Antoine Dubé

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on March 1, 2011.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Three years after the coming into force of this Act, the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to intergovernmental affairs shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and shall within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 2 shall come into force on the day that is seven years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is four years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) Two years after this Act comes into force, and every two years thereafter, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall cause a review to be made of the provisions and the administration of this Act.

(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs shall submit to Parliament a report on the review.

(3) The report shall be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within four years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of 27 months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[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, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“30 to 59 days after the government of a province”

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“40 to 60 days after the government of a province”

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table one of the petitions given to me in the last couple of days by people of my riding.

This petition concerns Bill C-20. The petitioners are calling for the withdrawal of this bill, which violates the rights of the Quebec people to decide their own future. I therefore table this petition.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Welfare, a federal lead social policy agency, was very critical of the finance minister's budget at a press conference.

Its vice-president, Armand Brun, recalled that the government had promised a budget for children. “Where is that budget?”, did he ask. He went even further, saying “It is the people who do not vote in an election who have been ignored”.

And he is right. The Liberal Party chose to ignore the poor and to be generous to those who are better off. For example, the Minister of Finance preferred to lower the tax rate on capital gains, thus allowing investors to save $135 million in 2001 and $230 million in 2002.

This is the compassion shown by this Liberal government, which would rather provide new tax shelters to its rich friends than put bread and butter on the table for those who do without.