Debates of Feb. 24th, 2000

Points Of Order

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, this past weekend, at the young liberals seminar, the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec had an idea.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

He had an idea.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

It was the only one he had and it got lonely. So he decided to write it up in Le Nouvelliste , where he discussed a co-managed federalism.

I am sure that this article from Le Nouvelliste would inspire my friends across the way if they allowed me to table it. As the hon. member for Chicoutimi said, they would realize that their constitutional obsession prevents them from seeing what it is like in the field and, most of all, from realizing that for once the provincial Liberal leader had an idea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the great Corneille wrote “This obscure clarity falling from the stars”. This has now become “This obscure clarity falling from Bill C-20”.

I wish to enlighten the members opposite who intend to support Bill C-20, thus displaying a blatant lack of information.

So I wish to help them by seeking unanimous consent to table an article written by a Liberal, on another Liberal's statement, which reads as follows:

Claude Ryan did not beat around the bush yesterday when he criticized the bill on the referendum conditions, thus becoming one of the first well-known federalists to overtly voice dissent.

Mr. Ryan noted in particular that Parliament and the federal government, by expressing an opinion on the clarity of a future referendum question, would at the very least directly interfere in the drafting of the question, an attitude that the previous—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers to decide their own future has recently been tabled by the much unloved Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On February 19, 2000, La Presse newspaper carried Mr. Larose's testimony before the legislative committee, saying:

The bill is a straitjacket, an exercise in obstruction, a lack of democracy; as a matter of fact, this bill is a lie. It is a new trick the federal government came up with to avoid compliance with the supreme court opinion.

Bill C-20 being an attempt by the federal government to take control, it subjugates the Quebec people, who form a perfectly autonomous entity in these matters.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, as we know, we are in the midst of debating Bill C-20, a very antidemocratic bill. I think the government should not persist in its antidemocratic ways for too long; after all, there is a process governing the consideration of bills.

As I have already said, in considering a bill, one has to consult all sources. I have here a study by Jacques Frémont concerning social union.

About the signatories, Mr. Frémont wrote the following:

It was decided instead to adopt a clause imposing obligations and serious constraints on the signatory government. However, the study reminds us that these obligations affect the provincial governments much more than they do the federal government, which are essentially the ones exercising jurisdiction over the fields of government activity in relation to mobility.

I urge my colleagues to show open-mindedness, ask them to accept this study and seek unanimous consent to—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, during this debate on Bill C-20 introduced by the conceited Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I would like to table a document on an article from the February 21, 2000 edition of La Presse , which is entitled “Yes, Time Has Run Out”.

This article summarizes the press conference called by the Mouvement national des Québécois where its president, Louise Paquet, said:

We think that Ottawa has no intention of giving anything to Quebec. We must explain not only what our reasons were for wanting to achieve independence 20 years ago, but also what they are now. Federalism has changed. The government is giving money to buy the support of Canadians. We find ourselves caught in a stranglehold that is tightening.

Yves Michaud, the bank basher, added this:

We must cope with extreme federalism. Throughout its history, it has never been so invading and destructive.

I hope this document will enlighten the House.