Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Bill C-20 February 9th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the government House leader suggested that individuals and groups would be allowed to testify before the legislative committee, as was the case with the parliamentary committee that reviewed the issue of linguistic school boards, in 1997.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirm that the Liberal majority of the legislative committee will accept that representative groups from Quebec may be heard by the committee?
Bill C-20 February 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat my question to the Prime Minister, that same Prime Minister who, when the linguistic school boards were being debated in the House in 1997, stated, and I quote “Everyone's point of view must be heard, however, for this is a democracy”.
Does the Prime Minister wish the groups to be heard by the committee? Does he want this committee to travel?
Bill C-20 February 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, we would really like to understand what the Prime Minister has just said.
Is he going to encourage the groups to participate, authorize the committee to travel? Is this what the Liberal majority on the committee is going to propose that the committee should do?
Point Of Order February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-20 withdrawn.
Bill C-20 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if there is someone here who is disconnected from Quebec it is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Between 55% and 60% of Quebecers do not want to hear about his bill. Even the pollsters from his own party told him so last week.
By establishing the legislative committee that unions, students and women are asking for, is the minister's true objective not to ultimately prevent these groups and individuals from testifying? Is the minister not in fact saying “Quiet! We will not hear from you”?
Bill C-20 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the leader of the government, Quebec civil society organizations asked for the right to appear before the committee that will be struck to review Bill C-20.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee that these groups will be heard by the committee and that, as requested by these groups, a democratic consultation process will take place?
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 7th, 2000
Madam Speaker, we appreciate our colleague's great eloquence but the truth escapes him.
When he claims that he knows the truth, he sounds like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his colleagues. That minister is not proud of his pupil because he does not even know that nowadays states that share jurisdiction adopt a common currency and citizenship.
That is what sovereignists have always wanted and proposed to the rest of Canada, and they will keep on doing so. Members opposite are rather like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about whom a commentator said today:
“For his troubles, Dion sits at the bottom of the hit parade of Quebec politicians. Only a tiny minority of Quebecers approve of his performance. He is an object of open ridicule in many media quarters”.
The member is saying what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been repeating for years. This does not work in Quebec. This is not accepted by Quebecers because they want the freedom to choose their future. This bill will take away that freedom. It is an undemocratic bill and we will fight against it until the very last in the House.
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 7th, 2000
Madam Speaker, we take note of the reservations expressed by the New Democratic Party regarding the bill.
I have two questions for our colleague. First, is it the NDP's opinion that the current clause dealing with the issue of majority might lead to arbitrary measures on the part of the government and the House of Commons and, second, does the NDP wish that the committee proceedings be as open as possible?
Does the New Democratic Party want the committee to travel across Canada and Quebec to hear individuals and groups on Bill C-20?
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 7th, 2000
Madam Speaker, it is always disappointing to hear members opposite say that the Quebec separatist leaders will never let it die.
The supreme court decision he has just cited said that the sovereigntist project was a legitimate one and that we were within our rights to promote it. They have never been willing to admit that our project is legitimate. So legitimate is it that there are 45 sovereigntist members in this House. Logic dictates that the House recognize this legitimacy, which is the legitimacy recognized by the Quebec people, who are entitled to decide, in a percentage of 50% plus one, what their future and political status will be.
Referendums December 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let us go back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was also a musician and I hope that the minister will be listening to some music over the holidays because music has a calming influence.
Would the minister now agree that he should be aware that, come what may, the future of Canada depends above all on respect for the rules of democracy and that he should therefore, in 2000, go back to strict respect for the 50% plus one rule, in the absence of any other rule in the Constitution of Canada?