain not only what our reasons were for wanting to achieve independence 20 years ago, but also what they are now. Federalism has changed. The government is giving money to buy the support of Canadians. We find ourselves caught in a stranglehold that is tightening.
Yves Michaud, the bank basher, added this:
We must cope with extreme federalism. Throughout its history, it has never been so invading and destructive.
I hope this document will enlighten the House.
Point Of Order February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document, which will no doubt enlighten it.
It is an article from the February 18 issue of Le Devoir entitled “Clarity Bill”.
Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is always with a lot of pride that we in the Bloc Quebecois are called to speak as representatives of Quebec's heartland.
It is perfectly natural for us to discuss such an issue as the elections act, given our tradition as Quebecers. We can truly speak about tradition as it dates back to 1976-77, the year the Parti Quebecois was elected under the late René Lévesque, who had transformed Quebec election mores. This was a demand clearly expressed by the people.
It is therefore with great pride that we participate in this debate. We are proud, as Claude Ryan, this staunch federalist Quebecer said yesterday when he testified with great courage and paid homage to Quebec democracy. I was deeply moved to see the pride with which he spoke of Quebec democracy and our institutions in Quebec. I was also moved by the sadness which was permeating his remarks about how our democratic institutions are being trampled by a will coming from God knows where in Canada.
This is a fabrication, not to say a machination, of the Privy Council, presided by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Thus, in spite of the fact that there are some 20 members from Quebec among government members, we on this side feel no respect. However fine some of these members are, we feel no respect for Quebec democracy. Quebec has nothing to learn about democracy from this government, the people of Canada or any other people in the western world or elsewhere.
The Quebec people accepted with great calm and dignity the close result in the 1995 referendum. In other countries, it might have lead to popular upheaval. It took only a few hours for everyone to understand that this result had to be accepted, even though it was eminently frustrating.
In a context of activism, losing a referendum with 49.4% of the vote is hard to swallow, particularly since we were ahead for part of the evening, as members will remember. It takes great political maturity and a great sense of democracy for things to be as dignified as they were on the evening of October 30, 1995.
All that to say that, in terms of democracy, we remain very comfortable. It is all the more upsetting, not to say humiliating, to see the sad spectacle that has been unfolding before us since just before the Christmas holidays. It is being perpetuated by this government's unreasonable desire to rush through Bill C-20, which changes the eminently democratic rules governing the way election are run in Quebec.
I will begin my presentation by quoting the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, which stated in volume 1, page 483:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election officials responsible for administration and enforcement be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.
These words are very important. It is said that election officials must be independent from the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence. Yet, the very opposite is happening today in Canada.
That is somewhat surprising when we know what the Canadian government is claiming in foreign countries and it has the audacity to lecture so-called underdeveloped countries and tell them how to administer their electoral activities.
I had the privilege to meet a young and talented lawyer from Quebec who was in Cameroon at public expense, for the Canadian Department of Justice, to explain to Cameroonians how to administer the electoral process. I believe he was not comfortable with this task. He could not, honestly—at least I hope not—make suggestions to Cameroonians, while believing in true democracy, on the strategic and sensitive function of local returning officer, as well as on the role of chief electoral officer who, hopefully, is not designated on a partisan basis.
As we know, returning officers are institutionally chosen by the political party in power, which is a true scandal, considering the importance of this function and the claims of Canada in foreign countries. I say that without necessarily judging the persons in office. However, it is almost mandatory, though this is probably not written down anywhere, for those who want to be returning officers to be members of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is even better if one has been a defeated candidate, a Liberal MP or president or vice-president of the Liberal Party's riding association. Then, one has a good chance at being chosen.
Decades go by, and it is truly indecent. It is even more indecent if we consider that in Quebec—Canada's most important neighbour for all sorts of reasons, historical as well as economic, a special partner that will remain so in the future with a good partnership agreement that people from both sides of the Ottawa River will come to wish for one day—a process was established when the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976 under the determined leadership of René Lévesque, who had made it its second priority, right behind the law on the French language, to pass a law on the financing of political parties, designed to ensure the independence of the whole electoral system. In the dark ages when Duplessis—whom many federalist Quebecers love to despise—was in power in Quebec, he ran things just like the Liberals are running them today, as if we were in the dark ages.
We have corrected things by ensuring that that strategic position—we cannot overstress this—is occupied by someone who has been selected through a democratic and neutral process that ensures that those who are designated today, in the most neutral way possible, as returning officers in all the ridings of Quebec are chosen for their personal and human qualities as well as for their experience.
This gives rise to a situation such as the one in the federal riding of Trois-Rivières—this is not because she is not a nice person and, furthermore, she has the same name as mine—where the former vice-president of the Liberal Party of Canada, a very charming person to whom I send my regards, has been and still is, until further notice, the returning officer.
In Quebec, it is the former returning officer from the Conservative era who has been chosen, and by competition. He had the best resume, he made the best presentation and he defended his case the best. He was chosen among other candidates who had applied, probably people from the Parti Quebecois. One must surely like politics to apply for this kind of job.
Given his skills and his relevant experience, it is the former returning officer chosen by the Conservatives at the time who is now the returning officer for Quebec in the riding of Trois-Rivières.
This illustrates very well the nobility of the process in Quebec, and it is urgent that the federal government copy that process, particularly as the chief electoral officer of Canada, probably an appointed official, has long been recommending that the government act in a non partisan way.
The government only needs the political determination, instead of trying to basely take advantage of the situation, as it is doing right now.