Yves Rocheleau

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his very passionate and instructive speech. He is currently the member for Champlain, but the future member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain is the one who will properly represent the people of that riding, defend the interests of his riding and not just his own personal interests, as the former representative for Saint-Maurice did, as is now common knowledge.

I want to ask my colleague the following question. With regard to the mad cow crisis and its effect on Quebec, what is the direct impact on producers, particularly dairy producers, even though, as he said, the problem happened 6,000 km from Quebec? In everyday terms, what impact is this having on our producers?

[Rwanda, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, preparations are under way by an international movement created and coordinated by Quebeckers and Canadians, with the active support of such public figures as Roméo Dallaire, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda and the murder of thousands of politically moderate Hutu.

We must not forget that, between April 7 and July 4, 1994, more than one million Rwandan Tutsi were savagely and systematically exterminated. At the same time, several thousand moderate Hutu were also killed for opposing this madness.

Since Quebec and Canada are home to the largest community of survivors of this genocide in North America, I wish to see April 7 declared, in compliance with the request of the associations of Rwandan communities and genocide survivors in Canada, a Day of Remembrance of the victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis for her excellent presentation, particularly toward the end. Intellectually, it is very healthy to seek the opinion of a foreign observer, such as Mr. Attali, looking at the evolution of both Canada and Quebec. We heard his opinion. It is a succinct and extremely well-founded opinion in terms of how he sees the future.

I would like to know what my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis thinks of the current reasoning with regard to the way the Canadian federal system works and evolves. It is personified by the new Minister of Social Development, who says that the federal government's role is to respond to the needs. The institution in the best position to respond to the needs of the public must blithely go about its business while ignoring the Constitution.

[Intergovernmental Relations, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec did not sign. With this so-called right to opt out, the provinces are accountable to the federal government for their administration, and must meet Canada-wide standards dictated by Ottawa.

Will the minister acknowledge that this right to opt out is nothing but a sham, a kind of trusteeship by which the central power inexorably imposes its authority on the provinces as subordinate beings, as well as on the Quebec nation?

[Intergovernmental Relations, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said the following in reply to a question from the member for Sherbrooke on the right to opt out, “The crux of the issue is that if the hon. member insists on believing that the social union agreement does not recognize the right to opt out, then he did not read it”.

I am asking the minister, who no doubt has read it, whether he can explain to us his understanding of this so-called right to opt out, and how it operates.

[Quebec, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I take great pride in being a Quebecker.

A number of the Liberal members here have previously been members of the Quebec National Assembly.

I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who was once one herself, why she voted against recognizing Quebec as a nation? If it is called a National Assembly, that must mean there is a nation. How then can she justify her vote?

[Quebec, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, I am not a Canadian. A number of the Liberal members sitting here have previously been members of the Quebec National Assembly—

[Quebec, October 30th, 2003]

Yesterday in the House, Mr. Speaker, all Quebec Liberal members and ministers voted against recognizing that the Quebec people is a nation. This is truly shameful.

Can the government tell us why it recognizes National Acadian Day, acknowledges that the Nisg'a are a nation, and yet refuses to recognize that Quebeckers too form a nation?

[Privilege, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question by a member from the Bloc Quebecois, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs used the word fraud in reference to the 1995 referendum. Given that I personally participated in the referendum process in 1995, as did the Government of Quebec, the federal government and 93% of the population of Quebec, I demand that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs apologize and withdraw his remark.

[Quebec, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, instead of the bogus motion on the distinct society, which turned out to be an empty shell, should the federal government not recognize the nation of Quebec by entrenching this recognition in a legally binding framework which would provide Quebec with a real option to opt out with full compensation?