House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 45% of the vote.
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. 174
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Section 1 comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Minister of Justice which day shall be after January 1, 2005, and sections 2 and 3 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the President of the Privy Council which day shall be after January 1, 2006.”
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. 164
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council which day shall not be earlier than March 31, 2010.”
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. 119
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) On the expiration of four 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 ten months 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. 102
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) On the expiration of two 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. 56
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:
“be extended by an additional 32 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. 50
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 5 on page 3.
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. 35
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:
“40 to 69 days after the government of a province”
Points Of Order February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.
Points Of Order February 24th, 2000
Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, in the days to come, the public will see everywhere a picture of a parking meter with the slogan “Yes, time is up” above it. A theatre tour is being organized for college students and seven mobilization meetings are planned for women.
“Our time is one of extreme federalism”. During a recent press conference, former minister Yves Michaud, the one we know as the Robin des banques, said that federalism “has never been so invasive and destructive in all of its history”.
“We think Ottawa does not intend to give anything to Quebec”, added the president of the Mouvement national des Québécois, Louise Paquet.
“We must explain not only why we wanted independence 20 years ago, but why we want it now. Federalism has changed. The government is taking over the country by spending money. It has taken—”
Point Of Order February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten it.
This is an article published in La Presse , and I quote:
“We believe that Ottawa has no intention of making any concessions at all to Quebec. We must explain not only the reasons we had to fight for independence twenty years ago, but also the reasons we have today to do so. Federalism has changed. The government is taking over the country by giving out money. We are caught in a stranglehold that will never loosen”, said Louise Paquet, the president of the activist group, who has been preparing to make a statement for months, adding that it could not have occurred at a better time.
We must not forget that, in the middle of February, Jean-François Lisée dissociated himself from his former bosses, Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau, by writing that they would not succeed in reviving the sovereignist flame. Therefore, in his book entitled Sortie de secours , he suggests a referendum not on independence, but on getting more powers for Quebec.
Since Saturday, the editor in chief of La Presse— ”