Michel Gauthier

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Now that they have settled down a bit, I simply wish to tell you that members on this side, regardless—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a while ago we had a conversation outside the House to discuss a problem, that of being unable to hear my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois whip. Somehow you can hear me in all this noise when I cannot hear myself for the racket from the other side. That is what I wished to tell you.

Now that they have settled down a bit, I simply wish to tell you—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

If I sat down, it was because it is your duty to ensure that my right to speak is protected in this House. I am now asking the Chair to ask them to be quiet, so that I can conclude my point of order.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that all of us, that is you, the members of this House and myself, will have to be extremely careful in the minutes to come to ensure that what will take place here is not misinterpreted.

The reason I sat down is because it was absolutely impossible to speak in the House, because members of the Liberal majority were yelling so loudly. And that is a fact.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to your kind attention the fact that all parliamentarians in this House are fully entitled to express themselves as they wish and on issues that are of interest to them.

The rules clearly provide—and there is absolutely no doubt about this—that every member, whether or not he or she belongs to the government majority and regardless of what our friends opposite may think, has the right to express himself or herself. Every member has the right to point out to the House the relevance of certain documents—

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely and honestly thought I had seen it all in this House.

Not only does the government House leader hold the all-time record for the number of closure and time allocation motions in this parliament, not only, contrary to the usual practice, has he reneged on his word last week to deceive the Bloc Quebecois and trample Quebecers' basic rights, but today we have this unique, extraordinary situation where, for the first time in living memory, a parliamentarian, the government House leader to boot, is forewarning the House, saying “Today, we will not accept any document whatsoever, whatever the topic”. That is closure at its worst.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you are trying to be fair in a situation that may seem delicate at first glance, but I think it is the role of the Chair to allow members to speak in the House, a role that you have always played properly.

Nobody can assume what request will be made and nobody can decide in advance whether a member may or may not ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document of some kind, given that all the documents tabled by my colleagues or regarding which unanimous consent was requested were basically all different.

Either you go beyond the standing orders and presume that members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot ask for the unanimous consent of the House or you declare that the government is so stubborn and narrow-minded that it will never give consent for any document.

I do not know on what basis you can sincerely assume that my colleagues' requests are out of order or inadmissible.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, following the Prime Minister's announcement to introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten the House.

The document is a very thorough newspaper article published on October 20, which shows the real intentions of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs concerning Quebec's future.

[Referendums, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government will decide if the majority is sufficient and if the question is clear enough, taking into consideration the opinions of the political parties in the National Assembly, the governments of the provinces, the governments of the territories, and the Senate, as well as any other opinion it might deem relevant.

Has the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not made sufficient provision for different opinions in order to be absolutely certain that one of them at least would back him up in not following through on the referendum?

[Referendums, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, clause 2(2) of the draft bill by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the Quebec referendum calls for determination of the majority to be based on the size of the majority, not specified, the percentage of participation, again not specified, and “any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant”.

Can the minister, that friend of Galganov and Guy Bertrand, tell us what the matters and circumstances relevant to the evaluation of the majority might be? What is this saying between the lines?