Jean-François Fortin

[Clarity Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since I am the first to speak during this second hour of debate, I would like to remind members that this bill is very important to the very foundations of democracy and the right to self-determination of a people that forms a nation. I would like to share the definition of self-determination as recognized in international law and by the member nations of the United Nations.

In international law, self-determination, or the right of peoples to self-determination, is the principle that a people must have the free and sovereign right to determine its own form of government independently of any foreign influence. It is a collective right that can only be assumed by a people that forms a nation.

The Bloc Québécois bill, introduced by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, is very simple. It contains only whereas clauses and one clause that would fix a serious violation of the inalienable right of the Quebec people to self-determine its own future if it chooses to do so.

Whereas

the Québécois form a nation;

Whereas that nation has been formally recognized by the House of Commons;

Whereas the decision on its future within Canada lies with the Québécois nation, not the federal government;

And whereas the Québécois nation has laws that give its government both the right to consult the people of Quebec by means of a referendum on the subjects of its choice and the right to determine the wording of the referendum question;

[Consequently] the Clarity Act...is repealed.

The Bloc Québécois and all the parties of the Quebec National Assembly, whether they be sovereignist or federalist, agree that this law, which was passed by the federal Parliament, is in direct violation of the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination. The Clarity Act is an aberration. The National Assembly is sovereign and can consult its people on anything it chooses and as it sees fit.

Now, it is important to remember the very harmful impact of the Clarity Act. This law interferes in an internal debate, a Quebec debate, over which the people of Quebec should have control. The House of Commons used this law to give itself the power of disallowance with regard to the results of a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty. The House of Commons wants to determine, retroactively, whether the question is clear and whether there is a clear majority, namely, by taking into account the views of the other provinces.

In closing, since my time is almost up, I urge all members of this House who respect international law and the rights of peoples to determine their own future to support the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska's bill. Quebec, Canadian and international democracies are at stake. Regardless of allegiance, members must support this bill to uphold our values and democracy.

[Employment Insurance, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources had an opportunity to show some openness and to note the devastating impact of the employment insurance reform that she is shoving down the throats of Quebeckers.

The minister first met with representatives of the Coalition de l'Est, who provided concrete examples of the major and immediate impact of the new measures. Then, she had a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Labour on the tragic consequences of the reform for Quebec workers, their families and for our communities.

On both occasions, the minister responsible for the reform rudely and flippantly cut short the testimonies and arguments. Her arrogance towards Quebeckers is further incentive to do whatever it takes and take as long as we need to fight and win this battle.

Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois, along with workers and employers from all regions of Quebec, and the Government of Quebec, will fight to the end.

[Employment Insurance, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, people from eastern Quebec are in Ottawa today to make a clear, reasoned plea and convey the devastating effects of employment insurance reform. Their striking examples of workers and employers who are being penalized illustrate the real-life impact of these new rules. The minister needs to be open-minded and show them some respect. Quebec's labour minister will also meet with the minister today, so the door is wide open.

Will the minister listen, understand and respond to the legitimate requests they are making today and put the reform on hold?

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development declared in the House that the department’s employees did not have individual quotas. This is pure deception. Not only that, but the quotas are nearly 20% higher in Quebec. As Quebec has already taken the biggest hit from the reform, because it has 40% of seasonal workers, it will be doubly penalized by the reform and the quotas.

Is the minister going to answer my question? Unless, of course, she has already answered her quota of questions for the day. Why is Quebec being targeted more than the other provinces?

[Employment Insurance, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that she has analyses of the impact of labour shortages, but there is nothing available to the public.

However, the public is aware of the many consequences of the EI reform and its adverse effects including making workers poorer, breaking up families, weakening communities in the regions, and the rigamarole that workers and pregnant women have to go through, at the behest of Service Canada, when filling out their declarations in order to avoid being deemed to have “refused employment”.

Ignoring these consequences shows a lack of compassion. Could the minister show some love and cancel the reform?

[Employment Insurance, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in less than an hour, Quebec's employment minister will be meeting with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to discuss EI reforms.

Like unemployed workers and business people, Minister Maltais is concerned about the dramatic impact the new measures will have on critical sectors of the regional economy, since Quebec is home to 40% of the seasonal jobs affected by the reforms.

That is why the Quebec minister is once again asking Ottawa to provide her with all of the studies on the impact that the reforms will have on Quebec.

Will the minister finally acknowledge the harmful impact that the reforms will have on Quebec and pull the plug on measures that discriminate against the regions?

[The Environment, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I spoke to the mayor of the Magdalen Islands.

The people of the Magdalen Islands and eastern Quebec are worried about the serious environmental impact of developing the Old Harry prospect.

Furthermore, a spill could wipe out the regional economy of the islands in one fell swoop. The report of the Commissioner of the Environment, which confirms that there are gaps in the risk assessments and that no one is prepared to respond to an oil spill, backs them up completely.

Will the government stop shirking its responsibilities and impose a moratorium on the development of Old Harry?

[The Environment, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today's report from the environment commissioner is scathing: Ottawa and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Board are ignoring basic safety and environmental requirements and are not prepared for an oil spill.

For two years, the government has not listened to Quebeckers' concerns about the Old Harry oil development project and has ignored the unanimous resolution of Quebec's National Assembly demanding that there be a moratorium on this project, which is located only 80 km from the Magdalen Islands.

Will the government continue to ignore the risks that developing the Old Harry site pose to Quebec coastal communities and suspend all other existing permits?

[Clarity Act, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank this House for allowing me to speak on the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. It is a very important bill.

At the outset, I would like to pursue the argument of the member who spoke before me. She is right on one fundamental point. When the House of Commons adopts a motion recognizing the Quebec nation, as it did in the matter before us, there must be some consistency whereby the acknowledged attributes of a nation may be recognized by the House. The Clarity Act violates, in every respect, the rights that a nation must have.

Quebeckers form a nation. That was formally recognized by the House of Commons on November 27, 2006. Now it is time to recognize all its attributes, including its inalienable right to self-determination. In passing the Clarity Act in 2000, the federal government unilaterally claimed the right to interfere in the democratic process central to the sovereignist approach.

Even at the time—I mentioned this earlier, at the outset, during the period of comments on the speech by my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—all the federalist parties in the National Assembly rose up against this legislation, which violated the fundamental democratic principles of every nation. Even worse, the federal government of the time acted as judge and jury by deciding what constituted a clear majority and a clear question, allowing itself all the leeway to acknowledge or deny the validity of a consultation exercise in Quebec.

The Clarity Act also gives the House of Commons of Canada power to disallow important legislation passed by the National Assembly, that is to say an act that recognizes the choice of the Quebec people. This act also denies Quebeckers the freedom to choose their political destiny and to include in a referendum question, should they so wish, a proposal of partnership with Canada. The act also denies the universally accepted rule of 50% plus one for the majority and the fundamental rule of the equality of votes. That rule is recognized in international law.

Like all parties in the National Assembly, the Bloc Quebecois never accepted the idea that the Clarity Act would take precedence over Quebec's laws. I would like to go back to the universal rule of 50% plus one. The undemocratic nature of the bill is all the more apparent when you observe Canadian and international practice with regard to the majority principle, the rule of 50% plus one. All Canadian referenda have been held based on that important principle. Newfoundland entered Confederation on the basis of 52% of the ballots validly cast.

Our bill is simple and unambiguous. It contains one clause. It is quite simply the consequence of the formal recognition of the right of a people, the Quebec nation, to decide its own destiny. No one can recognize a nation or recognize that a people forms a nation without acknowledging that it has all the inherent attributes of a nation.

In our opinion, the National Assembly is entirely at liberty to consult its own population in accordance with its own laws, and may legitimately do so. The Bloc Quebecois proposes that Parliament repeal this act, which is an affront to Quebec democracy and a demonstration of the federal government's bad faith with respect to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In 1995, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a distinct society. As pointed out by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, when it comes time to follow through on this and other meaningless ideas, nothing happens. But when you recognize a nation, you must also recognize all of the rights that go along with nationhood. The Supreme Court did not take that into consideration, including in the 1998 secession reference.

In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation.

However, this recognition was not paired with any tangible measures. This is a unique opportunity for the House. There have been other opportunities before, but this is a real chance for the House to decide. Is Quebec a nation, yes or no?

For the sake of consistency and logic, the members must support the bill introduced by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

As I said before, you cannot recognize a nation and then refuse to recognize the consequences that has. The right to self-determination, which is a people's right to determine its own future, is an inalienable right all nations have.

[Clarity Act, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, on his excellent speech. His speech is all the more important given that the House of Commons has recognized the Quebec nation. It is now time to recognize the characteristics that are an inherent part of any nation.

I would like the member to speak to the fundamental reasons why federalist parties in the National Assembly categorically refused to support this bill, in light of the fundamental democratic rights that nations must obtain and possess.