Daniel Turp

[Bill C-20, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the matter of committee travel.

Just a few days ago, the government majority on the foreign affairs committee pleaded the case for authorization of a trip to Asia, to the Caucasus, in order to establish a policy on that region.

Why would travel be necessary for that committee, yet superfluous for the one addressing the future of Quebec and of Canada? It seems to me the argument is not reasonable and does not hold water. The minister knows very well that it does not.

[Bill C-20, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the committees of the House travel a lot in fulfilling their responsibilities.

For example, when the foreign affairs committee was looking at circumpolar affairs, it went to such places as Russia, Finland, and Denmark.

Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons admit that travel to various communities enables committees to do a better job, that it is customary and normal, and that therefore the committee working on Bill C-20 on the future of Quebec and Canada should be able to travel to Quebec?

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This debate is so important to the governing party that I can see three of its members on this side of the House. Besides, I do not see a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Bill C-20, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is another question about clarity and who can teach whom what.

With respect to the Montagnais referendum, article 8.3 of the proposed agreement, on which the Montagnais are going to vote later this month, defines majority as 50% plus one.

If 50% plus one is good for Newfoundland, if it is good for the Montagnais, why would it not be good for Quebec?

[Bill C-20, February 10th, 2000]

I repeat my question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In a referendum to be held on February 27 and 28 regarding the Montagnais of Lac Saint-Jean, the government is asking two questions that contain nearly 200 words in three paragraphs with reference to an agreement and with a single response choice. Is this the government's clarity?

[Bill C-20, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the leader of the government that if the committee on Bill 99 is not travelling, it is the fault of the Quebec Liberals.

This government wants to use its bill to give the Government of Quebec lessons on clarity.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the government claim to give such lessons in clarity to the Government of Quebec when, in a referendum it is organizing itself on February 27 and 28 regarding the Montagnais in Lac Saint-Jean—

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think that we have a quorum. I would like to know whether a government that is imposing a motion—

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the debates are so important for the future of Quebec and of Canada, there should at least be a quorum in the House. I note that there are few members across the way.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this day when the government intends to gag the House at the second reading stage, and in the presence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the government House leader, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-20 withdrawn.

[Bill C-20, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and I talk to each other, but we would also like to get the opinion of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs want representative groups from Quebec to be heard by his committee? Does he want, for example, Canadian groups also to be heard, including the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which are asking the minister to withdraw the bill he introduced in this House?