Jean-François Fortin

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no one is buying the arguments used by the government to justify the decision to unilaterally impose a new job training program. In a letter sent just last Thursday, Quebec's minister of employment and social solidarity again pointed out to her federal counterpart that there is a consensus in Quebec on the issue.

Employees, employers and trainers, who are members of Quebec's labour market partners commission, all agree that Quebec must retain control over training and are asking for the agreements to be renewed with the existing terms and conditions.

Will the government finally respect Quebec's approach to labour training and renew the agreements as they stand?

[Supreme Court, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very short answer.

However, the government's vision also ignores the fact that the September 1981 ruling of the highest court allowed for the repatriation of the Constitution without Quebec's support.

The judges basically said that the unanimous consent of the provinces was not necessary to repatriate the Constitution. Nevertheless, this was a defining moment. This ruling allowed the repatriation to occur.

The government is constantly saying that this request to reopen an investigation and shed some light on this issue is stirring up old quarrels. However, we see that the government was very enthusiastic about putting its energy into and spending public money on the commemoration of the War of 1812, which was considered a defining moment for the government.

Is there another more defining moment than the controversial repatriation? In our opinion, the government has no choice but to acknowledge those troubled times and look into these serious allegations by creating an independent commission of public inquiry that will have access to all the relevant documents, including those of the Privy Council.

[Supreme Court, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on April 15, during question period, I asked the government about the political involvement of Supreme Court justices in the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, which historian Frédéric Bastien addresses in his book entitled La bataille de Londres.

I would remind the House that Ottawa referred to a Supreme Court ruling in order to force a constitution on Quebec that it still refuses to sign to this day.

Mr. Bastien lays out evidence that former Supreme Court chief justice Bora Laskin provided the governments of Canada and Great Britain with privileged information about the court's deliberations on the legality of the patriation of the Constitution. The fact that the chief justice at the time was providing privileged information not only to the Government of Canada but also to the Government of Great Britain about the Supreme Court's deliberations raises a serious issue about the fundamental principles of separation of powers.

This is such a serious move that it undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's ruling and, accordingly, the legitimacy of forcing the Constitution on Quebec. This is not merely a breach of elementary rules, it is a violation of the principles forming the very basis of our democratic institutions.

In our opinion, the Prime Minister must show some statesmanship, launch an independent public inquiry and commit to releasing all the unredacted documents that can shed light on these events.

Despite repeated requests from the Bloc Québécois, all members from the National Assembly of Quebec and the people of Quebec, most of whom are calling for this inquiry, it is still impossible to find out more about the circumstances surrounding this pivotal time in Canadian and Quebec history.

In light of the allegations surrounding this saga, the only thing that is clear is that the Conservative government, with the complicity of other federalist parties, continue to refuse this legitimate request by Quebec.

Under pressure, the Supreme Court did a cursory verification of its own documents, but did not find anything, it said, to confirm the point made by historian Frédéric Bastien.

Not surprisingly, any entity investigating itself in such circumstances tries to avoid the controversy that this type of revelation provokes.

The perception the Government of Quebec and Quebeckers have of the highest court in the land is heavily laced with scepticism. No less that 39% of the people polled during a recent survey said that the Supreme Court is not neutral and independent. The government must take note and act accordingly by taking its responsibilities and allowing this dark time in Quebec's history to be clarified as quickly as possible.

When will this government take the opinion of Quebeckers into account and stop encouraging the culture of secrecy and absolute confusion surrounding a significant and defining event for Canada?

The 1982 repatriation of the Canadian Constitution is a defining event in our political history. Although it may not be of interest to the Prime Minister and the Conservative government, this event is very significant. The rules of the game were changed without the consent of Quebec, which, ever since, has been trapped by a framework that was created without an acknowledgement of its refusal to be a party to repatriation. This is the position of Quebec's federalist and sovereignist parties alike, which, regardless of their political allegiance, have always refused to add Quebec's signature.

Unfortunately, my presence here proves that the crux of the matter remains unresolved. Given the facts brought to light, I believe that a national inquiry is vital to a proper understanding of the events surrounding the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution. It is clear from recent developments that Quebeckers are asking for frank and honest answers. As long as this government represents all Canadians, it must respond to this legitimate demand for an independent inquiry with full access to the documents.

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the day before his announcement, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that new programs promoting history would not interfere with education in Quebec. However, by offering awards to teachers and students “who show an interest in celebrating Canadian history”, the minister is flouting the Quebec school curriculum, and clearly wants to change the focus of history classes. He wants it to be a celebration, instead of education with critical analysis.

If the minister really wants to encourage people to learn history, why is he not helping Quebec improve its classes by restoring education transfers to 1994 indexed levels?

[Employment Insurance, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, statistics show that the employment insurance system is leaving tens of thousands of Quebec workers, their families and their communities high and dry.

It is set out in black and white in the monitoring report that was quietly released by the government: 6 out of 10 workers are not entitled to benefits. The accessibility of the program has been called into question.

The Conservative reform, which penalizes seasonal workers who live mainly in the regions of Quebec, is already a cause for concern, but this reality will only make things worse.

How can the government claim that the employment insurance system is working just fine when it is pushing so many Quebeckers into poverty?

[St. Lawrence River Week, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, 22 partners working to raise awareness about the St. Lawrence River announced the first edition of Semaine du Saint-Laurent, which will be held from June 7 to 15.

This is a commendable initiative that deserves our support, as it is impossible to imagine Quebec without the St. Lawrence. Our majestic waterway is as big as a country. Given the growing number and complexity of the environmental, economic and social challenges facing this vital artery of the Quebec nation, the Bloc Québécois has made the St. Lawrence a priority.

In 2005, and then in 2010, we conducted two major consultations with all those living along the river, and we produced well-researched reports reflecting Quebec's vision, values and ways of doing things. The Bloc Québécois' 2010-15 report makes 31 recommendations.

During the Semaine du Saint-Laurent we will again stand with all those who are committed to defending and promoting our river. Hooray for the St. Lawrence.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind. The Conservatives' plan to rename and rebrand the Canadian Museum of Civilization is a clear indication of their desire to direct, hijack and control a message.

I agree that it is important to talk about history. However, recent history shows us that the Conservatives do not do anything without a partisan agenda. The Conservatives' celebration of the events in relation to the war of 1812-13 was riddled with anachronisms.

I can understand wanting to promote history. However, why do so by rebranding the Canadian Museum of Civilization and changing its important mandate? This museum is known across Canada and around the world. People came to Canada to visit this important museum. As a result of the new direction the government is taking with the museum, many things will be lost and the government will control the message.

I would like the hon. member to assure me that the new museum's message will not be controlled and that the museum will not become a Canadian museum of Conservative propaganda.

[Tourism Industry, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's tourism industry is working very hard to attract tourists.

However, it has to contend with the federal government, which is continually cutting funding for events and festivals. Ottawa does not seem to care that Canada welcomes fewer and fewer tourists every year. That is a real threat to the economy of many regions that have already been affected by the federal government's cuts and reforms.

Instead of spending millions of dollars to try to generate interest in the monarchy and the War of 1812, why does the government not spend more money on events that benefit communities and really attract tourists?

[Employment Insurance, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not satisfied with going after the unemployed with its misguided reform, the federal government now wants to isolate them by cutting off verbal contact between public officials and the organizations that have helped the unemployed in Quebec for at least 30 years. From now on, the Boucherville centre can receive only faxes and mail. No one is identified as a contact, and there is no guarantee of a reply. Indeed, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses is still waiting for a reply to a fax sent last Thursday.

Why would the government want to isolate the unemployed other than to weaken them?

[Government Advertising, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has launched a costly ad campaign to promote a job training program, even though the Quebec government has categorically refused to participate in it. This program does not exist.

The government is making cuts to public safety, employment insurance and public services, yet it is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on propaganda. An ad can cost $95,000, which is almost the same amount as the cheque the Prime Minister's former right-hand man gave to Senator Duffy. That is a big chunk of change.

Will the minister put an end to these misleading ads, yes or no?