Pierre Paquette

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you once again for your ruling, which included a number of elements that enabled the political parties to reach this agreement. I would also like to emphasize that, overall, the discussions were carried out candidly and in good faith. I believe that this process should serve as a model for the future.

This agreement respects your ruling because parliamentarians will have access to the documents in unredacted form, and will be able to provide the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan with the information it needs to carry out its inquiry into allegations of torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities.

This agreement also includes a mechanism to protect national security. I believe that this is a victory for democracy. I hope that the government has learned one thing from this exercise: Parliament takes precedence over the executive branch and must ensure that the government is accountable to parliamentarians. I hope that this agreement will lead to a much-needed restoration of the balance between the legislative and executive branches.

[Securities, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Minister Bachand does not buy the argument that provincial participation is voluntary. No one in Quebec is being fooled. The Conservative strategy is simply to isolate Quebec in order to eventually force it to join this Canada-wide securities commission.

Why are the Conservative members, especially those from Quebec, bent on destroying Quebec's financial autonomy to the benefit of Toronto?

[Securities, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's finance minister, Raymond Bachand, is still angry with the Conservatives who, as he said, are using rhetoric to sell the idea of a single securities commission in Canada. He said that it is irresponsible to make people believe that a federal commission would have protected unfortunate victims from fraudster Earl Jones.

Will the government admit that its sole motivation for moving ahead with this project is to deprive Quebec of its financial sector for the benefit of Toronto?

[Foreign Affairs, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our question has to do with why UN members should trust a country that violates the Kyoto protocol and the Geneva conventions, that does not respect the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that has yet to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Does the Prime Minister understand that with a record like that, Canada, under this government, does not deserve a seat on the Security Council?

[Foreign Affairs, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about sabotage.

Traditionally, Canada has been in sync with the international community, just as a sovereign Quebec would be. I am thinking, for example, of our peacekeeping missions and our refusal to participate in the illegal war in Iraq. At the time, Canada sat on the Security Council. Today, with these conservative policies that are not in line with those of the international community, that is unthinkable.

Does the Prime Minister understand that we believe Canada does not deserve a seat on the Security Council, not because we are sovereignists, but because, with this government, Canada is not worthy of such a seat?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduasfor his question.

I think he demonstrates very well that, both politically and in terms of the instruments and levers of power, Quebec needs much more, but the nation of Canada refuses to think that this is even negotiable.

Every day, the economic future of Quebec is under attack from all the federalist parties. The fiscal imbalance has yet to be resolved and I believe that it is important to point that out. The Conservative government made some transfers a few years ago, but, since then, there have been no further discussions about the so-called federal spending power.

The same goes for the Canada-wide securities commission. There is contempt for this plan in Quebec. Yesterday, we were able to see the coalition that has formed to highlight the negative impact of this idea on Quebec and on several other provinces. We can see that the economic strategy of the nation of Canada rests on two foundations: the tar sands in the west and the financial sector in Toronto. This is a strategy where Quebec has no place.

We will fight on. We can only hope that hon. members from Quebec who belong to other parties will join with us to defend Quebec's economic interests, and, in particular, the interests of Montreal as a financial centre. I would really like to see that.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his very relevant question. It shows how important it is to have a party like the Bloc Québécois here in this House. When public opinion is so unsympathetic to the demands of Quebec, a federalist party will not be the one to speak on behalf of or defend Quebec.

If we were not here, all of the points that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie brought up would not have been in the debate. They would have been completely ignored.

What has the response of the federal government, the Canadian government, the national government of the Canadian nation, been to the demands of Quebec? We had the sponsorship scandal, which everyone remembers, the Clarity Act, which is an attempt to stifle the democratic will of the people of Quebec, and the pseudo-recognition of the Quebec nation, but nothing ever came out of that, as the member mentioned. The last thing on this list is the desire of most parties in this House to reduce the political weight of Quebec within this federal institution.

The response could be better. Once again, this just makes it very clear that there are just two options left for Quebec: we can become sovereign, which is what we would like, or we can become marginalized and bogged down within a fossilized system.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2010]

moved:

That this House acknowledge that federalism cannot be renewed, since 20 years after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec still does not have the power to choose three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, or to opt out with compensation from federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction, nor does it have a real veto over constitutional amendments and its status as a nation still has not been recognized in the Canadian Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Quebec, who so kindly supported this motion. I will read the motion again because I think it symbolizes the role of the Bloc Québécois in the House. As I have mentioned on many occasions, the Bloc Québécois is the only party that defends Quebec's interests and values unconditionally in the House and it cannot make any compromise when the National Assembly passes a unanimous resolution to state its position.

In this case, we have another role, that of leaders of the sovereignist movement, which is very present in all of Quebec society. As defender of Quebec's interests and values, it is also our party's responsibility to report to the House the fact that Canadian federalism cannot be renewed. A survey, which I will talk about throughout my speech, led to this conclusion.

But first, I will read the motion again:

That this House acknowledge that federalism cannot be renewed, since 20 years after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec still does not have the power to choose three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, or to opt out with compensation from federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction, nor does it have a real veto over constitutional amendments and its status as a nation still has not been recognized in the Canadian Constitution.

Those were the minimum conditions stipulated by the Government of Quebec, when Robert Bourassa was premier, during a round of negotiations launched by former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Quebec had set five conditions that many of us, particularly on the sovereignist side, found insufficient but that had been agreed to by the first ministers. Unfortunately for Mr. Bourassa, that agreement failed because certain provinces reneged on their commitments. Some technicalities also played a role in preventing the Meech Lake accord from being ratified by two provinces. So that process failed.

Twenty years later, how does public opinion in Quebec and Canada respond to those same demands? On that point, we conducted a survey, in collaboration with Intellectuels pour la souveraineté, and we asked the same questions as the terms of the Meech Lake accord.

So we started with question one. The Canadian Constitution should recognize that Quebec forms a nation. At the time, the term was distinct society. Now, the debate has evolved, and even in the House, it was recognized that Quebeckers formed a nation. I may have occasion to return to this. So the question was asked, and there was quite a difference between the answers in Canada and in Quebec.

In Quebec, 73% of Quebeckers think that the Canadian Constitution should recognize that Quebec forms a nation, and only 27% are opposed. That is practically the reverse of what we find in Canada, and even more so, since 83% of Canadians are opposed to the status of Quebec as a nation being recognized in the Canadian Constitution. So right away, we see that the first condition of the Meech Lake accord is not remotely acceptable to the Canadian public, but is still something that the Quebec nation wants.

The second point is: the Canadian Constitution should give Quebec a veto over any constitutional amendment. That also appeared in the terms of the Meech Lake accord. What is the answer? Unsurprisingly, we find that 72% of Quebeckers do believe that Quebec should have a veto over any constitutional amendment, and 28% are opposed.

Once again, the ratio is reversed when we ask Canadians the same question, because 82% of them reject the idea of Quebec having a veto over any constitutional amendment. Only 18% are in favour, representing a tiny minority of the Canadian nation.

Another condition was approved in the Meech Lake accord: the Canadian Constitution should give Quebec the right to opt out of any federal program in areas under its jurisdiction, with financial compensation. This refers to areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

In Quebec, 70% of people agree, and in Canada, 81% of Canadians disagree. The two nations are symmetrically opposite. Once again, I am referring only to the minimum conditions agreed upon in the round of negotiations that led to the Meech Lake accord 20 years ago.

Another point in the accord is that the Canadian Constitution should give Quebec full jurisdiction over immigration to Quebec. In Quebec, 78% agree, and in Canada, 77% disagree. There again, we see that Canadian public opinion shows absolutely no openness to Quebec’s most traditional demands, its minimum demands.

Now, on the question of the division of powers, it said that the Canadian Constitution should give Quebec the power to select three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada. As we know, three justices come from Quebec, but they are not selected by the government of Quebec or the National Assembly. That was in the Meech Lake accord, and the question is being asked again. We see that 83% of Quebeckers believe that yes, the three Supreme Court judges should be appointed by Quebec, while 73% of Canadians are opposed. That is another condition of the Meech Lake accord that has become unacceptable to the Canadian nation.

More generally, Canadians and Quebeckers were asked whether another round of negotiations should be undertaken to find a satisfactory constitutional arrangement for Quebec. I remind the House that Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s unilateral repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 was without the agreement of Quebec, which has never signed the Constitution, regardless of whether its government was federalist or sovereignist. This reflects the broad consensus in Quebec that the Constitution fails miserably to meet the needs and aspirations of the Quebec nation.

Would Canada be prepared, therefore, to open another round of negotiations not only to meet the minimal demands of the Meech Lake accord but also to meet the conditions of the current Quebec government for resolving this issue? Eighty-two percent of Quebeckers think there should be another round of negotiations to meet Quebec traditional constitutional demands, while 61% of Canadians think there should not be.

It is interesting that all the answers I mentioned are always in the 70% to 80% range and really show the Quebec political nation at work. This is not just francophones, or sovereignists, or allophones, or the English Quebec minority. This is a majority of Quebeckers who say they need these additional powers, while a majority of Canadians also react as a political nation and say they are not interested in ceding them.

These results are hardly surprising. The pollster who did the survey, Pierre Drouilly, said he expected something of the kind. The problem is that we did not expect such a huge disparity in the results. There has been a real hardening of Canadian public opinion vis-à-vis Quebec’s demands, while in Quebec, a broad consensus has emerged around the powers that Quebec needs in order to develop.

We have two nations, therefore, on completely opposed paths, and even if the federalist parties in the House refuse to re-open the Constitution, it is obvious that things cannot go on like this forever. A poll of this kind shows—as the Bloc Québécois has been saying for years—that there are no longer three options for the Quebec nation to choose from, namely federalism as it currently exists and which is directed against Quebec, renewed federalism, and Quebec sovereignty. Renewed federalism is a grand illusion, in which no one in Quebec believes any more. There are therefore only two options left, either become sovereign and assume all our powers, 100% of our powers, raise 100% of our taxes, and sign 100% of our treaties, or quietly marginalize ourselves within a Canadian nation and under a federal system that is totally unresponsive to Quebec’s demands.

It is crystal clear to the Bloc Québécois that the most reasonable, most realistic, most doable option is sovereignty.

[Firearms Registry, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about tackling crime. Three police associations came here to tell us that the gun registry prevents violent incidents every day. They reminded us—and the minister should know this—that in 2009, nearly 90% of the weapons seized were long guns, the very weapons that the Conservative government and some Liberal and NDP members want to leave out of the registry.

Why does the government want to raise levels of violence and make people feel less safe by trying to dismantle the gun registry? We have to maintain it as it is now.

[Firearms Registry, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, survivors of the Polytechnique massacre reminded the Conservative government that the firearms registry truly commemorates the 14 victims because it saves lives. Like them, we believe that the registry is anything but a symbol, as a Conservative senator suggested. It is a useful crime-fighting tool.

Why would anyone refuse to listen to the survivors of the Polytechnique massacre who are urging the government to maintain the gun registry as is?