Debates of Feb. 10th, 2000

Division No. 667

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government has just closed off debate for the 59th time. Before we proceed any further, the public needs to know what the government is doing to its opposition.

Thanks to our new procedural book, which I thank the clerks for putting together as I think it is truly a masterpiece, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 563 by Marleau and Montpetit which says:

While the term “time allocation” connotes ideas of time management more than it does closure, a motion to allocate time may be used as a guillotine by the government.

They got it right. While the government House leader tries to convince us otherwise, we all know—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair provided a fair amount of time for the member for Athabasca to make his point of order because he had the wisdom to introduce his point of order in referring to the new book on procedure as a masterpiece. How could I interfere?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will also compliment the table and the authors of this new book, which will, I am sure, give all members of the House and all Canadians a greater understanding of procedure.

My point of order refers to the legislation on which we have just seen the debate slammed shut. This legislation is supposed to be so important to the country that the Prime Minister seeks to foist it on the country.

We have just debated legislation over the past number of hours and on one previous occasion in the House that was, in essence, changed by a recent amendment by the Bloc. We all know the Bloc's intention is to remove the legislation for a separatist cause.

There has been no opportunity to debate an amendment brought forward by a federalist party, the Progressive Conservative Party. I seek unanimous consent to move an amendment from a federalist party so that we can debate this in a way that Canadians will understand that this legislation has nothing to do with clarity. It is about furthering the separatist cause.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am not sure if that should be taken as part of the time for debate. It is certainly not a point of order.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has the right as a member to move a motion and request unanimous consent at any time. We will move the motion formally.

Does the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw to your attention two points of order. I refer you to Erskine May, 22nd edition—on the same point as the other day, but never mind that—page 498.

Essentially, this deals with the title of a bill and the corollary that should be found in the contents of the bill. I will read it, and please excuse my accent, because it is in English. There is no French edition.

The title of the bill must correspond with the notice of presentation, or the order of leave, and the bill itself must be prepared pursuant to the order of leave or resolution and in proper form. If it should appear that these rules have not been observed, the bill cannot be proceeded with, if the irregularity is in any way substantial. Where the title of the bill as presented to the House refers to purposes which are found not to be mentioned in the clauses of the bill submitted for publication, the proper course is to withdraw the original bill and present a new one with an appropriate long title.

The title of the bill refers to the secession of Quebec, but the word “Quebec” does not appear in the body of the bill. There is reference to clarity, but according to the Supreme Court, there is no element of clarity.

I would also like to point out, also in Erskine May, 22nd edition, on page 46, under “Form of a bill”, something that is important and ought to be taken into consideration. It is very important.

A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and when first printed should therefore be consistent with existing law—

—les lois existantes en vigueur au Canada—

—or contain such amendments or repeals as are necessary to render it capable of implementation.

In Bill C-20, the government has even restated that there is no legislation in Canada allowing a province to secede, nothing in the existing legislation of Canada nor in the Canadian constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, through you, that this bill be withdrawn. It is contrary to the rules established by this House, the statutes of this country and the Constitution of this country.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to both points raised by the hon. member. On his first point, he said that he wants to introduce a reasoned amendment to amend the bill. An amendment to be introduced while we are at second reading is a reasoned amendment.

Having settled that and to prove my point, someone no less than a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, otherwise known as the member for opposition gallery southeast, has written to the Prime Minister on this very topic referring to this as a reasoned amendment.

We cannot, by way of a reasoned amendment, amend a bill. A reasoned amendment does not amend anything except the motion of a bill not the bill itself. That has to be done either in committee or at report stage. Therefore, the amendment that the hon. member is referring to is impossible under the rules.

I will cite our new procedural manual, which is now being referred to as the M and M. It states that a reasoned amendment, another type of amendment that may be moved at second reading, allows a member to state the reasons why he or she opposes the second reading of the bill. In other words, we cannot amend a bill by doing this, we can only oppose it.

I think that disposes of the first issue because we cannot amend a bill by way of an amendment at second reading. An amendment at second reading is a reasoned amendment, the effect of which is only to oppose a bill.

On the issue of the title of Bill C-20 in reference to Erskine May, the hon. member across refers to page 461. The citation states “A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and when first printed—”. It only becomes a statute once it has received royal assent and then it needs proclamation by His Excellency pursuant to an order in council, unless it is in the bill, in order to become law. It goes on to say it should “be consistent with existing law or contain such amendments—as are necessary—”.

The reference here is that if we have a bill that amends an existing law it must state in it which existing law it amends. Therefore, if we did not have that, there would be no way of reconciling the bill with the statute to which it will be later appended. As it pertains to a bill creating new law as opposed to amending existing list, this of course does not apply.

In reference to how the title itself works, this is an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity, which is self-evident, and the reference to Quebec secession is the reference of the supreme court. This is to give effect to a supreme court issue and this is the greater explanation of what the supreme court reference is about. That is the reason why it is stated that way. I submit that this bill is perfectly in order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would like to thank hon. members for participating in this and enlightening everyone else, including those of the television audience who are still awake.

We have already dealt with the first part of this in the request for unanimous consent, which was not forthcoming.

The second part of this has to do with the nature of the title and content of the bill. As members know, during clause by clause in committee the title is dealt with and may or may not be amended at the pleasure of the committee, so that would be dealt with in committee.

In the opinion of the Chair, the bill is in order and we will proceed to debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week the Bloc Quebecois, between points of order, the seeking of dozens of unanimous consents and the refusal to extend hours of debate created a clear impression that they are afraid of debating Bill C-20. We will see whether the Bloc members are still afraid of debate today, and I mean democratic debate in this Chamber.

On December 10, 1999 the member for Roberval spoke on this bill. I would like to devote a few minutes to some of his arguments.

The member for Roberval evoked 1982, he made reference to the so-called night of the long knives, and he evoked events about which very few are actually qualified to speak with credibility. One who is qualified is former Prime Minister Trudeau, who writes in “Against The Current”, a book edited by Gérard Pelletier, apropos of the night of the long knives:

During the 1980-82 constitutional exercise, the federal government proposed to cut the Gordian knot by arguing that the sovereignty of Canada ultimately resided neither in the provinces nor in the federal government, but in the Canadian people.

The provincial governments collectively rejected that view, even objecting to the use of the words “the people of Canada” in a preamble to the constitution, and proposing instead a description of Canada as a country made up of “provinces...freely united”, thus returning to the selfsame concept that had prevented patriation in 1927.

In his speech the member for Roberval went on to invoke democracy. He spoke of the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of Quebecers. Evidently he does not see democracy as an inclusive word for all citizens affected within the entire nation where a separation is being proposed. In fact, the sword of Damocles of which he spoke hangs over everybody's head: his, mine and everyone else's.

In his speech the member for Roberval also announced that the responsibility for the clarity of the question rests with Quebec. Such a responsibility was not famously discharged the last time, was it? Actually, it was so badly done that the supreme court, whose declaration was welcomed even by the present premier of Quebec, found it necessary to explicitly stress the importance that such a question in the future be put clearly. Evidently the supreme court was not impressed with the clarity of the question in 1995.

The level of indignation of the member for Roberval, who is otherwise a very likeable fellow, reached stratospheric heights when he said that never again would the members of the Bloc Quebecois allow the federal government to try to take away responsibility from the National Assembly of Quebec. What nonsense. No responsibility has been taken away.

Carefully read the first line of the bill. It states: “An act to give effect to the requirements for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada”. Yes, the Quebec national assembly is referred to in the first paragraph of the preamble, where we find a very important democratic point. It says that there is no right under international law or under the constitution of Canada for the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally. Why is the word unilateral so important? Because any proposal to break up Canada is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens. Hence the importance that the question when asked be free of ambiguity and the answer be supported by a clear majority.

I do not want to cause the member for Roberval a heart attack by saying what in the view of many a clear majority should be, but because the matter is of grave importance to all Canadians a truly democratic approach would be to consult all Canadians from coast to coast. The same should apply to British Columbia, should one day the spectre of separation appear there, or any other province for that matter.

The member for Roberval accuses the federal government of wanting to make sure Quebec cannot “democratically” overcome certain obstacles. I respectfully submit that it is the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois that are actually acting in an anti-democratic fashion. I say so for two reasons.

First, in their view the Quebec nationalists see the referendum question as a provincial matter only, but it is not. It affects the entire nation because it means the amputation of a very important and significant part of the national body. Before an amputation takes place we must consult all parts affected, not just the part to be amputated. This elementary democratic principle has not yet penetrated the collective brains of the Bloc Quebecois.

Second, Canada is a country which consists of aboriginal people, immigrants and their descendants. Let us take one group, the immigrants. I belong to that group. At least five million post-war immigrants have come to this country. Have they come to Ontario? No. Have they come to Quebec? No. Have they come to British Columbia? No. They and I have come to Canada. We have chosen Canada as a whole. We have settled in Canada because we were attracted to Canada, its spaces, mountains, forests, oceans and rolling hills. We became Canadian citizens not by accident of birth but by choice. We can see why it is unconvincing, for a party which claims to be democratic, to become indignant, as in the case of the member for Roberval.

Instead of putting up obstacles, the federal government is acting on behalf of all Canadians, as directed by the Supreme Court.

The Bloc Quebecois is losing touch with reality. Gone are the times of Duplessis. Today's Quebec is highly educated, modern, with tremendous cultural, technical and industrial strength, and of course economic potential. Quebecers understand the advantages of a bilingual Canada which is capable of speaking to the world in two major trading and cultural languages.

It seems to me that the member for Roberval and his colleagues are underestimating Quebecers, their intelligence and their vision of Canada and the world. If Quebecers are still being victimized it is by the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote these words, which I mentioned earlier, and they still apply today:

So it goes that, with myths and delusions, the Quebec nationalist elites falsify history to prove that all Quebec's political failures are someone else's fault: the conquest, the obscurantism of Duplessis' times, slowness to enter the modern age, illiteracy, and all the rest. It is never our leader's fault; it has to be blamed on some ominous plot against us.

There is a message here for the member for Roberval and his colleagues. I urge them to get with it, to enter the 21st century, to take their families to see the Rocky Mountains, the Pacific coast, the Arctic Ocean and the beautiful maritimes. These regions belong to them, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, every square centimetre, in the same way as every square centimetre of Quebec belongs to the other 29,999,000 Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to contain my reaction somewhat. However, the Liberal member who just spoke is essentially saying one thing: he is accusing us of allegedly not wanting to debate the bill.

The fact is, he is the first member of his party to speak after a gag order was imposed to limit second reading today. This is a patent contradiction. What does he have to say on this?

How can he accuse the Bloc Quebecois of shying away from debate when he just voted in favor of time allocation? Incidentally, his party is the only one to have done so. This is undemocratic.

Besides, we in the Bloc Quebecois wish that a parliamentary committee would travel to Quebec and elsewhere to hear what Canadians and Quebecers have to say on this matter.

I would like his opinion, as one who seems to think of himself as a great democrat. It is time for him to prove it by saying “Yes, I agree that a committee should travel to hear people on this. This is highly democratic.” He who spoke in favour of debate should be all for it, since debate is so important.

I also react to hearing over and over speeches like the ones Trudeau used to make. He would say things like “Ours is such a beautiful country, with the Rockies and Atlantic salmon. Why would you want to leave?”

I sincerely hope that we will hear better arguments than those.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously touched a nerve with the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am pleased to answer his question by saying that last Monday, in this House, during the debate on Bill C-20, members of the Bloc Quebecois started rising on points of order, making dozens of requests for unanimous consent of this House to table documents. They even rejected a proposal by a government member to debate Bill C-20 into the evening, all night if necessary. This is on record in the House of Commons Debates .

The Bloc Quebecois members clearly gave me and all those who have been following this debate the impression that they are afraid to have a democratic debate, because they tried by all possible means to interfere and prevent members from speaking—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. There are two minutes left for questions or comments from the member for Chicoutimi, and one minute for a response.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Without any partisanship, Mr. Speaker, I bet this bill will barely live long enough for the committee to complete its consideration of it.

In its advisory opinion, the supreme court stated that all political actors in Canada should be involved in the process: the Senate, provincial legislatures, the national assembly naturally, and aboriginal peoples.

Since all these partners in the Canadian federation should be asked for their views both on the question and on the majority, how are we going to reconcile potential diverging views? The bill does not say a word on the way diverging views should be reconciled. We are left in the dark, because there is nothing in the bill on this.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Chicoutimi, but his question is an hypothetical question, and I do not intend to answer hypothetical questions in the House.

I should finish my earlier remarks by saying that when we debated Bill C-20 on Monday, the Bloc Quebecois resorted to the most ridiculous tactics to slow down the debate. That is the answer I can give.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must advise hon. members that debate will now be limited to 10 minutes, with no questions and comments.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-20, which has become known thus far as the clarity act.

While I believe that many aspects of this bill are important and even sound, I intend to show that referring to any clarity in this bill, as the government has tried to do in recent months, is a profound misnomer.

The central purpose for Bill C-20 is to give effect to the requirement for clarity, as set out in the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. As well, this enactment provides for the House of Commons to determine the clarity of a referendum question on the secession of a province and sets out some of the factors to be considered in making this determination. This has become an important part of this debate, which I will address later in my remarks.

Further on that point, this bill prohibits the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be a part of Canada if the House of Commons determines that the referendum question is not clear. As well, Bill C-20 allows parliament to determine, following the referendum on secession in a province, if a clear majority of the population of the province has clearly expressed a will to cease to be a part of Canada, and sets out the factors to be considered in making its determination.

This bill would enable the Government of Canada to enter into any negotiations with the province in the event that a clear majority of the province's citizens clearly expressed a province's will to secede.

In the event that all the above conditions were satisfied in a yes referendum vote on secession, the bill recognizes that the secession of a province from Canada requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving all provincial governments and the Government of Canada.

The bill recognizes that there is no current provision in the constitution to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that an amendment to the constitution would be required, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least all the governments of all provinces and the Government of Canada.

To summarize, the goal of the so-called clarity act so far is supposedly to provide a clear question in a referendum on a province's secession from Canada and to identify a clear majority in such a referendum. Yet neither of these issues have been clarified by the government in the bill.

Beyond these questions the official opposition, along with Canadians, is wondering why the government has not focused more constructively on plan A, that is to say why the Liberals are stubbornly refusing to make effective changes to the federal system. Canadians really have no idea where the government is coming from nor where it is going within the so-called clarity act.

What is clear to anyone who has witnessed the history of the last five to ten years of this debate is that the Reform Party is the only party that has offered a constructive and a consistent position on how Canada's federation could be renewed. It is unfortunate that this cannot be said about the federal Liberals.

Before I go any further to address the bill in particular, I think it would be instructive for the House to revisit the recent history of this debate. I am sure the House remembers the advice of the Prime Minister leading up to the 1995 referendum on sovereignty. “Don't worry, be happy”, was his favourite slogan. At the same time the official opposition stepped up to the plate trying to advance serious debate about what Canadians should be aware of in the event of a yes side majority.

However, back in 1995 the Reform Party was criticized by many for showing leadership and courage on the issue, and mostly by the members of the current government. Lo and behold it was this government which, in the Prime Minister's own words, has decided to get tough with the separatists. Instead of getting tough the Prime Minister should get smart and start offering real solutions to real problems facing the provinces. Does he not see that his get tough approach in Quebec is only fanning the flames of a dying fire?

Getting back to the 1995 referendum it was the Reform Party that led the debate. While we were trying to enlighten the government on the growing malaise in Quebec, the Prime Minister was repeating his don't worry, be happy mantra. As we all know, his inexplicable inaction almost produced a devastating result in that referendum.

Following the referendum it was again the official opposition which led the debate, turning the focus of the debate away from the negative results from secession into positive nation building efforts by trying to reconstruct the federation.

We introduced the new Canada act which I had the pleasure of debating in Quebec last year with my dear friend from Témiscamingue. The new Canada act offers many solutions that would end the problems of regional alienation within this great nation. I am sure that it will be a matter of time, or at least another five years, until the Liberals decide to adopt our position once again.

Thank goodness Canadians will not have to wait five years. With the creation of the Canadian alliance a few weekends ago it will not be long until the government will be brought to its knees by a government with integrity, a government committed to lower taxes, democratic reform and reforming the federation. The official opposition through the Leader of the Opposition and our critic on intergovernmental affairs, the member for Macleod, has made our position crystal clear on the two parts of the proposed legislation.

First off, what is a clear majority? The official opposition recognizes the rule of 50% plus one and has done so since the process started. It would be shameful and certainly questionable if the government were to change a universally recognized rule at this point. The rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game.

This government's poor administration has dissatisfied Quebecers to the point that they felt they had no choice but to separate from Canada. Since the start of this upheaval the government has caused, the rule of 50% plus one has never been questioned.

It would be a huge mistake and irresponsible if the government were to change its position now. I have also heard the argument that 50% plus one would not be enough to break up the country.

A number of members opposite have also said repeatedly that, within the Reform Party, it takes a two-thirds majority of all members to make significant changes. So they wonder how the Reformers can support the concept of 50% plus one.

If this government wants to follow the Reformers—and I know it does because it is constantly doing it—then it should submit the issue of a clear majority to all Canadians through a national referendum. Why? In the case of our party, it is the grassroots that decided that a two-thirds majority would be required. Unless this government is prepared to ask Canadians whether they want to change the foundation of democracy, a 50% plus one majority must be the rule.

I want to go back to what constitutes a clear question. There are two important issues here. The first one concerns the procedure for drafting the question. The second one has to do with the very substance of that question.

Before discussing these two points, I want to refer to an aspect of the supreme court opinion on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, the supreme court ruled that Canada would have an obligation to negotiate if there were a clear majority on a clear question. Should the yes side win, this bill provides the House of Commons with the necessary basis to debate the question and determine if that question and the outcome of any future referendum on the secession of a province reflects the legitimate and democratic will of the population.

The problem is that I wonder if the government can debate openly and in good faith in this House. Such an exercise would probably prove to be yet another masquerade, another scheme of the sort that the Liberals have become experts at over the past seven years.

This then begs another question. If the Liberals are—

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the debates are so important for the future of Quebec and of Canada, there should at least be a quorum in the House. I note that there are few members across the way.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will check for quorum immediately.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I see that we now have a quorum. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will go through some more points, especially when they refer to the question. This brings me to the important point of the clear question. The official opposition believes that if we get the process right we will also arrive at the right questions.

What is the process to a clear question? I believe there is a common sense approach to getting the process right. I believe that true clarity in a question can only be achieved through a consensus drive approach, which would see the federal government co-operate with the province to write a question. A question cannot and should not in fairness be unilaterally written by either the federal government or a province. Only through a consensus approach will there be a clear question to the satisfaction of both the federal government and the province.

It is important that the government take note of the importance of getting the process right. The government must make the connection between the process and the question. It is in the best interest of both parties to have some consensus on a clear question.

Why do I believe this? Suppose for a moment that the yes side were to win a referendum. In order for this result to be respected, I believe it would be critically important for the rest of the country to have seen the process in both asking and answering the question being carried out in good faith.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not think that we have a quorum. I would like to know whether a government that is imposing a motion—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will check immediately.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I see that we now have a quorum.