Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2000

Point Of Order

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction of Bill C-20, which denies the fundamental rights and prerogatives of Quebecers and of the state of Quebec, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the withdrawal of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.

This is an article published in La Presse , and I quote:

“We believe that Ottawa has no intention of making any concessions at all to Quebec. We must explain not only the reasons we had to fight for independence twenty years ago, but also the reasons we have today to do so. Federalism has changed. The government is taking over the country by giving out money. We are caught in a stranglehold that will never loosen”, said Louise Paquet, the president of the activist group, who has been preparing to make a statement for months, adding that it could not have occurred at a better time.

We must not forget that, in the middle of February, Jean-François Lisée dissociated himself from his former bosses, Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau, by writing that they would not succeed in reviving the sovereignist flame. Therefore, in his book entitled Sortie de secours , he suggests a referendum not on independence, but on getting more powers for Quebec.

Since Saturday, the editor in chief of La Presse— ”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Andrée Lajoie of the University of Montreal law school, told the committee that “the Liberal bill carries no more legal weight than internal parliamentary directives would. The true intent of this bill is political”.

I would like to table a newspaper article reporting on her evidence, and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to respond very quickly to a point of order raised by a member of the official opposition, who wanted to see documents tabled by the Bloc Quebecois in both official languages. If I have the unanimous consent of the House, I am going to table a document that is in both official languages.

The document in question was published by the official opposition in December 1999, and is called The New Canada Act . If I may, I shall read the table of contents.

It includes an “Overview” on page 2; “Backgrounders” on page 5; part A, “Improvements to the Operation of the Federation”, also on page 5; “Secession Contingency Rules”, on page 9; the “New Canada Act” on page 10.

The “Preamble” is on page 10 also. Part A is on page 11, along with parts entitled “Improvements to the operation of the federation”, “Principles“ and “Division of powers”. The part entitled “Federal Spending Power” is on page 12—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I must, unfortunately, interrupt the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the following text, written by one of Canada's top constitutional experts, Professor Henri Brun, who, incidentally, was one of my teachers when I was a law student at Laval University.

He published a text in yesterday's edition of Le Devoir , the favorite newspaper of the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, which reads as follows: “The Clarity Act is Unconstitutional”.

It is important that members opposite listen. He wrote: “The federal Parliament of Canada is about to adopt a very unusual act, an act that has no purpose other than to impede the exercise of the most fundamental collective right, namely the right for a people to express its will in complete freedom regarding its political future.

This act seems innocuous under the French title “Loi donnant effet à l'exigence de clarté formulée par la Cour suprême dans son avis sur le renvoi sur la sécession du Québec”. This title suggests that, in its opinion in the Quebec secession reference, the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a requirement for clarity on the federal parliament.” In fact, this is not the case at all.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me the opportunity to go on, because this is important. So, can I continue?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.

What we have here is an article published on February 21, the day before yesterday, in the newspaper Le Quotidien and entitled “Co-Management Federalism”. What a great expression. Let me read part of it: “The constitutional program of the Quebec Liberal Party is taking form. A Liberal government under the leadership of Jean Charest would try to sign administrative agreements with Ottawa on environment, telecommunications and the international role of Quebec among other things.

A Charest government would like to reinstate the federal transfers to the provinces at the levels they were in 1994 and get its tax points back. The goal would be to recover permanently a portion of the taxes paid by Quebecers to Ottawa up to $8 billion.”

Mr. Charest is finally beginning to open his eyes and to understand that, from now on, federalism must be based on co-management. He is asking for less to obtain—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

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.