Maud Debien

[Points Of Order, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to table an article published in Le Devoir regarding Bill C-20, which reads as follows:

We learned of the federal government's decision to get involved, through a bill, in the Quebec referendum process. In a democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the opportunistic manipulation of the rules. To try to have one's view prevail by amending the procedure and by taking advantage of one's position of force opens the door to serious excesses.

First, by setting the required support for sovereignty at a threshold higher than 50% plus one, the government is trying to influence things so as to make it impossible to achieve sovereignty. We believe that this measure is highly undemocratic and it was condemned by all the political parties at the National Assembly. We believe that in a referendum debate on a question to which voters would answer yes or no, the only possible interpretation—

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group and the related financial report.

The delegation took part in the seventh general assembly of the conference on the environment and development in Chiang Mai, Thailand from November 20 to 23, 1999.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, as we know, unfortunately, the government introduced a bill that changes the referendum rules in Quebec. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten all members of the House.

This is from the referendum act of the State of Maryland, in the United States of America.

[Sudan, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs unveiled the Harker report on links between the civil war in Sudan and oil development by a Calgary firm.

The report confirms that oil is fueling the conflict in Sudan and recommends that the minister use the Export and Import Permits Act to ensure that the firm acts ethically and respects human rights.

In the light of Mr. Harker's harsh words regarding Talisman, why is the minister refusing to use this legislation?

[Anne Hébert, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Anne Hébert, one of Quebec's greatest writers passed away recently at the age of 83.

Poet, novelist and playwright, this gentle discreet woman caught the imagination of Quebecers through her writing with its shadows of love and hate, life and death, red and black and dark and light.

Born in Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, cousin of another famous writer, Saint-Denys Garneau, she produced works that earned her an international reputation and prestigious awards, including the Prix France-Canada, the prix Fémina and the prix des Libraires de France, to name but a few.

Anne Hébert died at the dawn of the year 2000. Like the century marked by concern and great hope, she left us a body of work drawn on our roots.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to express its deepest sympathies to her family and say to them, in the words of one of her lines, that she who ceaselessly secretly weighs our soul will remain in the hearts of Quebecers.

[Bill C-20, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claims to be piloting through a bill on referendum clarity while telling us in the same breath that the 1995 referendum was unclear.

How can the minister make such an erroneous statement when we know that 93% of registered voters cast their ballot, that thousands of Canadians attended a rally urging us to stay in Canada, and that the Prime Minister himself said that the choice was final, stay or leave?

How can he now say that the stakes were not clear?

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to table an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on October 20, where the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs warned Quebecers and the Quebec government that he would act unilaterally and attempt to hurt Quebecers.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it wants to introduce a bill changing the referendum rules in Quebec.

I ask for unanimous consent to table part of the referendum act of the State of Massachusetts, in the United States of America, which will certainly enlighten the House.

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the Prime Minister, who wants to introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that—

[Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in September of 1994, a certain political science professor stated, with regard to the referendum process in Quebec, that the referendum question was sufficiently clear. First about-face: today this professor, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is proclaiming the opposite, loud and clear.

He also said that Ottawa's insistence on the use of the term separation in the question had no legal basis. For this person, who is now threatening Quebec with an anti-democratic bill, this is the second about-face.

Finally, he stated that the terms “sovereignty”, “independence”, “separation” and “secession” were all synonymous. In his third about-face, this person who has since become a minister is now claiming the contrary.

Who is right, the minister or the professor? There is a lack of clarity here, as is obvious in the bill requiring clarity tabled by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the confusion and obscurity of which are striking.