Mr. Speaker, at report stage of Bill C-110, I will discuss briefly some of the amendments which have been put forth, including the one in my name. As well I have some general comments about the committee and report stage.
The amendment I have moved today seeks to replace the words "by a majority of the provinces" on line 13 with the words "by two-thirds of the provinces". I suggest this to the government really as a matter of drafting. On looking at the the bill one will see that the bill as it is drafted, particularly with the amendment the government is proposing, is a bit odd.
The bill says that the government will consult and get the consent of a majority of the provinces. Then it lists a formula with the amendment to include British Columbia that would include no fewer than two-thirds of the provinces in any case. The government's own formula would require at least seven provinces to get consent. In any case, the sections of the Constitution Act which the bill refers to require at least two-thirds of the provinces. They require either two-thirds or in some cases unanimity.
It seems to me the term "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 of considerations fairly undefined or wide open.
The second amendment I will also speak to is the one moved by the government itself. This is the amendment to constitute British Columbia as a fifth region. I have said myself in committee and before that five regions are better than four but as I said at second reading, that does not render this bill acceptable. The bill remains fundamentally flawed. It does not give the power of consent to the Canadian people in a national referendum. That is what we have been seeking.
As I said at second reading and in committee, no matter what the regional formula is, as long as it is the provinces in the sense of provincial governments or premiers or legislatures that are being consulted, the fundamental flaw remains that there already exists a formula to do precisely that. The formula in most cases is seven provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of the population. In that sense we have made the case, which I believe the Alberta government will pursue in court, that there are some fairly serious legal problems with delegating this power to the provinces for a second time.
One that I raised in committee to give an example of what I mean is that the provinces now required under the government's own formula would be provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the Canadian population. Clearly in the Constitution Act 1982 that is not the formula the provinces agreed to. They agreed to a formula that would require provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
The government obviously has tried to argue this differently but it is fairly transparent that this does change the intention of the Constitution Act where provincial governments are involved. That is why we oppose it. Although the Motion No. 2 by the government is in and of itself an improvement to the bill, it is an improvement that is not adequate.
I also note that in committee the Reform Party did table its fundamental amendment which is that this consultation would have to occur in all the provinces through a national referendum. I would point out that amendment was rejected by the Liberal government and also by the Bloc Quebecois. I am somewhat perplexed by why the Bloc Quebecois would oppose it. It is the position of the Bloc Quebecois that the people of Quebec should be consulted on their constitutional future. I do not know why they would object to the Parliament of Canada consulting Canadians on a constitutional amendment.
I should also say that we submitted a second amendment in committee regarding protection for the amending formula where it concerns aboriginal peoples. We had taken some advice from a number of the aboriginal leaders who came before the committee. That amendment was also rejected by the committee. My colleague from Crowfoot may discuss some of the implications of that a little later today.
It is fairly apparent that this bill is being rushed through the House. We have the bizarre coincidence of a government which is trying to rush passage of a piece of legislation at almost lightning speed, while at the same time it is proposing major amendments to it. This is the first time I can recall this kind of situation occurring.
I do want to comment on the rush which occurred in committee. The committee insisted on hearing all witnesses within a 48-hour period with no more than 24 hours notice to those witnesses. The names of witnesses who had been submitted included constitutional experts, whom we heard two or three of, aboriginal leaders, members of provincial governments, representatives of intergovernmental affairs departments and in some cases premiers.
We received replies. I am not aware of how, but I know the committee contacted all governments. I am not aware of how specifically they replied, but I will mention that the Government of British Columbia did wish to appear. Mr. Petter wished to address the committee on behalf of the Government of British Columbia. When it became technically not possible for him to do that on the given day because of problems we had with the satellite communication, he was promptly dropped from the list. I would suggest that if we had heard Mr. Petter's testimony, the government could well have known that its concession of a fifth region would not
have been enough to satisfy the Government of British Columbia, but we missed that opportunity.
Also, without quoting the letter, I should add that Mr. Shillington of the Government of Saskatchewan wrote to me to indicate that he had wanted to appear before the committee but simply was unable to in the time constraints that were placed on him. I know that is also true for Mr. Mel Smith who contacted me earlier this week. He is a constitutional expert and former provincial secretary of British Columbia. He had indicated he would like to testify but there was no opportunity.
This is not an extended witness list I am talking about. These are people who either are experts in the field or in the case of governments are affected parties of the legislation itself. They wanted to testify and were refused simply because of the artificial deadline created by the government and by the committee for hearing witnesses. It was a very short deadline with very little time to hear witnesses and very little time to actually notify potential witnesses of the possibility of appearing before the committee.
In the time that remains I want to point out some of the lack of clarity that was in the bill and which was revealed to us in committee. These are things I notice the government has not submitted clarifying amendments on.
First of all, the bill says that no minister of the crown shall propose a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, et cetera, other than through the process of first submitting it to the provinces where there is a five region veto formula.
The term "no minister" is significantly important. This does not exclude the government from sponsoring, backing or putting its weight behind legislation tabled by a government backbencher or even by a parliamentary secretary. In that sense, it is unclear exactly whether the government itself does intend to follow this legislation.
The government assures us it is extremely unlikely that something like that would happen, but my experience has been that when a scenario is allowed and then we are told it is unlikely, it probably means it is likely. That seems to be the way things operate around here.
This second point was the subject of some debate in committee. The bill makes reference to an amendment first having been consented to by the provinces. It was unclear and the government itself was unclear in its intention of whether provinces meant strictly speaking provincial governments, which is what we would have anticipated and what the answers of the Prime Minister in question period seem to have implied, or whether it could actually mean in a sense the people of a province, which is a very different notion.
Neither the minister nor his deputy appeared to rule out legally the meaning of consulting the people, although they did say that it was not a likely occurrence in their view. In fact the Minister of Justice said that it was highly unlikely they would use that interpretation. Furthermore, his deputy minister said that particular interpretation could also be challenged in court. She was not clear how the courts would rule if that meaning of provinces, provinces meaning provincial population, was used by the government. She was not sure whether the courts would allow that interpretation or not. This is very contentious.
It is very unclear in a number of ways what the government is trying to achieve and why we all know it is trying in effect to give a veto to the Government of Quebec over constitutional change and in particular to the future premier. It believes it has a way to trap him in some future scheme.
Unfortunately, as I say, even with the amendments the bill is ill considered. Ultimately the government will end up trapping itself and the people of Canada in what is, if not unconstitutional, a very unwise piece of legislation.