Supply   presents a clear trade barrier. At the time the agreement was signed the federal government knew that it was in a position to require Hydro Quebec to allow Newfoundland to wheel power for export to New England. It simply failed to do so. In 1995 the net result of the power contract

National Unity  Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the Deputy Prime Minister that bad things can happen even if you wish they will not. It is a rule of life. Regardless of what the Canadian people or even the Quebec people think, it is clear what the plans of the Quebec government are. I ask

National Unity  ? Will it table not only the proposals it has tabled for positive change, but will it also make clear to Quebec in published documents the likely terms and conditions of separation and the real costs of separation?

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society   and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and once again to be guided in their conduct accordingly". Since we are instructing not only the House but the legislative and executive branches of the government to be guided in their conduct, it is clear they have

The Constitution  Mr. Speaker, the minister avoided answering my question on constitutional offers, but in any case I will proceed with my supplementary question for the same minister. As he pointed out, the Government of Quebec has made it clear that it will seek another referendum

Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act   charges it has to fork out for the present plan. That is a saving of about $29 million a year and clearly there is no comparison whatsoever in the cost. I hope my speech has cleared up what is maybe some honest misconception regarding the plan with members opposite. We know the debate

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995   Quebec's power to determine the future of all the provinces, but the result of a referendum is clear. It is the expression of the will of the people. If the result is affirmative, it means that the majority really wants to separate, and if the result is negative, it means that they want

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995  . However, should we decide not to proceed with any of this, the process continues just as it was before with no amendments whatsoever. This is the incredible journey we have been on in the government's quest to, for reasons that are becoming less and less clear by the day, redo

Firearms Act   was originally brought before the House my constituents were overwhelmingly in favour of its general direction. There has been a shift in public opinion. That shift has been away. The fact of the matter is that no clear consensus now exists for many of the measures in this bill

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act  Mr. Speaker, to assist your ruling, it is clear the hon. member for Calgary Centre wants to speak under this rule. He has no intention of moving any amendment and so in no way does he violate the standing order referred to by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Social Transfer   to national principles. He went on to say it gives the continuing ability to ensure that leverage is exercised; in other words, blackmailing provincial governments. On March 31 the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the budget makes it clear that fewer strings

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995   redistribution. In addition, when the hon. member talks about post-Meech Quebec, one thing is clear to me, and that is that Quebecers want to keep their Quebecois and Canadian identity and it is only within a federal state that both will be possible.

The Budget   that. Those programs are based on clear objectives and values with dollars that are available today. As bad as the Minister of Finance will paint this, these programs are going to look very good by the time we find out what the government really plans to do with social programs

Supply  , and it was not that long ago, Montreal was the major city in Canada. Today that is not true; it is Toronto. A lot of that is thanks to these developments that have occurred in the province of Quebec and this particular separatist debate. I should be clear that in no way excuses the lack of action

Province Of Quebec   that it is the intention of the federal government to put its own question to the people of Quebec and to the people of Canada on the clear question of separation?