Jean-François Fortin

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, all of the parties represented in the Quebec National Assembly—both federalist and sovereignist parties—rose above party lines to address an issue that is fundamental to the Quebec nation.

They joined together to call for clarification on the events leading to the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982. They are asking the federal government to give access to all the information contained in its archives.

Will the Prime Minister take action, rise to the occasion, set partisanship aside—partisanship that the Liberals and the NDP were all too happy to participate in—and make this information public?

[Points of Order, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly of Quebec has just passed a unanimous motion that I will read to you.

That the National Assembly ask the Government of Canada to provide access to all information contained in its archives and demand that light be shed on the events that led to the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982.

As a result, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose the following motion: “That the House call on the government to respond favourably to the request made by the National Assembly of Quebec and make public all information contained in its archives and that the House demand that light be shed on the events that led to the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982”.

[Request for Emergency Debate, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a specific and important matter requiring urgent attention. Under Standing Order 52, I ask that, today, you grant my request for an emergency debate. Here are the facts.

For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has decided to launch an internal review after allegations that Laskin violated the fundamental rights and rules regarding the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is a serious situation. Yet, having the Supreme Court investigate itself will not demonstrate that we have an open and transparent justice system.

With regard to the information contained in the book La bataille de Londres, which was published last week, historian Frédéric Bastien stated—with evidence to support his statement—that former Supreme Court chief justice Bora Laskin provided information to Canadian and British government officials during Supreme Court deliberations on the legality of the plan to repatriate the Constitution.

What is more, another Supreme Court justice at that time, Willard Estey, also secretly exchanged information with London on the same topic in the fall of 1980. By so doing, these judges ignored the separation of powers.

The very operation of our democratic institutions is based on this fundamental principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. These judges violated this rule by violating the confidentiality of the deliberations and by submitting themselves to the will of the executive branch.

The information contained in La bataille de Londres raises serious concerns that alone are enough to justify a public inquiry. Patrick Taillon, a law professor at Laval University, Benoît Pelletier, an expert on constitutional law and law professor at the University of Ottawa, and Henri Brun, a constitutional expert, have all come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Bastien and some analysts confirm that, by definition, this violation of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive constitutes a coup d'état. “When a person violates a constitutional rule in the name of constitutional change, that is a coup d'état,” Mr. Bastien said.

John Ford, who was the British high commissioner in Ottawa at the time, also described the situation as “a real attempt at a coup d’état in order to change the balance of powers within Confederation”. This quote is taken from correspondence between Ford and the British foreign affairs minister at the time, which Mr. Bastien obtained from the Foreign Office.

In light of this new information, I ask for an emergency debate on this issue, which calls into question the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, as well as the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, which form the very basis of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the attention that you will give to this request, which is fundamental to the trust that Canadians must have in the separation of powers.

[1982 Repatriation of the Constitution, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 1982, Ottawa referred to a Supreme Court ruling in order to force a constitution on Quebec that it still refuses to sign to this day.

Last week we learned that the chief justice at the time provided the governments of Canada and Great Britain with privileged information about the court's deliberations.

This is a serious move that undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's ruling and, accordingly, the legitimacy of forcing the Constitution on Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister show some statesmanship on such an important issue for Quebec and promise to release unredacted copies of all the documents that can shed light on these events?

[Intergovernmental Relations, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in January, just before Parliament resumed, the Minister of Industry claimed that the government would negotiate pragmatic agreements with the Government of Quebec in good faith.

With the adoption of the budget, which penalizes Quebec in particular, I have a question for him. Where is the negotiation on the labour program that will deprive Quebec of millions of dollars? Where is the negotiation on abolishing the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Where is the negotiation on the tax increase for Caisses populaires Desjardins, which will reduce the dividend given to every member in Quebec?

What happened to good faith?

[Firearms Registry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to see the Conservatives talk about a costly and ineffective registry when the registry produced results. There were organizations that could very simply show the impact of adopting the registry.

Yes, there are costs involved. Speaking of costs, do we need to remind the government that Quebeckers helped pay to set it up? Part of the registry and the data it contained must be returned to Quebec, since Quebec requested it.

We can see that the Conservatives have no understanding of the issue of transferring the data. The parliamentary secretary talks about a lack of understanding. I fully understand the mechanisms, since I have hunting and gun licences.

I do not think that, for the government, that should be a barrier to transferring the data to Quebec.

The government must transfer the data.

[Firearms Registry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to come back to the important matter of controlling the movement and ownership of firearms. Such gun control is necessary.

The government decided to destroy the registry, a tool that helps save lives, a tool with a proven track record. Despite six unanimous motions at the National Assembly calling on the government to give up its ideological crusade against this registry that was heavily used by police forces, the government dug in its heels.

Quebeckers know that the registry saves lives. Community organizations that often see how useful and effective this tool is also ask that access to this type of registry be maintained. When the members of Quebec's National Assembly saw how inflexible the federal government was about this, they unanimously asked that Quebec's portion of the data contained in the now dismantled registry be transferred to the province.

In light of the government's determination and rush to destroy not only the registry, but all the data it contained, including information on firearms owners in Quebec, the Government of Quebec had no choice but to appeal to the courts to assert its rights. Quebec wants to keep data from the registry about Quebec. The request is clear, simple and legitimate.

On September 12, 2012, the Government of Quebec obtained an injunction preventing the Quebec data in the gun registry from being destroyed. Here is an excerpt from that ruling:

Although the firearms registry was established pursuant to the federal government’s criminal law power, it created a partnership with Quebec, particularly with regard to the Registry’s data. The principles of constitutional interpretation do not allow a level of government, in the very specific and unique context of this case, to enact a legislative provision whose main purpose is to prevent other levels of government from using the fruits of this partnership in the exercise of their legislative powers.

The legal battle continues. Instead of acquiescing to Quebec's request and transferring the data, the federal government is digging in its heels and continuing to demonstrate a lack of openness, respect and understanding in the face of this request that is so important to Quebeckers. It is even appealing the injunction, at a significant cost to taxpayers.

Quebec's public safety minister, Stéphane Bergeron, decided to move forward and stop waiting. In February, he introduced bill 20, which aims to create a Quebec gun registry. This bill will prevent a legal vacuum and will allow for data that were previously contained in the federal registry to be properly moved to the Quebec registry.

Will the government listen to Quebec's request and agree to hand the data over to Quebec?

[Foreign Affairs, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a recent statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs was shocking, to say the least. At the most recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee held in early March, the minister said that the Palestinian authority could face serious consequences, specifically a possible end to aid delivered by Canada, if it files a legal complaint against Israel before the International Criminal Court regarding colonies in the West Bank.

It is completely appalling that a cabinet minister would threaten to punish the weakest party in a conflict, the Palestinians, simply because they ask the ICC to examine the status of the Israeli settlements and give a ruling.

Can the government also tell us why it is threatening the Palestinian authority if it turns to the International Criminal Court—a body created by the international community to protect civilians from war crimes—on the issue of Israeli settlements?

[Foreign Affairs, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since 1967, Israel has been colonizing the occupied Palestinian territories, doing such things as establishing colonies, creating bypass roads for the exclusive use of Jews, installing checkpoints and building a so-called security wall that crosses deep into Palestinian territory.

Since 1967, Israel has sent more than 500,000 Israeli Jews to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, an area that is set to be the future capital of the Palestinian state. Israel currently has approximately 120 recognized colonies and 100 unrecognized outposts that are illegally located on Palestinian land.

Colonies cover only 2% of occupied Palestinian land. However, including the road network for the exclusive use of Israelis, military bases and buffer zones around the colonies and on either side of the wall, which are completely inaccessible to Palestinians, more than 40% of the West Bank is under Israeli control.

It is widely acknowledged in the international community, by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, that the establishment of Israeli colonies represents an obstacle to peace and to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The construction of colonies on Palestinian land is creating a situation that is making it increasingly difficult to implement a solution in both countries, from both a political and logistic standpoint. This is a de facto strategy that allows authorities to establish illegal settlements of colonists and then say that uprooting these people would be unfair and impractical from a political and logistic standpoint.

The expansion of Israeli infrastructure and its security system from actual Israeli territory into the colonies also poses economic and political problems for Palestinians.

The colonies are illegal under various provisions of international law. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, stipulates that:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

What is more:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) also expressly identifies the transfer of an Occupying power’s own civilian population to the territory it occupies as a war crime punishable by the ICC.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice gave a formal ruling to the effect that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, violated international law.

Many human rights reports found that Israeli colonies and their associated institutions inherently violate international law. These colonies and their related infrastructure, such as checkpoints and roads for exclusive Israeli use, severely restrict Palestinians' access to jobs, lands, schools and hospitals.

Will the government tell us why it is refusing to clearly and publicly speak out against the Israeli colonies and infrastructure in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem?

[Taxation, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have accused every one of us of wanting to increase taxes, but they are the ones attacking Quebec's small investors in the 2013 budget.

In addition to eliminating the tax credit for the labour-sponsored funds, which enables people preparing for retirement to save the tax and gives businesses in all regions an economic lever, the Conservatives will now tax the Caisse populaire Desjardins. Every caisse populaire member will be penalized and will have to say goodbye to a portion of their rebate.

How can the Minister of Finance claim to be keeping taxes low when he is piling more and more and more taxes onto the backs of Quebeckers?