Yves ROCHELEAU

ROCHELEAU, Yves, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Bloc Québécois
Constituency
Trois-Rivières (Quebec)
Birth Date
October 31, 1944
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rocheleau
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=13d0fa77-aa2e-429b-880f-dd4b9a1ad650&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
industrial development consultant, manpower consultant, public servant

Parliamentary Career

October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
BQ
  Trois-Rivières (Quebec)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
BQ
  Trois-Rivières (Quebec)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
BQ
  Trois-Rivières (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 112)


October 29, 2003

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, the BQ's definition of the nation of Quebec is an inclusive one. Witness the fact that, in this rare instance, Jean Charest and the sovereignists agree that the nation of Quebec is both inclusive and open.

Could the government not show the same openness toward Quebeckers by recognizing their nation?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Quebec
Full View Permalink

October 28, 2003

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made it known that he would be voting against the Bloc Quebecois motion calling upon the House to recognize that Quebec constitutes a nation.

My question is this: Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to us how he could have voted in favour of recognizing the Nisga'a nation and yet now can oppose recognizing Quebec as a nation?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Quebec
Full View Permalink

October 27, 2003

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I will begin, if I may, by reading my motion:

That the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes a nation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the social union framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.

Sometimes things happen serendipitously. This first hour of resumed debate this Monday morning coincides with the first hour following the 10th anniversary of the election of the Bloc Quebecois with an impressive 54 seats, on October 25, 1993. There is some symbolism at work here. First, the timing of the debate, and second that it addressed the constitutional debate and the place or the future of Quebec within the federation. These dovetail very well with the history-making—so very history-making—mission of the Bloc Quebecois. This motion is presented in conformity and harmony with that mission.

This is a history-making motion because it addresses fundamental issues, the very basic questions we of the Bloc Quebecois should address, do in fact address, which keep us at a distance from the day to day upheavals going on. It takes us back to the source. It is a call for reflection, a call to Canadians as well as Quebeckers to reflect on what the future of Quebec is within this federation, whether we should remain part of it.

I would like to draw hon. members' attention to the underlying meaning of the vote to be held on Wednesday, October 29. If the members of this House, whether from Canada or Quebec, vote in favour of this motion, we need to be aware that the motion means that this House would be recognizing a true special status for Quebec, that this House would be recognizing special and specific powers, special responsibilities, special sources of funding.

If this House voted in favour of this motion, it would be acknowledging the existence of the Quebec nation and consequently its the right to opt out, and also the fact that it was not a signatory of two landmark documents in the evolution of Canada, in 1982 and 1999.

Members should be aware of what is going on here, unless this is only a hoax, a huge travesty not worth the paper on which the Hansard of the House of Commons is published.

Therefore, members from the rest of Canada should think twice before voting yes. Let us not forget what happened in 1992, during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Politicians supported the agreement, but on the morning of the referendum, there was a spontaneous and unorganized public uproar and Canadians decided to vote no, because Quebec would have gained too much from the agreement. At the same time, Quebecers had also decided to turn down the proposed agreement, because it did not grant Quebec enough new powers.

That is the famous dead end in Canadian federalism, the two solitudes as described in 1963 in the Laurendeau-Dunton report. In my mind, the situation in Quebec has only gotten worse since then.

If this motion is defeated, it means that Quebec is not recognized as a nation. It would be seen as a province like any other, a region, a cultural component, an ethnic and cultural community within the Canadian mosaic, just another component, as the heritage minister would have it.

Defeating the motion would be saying no to one of the two founding nations of Canada, to special status, to a real distinct society, to specific powers for Quebec, to national recognition for Quebec, to international recognition for Quebec, which has established ties with Africa and Latin America thanks to its Latin and French roots.

It would be saying no to a nation that ranks second in the Francophonie, sixth in the two Americas and fifteenth as a world economic power.

As Pierre Bourgault so eloquently put it “We do not want to be a province like any other, we want to be a country like any other”.

Topic:   Private Members' Business
Subtopic:   Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions
Full View Permalink

October 21, 2003

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his speech and ask him what connection he sees with the boundary adjustment that would, as we know, come into effect early than planned, which is the purpose of this bill. The effective date is being moved a little more than four months closer, from August to April, so that the future prime minister will not have to be accountable.

This is a very important aspect, because the new PM, the member for LaSalle—Émard, is so close-mouthed, to put it mildly, about how he sees things, the way he intends to lead Canada, the relationship he plans to have with Quebec, his concept of what the Canada of tomorrow will be. Does he see Canada as two nations, or as one Canadian nation which will encompass, and overshadow, the nation of Quebec?

This is the aspect I would like my colleague to address. When the Bloc Quebecois came to Parliament in 1993, there were, if I remember correctly, 294 seats. From that 294, we went to 301 in 2000, and there will be 308 in 2004. So there are some 15 more, but not a single new riding in Quebec. This illustrates the demographic changes and the evolution of Quebec's political clout within the wonderful Canada of tomorrow.

I would like to hear what he has to say on this. Is it reassuring? Is this not a fundamental reason for Quebeckers in particular to be aware of the dangers that threaten the very existence of the Quebec nation, particularly when Canada is going to be led by people so mean-spirited, so petty that they conceal their vision of the Canada of tomorrow and its relationship with others, Quebec in particular?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Full View Permalink

October 8, 2003

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

It is becoming increasingly clear from the replies he has given in the Arar case that the Solicitor General does not take this House seriously. What we are asking of the Solicitor General is not whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took part in the decision by the Americans to deport M. Arar to Syria. The real question is very simple: did the RCMP send information on Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to the American authorities—yes or no?

Topic:   Oral Question Period
Subtopic:   Foreign Affairs
Full View Permalink