Ghislain Fournier

[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. 142

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 two 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. 53

That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“be extended by an additional 33 days”

[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. 23

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

“40 to 67 days after the government of a province”

[Division No. 804, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if you did register my vote when I rose previously.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is often said that the Minister of Finance is a smooth talker, but his glib words are at our expense, and they will not pay the bills.

I have been listening to the members opposite all afternoon. They all agree that they have spent money. That is true—Human Resources Development Canada has been practically throwing it out the window, while the Government of Quebec has been investing it wisely.

After the federal government cut tens of billions of dollars in health, education, and social programs, the provinces unanimously demanded $4.5 billion a year. But all they are getting from the federal government is $2.5 billion over four years, which boils down to $600 million for Quebec—crumbs.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the Quebec people their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.

I would like to table—

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to table a document which will enlighten it.

It is an article published in Le Devoir on February 21, 2000, entitled “The National Movement of Quebecers Launches a Campaign to Promote Sovereignty”, and I quote:

This campaign, which deals with the substance of the sovereignty issue, has several elements. One of those elements is about women; a second one deals with young people at the collegiate level; the third one is an ad campaign; and the fourth but not the less proposes a series of conferences to be held by people sold on sovereignty.

The president of the Mouvement national des Québécoises et des Québécois, Mrs. Louise Paquet, made the announcement yesterday at a press conference, during which she was accompanied by Mr. Yves Michaud and the actor Jean-Claude Germain.

[Member For Broadview—Greenwood, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that, for a few minutes, the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood saw the light, thanks to the clarity bill.

As a good democrat, but contrary to the Liberal party line and to what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister said, the hon. member recognized that the federal government would have the obligation to negotiate, following a referendum won with 50% plus one of the vote.

The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood gave this clear answer regarding the 50% plus one rule “Personally, I would say that, if the question were clear, we would begin the negotiation process”.

But the hon. member was called to order by his superiors and he changed his mind. What does the hon. member really think? We are totally confused.

Perhaps we should ask him to testify before the committee, but his government is preventing him from doing so with the numerous gag orders that the Liberal majority—

[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 ask for, and will no doubt obtain, the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten this House.

It is a document on Quebec's political and constitutional status. With your permission, I would like to read the covering letter sent by the Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph Facal.

It starts like this “This document focuses on the main events relating to the constitutional political status of Quebec. It shows the evolution of a federal system that has progressively moved away—”

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill that denies the Quebec people their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to table a document that will enlighten it.

It is the speech that Mario Dumont—I think you know Mr. Dumont—made on TV regarding Bill 99 and the federal legislation on referendum rules. I could read a few lines of his speech, just the introduction—