House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Petitions February 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, we know that private sector postal carriers in our rural areas are denied the right to collective bargaining.
By this petition, the petitioners are calling on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act specifically so that rural postal carriers would have this right.
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 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is now 6.29 p.m. We know that the debates must be adjourned at 6.30 p.m. You have the power to decide what time it is and move the clock forward by one minute and, voilà, we will resume debate in a coherent manner, with a whole period of time ahead of us, when the government sees it fit.
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 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Just to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do understand what is at stake here, it is not that the member opposite used words that are inappropriate, but they were irrelevant to the debate. More than that, it was contrary to what is going on actually with the minister of HRDC through the employment embezzlement of over $1 billion.
Actually the members opposite should not talk about things. They are looking for a straw in Quebec's eye when they have a two-by-four in their own eye.
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 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You interrupted me and I had not finished.
I accept that there is no unanimous consent to withdraw the bill. It is within the rules. What I do not accept, however, is the fact that the members on the other side cannot keep a respectful silence. This bill is insulting enough, there is no need to add the injury of members not listening to what is being said.
Those who want to talk should go outside and those who want to listen should stay in.
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 February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Bill C-20 goes against everything that is democratic in Canada and in Quebec.
Today, the government has a last chance to withdraw it—
Committees Of The House February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by our colleague from Elk Island.
I was struck by what he said at the beginning of his remarks to the effect that the reports tabled in this House are just that, tabled. The recommendations in these reports are left to the discretion of the government which, too often unfortunately, will only respond to them at election time.
He very rightly said that excellent recommendations are thus shelved and never implemented.
If I understand correctly, the motion is aimed at ensuring that any recommendation made in a report tabled in this House be immediately implemented with the agreement of the House.
I find it an interesting proposition in several respects and I will ask him to comment on this in a moment.
Is this not the proof that the procedure followed by this House for decades fails to ensure good governance? Are we not faced with obsolete procedure?
At the same time, I would suggest that he might have seen to it that members of this House have the opportunity to debate recommendations further because to endorse them just like that might be just a bit too hasty.
I believe the House procedures are somewhat outdated and should be overhauled. I would like to hear what the member has to say about this.
Point Of Order February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the fact that you had to refer to your list to remember that I am the member for Portneuf.
I am getting to the point. I have here a document dealing with the harmonization of federal legislation with Quebec law. I think it would enlighten our colleagues opposite. Do I have their consent to table this document?
Points Of Order December 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have here an article from the Toronto Star dated December 11, 1999. This article clearly explains why the purpose of the bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is to imprison Quebec in Canada. I ask for the unanimous consent to table this document.
Bill C-20 December 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in the bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the numerous requirements regarding the number of players to be consulted are not fooling anyone. Behind the alleged search for clarity, the minister is in fact making a shameless attempt at political blackmail.
Will the minister admit that this bill, with its slew of unreasonable requirements, is nothing but a tool that the federal government is giving itself to make sure there will always be someone to suggest that it should not negotiate?
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 December 14th, 1999
Madam Speaker, when we talk about a clear question, we presume that those who will have to answer it will understand not only the question, but also the stakes involved.
It so happens that the stakes will be refined during the debate. I will give a relatively simple example. Let us say that someone who is renting an apartment in a building is considering moving and buying a house. The question that person will ask is “Do I want to buy a new house?” This is a clear question.
But in order to decide whether to do it or not, that person will have to weigh the pros and the cons of each alternative. “What are the pros and the cons if I remain a tenant, and what are they if I become the owner of my home?”
In the process that concerns us, there is a fundamental aspect that is mentioned nowhere in this bill: the arguments of the manager of the building. You see, the last time, the question was clear. But how many persons voted against it because the manager of the building promised to give them a new paint job and to make the place comfortable so that they could enjoy a good quality of life and feel at home? The manager did not deliver.
The bill before us does not mention this aspect. Consequently, if the question is clear, it should also involve clear commitments, commitments which will be met and not broken, commitments which will not trick the people. Obviously, this bill cannot be honest if it does not address these issues.
Does the hon. member agree with me that this bill is incomplete because it does not deal with the basis of the democratic debate which is supposed to follow, the democratic debate where the real issues are explained by both sides so that the promises can be met?