Debates of Feb. 10th, 2000

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I now see a quorum. We may resume debate.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I have to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, a bill designed to promote the breakup of Canada. We have much more serious problems.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Yes, Joe Clark.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way made a speech earlier and I listened intently even though I was not in agreement with what he was saying. I would like him to offer me the same courtesy.

We have much more serious problems, such as child poverty, health care, the fisheries crisis on the east coast and many other issues that this intellectually bankrupt government is ignoring by putting up this smoke screen called the clarity bill.

Since the beginning of Confederation, every one of our distinguished prime ministers, whether Liberal or Conservative, all worked very hard to strengthen and improve the Canadian union.

Every one of these great individuals managed to understand that Canadian unity must prevail over everything else. Of course, there have been many difficulties, but thanks to their tenacity and that of the Canadian people, those difficulties were overcome.

Bill C-20 is nothing but an insult to all Canadians who devoted themselves to making Canada the best country in the world. For the first time in our history, a Canadian government has introduced a bill describing how a province can separate from Canada.

Would it be that this Liberal government is more interested in finding ways to break up than to strengthen the union?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to call for a quorum. I find it improper that this government, which says that this bill is the most important—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis knows very well that the rules do not allow us to mention the absence of members of the House, and the Speaker must always apply the standing orders in that regard.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is currently no provision in our Canadian constitution for the separation of a province from the rest of Canada but for the first time in history this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps toward secession.

Our Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with this unity bill. Not only is he taking a very confrontational approach with the people of Quebec, he is also encouraging the rest of the Canada to take a similar stand.

If one of the reasons the people of Quebec wanted to separate in the first place was because they felt alienated by the rest of Canada, this clarity bill will certainly add to their sense of frustration and isolation.

Like many Canadians, I keep asking myself why the Prime Minister would introduce a clarity bill at this time when support for separatism in Quebec is dwindling. When the Quebec economy is struggling and support for Premier Bouchard is on the decline, when Quebecers are concerned about the economy and the Quebec government is struggling to find solutions, what does our Prime Minister do? He purposely decides to antagonize the people of Quebec. He graciously gives Premier Bouchard an issue that will deflect—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems we are the only members in this House listening to the hon. member's speech. Out of respect for our colleagues who have a few things to say, I think it would be appropriate if we were all here or, at the very least, if there was a minimum number of members in the House. Therefore I ask you to check to see if we have a quorum.

And the count having teen taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member for West Nova.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to keep one's train of thought when one keeps being interrupted.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

It is okay, you are reading a speech. It is easy to read a speech.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I have a point of view and I wish my friend would respect it.

What does the Prime Minister do? He purposely decides to antagonize the people of Quebec. He graciously gives Premier Bouchard an issue that will deflect attention away from the economy.

The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear question should Quebec decide to hold another referendum. That is his excuse for introducing Bill C-20.

Is there anyone in this House who can explain, or even better, show the clarity in this bill? The Prime Minister says that a 50% plus one majority is not enough to destroy our country. I ask him what is a sufficient majority. Is it 65%, 75%, 80%? Who knows? Who can answer this question?

Is the Prime Minster afraid to indicate a percentage to Quebecers? Is he afraid of their reaction? If the answer to this question is yes, why did he introduce this bill?

I certainly do not oppose the need for a clear question. Quebecers and all Canadians deserve a clear understanding of the consequences associated with separation. However, we must continue to focus our undying attention on uniting all Canadians rather than focusing on ways of dividing us as a nation.

Yesterday in question period, our Prime Minister was responding to a question put forth by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, when he said “We hope that the bill will be passed as quickly as possible because it is not a major concern of the public right now. The public wants us to address other problems, such as job creation, health, tax relief, things of interest to Quebecers and the rest of Canadians”.

Truer words were never spoken. If the Prime Minister really believed what he said in question period, why on earth did he introduce Bill C-20 in the first place? The Prime Minister himself said that we have much more serious problems in the country than the need for a clarity bill. What about the crisis in health care, the farm crisis or the crisis in the Atlantic Fishery? What about child poverty, homelessness, the crisis in education and the huge student loan debt? What about the crisis in the Human Resources Development Department?

The only reason the Prime Minister introduced the clarity bill is because he is somehow looking for some kind of an achievement that he can leave behind as his legacy.

From the serious problems I have just mentioned, the Prime Minister will have a legacy. He will be known for leading Canadians into one crisis after another.

Our Prime Minister himself admits that we have much more urgent problems than Bill C-20. Why then are we spending so much energy on Bill C-20 when the health system in Canada is on the brink of disaster?

Do we think a sick person whose case is a medical emergency and who cannot find a doctor cares about Bill C-20? Do we really think our children who suffer and live in poverty care about Bill C-20?

Do we think the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada who are at risk of losing their livelihood care about Bill C-20? Do we think the western farmers who are at risk of losing their farms care about Bill C-20?

I am positive the answer to all those questions is no.

When I was reading this piece of legislation and thinking about what it means, I had difficulty believing that I was in Canada, this great country that we all work and strive to keep strong and make better. I just cannot imagine that we are dealing with this piece of legislation when we have so many other more serious and pressing issues to deal with. When is the government going to start focusing its attention on the real problems facing the country?

Let us go back for a moment and focus our attention on the question of clarity. The bill is supposed to clarify the rules in the event of another referendum, but what exactly does it clarify? We have already said that it fails to define what constitutes a clear majority. Bill C-20 does not even come close to defining what a clear question would be. What would happen if a province were to secure a clear majority in support of a question not approved by the House of Commons? Does anyone know?

These are but a few of the many questions that the so-called clarity bill fails to answer.

As I said before, Bill C-20 is a very dangerous bill, which threatens the future of our country. I am against it and I invite all members in this House to vote against it.

Let us work together to strengthen our country, not destroy it.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of issues surrounding this debate that I, and probably many of my constituents, find somewhat puzzling.

The first issue was made by the speaker representing the Tory Party who just spoke. Many people in Ontario and in my community are asking why Joe Clark is opposed to this and why the Tory Party is divided on this particular issue.

If we take a look at this historically, we should ask ourselves why Brian Mulroney invited into his bed—

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have important things to say about Bill C-20 and there will be a very important vote on it later this afternoon. If Liberal members are interested in knowing what we have to say, if they are serious, I would ask them to help maintain the quorum and be present in this House.

I ask you to check that we have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

We have a quorum.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep some kind of flow. It might be difficult if this is the game we are going to be subjected to all afternoon. Members know full well that members are busy in committees and in meetings doing the work they were sent to Ottawa to do. A member's job is not just to sit in this place and participate by listening to a speech. As we all know, these speeches are available in Hansard . It is available electronically as it is occurring and we know that.

Tactics which simply waste the time of the House by continually calling quorum are silly. They do a disservice to the Canadian people and the people of Quebec who want to know what other parliamentarians from around the country think about the bill. I would hope members opposite would allow all members in this place to at least finish their speeches so there is a flow to their comments.

I was making the point that historically it is easy to understand why the Bloc members are against the bill. It is what they are dedicated to and there is no puzzle there.

It is difficult to understand what the problem is with the Conservative Party. But if we look back in history, we realize the deal Prime Minister Mulroney made with the devil when he invited the current premier of the province of Quebec to sit at the cabinet table. It is not hard to understand the current leader of the Conservative Party who has yet to show enough courage to stand for election to come into this place. There is a byelection coming up in the not too distant future in St. John's. Member after member of that party are defecting and resigning because they cannot tolerate the positions being taken. It is not hard to understand if we look at it from a historical perspective where the current leader of the Conservative Party is coming from, but it is shameful.

Tories in my riding ask me what in the world is going on and why they are doing this. It is obvious what the strategy of the leader is, even though he did not have the courtesy to discuss it with his caucus prior to announcing it to the rest of the world. His strategy seems to be that maybe the Conservatives can get some votes in Quebec and try to rebuild the party if they oppose this bill. It is shameful politics of the worst kind that they would play with the future of this country and the future of that province by taking that kind of a position.

What is it that really upsets the separatists and keeps them motivated? I think about the united alternative conference to which I unfortunately was dispatched as a representative, as a spy for the Liberal Party. It was like sticking a thousand pins in my eyes but I went. I was astounded to see separatists were actually invited to be headline speakers at the united alternative—

[An hon. member]

We invited you.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

You did not invite me. Had they invited me, I would have been delighted to deliver a calm and rational speech on exactly what they should be doing with their united alternative.

The people in Quebec remember the advertisements the Reform Party ran in the last election. They attempted to suggest that somehow one's place of birth should disqualify one from standing to be prime minister. People remember that. I know Reform members have attempted to distance themselves from that. I know that by coming up with some new party whatever it is called, that again they are going to try to distance themselves, but the people of Quebec will not forget that.

I do not know which is the right word, sympathy or empathy, but having been here for two years and having worked with members of the Bloc and knowing them, I have a much better understanding of what it is that motivates them. They get motivated tremendously when they see the kind of intransigent position that a party like the Reform Party takes in relation to what amounts to a third of the country which is obviously and arguably one of the most important parts of the country. The province of Quebec provides us—

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, as you can see, once again the members of this government do not even have the decency to be present to listen to their own colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-20. I ask you to check that we have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member for Mississauga West.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe they could learn to count. They are worried about 50% plus one but they cannot even count how many members are in the House.

To get back to the point, I have developed some understanding. In fact one of the members of the Bloc who I met outside asked me if I was going to speak. When I said yes, he said to please stay calm. So I will because there are some things that must be said.

I hear Bloc members say in the House that it is undemocratic to require a clear question. My constituents do not understand that and ask what is wrong with that and why would they object to the question being clear? They say that 50% plus one should be the deciding factor. If in fact they believe that 50% plus one should be the deciding factor, why do we continue to debate another referendum?