Gérard Asselin

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. During the election campaign, in 1997, the members were not authorized to sign job creation programs for students in their ridings.

The minister traveled a lot; he came to Charlevoix. Two investors from Montreal accompanied the minister to Saint-Hilarion, in the riding of Charlevoix. The “Poulette Grise”, in La Malbaie, was closed; 150 jobs were lost.

A few days before election day, to benefit from the situation, he came to announce that Aliments Charlevoix would export chicken and reopen the La Malbaie slaughterhouse, that everything was all right, thanks to the savior, the Minister of Human Resources Development of the day, the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis. I am sure the Prime Minister found shortcomings in that department. After the 1997 election, he saw what had happened in Canada, chiefly with the minister we are talking about, the former Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis.

I would like to ask the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques if he would agree with me that the Prime Minister probably noticed the incompetence of the former Minister of Human Resources Development and stripped him of this department, which involves a lot of management, a lot of money and a lot of responsibilities and gave him a department involving no responsibilities.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, through you, of my colleague from the Reform Party who has just spoken.

It is too easy for the former Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, to hide behind the present Minister of Human Resources Development. I believe the one billion dollars lost in the departmental boondoggle, money belonging to the workers and to the unemployed who also made contributions, is too much.

Yesterday, during oral question period, many members of all opposition parties called for the minister to resign. It is my personal conviction that the Prime Minister will continue to refuse the resignation of the present minister because he knows the responsibility is not all hers, that the former Minister of Human Resources Development, the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, is also responsible.

The Prime Minister will not be able to call for the two of them to resign either because, as we saw on television, he trivialized the matter, saying that it was nothing serious, an administrative error, something that happens fairly often. He treated it as if it were just a few crumbs under the table.

Would my colleague agree to acknowledge that the primary responsibility lies with the former Minister of Human Resources Development, now the Minister of International Trade, and that the present Minister of Human Resources Development inherited this mess? Unfortunately, she too has a duty to resign, because she misinformed the House. The two of them must resign.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 8th, 2000]

Then it must not be tabled, as there was no consent—

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as a daily occurrence in this House, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader wants to table documents, he asks for unanimous consent of the House to do so.

You did indeed ask for it, because our colleague asked for it through you. As the Speaker, you asked “Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent?” I said no, Mr. Speaker.

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the tabling of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table—

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten this House.

This is an article that was published on December 11, 1999 in La Presse which describes how upset Quebec, and especially its national capital, are as a result of the announcement—

[Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just will not give up. He uses every possible platform to say that the federal system is flexible and evolving. For example, on Thursday, the minister stated his views on the evolution of federalism.

What a disappointment. Not only did the minister discuss the issue of a clear majority in a confusing manner, he also had the nerve to say that the federalist status quo is working just fine.

We want to set the record straight by reminding the minister that a recent poll conducted by the research and information centre on Canada, or CRIC, shows that only 13% of Quebecers support the status quo.

Another poll tells us that 60% are unhappy with the division of powers between Ottawa and Quebec. Worse still, another poll commissioned by the minister's own department indicates that 62% of Quebecers disagree with the statement that the situation is improving in Canada.

The Canadian system—

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has announced his intention to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a very informative document.

It is a document from the Quebec director general of elections explaining what real democracy is all about, and what truly democratic rules are.

[Committees Of The House, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have to agree with me that the question should not be longer than the speech. Since we are talking about air transportation and the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans is in full flight, will the Chair be kind enough to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to let the hon. member complete his excellent speech?

[Points Of Order, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement made by the Prime Minister of the introduction of a bill denying the fundamental rights of the Quebec people, I request the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that would enlighten the House.

It is the report of Quebec's director general of elections on the results of the 1980 referendum, to which 85.6 % of the registered voters participated. That is democracy.