Debates of Feb. 24th, 2000
House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was research.
Topics
- Points Of Order
- Government Response To Petitions
- Division No. 747
- An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference
- Division No. 748
- Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act
- Division No. 749
- National Defence
- Agriculture
- Estonia
- Black History Month
- Coca-Cola Bottling Company
- The Senate
- Economic Development
- Depleted Uranium
- Black History Month
- The Economy
- Black History Month
- Flangers Rock Group
- Human Resources Development
- Chechnya
- Refugee Identification
- Federal Government
- Gasoline Prices
- Agriculture
- Human Resources Development
- Health Care
- Cida
- Human Resources Development
- Health Care
- Cinar
- Agriculture
- Human Resources Development
- Gasoline Prices
- Industrial Cooperation Program
- Commemorative Stamp
- Human Resources Development
- Importation Of Plutonium
- Scotia Rainbow
- Cida
- Iran
- Hockey
- Human Resources Development
- Business Of The House
- Canada Post Corporation Act
- Division No. 750
- Points Of Order
- Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act
- Division No. 751
- Business Of The House
- Senate
Points Of Order
February 24th, 2000 / 10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Faced with the insensitivity and arrogance of this government, which is preparing to table a third gag order on the infamous Bill C-20 that will deny Quebecers their fundamental democratic rights, I have no choice but to appeal to the openmindedness of this House and ask it to permit me to table a document that will surely enlighten it in this dark period of Canadian history.
It is an article from the paper the Le Nouvelliste dated February 22, 2000 and entitled “The FTQ and the CSN Oppose Bill C-20”.
With your permission, I will read a short passage, just to show our colleagues how closed-minded they are, at present.
The article reads:
The powerful in Quebec society rose up against the federal bill on the referendum conditions as the Liberals tried once again to limit debate on the matter.
The Liberals had already obliged the committee examining the bill to sit from morning to night several days a week. Yesterday, in a marathon session, they tried to pass a motion to put an end to the deliberations of the committee as of midnight Thursday, after seven days of hearings, denying—
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of this document?
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Scarborough—Rouge River
Ontario
Liberal
Derek Lee Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member indicated that he had no choice but to ask for consent to table. I suggest to him that he does have other options.
I want to refer Your Honour to Standing Order 47 which states clearly that points of order should be raised in this instance following the daily routine of business. I know of no reasons which would allow a member to rise on a point of order and pre-empt the daily routine of business when the standing orders clearly state that points of order are to be raised at the conclusion of routine proceedings.
I invite Your Honour to look at this now and determine the question.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, I am surprised by what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons had to say.
He himself rises on a point of order to say that we cannot rise on a point of order at this point in the proceedings. There is something of a paradox in what he is doing.
Also, based on my understanding of the rules, members are authorized to rise on a point of order at any time during the proceedings, except during oral question period.
Madam Speaker, you will enlighten me on this issue, but I believe that those who have sat in the Chair since December have authorized Bloc Quebecois members, and any other member interested, to rise on such points of order before routine proceedings.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
The point of order from the parliamentary secretary is indeed an interesting point.
That being said, it is true that, for some time now, the Chair has entertained requests for unanimous consent for the tabling of such documents. For this morning, we will therefore carry on in the same fashion.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Guy Chrétien Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Madam Speaker, you understood correctly that this is not a point of order, but a request for the tabling of a document.
I hope to get the unanimous consent of all the members of this House, primarily Liberal members, to properly enlighten them on Bill C-20, which seeks to infringe upon the fundamental rights of the people of Quebec.
The document I want to table is a study published by the Library of Parliament, here in Ottawa, which deals with the fundamental rights of Canadians and, of course, of Quebecers. This study, done in 1992, is entitled “Human Rights Legislation and the Charter: a Comparative Guide”.
I see in this House the former president of my union, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, with whom I had the pleasure of working—
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I must remind the hon. member that we do not comment on the presence or absence of a member in the House.
Is there is unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to table this document?
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Points Of Order
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Points Of Order
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Drummond, QC
Madam Speaker, I am asking for unanimous consent to table a document.
It is an article from the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil on Claude Ryan's evidence before the legislative committee. It says:
Claude Ryan condemned the bill introduced by the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs...and soundly criticized the bill on referendum conditions, becoming the first well-known federalist to openly express his dissent. In particular, Mr. Ryan said that by judging the clarity of any referendum question, parliament and the federal government “were directly interfering with the wording of the question”, an attitude that the former politician described as “not real federalism, but rather as a system whereby a government was being put under trusteeship”.
It is obvious that this bill denies the fundamental rights of the people of Quebec and I ask for the unanimous consent of the House—
Points Of Order
10:15 a.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is there unanimous consent?
Points Of Order
10:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Points Of Order
10:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.