Michel Guimond

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the power to compel witnesses stems from the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which give Parliament the right to require witnesses to appear.

Does the government realize that if its approach were to be adopted, it would create two classes of people: Conservative political staff, who would not be required to testify, and everyone else, who would have no choice?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of torture of Afghan detainees, you ruled as Speaker that:

The Senate and House of Commons have the right...to summon and compel the attendance of all persons, within the limits of their jurisdiction, as witnesses, and to order them to bring with them such papers and records as may be required for the purpose of an inquiry.

Yet less than a month later, the government is again trying to restrict committees' power of inquiry by gagging ministers' political staff.

Is the government aware that it is once again running the risk of being found in contempt of Parliament?

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, following the ruling issued on April 27 by the Speaker of the House, one would have expected the Prime Minister to understand the role of Parliament, which is to make the government accountable. By preventing political staffers from testifying, the government is creating a new category of citizens.

Will the government admit that this is tantamount to saying that Parliament will no longer have access to those people who are closest to power and who, oddly enough, will no longer be accountable to it?

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to prevent ministerial staffers from appearing before parliamentary committees, by using the pretext that ministers will testify themselves and account for their own actions.

The government is not credible, considering that several ministers have recently refused to appear before committees. For example, let us take the case of the Minister of Natural Resources, who refused to appear before the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates.

Will the Prime Minister admit that this new scheme has only one purpose, which is to prevent Parliament from doing its work?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the relationship that followed was indeed based on mutual respect. Some say that the rest of Canada will have no choice but to take note of Quebeckers’ democratic decision and continue with discussions and negotiations.

This reminds me of something Mr. Parizeau said during the 1995 referendum. He noted that English Canada may be unhappy when Quebeckers decide to become a sovereign nation, that relations may be strained for a few weeks and that they may not want to talk to us. However, when the time comes to discuss the division of assets and liabilities--I am not an economist and I do not have a financial background like my colleague from Hochelaga--we will be the ones signing the cheques. So they will have no choice but to come to the table.

If they do not want to talk to us, they are not going to roll up the sod on the Plains of Abraham, which will stay in Quebec. The plains will be in federal territory while we discuss how to divide assets and debts. So they will have no choice.

The same is true of western beef. Some say that Alberta will be mad and will stop selling its beef to Quebec. Quebeckers consume 50% of Alberta’s beef production. If we become a sovereign nation, we will not start eating rice. We will still go to McDonald's and eat steak. If Alberta's producers stop selling us beef because they are mad at us, we will import it from Argentina, Chile or Brazil, which produce excellent beef. So Alberta will lose the customer that buys 50% of its production.

Alberta’s premier will then ask Albertans to eat two steaks instead of one if they want to keep the jobs in their slaughterhouses.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is so contemptuous about Kraft Dinner, which is produced in Montreal, just beside the Côte-de-Liesse interchange. It is as good as any other food. One wonders whether the member is listening to the right interpretation channel. He seems to need interpretation from French to French.

I just wanted to give the example of my mother, who would put a warm meal on the table for me even before I had time to take my coat off. When I was living with my parents, we ate Kraft Dinner. To gain independence, I cooked it myself. The member should not start saying that in a sovereign Quebec everybody would have to eat baloney. Once again, he misunderstood.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our wonderful new member for Hochelaga for the kind things he had to say about me in my role as whip. It is rare for someone to crack a whip and then be thanked for it. He was only recently elected, so he has yet to feel the brunt. I do want to thank him, however. His election as the member for Hochelaga, with all the baggage he has, is great for our party. It is unfortunate that I am not allowed to mention him by name, but when he was Minister of Industry in Quebec, his legacy was the Paillé Plan. I am not using his name; I am using the name of the plan. I thank him again for his comments.

I am pleased to speak to this motion, because May 2010 marks the anniversary of an important event that took place 20 years ago. I will start by putting things in context. The people listening to us may have forgotten or they may be young people who were not born or did not follow politics at that time. I would like to reiterate two statements.

On June 22, 1990, a few hours before Meech failed, someone said in the National Assembly, “English Canada must clearly understand that, no matter what, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free and capable of assuming its destiny and its development.” That someone was then premier Robert Bourassa, a federalist.

On June 24, 1990, Jean Duceppe, a prominent actor in Quebec, summed up the feeling among Quebeckers. In the aftermath of Meech, in his patriotic speech at the start of Fête nationale celebrations, Jean Duceppe, father of our current leader, said, “My dear friends, as the days and weeks pass, one thing becomes crystal clear in our minds: Quebec is our one and only country.”

I like to compare a people’s march toward fulfilment and sovereignty to a personal experience of mine. It is similar to a young couple in their early twenties who are dating and come to an agreement to live together.

I remember that my girlfriend and I came to a cross-roads after dating for a year and a half. We reached a turning point, a cross-roads, decision time. I remember going to see my mother and telling her that I was going to move in with my girlfriend. I remember how she threw a major fit. She is probably listening to me right now because my parents are retired and they follow the debates of the House regularly. She told me that I could not do that to her, that I belonged in her house. She said that she would cook for me, that I would not have to pay anything, that she would wash my clothes and clean my room even though it was extremely messy. She said that there was so much stuff lying around my room that she had trouble opening the door because of the clothes that had piled up. Why would I do that to her?

It is the exact same thing when a people moves towards sovereignty. It is the decision of a mature people. It is not against anyone else. It is not because we no longer love them, but because we decided to cut the apron strings. I told my mother that we would eat baloney sandwiches and Kraft Dinner. It was true that it would be difficult financially since I was not paying anything at home, but I had decided to spread my wings.

I decided to break free not because I did not love them, but because I had decided to build something with my girlfriend, who became my wife and the mother of my two children.

That is what the rest of Canada should understand. We are telling the rest of Canada to get ready because it will happen. It will not be able to say that we have taken it by surprise. We sometimes hear Conservative members, especially from the western provinces, talk about how much Canada pays us and how much Quebec costs Canada. I tell them to let us go. We want to go. But we are democrats and I think the sovereignist movement has shown that clearly for a number of years. The lock to the safe will be opened when the people of Quebec say yes to themselves.

As parliamentarians, we travel abroad or we greet delegations of foreign parliamentarians. One of their concerns, especially for American parliamentarians, with whom we have good and very close relations, is that it should not be done by force. We tell them it will happen through a democratic process. There will be no violence.

We have already had two referendums. It is true that Quebeckers decided to say no on both occasions. There is a principle according to which pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. On those occasions, in 1980 and in 1995, the people said no.

But I know and I sense that, on the ground, in our meetings, in our contacts and dealings with ordinary citizens, they realize that Canada today is not working. It will never work as Quebec would like it to.

We will have the opportunity to answer the question that Quebeckers have been asked for many years: what does Quebec want? Quebec wants to become an independent country. Quebec wants to speak with its own voice in the community of nations. Quebec wants to have more than just its flag at the United Nations.

My colleague from Hochelaga rightly mentioned the various international conferences on the environment where our colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, had the opportunity to represent the Bloc. The Quebec environment ministers said they would work hard and make Quebec's voice heard, but from the sidelines. They met people from other countries who were going to get a coffee in the cafeteria or going to the washroom. They were working hard. They were working on the sidelines.

For that reason it is sometimes discouraging to see the members and the ministers of the Quebec Liberal Party settling for so little.

We are a proud people, with a French language and culture. We want to stand tall before people. We want to talk to our counterparts as equals.

On the international scene, Quebec can command the same respect as Finland, Sweden and Slovakia, smaller countries, and countries that have fewer natural resources and riches than Quebec.

We are asking for respect because we have come to the conclusion that the Canada of today, in which we operate, cannot be reformed. It would not work and we believe that no matter what happens in the future, we will have seen it all before.

Yesterday, I met with a group and we went to visit the Senate, which costs $54 million per year in political patronage appointments for Conservatives and Liberals. My visitors, some elderly people, asked me what it would take to get rid of the Senate. We have to achieve sovereignty. In a sovereign Quebec, there would no longer be a Senate or a Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor representing the British Crown.

[Canadian Federalism, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Canada killed the Meech Lake accord, rejecting Quebec's minimum demands. Today, it is clear that Canada has no desire to accommodate Quebec. The possibility of reforming Canadian federalism so that it satisfies the aspirations of the Quebec nation is nothing but an illusion.

The recognition of the Quebec nation by the Conservatives was just symbolic, and Canadians did not want it to have any real effect. There are no new constitutional talks, no special status, and no additional resources or powers for Quebec.

Since we are getting nowhere with reforming federalism, the other option is Quebec sovereignty. This is the only way that Quebeckers can control their own destiny, can ensure the predominance and survival of their language and culture, can control immigration and can define their citizenship. As a sovereign nation, we will finally be able to speak for ourselves on the world stage. Let us put an end to this charade and choose the path to freedom: sovereignty for Quebec.

[Firearms Registry, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, here is proof that a Conservative minister, a token Quebecker, refuses to acknowledge the consensus in Quebec.

The Quebec National Assembly, police officers, women's groups, advocacy groups for victims of crime, the families of École Polytechnique victims, and public health experts all want the gun registry to be kept as is.

When will this self-styled law and order government realize that when it keeps pushing to dismantle the firearms registry, it is putting the safety of Quebeckers in jeopardy?

[Firearms Registry, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister called this a red herring, but I will give him a concrete example.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward, the mother of one of the victims from École Polytechnique, spoke about the importance of the firearms registry in preventing crime. With the Conservative bill, the semi-automatic gun used by Marc Lépine to kill this woman's daughter and 13 others would no longer be registered.

How can the Conservatives, with the help of the NDP and the Liberals, propose that we dismantle the firearms registry? Why are they refusing to remember the 14—