Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion, as well as against the next one.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, Bloc Québécois members will vote against this motion, as well as against the next one.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this motion.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 4th, 2006
The members of the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 December 4th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion.
Business of Supply November 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members will support this motion.
Laval University's Rouge et Or November 27th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, on November 18, Laval University's Rouge et Or earned its third trip in four years to the Vanier Cup by routing the Acadia University Axemen 57 to 10 in the Uteck Bowl.
This win put the Rouge et Or in line for the challenge they had been waiting for all year, defeating the Huskies, their tough and tenacious rivals, at Griffiths Stadium in Saskatoon.
On Saturday, the dream came true in a brilliant 13 to 8 victory, the result of sustained effort, hard work and admirable and indomitable team spirit.
With this win, the Rouge et Or have contributed greatly to the national pride of Quebeckers and thrilled their ardent fans not only in the greater Quebec City area but throughout Quebec as well.
Congratulations to all who contributed to this great moment in university sports.
Business of Supply November 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we are simply asking that this House recognize that Quebeckers currently form a nation within Canada.
Business of Supply November 23rd, 2006
Indeed, as my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher mentioned to me, this is a very relevant question. Quebec asked to make its voice heard, to say that it was not in agreement with the Conservatives’ opinion regarding the Kyoto protocol. Quebec asked for a chance to express itself, to explain to the world that there was a difference.
But the Minister of the Environment, with the support of the Prime Minister, said that Canada would speak with one voice. So there was no opportunity for expressing any dissidence. It is ironic: the Quebec Minister of Environment, as a fallback, requested 45 seconds to express his position, but his request was rejected.
The Minister of the Environment said that she will use the courts and the corridors to promote her vision. But this is not what Quebec is asking for. Quebec is asking to be recognized as such. That is the meaning of the motion before us.
I will answer my colleague from Québec that it is almost as if someone made the following statement: men and women are equal as long as they remain a united couple. Does that mean that, if a couple is no longer united, the man and the woman are no longer equal? That is what the Conservatives’ proposal means.
Business of Supply November 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, a motion that, as you know, is of great importance.
Given that the debate hinges on the concept of the Quebec nation, I think it makes sense to define what we mean by “nation”. The term “nation” can apply to two different things. When it applies to a state or a territory, it is synonymous with “country”. That is what we mean when we talk about the United Nations, an organization that Quebec can unfortunately not be a member of because it is not sovereign.
Therefore, if the motion as written says that Quebec is a nation, some might claim that means Quebec is a country. But that is not what the motion says. The motion is asking this House to recognize that Quebeckers currently form a nation within Canada, according to the latest amendment introduced by my colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. However, when it applies to people, the term “nation” is not synonymous with the word “country”. Dictionaries offer a wealth of information on this subject. I feel that we do not refer to them often enough.
According to the Petit Larousse, the term “nation” means “Large community of people, typically living within the same territory and having, to a certain extent, a shared history, language, culture and economy”.
What about the Petit Robert? It defines the term “nation” as a “Group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together”.
That is exactly the meaning of the motion before us today.
Hon. members may have noticed that neither of these definitions refers to origins. They refer to “desire to live together” and shared culture and territory.
For those who claim that the term “nation” does not mean the same thing in French as it does in English, we checked with the Oxford English Dictionary, which says:
a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
Fin de la citation.
The definition is exactly the same in French. However you put it, it is clear that Quebeckers form a nation.
Is Canada prepared, and that is the gist of the motion, to unconditionally recognize this obvious fact, contrary to the motion put forward by the Prime Minister? Because that is precisely what the word “united” in the Prime Minister's motion is: a condition set by the federal government.
There is a broad consensus in Quebec that Quebeckers form a nation, and there has been for years. I will remind members that, as my leader indicated, on October 30, 2003, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion:
That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.
What does unanimously mean? On October 30, 2003, at the National Assembly, it was the very same Parliament as the one sitting today. We have a majority Liberal Party government in Quebec, with the Parti Québécois as the official opposition, and a third party, the Action démocratique, which has not been recognized as a registered party because it did not get enough candidates elected, but which did vote in favour of that motion. All three parties represented at the National Assembly, regardless of federalist or separatist allegiance, unanimously voted in favour of the motion.
The motion does not state that Quebeckers form a nation provided that Canada remains unchanged, or that Quebec will be a nation if it achieves sovereignty. I defy the Chair or any member of this House to find any such conditions set out anywhere in the motion before us. This motion states that Quebeckers form a nation, period. There was a reason for the National Assembly to specifically state the existence of the Quebec nation. Members will understand that, when I talked about the National Assembly reaffirming that the people of Quebec form a nation, I was referring to the motion it unanimously passed on October 30, 2003.
Let us now see what Maurice Duplessis said in April of 1946:
The Canadian confederation is a treaty of union between two nations.
Jean Lesage said in November 1963:
Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people and a nation.
I am running out of time, but I also have quotes from Daniel Johnson Sr. in 1968, René Lévesque in June 1980, Jacques Parizeau in December 1994 and Lucien Bouchard in October 1999. They were all premiers who reaffirmed throughout the years that Quebeckers, the people of Quebec, are a nation.
The Prime Minister would like Quebeckers to form a nation only within a united Canada. This is a bit ridiculous, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île went over this a little. It just so happens that Quebec was a nation long before Canada existed. I am going to run out of time since I was given only 10 minutes. Nonetheless, hon. members could refer to what Talon said in 1667, what the French sailor, Louis-Antoine de Bougainville, said in 1756 or even what Lord Durham said about the revolt of the Patriots in 1838. It is worth mentioning what Lord Durham said, “I expected to find a conflict between a government and a people, but instead found two nations at war within the same state”.
I want to close by referring firmly to what the Leader of the Bloc Québécois said yesterday:
I would never insist that Quebeckers form a nation only on the condition that they have a country, nor would I ever accept that we could be recognized as a nation only on the condition that we stay in Canada.
We are a nation, because we are what we are, regardless of what the future might bring.
It is important to re-read the wording of the motion before us today.
Federal Accountability Act November 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.