Benoît Sauvageau

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I have here a document dealing with the Canadian dollar and Quebec secession. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document, which will enlighten it in this debate.

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction, by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I have here a document entitled “Le statut politique et constitutionnel du Québec”.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document that will enlighten the members on this issue.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you forgot to tell him he is not allowed to mention who is not in the House. It must be an honest oversight. I mentioned who was present, not who was absent since that is not allowed.

My hon. colleague, who is a stalwart and, I must say, very convincing Liberal, must recall the time when, in 1980, at the Paul Sauvé Centre, Pierre Elliott Trudeau very eloquently stated “Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, the question is clear. If you vote yes, you will leave Canada”.

Fifteen years later, in the riding of Verdun, Jean Chrétien said “Ladies and gentlemen, the choice before you is gut wrenching. The question is clear. If you vote yes, you will leave Canada”. By the way, they both made promises they did not keep. I am anticipating the answer. They both promised renewal, and neither delivered.

My point is that both said the question was clear. In 1995, 94% of Quebecers voted on a question the Prime Minister had determined to be clear. Why is the hon. member suggesting today that it was not, contrary—incidentally—to what his leader, his Prime Minister and his own party said?

Second, as my Conservative colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska mentioned earlier, is it going to take a majority of 50% plus one in the House to determine if the question is clear? This is another question.

Third, who can tell us what the numbers will be? Earlier he told the Reform member that, if you inquire about the numbers, it means you are a separatist. But if one inquires about the numbers when dealing with a clarity bill, it might be that one wants to be perfectly clear. What are the numbers according to him?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have several questions for the hon. member from the New Democratic Party.

First, he talked a little about the clear question. I would now like to hear him describe his idea of a clear majority.

Second, he should explain the biological or genetic advantage that the people from Winnipeg, from his riding or from his province have over Quebecers to understand what is a clear question. What is missing biologically or genetically in Quebec the explanation surely lies there so that we cannot understand what is a clear question while they can?

Why should we need the advice of the hon. member from the northeast part of Prince Edward Island, a member whom I do not know but for whom I have much respect? Why should his advice be superior to that of the national assembly that, unanimously or by a majority, could determine what is a clear question? I would like him to enlighten us about that as well.

While I am not very experienced, I know that we cannot mention absent members in the House, but we can present members. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who is here surely has much to say on this issue, but he has not risen since this morning. I rose in part to take his place.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has been reading La Presse all morning. Perhaps he would also have something to say about Bill C-20.

I am looking at the member for Brossard—La Prairie, who has been twiddling his thumbs all morning. He might have had something to say about Bill C-20. I could say the same for the member for Bourassa.

Members from Quebec have been instructed to shut up or else they are simply devoid of ideas and afraid to stand up. I am therefore speaking on their behalf.

In closing, I would like to ask the member from the New Democratic Party if he thinks the following question is clear, and I will read it slowly:

Do you accept and approve the settlement agreement dated, for reference purposes, the 14th day of December 1999, between the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada?

That was the first question. I will now read the second one:

Do you agree to sanction, pursuant to sections 38(1) and 39 of the Indian Act, the absolute transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada by the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean of all its rights and those of its members to all parcels of reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township?

By voting “YES”, you authorize the Chief of the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean or any other member of the band council duly authorized by resolution to sign on behalf of the band council, the band itself and its members all documents, and to take all measures required to put into effect the settlement agreement and the absolute transfer of all parcels of reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township. Yes or no?

Does this question, written by the governmental party without any consultation, seem clear to the hon. member?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. And perhaps he will give us the benefit of his superiority and enlighten us. It is said that God does not need to be present for his will to be known.

I therefore ask the member for Macleod to use his superior intelligence. Does he not believe that these members should ignore the party line, which prevents them from commenting officially on Bill C-20, and participate in questions and comments at the very least so that we may know what they think? Or does he think that they all aspire to ministerial positions and therefore want to remain silent?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members of the ridings of Beauce, Laval West, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Verdun, Lac-Saint-Louis, Brossard—La Prairie, Pierrefonds—Dollard, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Brome—Missisquoi, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Ahuntsic and Gatineau, who are not ministers from Quebec, but members from Quebec, were probably ordered by their government not to talk about Bill C-20.

I would urge them, through you, Mr. Speaker, to ignore the party line on this, at least.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to say how unhappy I am, and I am trying to put this nicely, with the member for Macleod who sits beside me. I am having trouble when he says that those who did not understand the question are not intelligent enough and when he goes even further and says that if anyone does not agree with the bill, it is for lack of intelligence.

My problem is that he saying that in this country—and this will be a clear question—the English are intelligent and the French are a bit thick? Is that what he is saying, yes or no?

[Renewal Of Infrastructures Program, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, really, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It would seem that the Liberal government wants to renege on another of its commitments.

In a recent article in La Presse , we learn that the Liberals would like to delay the renewal of the infrastructures program in order to use it for purely electoral ends. This federal, provincial and municipal program is vital to Quebec and Canada. This is true too for quality of life and especially public safety.

Quebec, the Canadian provinces and territories and the municipalities have long called for this program. It would be totally unacceptable and incredibly irresponsible if the government were to delay it and use it for such partisan purposes.

When will the Liberals finally honour their commitments? When will they stop pulling the wool over people's eyes and when will they stop making the provincial governments and the municipalities pay and then turn the situation to their advantage?

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Before barking no, let me finish. I seek unanimous consent to table a document that will enlighten the House. This is a document on the Canadian dollar and Quebec separation.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before members on the other side bark no, I would like them to let me read the title of my document.

Following the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House—