Debates of Feb. 18th, 2000

Points Of Order

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I continue to read this document?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

No, I am sorry. The hon. member for Quebec did not understand correctly. It is someone else's turn.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the hon. member for Québec, is preparing to table a document and to read us that document. She is being interrupted. I feel that we are being slighted here, because what is said here becomes a historical record. It is taken down and printed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I know the hon. member for Chambly was incredibly interested in the document that the member for Quebec was reading from, but we did put the question to the House on the document for the member for Quebec and it was denied.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can people give informed consent if they do not know the content of the document?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a problem that we deal with here on a daily basis.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to table an article published in Le Devoir regarding Bill C-20, which reads as follows:

We learned of the federal government's decision to get involved, through a bill, in the Quebec referendum process. In a democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the opportunistic manipulation of the rules. To try to have one's view prevail by amending the procedure and by taking advantage of one's position of force opens the door to serious excesses.

First, by setting the required support for sovereignty at a threshold higher than 50% plus one, the government is trying to influence things so as to make it impossible to achieve sovereignty. We believe that this measure is highly undemocratic and it was condemned by all the political parties at the National Assembly. We believe that in a referendum debate on a question to which voters would answer yes or no, the only possible interpretation—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers—they are going even further today by denying the rights of parliamentarians to bring their own witnesses before the committee and to express at length their position on this question so vital to Quebec and Canada—I have in my hand an excellent article of the prestigious La Tribune of Sherbrooke in which Mr. Dumont describes Mr. Chrétien's action as pointless.

I consider it important to read you a few quotes from statements by Mr. Dumont, who spoke very well on the issue. Mr. Dumont is the president and leader of the ADQ. He has some importance in the debate before us.

This is his second visit to Victoriaville. Even though it is Sherbrooke's prestigious paper, the facts I am going to quote for you took place in Victoriaville. It mentions that the debate is underway and that the Prime Minister should not continue his actions, because—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not questioning your judgment, which we know to be sound, but my colleague from Saint-Jean had not yet asked for the unanimous consent of the House when you rose to ask if he had it. He must have the opportunity and the time to seek it, before you ask whether he has it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair is given certain discretion and were the Chair to have to wait for the request for unanimous consent to come from the member, we could be here until tomorrow or the next day waiting for the member to ask that. So it is understood why the member is reading from the document and therefore the Chair has exercised judgment, provided the opportunity for a succinct description of the document to be tabled and then to ask the House for its consideration.

In my estimation, the rules were completely and fully applied.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you never cease to amaze me. I see that you are even more talented and gifted than I thought. You are now able to predict what one of our colleagues is about to do. You are truly extraordinary, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I thank the hon. member for his vote of confidence.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to your ruling.

It is not that I wish to challenge it, but I would like you to at least tell me which standing order states that you have complete discretion in this regard.

I do not wish to question your discretion, but neither can you predict what I am going to request. I did not say I was calling for unanimous consent because you did not leave me the time.

I would like you to indicate to which standing order you are referring. I think it is important that we know. When parliamentarians rise to speak, you may not, in your capacity as Speaker, presume to know what they will request. I did not have the time to formulate a request.

I therefore ask you to tell me which standing order you had in mind.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I think that is a very appropriate question, one that is often asked of members and one that Chair occupants also have to ask themselves.

The reason is the authority vested in the Chair to maintain order, decorum and the smooth running of the affairs of the House to assure that all members of the House are given respect and the opportunity to make their case. It is also to ensure that at the end of the day the affairs of governance are concluded or are able to reach conclusion in a fair and orderly manner. The authority is not necessarily vested in a particular statute. The authority is vested in the Chair after 500 years of parliamentary tradition.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of this debate, I would like to table an article which was published in Le Devoir on December 4, about six weeks ago, and is still as pertinent today.

This article was entitled “Quebecers do not want Ottawa to interfere”. Let me read the first paragraph of this excellent article: “If Ottawa proceeds with a bill on the Quebec referendum, the people from Quebec will not accept it, says premier Bouchard, who is also asking the Canadian Prime Minister to calm down. Before heading off for the capital city of Quebec earlier today, Mr. Bouchard said that his federal colleague is always looking for support, but mainly in English Canada.”

I think all this is pertinent. It is at the heart of the debate. I request the unanimous consent of the House to table this document that could certainly serve as food for thought for our colleagues opposite. It is just one more attempt by the Prime Minister, through his gofer, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to play petty politics on the backs of the people of Quebec, always on the backs of the people of Quebec, we will never repeat it often enough.

This article is thus still very pertinent. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to use all your wisdom and try to control all those people, because we are obviously changing the rules of the game without any mandate to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon member for Trois-Rivières has requested the unanimous consent of the House to table a document. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when unanimous consent is sought, the hon. members answering must be at their seats.

I have noticed that some members opposite are not in their usual place, particularly the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington who just walked out but who was not in his place earlier.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

He could not say no from the seat he was occupying.