Maurice Dumas

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Two years after the coming into force of this Act, the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to intergovernmental affairs shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and shall within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is ten years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is five years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) Two years after this Act comes into force, and every four years thereafter, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall cause a review to be made of the provisions and the administration of this Act.

(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall submit to Parliament a report on the review.

(3) The report shall be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within ten months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“30 to 58 days after the government of a province”

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“40 to 61 days after the government of a province”

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have here an article entitled “Referendum Clarity”, published in Le Soleil on February 20, 2000.

The article reads:

The Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph Facal, announced on Friday that he would be appearing as a witness, this Thursday morning, before federal members who have begun the study of Bill C-20 this week.

In fact, it states further:

The Bloc Quebecois has denounced this legislative committee, one of its reasons for doing so being that the member for Saint-Maurice refused to allow the committee to travel across Quebec. The other opposition parties have also denounced the fact that the Liberal government is putting a limit on the length of the debate in the House.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document, which will enlighten my friends across the way.

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an article of the Canadian Press that has been published on February 21, 2000, under the title “FTQ and CSN against Bill C-20”. It reads:

Yesterday, committee proceedings dealt mainly with the clarity of the question. Members asked almost 20 witnesses whether they thought both previous referendum questions were clear.

The two largest unions in Quebec think the clarity of the question does not leave any doubt. Quebec has held two referendums. The questions were clear. Quebecers knew what they were voting on, and the campaign of both the yes and the no sides helped them understand.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document for the benefit of members opposite.

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a text that our colleagues across the way cannot object to, particularly my seatmate, the government House leader and member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

It is a speech by Jean Charest. Our colleagues have to agree, because he is one of their own, a Liberal. This is the text of his television address on Bill 99 and the federal bill on referendum rules. I ask for consent to table this document.