House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 47% of the vote.
Quebec October 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, the BQ's definition of the nation of Quebec is an inclusive one. Witness the fact that, in this rare instance, Jean Charest and the sovereignists agree that the nation of Quebec is both inclusive and open.
Could the government not show the same openness toward Quebeckers by recognizing their nation?
Quebec October 28th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made it known that he would be voting against the Bloc Quebecois motion calling upon the House to recognize that Quebec constitutes a nation.
My question is this: Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to us how he could have voted in favour of recognizing the Nisga'a nation and yet now can oppose recognizing Quebec as a nation?
Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions October 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will begin, if I may, by reading my motion:
That the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes a nation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the social union framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.
Sometimes things happen serendipitously. This first hour of resumed debate this Monday morning coincides with the first hour following the 10th anniversary of the election of the Bloc Quebecois with an impressive 54 seats, on October 25, 1993. There is some symbolism at work here. First, the timing of the debate, and second that it addressed the constitutional debate and the place or the future of Quebec within the federation. These dovetail very well with the history-making—so very history-making—mission of the Bloc Quebecois. This motion is presented in conformity and harmony with that mission.
This is a history-making motion because it addresses fundamental issues, the very basic questions we of the Bloc Quebecois should address, do in fact address, which keep us at a distance from the day to day upheavals going on. It takes us back to the source. It is a call for reflection, a call to Canadians as well as Quebeckers to reflect on what the future of Quebec is within this federation, whether we should remain part of it.
I would like to draw hon. members' attention to the underlying meaning of the vote to be held on Wednesday, October 29. If the members of this House, whether from Canada or Quebec, vote in favour of this motion, we need to be aware that the motion means that this House would be recognizing a true special status for Quebec, that this House would be recognizing special and specific powers, special responsibilities, special sources of funding.
If this House voted in favour of this motion, it would be acknowledging the existence of the Quebec nation and consequently its the right to opt out, and also the fact that it was not a signatory of two landmark documents in the evolution of Canada, in 1982 and 1999.
Members should be aware of what is going on here, unless this is only a hoax, a huge travesty not worth the paper on which the Hansard of the House of Commons is published.
Therefore, members from the rest of Canada should think twice before voting yes. Let us not forget what happened in 1992, during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Politicians supported the agreement, but on the morning of the referendum, there was a spontaneous and unorganized public uproar and Canadians decided to vote no, because Quebec would have gained too much from the agreement. At the same time, Quebecers had also decided to turn down the proposed agreement, because it did not grant Quebec enough new powers.
That is the famous dead end in Canadian federalism, the two solitudes as described in 1963 in the Laurendeau-Dunton report. In my mind, the situation in Quebec has only gotten worse since then.
If this motion is defeated, it means that Quebec is not recognized as a nation. It would be seen as a province like any other, a region, a cultural component, an ethnic and cultural community within the Canadian mosaic, just another component, as the heritage minister would have it.
Defeating the motion would be saying no to one of the two founding nations of Canada, to special status, to a real distinct society, to specific powers for Quebec, to national recognition for Quebec, to international recognition for Quebec, which has established ties with Africa and Latin America thanks to its Latin and French roots.
It would be saying no to a nation that ranks second in the Francophonie, sixth in the two Americas and fifteenth as a world economic power.
As Pierre Bourgault so eloquently put it “We do not want to be a province like any other, we want to be a country like any other”.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act October 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his speech and ask him what connection he sees with the boundary adjustment that would, as we know, come into effect early than planned, which is the purpose of this bill. The effective date is being moved a little more than four months closer, from August to April, so that the future prime minister will not have to be accountable.
This is a very important aspect, because the new PM, the member for LaSalle—Émard, is so close-mouthed, to put it mildly, about how he sees things, the way he intends to lead Canada, the relationship he plans to have with Quebec, his concept of what the Canada of tomorrow will be. Does he see Canada as two nations, or as one Canadian nation which will encompass, and overshadow, the nation of Quebec?
This is the aspect I would like my colleague to address. When the Bloc Quebecois came to Parliament in 1993, there were, if I remember correctly, 294 seats. From that 294, we went to 301 in 2000, and there will be 308 in 2004. So there are some 15 more, but not a single new riding in Quebec. This illustrates the demographic changes and the evolution of Quebec's political clout within the wonderful Canada of tomorrow.
I would like to hear what he has to say on this. Is it reassuring? Is this not a fundamental reason for Quebeckers in particular to be aware of the dangers that threaten the very existence of the Quebec nation, particularly when Canada is going to be led by people so mean-spirited, so petty that they conceal their vision of the Canada of tomorrow and its relationship with others, Quebec in particular?
Foreign Affairs October 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are playing a very odd game. The government is using the RCMP for obscure purposes and the RCMP is agreeing to play along. Neither the government nor the future prime minister want to answer our questions. That is an example of the democratic deficit.
I ask the Solicitor General once again if information concerning Maher Arar was sent to the Americans by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Foreign Affairs October 8th, 2003
It is becoming increasingly clear from the replies he has given in the Arar case that the Solicitor General does not take this House seriously. What we are asking of the Solicitor General is not whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took part in the decision by the Americans to deport M. Arar to Syria. The real question is very simple: did the RCMP send information on Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to the American authorities—yes or no?
International Poetry Festival October 7th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in Trois-Rivières, from now until next Sunday, the 19th edition of the International Poetry Festival of Trois-Rivières is taking place. This is a very special event, which will bring together over 130 poets from 25 countries on four continents, in this city where Gérald Godin, Alphonse Piché and Gatien Lapointe grew up.
For 10 days, in the bars and cafés, restaurants and museums, and streets and lanes of Trois-Rivières, some 5,000 people will thrill to the rhythms of the capital of poetry, known as such internationally, and justifiably proud of being the only city in the world to have erected a monument to the unknown poets, as a tribute to all poets the world over.
What can we say about the roughly 300 love poems permanently posted on the walls of our houses and other downtown establishments? The International Poetry Festival of Trois-Rivières, under the guidance of my friend Gaston Bellemare, whom I salute in passing, is in a class of its own, not only for its sheer enthusiasm but also and especially for its originality.
Federal-Provincial Relations October 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada said that Quebec is a nation, what is the Canadian government waiting for to give this Quebec nation, in all Canadian logic, the powers that come with this recognition?
Federal-Provincial Relations October 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, with respect to the existence of a Quebec nation, that it was a simple question of semantics, clearly refusing to comment on whether Quebec was a nation or not.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, given his responsibilities, tell this House whether he feels that Quebec is a nation or not?
Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions September 23rd, 2003
They see Quebec as being on its knees, as not having any major international significance and therefore as being, ultimately, a closed society.
In keeping with what my hon. colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour said, this provincial reality is not neutral. There is an evolution. This concept of a provincial Quebec is progressive. We see this clearly under the current Quebec government, which is advancing the idea of a council of the federation to help make Quebec a better province.
We saw this again yesterday in connection with the municipalities. The Government of Quebec is celebrating as a victory the fact that it has achieved rapid agreement with the federal government on something that dragged on for three years under the former Quebec government, because the Government of Canada in the past was concerned with respecting the constitution. This means that the green plan for municipalities would have funds go directly to Quebec for distribution by it to the municipalities, as set out in the constitution and intended by the spirit of that constitution.
The good provincialist Quebec Liberals were quick to reach agreement, but that agreement was for the federal government to distribute funding directly to the municipalities, through the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. That was yesterday's decision. We describe the process as evolving from day to day. That was what happened yesterday.
This is a good illustration of how provincial these people are, their provincialist mentality, which is headed 15, 20 or 30 years down the road to folklorization and eventually Louisianization. At that point, we will no longer have any influence.
The issue at stake is a very important one. We must hope that the true thinkers among the Liberals, and among the Conservatives as well, take off their partisan blinkers and take a look at the destiny of the Quebec people, look where we are headed, evaluate the price Quebec has to pay to remain within the Canadian federation, assess the price of non-sovereignty. For example, taking a look at one little historical event—