Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

Supply

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear from the words of the hon. member that he is not supporting the legislation currently in front of the House and that in the context of this debate he urges more time and more witnesses for the committee studying the bill.

I am one of those, and I think my constituents are among those who look back at the last referendum and say that we should look at the grouping that lost the last referendum. The oui side lost the last referendum. Was the question clear at that time? I personally do not think so. It was not a clear question. Did they lose clearly? Well, apparently not. If the oui had actually lost the last referendum clearly, it would not be pursuing the issue now.

The last referendum is a wonderful example of why the supreme court has said that for something as final as a separation of a region of this country from Canada we must have a clear majority and a clear question. When the process is over it has to be absolutely clear to those who have lost what has happened so there will not be a repeating process of referenda that will continue to undermine the entire country ad infinitum.

I would also ask a very short question. If 50% plus one is a majority, what is a clear majority?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is mixing up all sorts of things.

First of all, we would simply tell him that the best proof that sovereignists respected the 1995 referendum verdict is that Quebec is still part of Canada. Since the Government of Quebec was a sovereigntist government at the time and still is, if it had not respected the verdict of the people, it would have subsequently proclaimed Quebec's sovereignty, which it did not do.

It therefore respected the verdict of the people, even though the referendum results were very close.

That having been said, if, as the federalists argue, Quebec were divisible, the very great majority of Quebec's territory would already have been sovereign since 1995. All regions of Quebec, with the exception perhaps of three, the Outaouais, West Montreal and the Beauce, voted very heavily in favour of sovereignty and yet they are not part of an independent country called Quebec today. They are still part of Canada.

However, in 1995, the possibility of constitutional amendments was held out to the people of Quebec and a small majority was once again misled into voting no. They voted no, probably hoping that the Prime Minister's empty promises would result in a renewed federalism. Once again, as it did 1980, the federal government reneged on these promises.

As a result, since the promises made to Quebecers in 1995 were not kept, we are fully entitled to again ask ourselves whether we wish to belong to this country.

I would say to my hon. colleague that the reason I am still promoting Quebec's sovereignty is because in 1997 Quebecers gave me and my 43 Bloc Quebecois colleagues a renewed mandate not only to defend their interests but also to promote Quebec's sovereignty here in the House of Commons.

That is what I am going to continue to do because it is why my constituents sent me here.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to be here today speaking to this motion. I have been in the House since 1993. Prior to that I spent five years in the Manitoba legislature in opposition, so I have some sympathy for some of the concerns raised by the opposition.

When the member for Winnipeg—Transcona representing the New Democratic Party raises concerns about the use of time allocation to get the bill into committee, the use of restricting debate in an attempt to get the bill dealt with by the government, I have some sympathy with that. I have a fear at times that we move in ways that make it difficult for the House to give bills the consideration they deserve.

When I listen to what I hear coming from the New Democratic Party, the member in discussion with the minister last night raised some very legitimate concerns which I think the minister will think about. He raised some questions which I think we have to answer. That is what this process is for. That is why we have this kind of examination. It is to hear testimony, to listen to expert opinion, and to challenge each other about what we are trying to create so that we create a better piece of legislation.

I hear the Reform talk about it and the critic for the Reform raise concern about a majority of 50% plus one. It is a very important question. I appreciate his constant pressuring us to think about it. If we are not clear on how we feel about important issues as we approach this very important topic, we will simply do a disservice to everybody that we represent, no matter who we are in the House.

When I hear from the Progressive Conservative Party I feel a little saddened to see that once great national party take the kind of positions that it does and play the kind of divisive game it has chosen to play on this piece of legislation. Frankly, I have tried hard to understand the position of its leader, and I do not. I have considered the arguments very carefully. I know he will come before committee and I will undertake to listen to what he has to say.

When Bloc members stand in the House and talk about democracy, and when they talk about this being an affront to the people of Quebec because we are not being democratic in the way that we approach this bill, I reject that absolutely. I think the Bloc is exactly the wrong party in the House to lecture anybody in Canada about democracy.

What we are trying to do with this bill—and I thought it was talked about very eloquently today by the witnesses who came before the committee—is create a structure around the most important set of discussions our country could have. We are trying to put in place not the decision, not the end point, but the structure within which we have the discussion, something that is extremely difficult to do, to talk about the breakup of our country. Do we not owe it to all the people we represent, no matter where they live in Canada, to put in place a mechanism for having that discussion that allows us to do it in a peaceful and sane manner? We should not simply build upon the little nuances of the argument or inflame the debate for the sake of running up a motion so maybe we can get a decision. Does it not make sense, if we are going to approach such a discussion, that we do it in a way that will not cause more harm to those people to whom we are responsible? That is what the bill is about.

The bill has three clauses. The only thing one of the clauses says is “let us be clear”. If we want to talk about breaking up the country then let us ask the people if they want to break up the country, yes or no. Let us not play with it. Let us not run up motions.

For all the talk about democracy over here, it was the leader of that party who said “Why do we talk about partnership? Because we know that partnership represents seven to eight percentage points more support than the population. Therefore, we must think twice about clarifying the option. So what we will do is keep the options muddy. We will make sure people do not quite understand what they are getting in the vain hopes that they will vote for it”. Is that the way to go into this kind of decision? Does that produce the kind of environment that allows us to actually have this discussion? Does that represent honesty? Does that represent democracy?

I heard a statement which said that the minister was insulting Quebecers because he thought that the result was not clear and that was why we needed some clarity in this. The current premier of Quebec said that they had deliberately made it unclear in order to gain more support. Those are not my words, those are the words of the current premier of Quebec, the former leader of this party. I just do not think that the Bloc has the right to come in here and lecture anybody else in the House about democracy.

On the question of the percentage, I am thinking specifically of some of the questions that the member from the Reform Party raised. We all have this kind of instinctive sense that 50 plus one makes sense. It gives us one of those comfortable kinds of feelings. However, when we think about this, when we get away from the theatre of this place and away from the charged up atmosphere we get in here under the cameras and all the fighting and debating, which is all very exciting, we must come down to the point where we actually sit down and talk about taking apart the country. Do we not want to be certain that is the will of the people and not a momentary passion?

I think Professor Lebel was very helpful today. He certainly was very helpful to me as he walked through some of that trying to clarify it and trying to make debate real, not in terms of the debate that happens here but the debate that would happen if we were to ever reach that point around a series of tables with the entire population looking on. He said that before we go there, do we not want to be absolutely certain that is where we want to be. We have to be clear but we also have to be sure, and 50% plus one is just too narrow.

My friend, the parliamentary secretary to House leader, asked the obvious question. At the time that the supreme court released its decision, I was here and I went through it very carefully. I heard the Bloc saying that it was great and that it was a good decision by the supreme court. The supreme court said that there has to be a clear majority. If 50% plus one is not a clear majority, my friend asked, then what is an unclear majority? The supreme court clearly differentiated between one kind of a majority and another kind of majority. There is not a lot of room between 50% plus one and 50%.

There is another thing that causes me great conflict. I am from the west and I have not lived this issue the way some have. As a Canadian I have, because it has been a recurring theme throughout my adult life, but I have not lived it, in fairness to the members from Quebec, the way a Quebecer has.

When I came here in 1993, one of the first things I did was to meet up with the hon. member for Québec East in the gym. He taught at the University of Manitoba. He is a member of the Bloc and was the agriculture critic. I had been here for about a week when I met him and I said to him “Help me to understand this. Tell me what is going on”. He recommended a book, which I read. The hon. member for Mercier actually wrote a book and I got her book because I wanted to understand why, when Canada is such an incredible country, that someone would want to smash it apart.

I travel every summer and every chance I get I am in Quebec. I work with members of the Bloc on policy committees, on human resources and on foreign affairs and it is terrific. Those members make valuable contributions. When we talk about virtually every policy that we deal with, I find I often feel a lot more simpatico with members of the Bloc than, dare I say, with some of my companions from the west in the Reform Party, until we come to this question of breaking up the country. I do not see what we would gain or what the people we represent would gain by doing that. I certainly do not see what any of us would gain if we do it in an atmosphere of confusion.

[Dennis Gruending, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I want to say that the New Democratic Party supports Bill C-20, the referendum bill, in principle. I believe people in my riding want us to support the bill if the Liberal government will improve it somewhat. It is very important that the Parliament of Canada has something to say in the event that a province decides to secede.

My question for the hon. member revolves around the committee and its hearings which are supposed to elucidate the whole debate around how the bill might be improved.

I believe the hon. member and some of his colleagues not that long ago toured western Canada to decide how the Liberal government might best improve its fortunes there, although I think that is unlikely. In that case it was important to travel. However, we are now hearing that it is completely adequate to simply have television. In other words, people can watch but they cannot participate before the committee. Justifications were given for that today but I do not agree with them.

Given the member's experience travelling in western Canada with the Liberal committee, does he believe that this committee should travel?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. I have been in opposition in the prairie legislature and I have been here since 1993. I have travelled extensively on some committees and not on others. The hon. member is new in this place. He needs to spend a little time watching how this place operates.

The reality is that we will consult broadly. The minister has been consulting very broadly. What we have said is that we will not bring forward all the witnesses. What we are saying to the New Democratic Party and every party in the House is that they can bring any witnesses they want before the committee and we will listen to all their opinions. We are not closing the door on that.

What we have is a party over there that has said, from the day the bill came in, that the debate does not matter. It does not matter how sincere the member from Winnipeg—Birds Hill is when he comes forward and raises his standard concern with us. It does not matter what is talked about because the Bloc members want to kill it. This is theatre. It is not work. We want to work and I know the member from Birds Hill wants to work.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand what my colleague is saying, he would like Quebecers to be asked a question based on his perception of what we want to do, whereas we want to ask a question based on the perception Quebecers have of what we want to do.

He would like a question based on a negative perception, whereas we want a question based on a positive perception. We want Quebec to be built, we want Canada to be built. We do not want Canada to fall apart, we do not want Quebec to fall apart. This is what is happening while we are living together.

We want a positive position, this is the way we want the question to be asked. We have been explaining it to Quebecers for 30 years now and I believe they understand.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the member's answer lies in the words of his former leader. If he wants that kind of honesty and open discussion, then why does he say that we framed the question this way because we know that more of the population will vote for it than if we framed it another way.

If at the end of the day the question is the separation of the country, what is the problem with clarity? What is the problem with saying “that is what we want”. If that is what he wants then he does not need to be playing games with the question. The intention of the question, in the words of his own former leader, was to confuse.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to clarity. In reality, when one looks at the bill there is very little that is clear. It is very confusing for Canadians. It is so confusing that last night in committee his minister did not know that the territories, in terms of their having a say, were included in this. The political actors are not clear. The input from aboriginal peoples is not clear. The boundary disputes that could erupt are not clear.

I ask the hon. member to comment on that and give us a direct comment, not the vitriol and the bombast about that party over there siding with the separatists. We are a federalist party. We have always been a plan A party. We have worked very hard, much to the dismay of the hon. member, Mr. McKenna and others, including the Prime Minister who torpedoed attempts to bring Quebec into the federation and try to improve the way the federation worked.

The bill is not about clarity, it is about political advantage. It is about bolstering the Bloc and the Reform Party. What does the hon. member have to say about the real intention of the bill?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the irony of this party lecturing anybody on clarity on this particular issue is not lost on anybody in the House. “Exactly what is the policy on that? I am not quite sure what it is”. It depends, of course, on which member we ask and on which day of the week.

Let me quote the former leader of that party, who is now the leader of the opposition in Quebec, who said: “the Quebec government's strategy has less to do with having the national assembly speak with one voice than with reviving the sovereignty thrust of the party in power”, which is trying to manufacture a crisis so that it can call a referendum. That is what that party is supporting.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to make a few brief comments on the motion before us. I will then deal with the substance of the bill and its intent.

The Bloc members believe the bill is useless and even bad for democracy in Quebec. I believe on the contrary that it is consistent with the democratic tradition both in Quebec and Canada.

In his motion, the Bloc leader thinks, as he said himself, that it is imperative for the legislative committee on Bill C-20 to hold hearings in all regions of Quebec and Canada so as to hear as many witnesses having an interest in the bill as possible. He also demands that the hearings be broadcast and that the committee be given sufficient resources to hold such hearings, all in accordance with the rules and practices of the House.

I am sceptical as to the real meaning of this motion, which is obviously a veiled attempt at partisan politics. The list of witnesses that have already been invited to appear before the committee shows that they are Canadians from all walks of life who want to express their views on a bill aimed at ensuring a clear and straightforward referendum process.

What is the real reason the Bloc Quebecois is asking for such measures? I know the only reason is to try to win the support of Quebecers and other Canadians. The Bloc Quebecois wants to delay the process as much as it can, hoping the public will strongly oppose the bill. From the very beginning, the Bloc laid its cards on the table and showed that it intended to delay the adoption of the bill as long as possible. That is the real purpose of this motion. In these circumstances, one can easily understand that our government cannot support such a motion.

Now, let us look at the bill itself and its purpose. The purpose of the bill that was introduced is, and I quote, “to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference”. And if there is word on which the court insists, it is certainly the word clarity.

Clarity is the basis of any democratic process. People must be able to understand the impact and the consequences of their action when they express their will. As for governments, they must be sure of the mandate given to them. Therefore, it is important that the issues at stake in a referendum be clear to everyone.

As the court reminded us, it is the role of political actors to ensure this requirement for clarity is met.

We are being criticized for allegedly interfering in the referendum process of the PQ government. On this side of the House, we far prefer no referendum be held since this sort of debate simply sets people against one another.

However, the PQ government keeps repeating, through Premier Bouchard and the minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Joseph Facal, that such a referendum will be held during the present term. Mr. Facal, my colleague in Laval, was very clear in his remarks, and I quote:

In my mind, there is positively no doubt. I work every day and with every ounce of energy to have the winning referendum on sovereignty held in this term.

Accordingly, if a referendum on sovereignty were to be held, we think the question to be asked must be clear and that Canada cannot be broken up without a clear majority of the people of a province choosing secession, expressing clearly its desire for the province to cease being a part of Canada. This is self-evident.

I would like to spend a little time on the need for a clear question. If the justices of the supreme court insisted on this so much, they had a reason for doing so. They understood that the break-up of a democratic country is a matter of the utmost gravity, as the bill states, that a country must not be broken up in confusion. The vote must faithfully reflect the will of the voters to have their province cease to be a part of Canada.

I would like to read the following question:

The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad—in other words, sovereignty—and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms,—

And here comes the question, at last.

—do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?

All of my colleagues will recognize that as the 1980 referendum question. I do not believe that everyone will acknowledge that it was very clear.

As for the 1995 question, it read as follows:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

That one was the question with the partnership project, which Mr. Bouchard was later to describe as a skeleton.

As in 1980, the 1995 question was not clear, and there is one very convincing way to prove it.

A poll carried out just before the October 30, 1995 referendum indicated that 80% of Quebecers proposing to vote yes believed that, if the yes side were to win, Quebec would continue to use the Canadian dollar; close to 80% believed that economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged; 50% believed that they would continue to use Canada passports; and 25% believed that Quebec would continue to elect members of the Canadian Parliament. Moreover, another poll informed us that nearly one backer of the yes in five believed that a sovereign Quebec could remain a province of Canada.

So much for the truth on the so-called clarity of the 1995 question. Let me remind those who might still not be convinced of the ambiguity of that referendum process of a statement made by Jacques Parizeau in an open letter published last year in the daily Le Devoir . Mr. Parizeau wrote:

We have often been told that the 1995 question was not clear. It is true, as I often pointed out, that the question I would have wanted to ask was: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign (or independent) country as of—?

One wonders why Mr. Parizeau did not want to be so direct when he was Premier of Quebec and leader of the yes side. But this is not an issue I want to discuss today.

However, Mr. Parizeau's successor provided us with an interesting element of answer. On October 19, Lucien Bouchard suggested that the notion of partnership was supported by 7% or 8% more people and that, therefore, one should think twice before taking a more radical stance. They are not being honest and direct when they play with words like that in order to get Quebecers to agree to achieve independence, which they have not agreed to twice already.

Our government has a duty not to undertake any negotiations that might lead to the separation of a province, unless the voters of that province clearly and democratically state that they want their province to secede from Canada.

The separatists usually refute our objections regarding the lack of clarity of the referendum questions by saying that we think Quebecers are unable to understand what is at stake. This is a rather dramatic display of cynicism and contempt. Let me simply say, in response to that groundless accusation, that it is because we respect Quebecers and the citizens of all the provinces that we want to ensure that any referendum question put to them is clear and void of any ambiguity.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I am opposed to the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois leader.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about the referendum question and about Mr. Parizeau, she is insulting me and she is insulting the people of Quebec. If somebody has ever been clear in his life, it is Mr. Parizeau. And I pay tribute to him.

Getting back to the 1980 question, Mr. Trudeau, then Prime Minister of Canada, had told Mr. Chrétien a week earlier “If we win the referendum, it is fine. If we loose, I will ask all the ministers from Quebec to resign”. That is what Trudeau said one week before the referendum. This means that, for him, the question was very clear.

Now they want to subdue Quebec. Once again, they want to quash us. My colleague talks about clarity; I want to ask her a question and I hope that she can answer very clearly.

Will she recognize a result of 50% plus one? Because this is how it works in a democracy. If she is not prepared to recognize 50% plus one, what would be the required percentage then?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.

First of all, I will answer a question that he did not ask, but that is still a question for me. He said he was insulted by the comments I made about Mr. Parizeau. In reply to that, I say that I was only quoting the exact words the former Quebec Premier had used, as reported in Le Devoir .

If the hon. member is so insulted by what the former Prime Minister of Canada, I would ask him this: Why did the Parti Quebecois ask for Mr. Parizeau's resignation immediately following the referendum? Because Mr. Parizeau had insulted Quebecers.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question. Let us say, for the sake of it, that Quebec holds another referendum with a clear question, and with a clear majority Quebec wins. Then we would have to go through secession.

Who would negotiate for Canada? Before the members stands, I want to remind her of something. The Prime Minister, at least 10 of his cabinet ministers and all of the MPs who come from Quebec, under the Geneva Convention, the United Nations and international law are not bound by law to negotiate for Canada.

Who would negotiate for Canada then?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. First of all, I apologize for answering in French, but it is my mother tongue. I can express myself much better in French.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since when do we have to apologize for speaking French in this House? How totally colonized.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may say what she wants.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer the question. It is because I respect both official languages, and my hon. colleague spoke to me in the other official language, and I feel I have a responsibility, in order to respect both languages, to answer him in his language. Sadly, I do not speak that language well enough.

That being said, let us come back to the question. My hon. colleague asked the question “If Quebec wins”. For my part, I say that, in 1995, when Quebecers said that they wanted to stay within the Canadian Confederation, Quebec won. That is what happens when Quebec wins.

Now, I would like to answer the first question of my hon. colleague on figures. I would like to mention Quebec's caisses populaires.

Nothing is more important for Quebecers, men and women, than the caisses populaires. It is a success story for Quebec. The caisses populaires, which are now merging need, in order to merge, not 50% plus one, but 65% and more.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Who will negotiate?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

This is further evidence of the fact that even among Quebecers, in all activities, 50% plus one is unacceptable.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with my colleague for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

First, I would like to read the motion proposed today by the Bloc Quebecois. This motion says—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We can hardly hear the hon. member who has the floor. I hope that all the members will remain quiet during the speech by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, to whom I am giving the floor once again.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This motion says:

That this House instruct the Legislative Committee on Bill C-20, 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, to hold public hearings in all regions of Quebec and Canada so as to hear as many witnesses having an interest in the Bill as possible, that the hearings be broadcast and that the Committee be given sufficient resources to hold such hearings, all in accordance with the rules and practices of the House.

Contrary to Bill C-20, the motion proposed by the Bloc today is very clear.

I would like to talk about some of the comments we heard earlier from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister. He spoke quite eloquently and quite passionately about his concern about what the law addressed when it came to pulling the country apart. He felt that his party was standing in the House defending democracy, while the Bloc on the other hand was not, and in the process of dealing with this law was adding clarity to something he felt was very important.

However on reading this motion it seems that the Bloc is very concerned about pushing ahead with the idea of democracy in the House and extending it to a very important part of the committee procedure of the House of Commons.

One of the fears many of us have had in dealing with this important legislation, as my hon. colleague mentioned, is that we are not giving enough time to deal with an issue that affects all of us in Canada, no matter what the result would be of a potential referendum to secede from the country.

Dealing with the issue does not only apply to one region. My colleagues in the Bloc have said that as well. If the law sets a precedent we know that in the future there could be other regions of the country that may well go through the same process of referendums to secede from the country. I hope not, but in the event that it happens we need to hear from Canadians across the country about what they might feel should be added to the law or what they might feel is missing from the law.

How can we get as many Canadians as possible involved in this issue which, as my colleague mentioned, is one of the most important issues that we face in the country? In speaking passionately about the hon. member's feelings for democracy and about democracy in this place, I was very shocked to hear him disagree with the motion and say that the committee should not be allowed to travel.

I sat on the committee with two of my colleagues in the official opposition. So far we have unfortunately seen a very disorganized committee. We have seen the committee propose to hear from 45 witnesses in the span of a week. Because of the time allowed to notify the witnesses to come to Ottawa, some of them will not have a chance to make it. How is that participation in democracy? How is that including Canadians from across the country?

If the hon. member were serious about his comments on democracy and serious about his love for this country, he would not be scared to have Canadians from coast to coast join in debating a particular law as I aforementioned that is of paramount importance to almost all Canadians. This is the irony of the government.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary his belief in democracy and his commitment to democracy. We have seen in the House the most time allocation motions put forward by any government in our history. We have had restrictions on debate. We have had restrictions on trying to allow democracy to unfold in the country. The government is at the root of the problem.

The parliamentary secretary flatly rejects the idea of putting forward a simple motion on an issue that is so important to Canadians, that of giving the committee the ability to travel and hear from Canadians across the country. Where is his commitment to democracy?

As members know, the root of the motion today comes from Bill C-20 which is supposed to add clarity to the idea of a question being formed on the issue of a referendum but also clarity surrounding majority as it pertains to a referendum. When I talk to my colleagues across the country I know many of them feel they would like to see some issues addressed in the bill that have not been addressed thus far.

We have continuously raised one of these issues. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, correctly pointed out that the official opposition wants to know what will constitute a clear majority in the bill. We have proposed our solution. We have discussed the idea of 50 plus one, a standard in democracy that is accepted around the world in other modern democracies. We know there are some concerns in that regard.

We would like the government to make clear where it plans to go on the important question of what it will respect in the event of a referendum vote. Will it change the bar halfway through the game? Will it alienate various Canadians in the process of making a decision on whether they want to stay in this country? These are important questions to which we still have no answers. There is not the clarity we would like to see in this bill.

As my hon. colleague from Macleod has said, we support the bill in principle. The Reform Party has been calling for clarity surrounding this issue far longer than the government. We would like to see these things outlined clearly. We hope the committee process will be able to deal with some amendments to the bill.

[An hon. member]

What committee?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Exactly. As my colleague from the Bloc has just said, what committee?

We will rush through this procedure. There has not been a time restriction put on the committee as yet, but half the 45 witnesses scheduled have not appeared. I am hoping the rest will be given the time allowed to come here. How are we to deal with the issue seriously? How are we to include the amendments to the bill required to make it satisfactory to the rest of Canadians?

I stress once again that if the committee were allowed to travel as the Bloc is proposing, if it were allowed to go to different parts of the country, we would get a different view from Canadians of what they would like to see the government show in the area of leadership when it comes to national unity.

I know the government is afraid to start discussing these options because it has shown no leadership when it comes to vision, when it comes to how to make the country work better. We in the official opposition have talked about it quite clearly. We have put forward what we feel Canada should do in order to make it work better. Our proposals have been outlined in the new Canada Act. We are not afraid to talk about this and put forward positive solutions to make this federation work better.

It seems to me that the government is satisfied with status quo federalism which most Canadians have rejected time and time again. Canadians want more from their government. They want leadership. They want to see their country put aside alienation and differences and build on the strengths of diversity, the strengths the official opposition has outlined in the new Canada Act on how we can make our federation work better.

Travelling across the country as I try to do I hear from Canadians. I hear they would like to see more leadership from the government. That leadership could start with democracy in this place and democracy at the committee level.

From the motion put forward by the Bloc today, I hope the government will take seriously the idea of democracy in the committee, the idea of Canadians from across the country taking part in such an important issue, and give the opportunity for the committee to do its work in a pertinent fashion.

I will leave those comments with the government. If as the parliamentary secretary said it is committed to democracy, I hope it will consider them. We on the opposition side support the effort to try to make the work of the committee more democratic.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Let us see what we can do. The purpose of this place is to debate ideas. The purpose of this process is to try to come to a common understanding of how we might build better legislation.

The member raised the question that his party raised. Is 50 plus one a sufficient majority on which to make this decision? Three witnesses came before committee this morning, not the minister but constitutional experts from universities in Quebec, who argued very eloquently on that question. The member was there and listened to the arguments put forward on why 50 plus one was not enough. Is the member able to hear that, or does he feel he must support the first position put forward by his party?