House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to amend another act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
February 17th, 2000 / 10:05 a.m.
Don Valley East Ontario
Liberal
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being so rusty on the rules, but under the first order of business I neglected to table, in both official languages and pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government's response to the Standing Committee of Transport report on the restructuring of Canada's airline industry, fostering competition and protecting the public interest.
I would seek unanimous consent to allow me to table that response.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to table the response?
Raymond Lavigne Liberal Verdun—Saint-Henri, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, which was tabled in the House on December 16, 1999, be concurred in.
This report sets out the mandate of the committee, its quorum and its entitlement to sit during sittings of the Senate.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to move the motion?
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present this morning, and one from petitioners right across the country. There are many hundreds of names.
The petitioners call on parliament to retain in the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the reference to the supremacy of God.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by people all across the country. They are calling for the protection in law of children from pedophiles and sex offenders. They want the law for these situations to be strengthened.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
The next petition, Mr. Speaker, calls for a relief from the burden of income tax that families have to bear in the country. The petition contains many hundreds of signatures.
I will be tabling all these petitions this morning.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners are all from Kamloops.
They are calling on the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in exceptional circumstances.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also from the people of Kamloops, who are calling on the Government of Canada to simply abolish the Senate.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me to present this next petition. As you can see by the petition itself, Mr. Speaker, this is not a prop. This is a petition bearing thousands and thousands of names, maybe 20,000 names, of people from Kamloops who are concerned about the GST.
They are suggesting that if we are going to have a tax reduction in the upcoming budget, we should phase out the GST so that everyone benefits from the tax reduction: children, people on low incomes and people with fixed incomes. They feel that every single Canadian would benefit from a reduction in the GST; whereas if we simply reduce the income tax only people who pay income tax will benefit. This is the fairest way to reduce taxes. Thousands of people in the great city of Kamloops are calling on the government to do just that.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition this morning, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of many constituents as well as people from across Canada, including Kamloops, British Columbia.
These Canadians are concerned that the Criminal Code of Canada makes it too easy for people, who have been convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault and manslaughter involving imprisonment greater than five years, to obtain release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent persons convicted of these serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal except in exceptional circumstances.
I think many Canadians would support this particular petition.
Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by 1,581 constituents from my riding.
The petitioners call on Parliament to move quickly in order to pass legislation making mandatory the labelling of all foods that are wholly or partially genetically modified.
This is one more in a series of similar petitions signed by thousands in my riding and in the ridings of a number of other members who have presented similar petitions in the House.
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the people of Haliburton, Minden, Tory Hill and Wilberforce.
The petitioners call on parliament to direct the Department of Justice to vigorously defend section 43 of the criminal code and to terminate all funding for this case under the court challenges program. They request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of Canada's criminal code as it is currently worded.
Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is that agreed?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
moved:
That this House instruct the Legislative Committee on Bill C-20, 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, to hold public hearings in all regions of Quebec and Canada so as to hear as many witnesses having an interest in the Bill as possible, that the hearings be broadcast and that the Committee be given sufficient resources to hold such hearings, all in accordance with the rules and practices of the House.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to draw to your attention and to the attention of the members of this House that the Bloc Quebecois leader will be sharing his time with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and that all the Bloc Quebecois members who will rise afterwards will also be sharing their time.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are moving this motion today, the day after the committee began its proceedings on Bill C-20. As we know, this bill deals essentially with two things: the alleged clarity of the question and the percentage or majority required.
Overall, this is a bill that seeks to deny the rights of the National Assembly, which has held referendums under its own rules in the past. I am referring to the two referendums on sovereignty, in 1980 and 1995, and to the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, in 1992, when a Liberal government was in office in Quebec. The federal government is now questioning these eminently democratic exercises.
As for the issue of clarity, it is somewhat surprising to think that the members of the House of Commons, 75 of whom come from Quebec and 226 from the other provinces, are better able than the members of the National Assembly to determine the clarity of a question.
Moreover, we know that two thirds of the members from Quebec, representing the people of Quebec and democratically mandated to do so, oppose this bill. Those who think they speak on behalf of the Quebecers should look at those who represent them in this place and note that they represent only a third of the Quebec delegation in the House of Commons.
One wonders how people from Moose Jaw, Regina, Halifax, Vancouver or Toronto would be in a better position to determine the clarity of a question than people from Chicoutimi, Tadoussac, Laval, Quebec City, Montreal, Trois-Rivières or Hull. This sort of thing is rather insulting.
What makes no sense is the fact that the government claims these people would be more able to determine what makes the question clear, but refuses to let the committee consult these people across Quebec and Canada to see whether the bill is clear. There is more than an apparent contradiction here. There is a real one.
Why do they want to consult everyone in Canada when Quebecers have to decide their future, but refuse to let the people of Canada and Quebec be consulted when the time comes for the House to pass this bill?
On the subject of clarity, let us look at the latest referendum. On the eve of the referendum, I heard the Prime Minister say in a speech to the people, as he looked them in the eye with the camera focussed on him so that everyone could see his alleged sincerity “The question is clear: if you say yes, you leave; if you say no, you stay”. I was not the one saying that, it was the Prime Minister of Canada.
That evening, I said to myself that it was really clear, that if the Prime Minister understood, if the member for Saint-Maurice understood, a lot of people understood.
I find that rather contemptuous of the 94% of Quebecers who took part in this very democratic process. That day, apparently 94% of the people went to vote without having any idea what they were doing. That is extraordinary. Those who voted no apparently understood, and those who voted yes, apparently did not know what they were doing.
And what about all those Canadians who flocked to Montreal to take part in a love-in, thanks to Canadian Airlines' generosity—a $100 fare from Vancouver to Montreal, but not the other way around? Was the question not clear when all these folks came to Montreal to tell us that they loved us? Was the question not clear when they all rushed panic-stricken to implore us not to leave?
I have to wonder about the reasoning. Did these people come for nothing, or was it perhaps that what was not clear was how much they actually loved us. Now that is something else again.