Lucien Bouchard

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada, as part of his duties in the

House of Commons, is permitted to distinguish between votes, if I understand properly, when the votes were for the yes side.

What would the Prime Minister of Canada say if, as Leader of the Opposition, I did not recognize the very slim no majority? What would he say? He would be right in accusing me of not being democratic.

Nearly 2.3 million Quebecers opted for a sovereign Quebec on Monday. For a Prime Minister who promised us we were going to take a beating, it is quite a comeuppance.

The Quebec reality continues to escape him, however, because he now thinks he can meet Quebec's expectations with an unimportant resolution in the House paying lip service to Quebec's distinctive nature.

Can the Prime Minister be so ignorant of the reality in Quebec that he imagines he can halt the irresistible sovereignist advance with such a horrible mockery?

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we, the people of Quebec, whatever our political stripe, are delighted at how democratically the recent referendum debate was carried out. In fact, the only hitch in the democratic proceedings we might criticize came about because of Ottawa and very high up in Ottawa, namely the number one guardian of Canadian democracy, the Prime Minister of Canada. We will recall that he said in this House he reserved the right not to honour a narrow yes majority in favour of sovereignty.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Knowing now that the no majority is only six tenths of 1 per cent above 50 and in view of the fact that the sovereignists have set an example by bowing to a very narrow majority, does he not think he should withdraw his remarks and apologize in the name of Canadian democracy?

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think both Mr. Parizeau and we in the Bloc are grateful to the Prime Minister for his fine gesture in speaking these words. I thank him for it. With the permission of the House, I would like to table the preliminary report of the count of Monday's voting.

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I again hear the Minister of Transport starting up his insulting comments.

A pillar of the sovereignist movement, Jacques Parizeau also rebuilt the Parti Quebecois in the aftermath of a particularly difficult period. It is in large part due to him that Quebecers will soon have their own country.

A man of integrity and profound convictions, he has never doubted the necessity of sovereignty for the people of Quebec.

Mr. Parizeau, the people of Quebec will never forget your efforts to finally bring Quebec recognition within the family of nations. You will now be acknowledged, along with René Lévesque, as one of the great builders of the country of Quebec.

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, history will reserve for Jacques Parizeau a special place along Quebecers' path toward sovereignty. A pillar of the sovereignist movement, he-

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a special place reserved for Jacques Parizeau in the annals of history-

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 1st, 1995]

A little respect for a great man who is leaving politics, if you please. There is no one here worthy of holding a candle to him.

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a tribute today to the Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau. Through his exceptional contribution to the development of Quebec, he has been one the shapers of the self-confidence the people of Quebec have now acquired.

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given that the unemployment insurance fund will register a surplus this year of nearly $5 billion, does the Prime Minister plan to exempt the unemployed from further cuts and to reconsider his strategy of singling them out?

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the government cited the imminence of the referendum to explain why it was not governing. Now we wonder what pretext it will invent to justify its inaction.

How can the government still claim that the reform of social programs is not yet ready, when, in the case of unemployment insurance, everyone can read the bill in the paper announcing more radical cuts on the backs of the unemployed?