Quebec Contingency Act (Referendum Conditions)   outlines a process for dealing with any future referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. There are three main features of this bill. First, it allows the Government of Canada to determine whether a referendum question in Quebec is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Government

Canada Elections Act   of the options available. That is all I want to say. I want to make it very clear in this atmosphere of unanimity that there are serious reservations about this bill. I want them on the record.

An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel   settlement of their claims for land grants the government might be willing to make. Riel turned to violence only after it became clear that the government would not give him any money. Third, it is often said that taking up arms in the northwest rebellion was the last resort of desperate

Canadian Bill Of Rights  . The second section gives individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a reasonable time period. What I find most surprising in this debate is that it has taken so long for the House to make a clear expression of its support

Referendums   as other governments in the world are becoming concerned about the rule of law in Canada, some in Quebec who call themselves federalists have made it clear that they reject any attempt to defend the rule of law in the courts and to defend Canada's right to self-determination

Quebec   the Quebec population of not just the possible cost but the consequences and possible conditions of their secession. I would point out that our position is not new and is not the result of the referendum campaign. Indeed, we made our position on these issues clear a very long time ago

Supply   are not making reasonable grievances here, but I am not clear that this can be analysed in an isolated case by case context. We all know the airline and aerospace industry has been concentrated in Quebec with not insignificant federal government help in that outcome over the years. I am

Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada   in which the major parties allowed freedom of expression and in which there were dissenters in each of the major political parties. Nevertheless the vote passed in the legislature by a clear majority. As well, there has recently been a unanimous resolution asking the governments

Supply   believe it, that in spite of the separatist movement and its power the majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians. However, if the majority of Quebecers express themselves in a democratic referendum and make it absolutely clear they do not want to be Canadian, it will change

Supply   and on this particular question it is totally irresponsible. Let me make that absolutely clear. The motion states that the House recognize or adopt as its own the statement by the Prime Minister in 1985: "If we do not win, I will respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate". I draw

Benefits  Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is committed to the idea that it is not discrimination to refuse to provide same sex benefits, will he amend the human rights act to make that absolutely clear?

Supply   Quebecois said at the time of the last referendum. There is no right to separate unilaterally, and that is the contract of this country. My party has been very clear in the debate this week about the fact that the rules of the game must be respected, that the rules of this Confederation

Supply   clear for the record that what has happened is that the hon. member for St. John's West has joined with the Bloc Quebecois in not making it possible for there to be a vote on this issue. That is unfortunate. I would like to conclude by making some observations from the point of view

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

Constitutional Amendments Act   "by a majority of the provinces" is absolutely meaningless and actually is a bit misleading. It illustrates one of the problems with the bill. If I have the time I will get to that later. There are several instances where it is clear that the drafting of the bill leaves a number