House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 50% of the vote.
Calgary Declaration December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has finally admitted to journalists the confusion surrounding the Calgary declaration, he is surely able to enlighten us about another confusing thing.
Will he admit that there is confusion between his position and that of Reformers, because, on the one hand, the minister wants to constitutionalize the unique character of Quebec, and, on the other, the Leader of the Reform Party is asking his members to oppose anything to do with a distinct society clause?
Calgary Declaration December 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the Liberal party was happily endorsing the mock consultations to be carried out by the Reform Party in Quebec on the Calgary declaration. Outside the House, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admitted that these consultations could lead to some confusion over the significance of the Calgary declaration.
Will the minister now admit that the Calgary declaration is completely confusing and divisive, because everyone wants a piece of the pie: the Reform Party, native groups, francophones outside Quebec and now even the Saskatchewan Party?
Calgary Declaration December 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the minister recently stated in this House that “unique character” means the same thing as “distinct society” and that there is not a single serious jurist who would say otherwise. But the leader of the Reform Party has been saying from the very beginning that he is totally opposed to the concept of distinct society or anything of the sort.
Does the minister not realize that he and his partner are contradicting each other and that the Reform consultation will take place amid this confusion?
Calgary Declaration December 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Prime Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have elevated the leader of the official opposition to the status of champion of the Calgary declaration. Today, the leader of the Reform Party made public his plan to consult Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration.
Are we to understand that, because the leader of the Reform Party is his champion and partner, the minister agrees with the Reform leader's initiative to hold mock consultations in Quebec on the Calgary declaration?
Points Of Order December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I quoted Standing Order 16, which deals with the decorum that must prevail.
It seems to me that, in such a deplorable situation, because we did not get the same interpretation of the comments made by the member for Abitibi, it would be normal for the hon. member to apologize, or for the Chair to call him to order.
In this particular case, the member apologized to postal workers, but offered no apologies to the House and to our institution. I would like to see him do just that.
Points Of Order December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Standing Order 16 of the House of Commons provides that:
16.(1) When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House—
—or make any noise or disturbance.
I would like to correct a number of facts that were just mentioned by the member for Abitibi. Yesterday evening, when we were voting on Bill C-24 at report stage, we witnessed a rather disgraceful scene on the part of a member of this House.
A verbal confrontation took place between a member of Parliament and a spectator in the public gallery. The hon. member even took his jacket off, as he admitted earlier, and challenged the spectator to fight with him. This is totally unacceptable and it is an insult to our whole institution.
Member For Abitibi December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons was witness to a disgraceful display, to say the least, during the special postal debate.
In a fit of hot-headedness, the member for Abitibi challenged an individual in the public gallery to a fist fight. Not content with verbally abusing a member of the public, the member went so far as to remove his jacket in an attempt to goad him into a fight.
Such behaviour is unworthy of—
France-Quebec Agreement November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should look in the mirror before pointing a finger.
On the one hand, the federal government passed a meaningless resolution recognizing Quebec's specificity in terms of civil law but, on the other hand, it wants Quebec's civil law to be subject to Canadian law.
Does the minister recognize that he is speaking from both sides of his mouth and that what he really wants to do is to “Canadianize” Quebec's civil law?
France-Quebec Agreement November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, officials from Quebec and Canada had a meeting to try to find a compromise solution regarding the judicial co-operation agreement between France and Quebec. The federal government's stubbornness still stands in the way of any progress being accomplished on this important issue.
Why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintaining an inflexible position when Quebec is showing obvious openness and suggesting possible compromises? Such a position prevents a mutually acceptable compromise.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs November 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what a performance.
Here is my supplementary. Are we to understand from the minister's provocative remarks that his government has decided to draft the next referendum question?