Pierre Brien

[Drinking Water, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is referring to a bill from the last Parliament. Bill C-14 was introduced last Friday.

Does he have the Quebec government's approval specifically for Bill C-14, which is before us now?

[Drinking Water, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health will be clear and simple.

Could he tell us whether or not he has the Quebec government's approval to go ahead with Bill C-14?

[Drinking Water, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's water policy has not yet been drawn up, and the minister is already defining priorities.

By getting involved in the matter of drinking water, is the federal government not taking over what Quebeckers quite rightly consider a natural resource that belongs to them?

[Drinking Water, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The federal government's intrusion in the matter of drinking water leaves us scratching our heads and points to a new source of potential confrontation with Quebec. Once again, Ottawa is trespassing on the established jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec.

Just as Quebec is setting up a water policy, is the federal government not opening the door to confrontation through its intervention by promoting duplication and overlap, when it is not needed in the area?

[Constitutional Amendment, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

We still do not know if the Liberal members will have to toe the party line in the vote on the proposed constitutional amendment regarding the educational system approved unanimously by the National Assembly.

By failing to give a clear direction immediately, is the Prime Minister not helping to create uncertainty about the outcome of this debate and would it not be better if he indicated a specific direction to his troops right away?

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment before my question. The member has said he thinks it perfectly normal to have senators—he named one—, for they can be important individuals, distinguished citizens and so forth.

That is not the question. The question is: Who do they represent? I repeat, and I said this earlier in the House, that I am going to be uncomfortable on the committee to see people around me who are not elected, who have been appointed by the Prime Minister or by a former Primer Minister, because they are sometimes there so long that it is not necessarily the one now in office who appointed them. These people do not represent any democratic values and will be questioning democratic decisions—I am coming to my question—that were taken on two occasions in the case before us.

Does he not find it abnormal that a committee is being formed when we could simply pass a motion, since the issue has been debated several times in his province? It could be wrapped up this week and approval given to the constitutional amendment as requested by the people in his own province.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

It only works one way.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since we are comparing the two cases, you will forgive me if I correct certain facts.

These groups, in the case of both Newfoundland and Quebec, have already been heard. Here in Ottawa, they are talking as though there had never been any consultations regarding the constitutional amendment affecting Quebec. There were the États généraux sur l'éducation and consultations on Bill 109. So the groups that come here are not expressing new and different points of view. You want the provincial governments to hear these arguments, but I do not think there is anyone who has heard a single new thing with respect to either the case of Newfoundland or that of the Government of Quebec. It then becomes a pretext.

It is always a bit of a paternalistic attitude that the folks in Ottawa must form their own opinion. The people of Newfoundland have expressed their point of view, and they clearly had one opinion. There were several years of discussions with the groups concerned, and the reason the government held a referendum was because it was unable to come to an agreement with these groups. Almost everything there is to say has been said. How does the government think we are going to reach different conclusions? On the contrary, this even weakens the consensuses somewhat because the two concepts of consensus and unanimity are being dragged in.

Is the government's process not going to weaken somewhat the existing consensuses, which are strong both in the case of Newfoundland and in that of Quebec?

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment before putting my question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Since this morning, Reform members seem to get the Quebec and Newfoundland issues mixed up, not realizing that section 93 is not involved, contrary to what they have been saying all day. The two issues are different from a procedural point of view.

Obviously, Reformers would like a referendum to be held in Quebec on this issue. However, there is a consensus on this issue, which even the federal government deemed adequate to move forward. I remind Reform members that it is not only sovereignists who feel there is an adequate consensus.

My question to the minister is this: Given that Newfoundlanders said yes twice—both times through a democratic process involving consultations and a royal commission of inquiry—why establish such a committee? We will not oppose it, but one wonders. Why set up a committee?

Could it be that, following the work of the committee, the government may find it necessary to make amendments, changes, etc., or is everything already decided anyway? The people have spoken. Why set up a committee and particularly, as I said this morning, a joint committee that will include our dear senators, whose legitimacy is being questioned by everyone? So, why set up a committee after the people have already clearly voiced their opinion and are, for all intents and purposes, waiting for us to move forward?

[Linguistic School Boards, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wanted a recorded division to force everyone in this House to show his or her true colours and we got it.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are not the current hesitations of the government an indication that the various interest groups and lobbies are getting their way and are beginning to weaken the unanimous consent of the National Assembly?