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

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

You are a block head.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I am not a square head as the member seems to indicate.

Let us go back to the results in 1980. The results were that 59.6% said no. I do not know what part of that they do not understand; 59.6% said no and 40.4% said yes. That is more than 50% plus one.

The question was quite remarkable in the 1980 referendum: “The Government of Quebec 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 Quebec to” and it goes on and on. It asks if the people agree with giving the Government of Quebec the authority to negotiate some kind of arrangement with the rest of Canada.

The answer was clear then. The separatists did not agree with the answer. They did not agree with the results so they worked over a 15 year period to develop another question. That question is shorter and a little more clear. Remember that those members are asking for 50% plus one. The question is: Do you agree that Quebec 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 Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? Yes, 49.4; no, 50% plus one.

If they agree that it should be 50% plus one, if that is the argument, then they should accept the results. The results are very clear.

I do not accept the premise that anybody wants a referendum other than Premier Bouchard, a few of the henchmen that work with him and perhaps the members of the Bloc. In all of the polling results we have seen, it is absolutely clear that the population of Quebec does not want it. They want to get on with other things in their lives. They are the same as everybody else. Their Visa cards are overextended. They are trying to get the kids through school. They have to buy a new car or get the old one fixed. They have the same problems everybody has whether they are in St. John's, Newfoundland or Victoria or Saskatchewan.

I believe that they are saying, “Once and for all, would you people in Ottawa put a question that is clear and let us get an answer to this”. That is what this bill says. It is absolutely beyond me why anybody would object to that.

The history of this issue is quite interesting. People talk about the recent history. They talk about the referendum when Mulroney tore the paper in half and caused people to get upset. They talk about the closeness of it, but this has been going on in this great country for years and years and years.

I consider myself to be a Pearsonian Liberal. Lester Pearson, the great prime minister of this country, did some things but I am out of time and I cannot share those comments about the Right Hon. Lester Pearson.

I will say that it is fair to have a clear question and it is absolutely fair to have a clear result. Finally, if we are going to have a referendum, once and for all we can put this issue to bed and get on with developing the greatest nation in the world.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-20, the clarity bill. The full title of the bill is 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. That title explains very well the objective of this legislation. However, I think the bill could just as easily be entitled an act to respect the rights of Quebecers and the rights of Canadians in any future referendum on Quebec separation.

As the justices of the supreme court noted, the subject matter of this issue “requires us to consider momentous questions that go to the heart of our system of constitutional government”. Momentous questions indeed. There are few topics that this House of Commons has dealt with that touch the fibre of our constitutional being more than the bill we have before us today.

This bill speaks to an issue that is fundamental to Canada and Canadians. As the justices stated, the court is engaged in rendering an advisory opinion on certain legal aspects of the continued existence of the Canadian federation.

At the risk of being somewhat literary, this bill grapples with the age old question raised in Hamlet's soliloquy, to be or not to be. That is indeed the very real question. If the Canada we know, one of the great democracies of the world, an oasis of tolerance and compassion, a respected leader in the family of nations, is not to be, then the process by which we arrive at that tragic conclusion and the implications of such a decision must be absolutely clear to each and every Canadian.

If one sets out to dismantle one of the greatest countries on the face of the planet, there is no room for confusion. There is no room for obfuscation, wiggle room or interpretation. At every step of the way there must be the very highest level of clarity.

Clarity is not something that is simply owed to the people of a province wishing to separate. It is owed to the people of Canada and indeed the international community. No country exists in a vacuum, so the precedent that is set by the enactment of this legislation forms an important contribution to the body of international law on the issue of secession.

There is no doubt that, as they said at the U.S. Democratic convention in 1968, the whole world is watching. The issue of secession is one which the international community has a great interest in. There are few areas in the world which have not been affected by both successful and unsuccessful secessionist movements. The recent developments in Chechnya or the other former Soviet republics, East Timor, Eritrea, Slovakia, the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and Catalonia in Spain illustrate the importance of this issue to the world at large.

A recent article in the respected British magazine The Economist dealt with the issue of secession. Among the points this particular article made on secession were:

It should be carried out only if a clear majority (well over 50% plus one of the voters) have freely chosen it, ideally in an unbiased referendum held in tranquil circumstances.

The Canadian principles of peace, order and good government are deep democratic traditions. Our federalism and constitutionalism are expressed throughout this five page bill.

As I mentioned earlier the purpose of this bill is to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it would be helpful to understand precisely the nature of the questions which the supreme court addressed and some of the other comments that the court made. There were three questions.

Question number one: Under the constitution of Canada, can the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Question number two: Does international law give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Question number three: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

How did the court answer the questions? On question number one the supreme court response was unequivocal. It stated:

The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province `under the Constitution' could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework.

Again on the question of unilateral secession the court made some statements that may be of particular interest to those on the Bloc and Reform benches. The court stated:

Democracy...means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence show that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values.

At another point in the judgment the court stated:

The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.

On question number two the court is again unequivocal, and I quote the reference:

The National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

Interestingly the court does note the possibility of what it describes as “an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession”.

However, I believe with great conviction that Canadians regardless of what province they live in have the unassailable right to expect that their provincial government will in every instance respect the rule of law and the constitution. To do otherwise would turn a secessionist initiative into an illegal and unconstitutional activity that could very well have unfortunate and unintended consequences.

On question number three the court stated that since there was no conflict between domestic and international law there was no need to address that issue. In reading the judgment of the supreme court one is struck by how reasonable the court's conclusions were. In every respect the court has provided a judgment that is in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the constitution.

What precisely does the clarity bill do? It 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 considerations to be taken into account in making its determination. It prohibits the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms under which a province might cease to be part of Canada if a referendum question was unclear.

Following a referendum on secession in a province the bill provides for the House of Commons to determine if a clear majority of the people in that province had clearly expressed a will to cease to be part of Canada, and it sets out factors to be considered in making its determination. It also prohibits the Government of Canada from engaging in negotiations with a province unless a clear majority had clearly expressed its will to secede.

Finally the legislation recognizes that the secession of a province requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, which in turn requires negotiations involving all provincial governments and the Government of Canada. It also requires that certain matters such as the division of assets and liabilities, border changes and the rights of aboriginal peoples and other minorities must be addressed before a constitutional amendment is proposed by a minister of the crown.

The clarity bill is about honesty. It is about providing the conditions for an honest result on any future referendum. If one takes the time to read the supreme court judgment, one will find the document explains our rich constitutional history and analyzes our most important constitutional principles. The inherent duty of our constitution is that it provides and protects fundamental rights within the framework of federalism, the rule of law, democracy, the protection of minorities and constitutionalism.

I would like to end my remarks with a statement that is referred to in the supreme court judgment from one of our most illustrious Fathers of Confederation, Sir George-Étienne Cartier. Those opposite who oppose this measure would do well to reflect upon his words when he said:

In our federation, we will have Catholics and Protestants, English, French, Irish and Scots, and everyone, through his efforts and successes, will add to the prosperity and glory of the new confederation. We are of different races, not so that we can wage war on one another, but in order to work together for our well-being.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in Canada's parliament to speak in this very important debate. Frankly I wish sincerely that all members of the House would pay very close attention to what is going on.

This is as important a matter as I believe we can ever face in this country. It is the existence of our country itself. For some members of our assembly not to be paying full attention, not to be involved and not to be thinking this through is unfortunate.

I recognize that some are in committees and others have constituency work in other parts of the country. That is part of the role of a member of parliament. Perhaps it would have been better had we given more time to debate. I cannot but help begin my intervention this afternoon by pointing out to everyone who is listening that once again the government has invoked a form of closure.

Technically it is called time allocation, which is worse than closure, because it gives us less time for debate than closure does. I cannot understand. On an issue as important as this one we need to give ample time for not only parliamentarians to speak to it but for Canadians in general to become involved in the debate to discuss the issues, the pros and the cons, and to seek input into study of the bill. We need to travel across the country to see what Canadians want or aspire to in their country.

I am disgusted at the Liberal government and its total disregard for the democratic process in the House. It has a bill that is supposed to be related to a democratic process with respect to the possible secession of a province, yet it has trodden on the ability of parliamentarians to debate it fully not only here but around the country. It is very distressing. Although many members cannot possibly be here today, I know they would be here tomorrow, the day after, and on other days to take their turn expressing themselves.

This bill is called the clarity bill in its vernacular. I have heard several speakers say this afternoon that the bill lacks clarity. I am afraid I have to agree. Basically all it says is that there shall be clarity in the wording of the question and there shall be a clear majority. Neither the wording of the question nor the level of the majority nor the number of voters who have to participate in a vote for it to pass are spelled out.

It is a very undefined bill. All it says is that after the decision is made by the province choosing to secede parliament will study the question within certain time limits. It is not clear to me whether the bill even says that the threshold will be declared in advance. I think that is the intention of the bill but it could be interpreted otherwise. That is not a very good way of handling it.

I am certainly not willing right now to speculate on what a clear question should be. I can think of some things that perhaps one could put forward, but I hesitate to do it because of the possible ramifications of not making a wise choice. This needs a lot of careful thought. The question should be clear and succinct. When it is determined it should be included in the bill and debated in the House. The kind of question that would be considered clear should have been in Bill C-20.

Then there is the question of what proportion of the people should vote for it. Some said 50% plus one vote. Some said 58%. Some said two-thirds and so on. The goal of Bloc members is to separate from Canada. I accept that as their goal but I dislike it. One thing I must say about them is that in the six years I have observed their work in the House they have not wavered from their goal. Pretty well in every speech on no matter what topic they are able to weave into it that they want to get out of Canada. I regret that. If they ever do that it will pull out part of the heart of this country.

I am with members who say it is regrettable that we have to have this bill. Yet the reality is that a number of citizens, primarily in Quebec, have sent more separatists members here than other members.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what is happening today in this House is appalling. It shows contempt for the Quebec people and it is an insult to democracy. Where are the Liberals who want to shut down debate on this bill? We are debating Quebec's future—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member knows it is improper to make reference to the absence of members. I hope he will comply with the standing orders.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to check that we have a quorum.

And the court having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when one talks about democracy not all votes require a simple majority. For a number of years I have been chairman or president of different organizations and we used Robert's Rules of Order , which are quite different from the rules here. In Robert's Rules of Order there are a number of occasions where an action to be taken requires more than 50%. For example—

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order again, we still do not have a quorum. I do not know who has been doing the counting. I was told we needed 20 members to have a quorum and at present we do not have 20 members in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member for Elk Island.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is difficult. I do not use notes when I speak. I try to use my head instead. It is difficult to keep the train of thought of going but I think I will manage.

There are a number of occasions in those rules when two-thirds are needed. For example, a motion that has already been dealt with cannot be revisited unless two-thirds of the people present in the meeting vote in favour of it. Some instances require more than 50%.

The requirement is clear. The people of the province proposing a question should know in advance what is the number. We expect at least 60% of people vote. We will not consider this a clear vote, an expression of the people, unless there is at least 50% plus one, 60% or 66%. Whatever it is, it must be determined in advance and it must be fair.

This is a slight diversion from the topic but it has to do with the mathematics involved. We very seldom have a 100% turnout at an election. Sometimes it is as high as 80% in some ridings and it is less than 50% in others. The question in a democracy is how to represent the will of the majority. It is possible, if people do not show up to vote in an election, that the proportion of those who do show up could be a skewed sample.

One could use a truly random sample. For example, we could look at the HRD scandal before us these days. Apparently the auditors there used a random sample. Then it is quite accurate to attribute the characteristics of the sample to the whole population. However, in a general election we do not have a random sample. People come out to vote if they feel strongly about an issue. Those who do not feel very strongly might just not bother. They are not as highly motivated to attend.

For example, in some ridings people who are really against the government might show up in greater numbers to vote to kick the government out than those who are tepidly in favour of the government. That poses a risk to the sitting government member in a riding because he or she may not get supporters out in the same numbers as those who want to arrange for the turfing of that member. That happens particularly in an election or in a vote which is as emotion bound as that of a secession vote.

I know that my time is almost up, but I want to use the closing minutes to say a few words to the people of Quebec. I do not think I will be successful in persuading the separatist members here, although I wish I could.

Physically we have to live together. We cannot take a giant chainsaw, cut around Quebec and float Quebec away so there will be some distance between us. Physically we will stay together, no matter what kind of political arrangement we have. We need to make sure that we have the best possible political arrangement for that situation.

I believe that people in the province of Quebec, as in all other provinces, should be able to so arrange their affairs within confederation so they do not want to leave. The policies of the Reform Party, the policies of the new Canadian alliance, are such that I believe Quebecers could live with them if they took the time to read them, study them and give them careful thought, and not simply say with a prejudiced point of view “We are not going to listen to them”.

I plead for a fair hearing of what we are actually saying. They can look it up on the website and ask for literature. We are certainly willing to share it. I know that we can come to a place where we can live together co-operatively.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the events which led to Bill C-20. Before I do so I would like to inform the House of a message that I received from my constituents during the recess. They were strongly in favour of this bill. In fact there were a number of my constituents who came to me and asked why it had taken our government so long to table this legislation.

I would like to look back to the circumstances of the 1995 referendum to explain why our government decided to table Bill C-20. I note that some of my colleagues noted that we do not take great joy in having to take such a step, but we do so because the separatist leaders continue to brandish the threat of another referendum on separation.

Let us look back for a moment to the 1994 general election in Quebec, which was won by the Parti Quebecois. At that time the PQ strategy was to jumpstart the process leading up to Quebec separation, even before Quebecers had a chance to vote on it in a referendum. Then Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau claimed that Quebec had a right to self-determination, which would allow it to separate from Canada unilaterally. Draft legislation along those lines was actually tabled in the national assembly.

In an attempt to whip up support for its option the Parizeau government struck numerous political commissions in every region of the province. Following several weeks of so-called consultations the commissions reported back to the national commission on the future of Quebec, which submitted a report to the PQ government on April 19, 1995. That was also the time of the notorious Le Hir reports, which would become one of the most incredible propaganda exercises ever undertaken in Quebec's history.

In the spring of 1995 Mr. Parizeau's Parti Quebecois changed tack regarding the referendum question, deciding to adopt a vague concept of association included in an eventual question. And so, the sovereignty partnership was born.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Parizeau had hitherto opposed any such concept, wanting instead to concentrate on sovereignty. In an interview in 1990 he stated:

As far as I'm concerned, the question that should be asked the next time around ought to be on Quebec sovereignty, not on “Do you authorize us to negotiate to see whether....” No, no. I think it has to be clear....We've now come to the point where we have to ask Quebecers how they feel about sovereignty.

Faced with certain defeat in the referendum, he chose instead, for political reasons, to adopt this concept of partnership.

On June 12, 1995, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard, then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, signed a tripartite agreement on that basis. Under that agreement the Government of Quebec, following a vote in favour of its option, would undertake negotiations with the rest of Canada to establish a political and economic partnership. Those negotiations would be limited to one year at the most, at which time sovereignty would be proclaimed whether or not a partnership had been concluded. The agreement also stipulated that the Government of Quebec could terminate the negotiations at any time if it deemed they were not progressing quickly enough.

After having told a diplomat that the referendum process was like a lobster trap that Quebecers could not get out of, Mr. Parizeau was now hiding his true intentions. Despite this new partnership spin, all he really wanted was a yes vote that he could then use to make a unilateral declaration of independence.

This is not conjecture on my part. The proof is there.

On the very day of the referendum, Mr. Parizeau taped a televised message to the population in which he clearly stated his intention of going ahead with a unilateral declaration of independence. He confirmed that intention in his memoirs. It is there in black and white on page 286. He stated:

It will be noted that any speeches I have made pertaining to negotiations with Canada have been so worded to allow for such a declaration of sovereignty. And I have never made any undertaking, either in public or in private, not to make a unilateral declaration of sovereignty.

That is what the famous concept of partnership really boiled down to.

Anybody could have had their own interpretation of this concept, but Mr. Parizeau would have thrown the concept out the window at the first opportunity. Fortunately, he never got that chance because a majority of Quebecers refused to fall into that trap.

The confusion surrounding a unilateral declaration of independence says a lot about the agreement of June 12, 1995, which was one of the cornerstones of the yes side's referendum campaign in 1995. Mr. Dumont, who was one of the signatories to the agreement, stated recently that he has never been a sovereignist.

As for Mr. Parizeau, he went on to make yet another statement in his typical style. He wrote:

It's often been said that the question in 1995 wasn't clear. It's true, as I've said many times, that the question I would have preferred was the following: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign (or independent) country as of...?

There we have Mr. Parizeau's deep-rooted conviction about the concept of partnership. It is noteworthy that the only time Mr. Parizeau ever toned down his hard line separatist rhetoric was at the very time he was in a position to put it into practice.

What was the question that was asked in the end? It was set out in Bill 1, an act respecting the future of Quebec, and it reads as follows:

Do you agree that Quebec 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 Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Right away we can see a key difference in comparison with the referendum process that was undertaken in 1980. Unlike that earlier process, the Government of Quebec provided for only one referendum in 1995. Let us bear in mind that under the latter formula sovereignty was not conditional upon a political and economic partnership with the rest of Canada. Whether or not any agreement were reached with the rest of the country, sovereignty would be inevitable. It would come about no matter what happened, and Quebecers would have no say on the final product. There would be no second vote.

In an attempt to clarify the question, the Quebec Liberal Party proposed a number of amendments to Bill 1. All of those amendments were rejected by the PQ government. At the same time, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the question was ambiguous and that a majority of 50% plus one would be too small to effect sovereignty. We all know the outcome.

On October 30, 1995, 50.48% of Quebec voters answered no, while 49.42% voted yes. Of special note are poll results obtained in the last days of the campaign, indicating that one out of five yes voters truly believed that Quebec would still remain a Canadian province in the event of a yes victory. The separatist leaders' campaign of smoke and mirrors worked very effectively.

For all of those reasons our government is duty bound to act now to ensure that Quebecers will not have to bankroll yet another misinformation campaign to get them to support separation, an option which they have twice rejected.

The purpose of the bill tabled by the intergovernmental affairs minister is to ensure that the referendum process is clear and that Quebecers can make a choice secure in the knowledge that all the cards are well and truly laid on the table. They have the right to vote on a clear option and a crystal clear question. They are entitled to the assurance that they will never lose their Canadian citizenship and all of the other advantages they enjoy as Canadians, unless they have renounced Canada loud and clear.

This is the purpose of the clarity act. As its name suggests it seeks to ensure that the choice to be made is clear to everyone. Since the separatist leaders will not support that objective, our government has decided to enact legislation to ensure that our democratic tradition is not usurped by double talk and double dealing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mercier—East Timor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of a vast majority of my constituents.

In everyday life, a number of them are political opponents of mine who do not necessarily share my burning desire to live in my own country, Quebec, as soon as possible. However, this time they share my opposition to Bill C-20, introduced in this House on December 10 by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The bill is entitled 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.

Moreover, what happened this morning in this very House shows that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada, the party in power, have completely lost track of what it means to be democratic.

Democracy is first and foremost a concept that people must have between their ears. If it is not there, they can talk about it all they want, but they will not change anything in reality. They will then adopt undemocratic behaviours while pretending to serve democracy and to defend the public good. Moreover, they will do as this government is doing. They will become arrogant and go as far as to prevent their opponents from expressing their views on what the government considers to be a decisive issue for the future of Canada through a gag order.

I regularly hear on the radio or on TV and read in the newspapers, both English and French, statements by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville saying that Quebecers do not want to hear about a referendum in the foreseeable future.

Has this member, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, already forgotten that he himself revived the debate on this issue in Quebec and Canada? If this minister is as sensitive to public opinion as he claims to be, why did he introduce a bill that nobody wants in Quebec?

We will conclude today the debate at second reading of Bill C-20. Unfortunately, I will not have time to get to the core of the issue because I have no choice but to express my outrage at a government that, day after day, tramples on democracy and never misses an opportunity to lecture other countries. The people of Canada and Quebec must keep a close eye on their federal government, because the absence of democracy originates in its own backyard.

In the last general election, in June 1997, if the Liberal Party of Canada had won only 151 seats, the leader of this party and member for Saint-Maurice would have agreed to form the government on the basis that his party had a majority. A majority of 50% plus one would have been enough to take office.

The Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs find that a majority of 50% plus one is not enough, while they belong to a party that got only 38% of the vote in the last general election.

The government must stop adding fuel to the flame. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice and the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville must stop antagonizing the people of Quebec. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs must stop trying to gain the support of the Canadian people by denigrating the men and women of Quebec.

With Bill C-20, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to define the rules of the next Quebec referendum. This is clear interference in the democratic process that Quebec has put in place to decide its own political and constitutional future.

Also, the minister would have us believe that his government now recognizes the possibility for Quebec to break away from Canada when in fact his legislation is designed to make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to hold another referendum in Quebec.

Obviously, the former great professor will claim that I am not interpreting his bill properly and that he never intended to prevent Quebec from holding a referendum when and as it sees fit. But in reality, and notwithstanding what he claims so loudly every chance he gets, should Bill C-20 be passed, any potential referendum Quebec may want to hold would have to take into account the minister's wishes as set out in Bill C-20.

Accordingly, I call upon members opposite who are moderately intelligent and who did not enter politics to be the sidekicks or the puppets of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. I call upon the intelligence of those members across the way who still know the meaning of the word “liberal”. I call upon those who are still able to express themselves within the Liberal Party and have not fallen victims to the gag order their party leader or their House leader imposes on them.

When the people of Canada and Quebec have fully understood how horrible this bill is, they will know what to do at the ballot box at the next general federal election, as they did regarding employment insurance at the last general election. But it will be too late for our colleagues opposite, who will be sorry they did not have the courage to speak up.

There is still time for the government majority to intervene and make its Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs see reason. There are at least three good reasons the government should withdraw Bill C-20.

First, Bill C-20 is designed to give the House of Commons the power to disallow a legal and legitimate act of the national assembly and decision of the Quebec people.

We talk about a right of disallowance because Bill C-20 gives the House of Commons the power to determine by resolution whether it pleases the House to find that the question is clear and that a clear majority of the people of Quebec have clearly expressed their will to separate from Canada.

We talk about a right of disallowance because Bill C-20 accords the House of Commons the power to reject a motion by which the national assembly would adopt a referendum question and to censor the result of a referendum without a clear majority, again in the opinion of the House.

Considering the intentions of the government on clarity and the question to be put to the aboriginal people on the Pointe-Bleue reserve in Roberval, no wonder doubts are cast on this government's ability to assess clarity.

Here is the question to the voters in the band:

Do you accept and approve the settlement agreement dated, for reference purposes, the 14th day of December, 1999, between the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada?

Do you agree to sanction, pursuant to sections 38(1) and 39 of the Indian Act, the absolute transfer to her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada by the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean all rights and those of its members pertaining to all parcels of reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township?

By voting yes, you authorize the Chief of the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean or any other member of the band council duly authorized by resolution to sign on behalf of the band council and its members all documents and to take all measures required to put into effect the settlement agreement and the absolute transfer of all parcels of the reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township. “Yes or no?”

So much for the clarity of this government.

Second, Bill C-20 denies Quebecers the freedom to choose their political destiny, and particularly the freedom to include in a referendum question—if such is the desire of the national assembly—an offer of partnership with the rest of Canada.

Bill C-20 is an attack on Quebec's freedom of choice because it limits the constitutional and political options for the future of Quebec by rejecting partnership outright.

In section 2 of Bill C-20, particularly subsections (4) ( a ) and ( b ), we see that the real political objective of the Liberal Government of Canada is to deprive the Government of Quebec of the possibility of presenting to the people of Quebec a modern version of independence and sovereignty.

The purpose of Bill C-20 is to prevent Quebec from extending its hand to Canada with the offer of a form of partnership which would be fully compatible with the new status of a sovereign Quebec.

As several analysts have pointed out, we are dealing with a strategy, a ploy of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, intended to place before Quebecers the following alternative: status quo or secession.

The third reason is that Bill C-20 denies the universally accepted rule of 50% plus one for the majority, and the fundamental rule of the equality of votes.

Since you are signalling that my time is nearly up, I would like to repeat that this bill ought to be withdrawn before the institution that is the House of Commons is condemned for having broken an essential principle, the equality of everyone before the law.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we will have completed writing in the days ahead yet another chapter in our nation's history, a chapter that would make the fathers of Canadian Confederation proud of us, knowing that their legacy cannot be undone under a cloud of confusion and uncertainty of the people's will and outside our shared societal values.

I refer to Bill C-20 before us, also popularly known as the clarity act. It is a bill that sets clear parameters under which Canada would negotiate the secession of a province from our federation. The bill clarifies the binding relationship among the provinces and between them and Canada as a whole.

Fate would have it that we are here on this premiere sitting of the House in the new century debating a bill that our forefathers surely would not have anticipated in 1867 when they began to build a country called Canada. Nor could their wildest imaginations have foreseen that a nation so young would twice face the possibility of the breakup of our country, but prouder still are we that we should twice withstand the challenge.

Thus I submit that past referenda on the secession of Quebec speak not of a weakened country, although it is my fervent hope that such activity will not continue indefinitely from time to time. Rather, they speak to the will of the Canadian people to stay together when presented anew with a question.

Yes, they speak to the strength of our nation's democracy. Yes, they speak to the societal value of respect that we as Canadians hold for our shared values. In addition to democracy, these values include federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law and respect for minorities.

We need only look at the make-up of the representation in this House to appreciate how that respect for values is manifest. In what other country in the world will we find a political party sitting in the country's highest law-making body and yet unashamedly bent on separating the province from the country? Ironic as it sounds, it speaks to our respect for democracy in this country. It speaks to our respect for democracy in the House of Commons.

And so it is that the clarity act before us reflects this very shared value, including respect for minorities. Yes, respect and not merely tolerance. Unlike tolerance, respect is a more profound societal value, for it brings with it a sense of justice and human dignity.

Democracy is abundantly evident in Bill C-20 for it safeguards the rights of the governed against the totalitarian rule of their government.

Even as it protects the rights of citizens to have their citizenship and their province within Canada against the misguided wish of their provincial government, the bill respects at the same time their rights to secede from the rest of the country should they clearly express that will by a clear majority vote on a clear question.

However, these two expressions of democracy alone, a clear majority on a clear question, are not sufficient basis for a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of any province.

The Supreme Court of Canada says “Democracy means more than simple majority rule”. It further says “Democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values”, to which I alluded to earlier. Negotiations, therefore, have to take place following a clear vote on a clear question of secession from Canada.

In clear words, the Supreme Court of Canada holds that:

...the democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

These democratic tenets link rights with obligations. While these tenets recognize the constitutional right of the members of our federation to initiate constitutional change, there is the reciprocal duty on the part of other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to a change in constitutional order.

However, exercise only of rights without discharging one's reciprocal obligation puts at risk the very legitimacy of that exercise.

On the issue of a clear majority, members of the opposition have argued that 50% plus one is sufficient. If it were so, it would make it absurd to consider what then would constitute an unclear majority.

It is obvious that clear majority should mean more than 50% plus one. In addition to requiring that the vote be a clear majority, it is also crucial that the question be clear. That is, the words should mean the same thing for everyone.

Does the bill provide a mechanism for the measurement of clarity? Yes. The more the question makes clear the will to no longer remain in Canada and become an independent country, the more clear the question is. The further it strays from this requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada, the less is the question's clarity.

Bill C-20 is a reasonable bill. This is not merely a statement by the Government of Canada. A cross-section of the national media has acknowledged this affirmation: from Quebec's La Presse, , Le Nouvelliste , the Montreal Gazette and La Tribune to the Halifax Daily News , Fredericton's Daily Gleaner , the Toronto Star , the Globe and Mail , the Ottawa Citizen to the Winnipeg Free Press , the Regina Leader Post , the Saskatoon Star Phoenix , the Calgary Herald , the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times Colonist .

Truly we can take pride that the federal government has deemed it proper to bring forward the legislation before us, a bill that champions the respect for democracy and the rule of law and the operation of our shared values as Canadian citizens when any province contemplates permanent departure from the Canadian family.

This move on the part of the Government of Canada attests to its decisive and bold leadership on this issue. This was the same leadership that was evident when the government referred this issue to the highest judicial tribunal of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, and that judgment was applauded even by the incumbent premier of Quebec.

In conclusion, Bill C-20 exudes the fullest expression of responsible democracy and reasonableness. It is all these and more. It embodies the advisory judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the reciprocal rights and obligations of the federal and provincial governments and to govern within their respective jurisdictions. It embodies in clarity the binding relationship and shared values among them and among us; a relationship and set of values that must be considered when a province contemplates secession from Canada.

A Canadian I am not by birth. A Canadian I am by choice. Truly, our country was created on mutual consent out of the diversity of our people, a diversity that has made our nation rich and from which we continue to draw strength. Bill C-20 reminds us of our diversity in origin, culture, language and faith.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I would ask you to check if we have quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have had a call for quorum. We do not have quorum.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 reminds us of our diversity in origin, culture, language and faith. It reminds us of the journey of Confederation we have travelled together, of the pain and suffering we overcame jointly as a people during that journey and of the societal values we have come to cherish and nurture as a nation of diverse people.

It is within our gift that we affirm our faith in ourselves as one people and in our country as one Canada.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the discussion of this bill to give effect to the requirement of clarity in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Quebec secession reference case.

This caucus has announced its support in principle. That is not to say we are not concerned about some aspects of the bill. We have concerns that in fairness have been heightened by what we can only see as the shenanigans today of the government members opposite with the imposition of time allocation. I note that I will be the second and probably the last speaker of the day from our caucus that will have an opportunity to participate.

I wonder whether other members do not see and share the hypocrisy in all of this. After all, here we are with a piece of legislation that purports to recognize the need to consult all Canadians as opposed to just those living in the province of Quebec on this critical issue of secession. And the government says, “Oh, by the way, we are introducing closure and time allocation and we have a mere day to debate it”. It is hypocritical and offensive to all democratically elected members in the House regardless of which side of this issue members are on.

Surely there are very few issues in any democracy that are more important than keeping the country together. To deny hundreds of democratically elected members the opportunity and the right to speak in the House of Commons about an issue as fundamental as this one, I find to be deeply offensive.

We in the NDP caucus approach this piece of legislation with some regret because it does contemplate the breakup of Canada. We would have preferred to concentrate on the very many positive aspects and proposals to strengthen national unity, to improve democracy and the way in which the country works.

As an aside, I would invite listeners and members opposite to have a look at the social democratic forum on Canada's future which the New Democratic Party caucus and party worked on last year and presented at our convention of August 1999.

In short, we think Canada could do much better and to no small extent we hold the government responsible.

Some of us remember and were observers in person at what can only be described as the pathetic performance of the now Prime Minister when he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party in Calgary almost 10 years ago. Who can forget him welcoming to the box in the Saddledome the then premier of Newfoundland hours after Mr. Wells had done his bit to sabotage the Meech Lake accord? I note a causal effect of that was the immediate creation of the Bloc Quebecois and the resurgence of discussion of separatism and separation in the province of Quebec. The rejection of the Charlottetown accord two years later gave a boost to the other extreme party in this parliament, the Reform Party. As a result, any prospects for a plan A have now gone out the window and we are firmly charted on a plan B course.

Since the election of the government in 1993 we have seen devolution of powers conferred to the provinces. We have not witnessed to my recollection any first ministers conferences to try to resolve some of our problems on the national unity issue. The social union framework from our point of view has failed to deal adequately with social rights and certainly does not accommodate Quebec's desire to opt out of most national programs with full compensation.

The bill itself talks about two things, a clear question and a clear majority. In speaking to constituents in my riding of Palliser, there is not much debate around the clear question. I think there is a lot of merit in that. A clear majority and what constitutes that however does give rise to more discussion and division of opinion. Certainly the bill to that extent does correspond to the two conditions set out by the supreme court that would have to be met before the rest of Canada is to be obliged to negotiate.

The bill is supposed to address what would need to occur for there to be an extraordinary constitutional negotiation leading to the secession of Quebec or any other province for that matter. The court said a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize. However, the court also made a second equally important point, that Quebec's right to self-determination must be exercised within the Canadian constitutional framework.

We see in this decision, or opinion more correctly, that Quebec's right to self-determination must be respected by the other partners of Confederation, but that this right must be exercised with respect for the other democratic values that have guided this country for more than 130 years. In striking a balance between these two key principles, the supreme court specified a clear role for the federal parliament in any secession bid.

As a key actor in the constitutional procedure, parliament does have an obligation to negotiate in good faith should it be confronted with a clear will to secede. It has an obligation to represent the rights and interests of all Canadians in any such negotiating process.

What needs to be debated, and I assume we will now have to rely on doing this at the committee stage, is whether parliament in exercising that right has set the bar on the issue of clarity and majority too high or whether the bill acts in some other way that can be judged as unfair or prejudicial to the freedom of the Quebec people or the rights of minorities in Quebec, such as the aboriginal community. That is what both our party's consultation process and parliament's legislative committee need to address.

I do want to recognize and express the concern we have for the rights of aboriginal people because we do not feel that they are protected adequately in this bill. Clearly, existing constitutional protections for aboriginal rights would be threatened by the secession of any province. The bill does specify that the question of aboriginal rights would need to be addressed, but it does not specify a basic level of protection for these rights that would need to be achieved before parliament could agree to the secession of any province.

The bill also identifies various actors whose views parliament must take into consideration in its deliberations on a secession bid. Unfortunately and notably, aboriginal peoples are not among those specifically involved. New Democrats will therefore be seeking ways to ensure that aboriginal peoples are meaningfully involved in Bill C-20 and that there is stronger protection provided in the bill for their rights.

We find this absence particularly ironic given the fact that there is recognition in the bill to the unelected Senate. As hon. members know, New Democrats on this side of the House have long argued that an unelected, unaccountable Senate has no place in a modern democracy. We see again the hypocrisy of ignoring aboriginal Canadians while involving the Senate in a way that we think is unconscionable.

Over the years New Democrats have often had to take positions on so-called national unity issues. I am very proud of the fact that even at the founding of the New Democratic Party back in 1961 New Democrats affirmed the right of Quebecers to determine their own future freely and democratically. The NDP is proud to have been the first federal party to recognize that right.

At the last convention in August 1999 we did adopt a paper that advocated recognizing Quebecers as a people not in the ethnic and therefore inappropriate nationalistic sense, but rather in the sense of recognizing that Quebecers are one of the two linguistic and cultural realities within which most Canadians live and move and have their social being.

On these occasions, last year being the most recent, we have been able to play a constructive role in forcing improvements to various constitutional initiatives. With the clarity bill New Democrats are presented with another such opportunity. We approach this bill in the same spirit of good faith with which we have approached other initiatives in the past.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity during this debate to discuss the legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in setting rules that would guide the conduct of the House and of the federal government within a process that could lead to the secession of one of our federation's provinces.

On January 19 La Presse published an article by Mr. Claude Castonguay who incidentally was the minister of health and social services in the first Robert Bourassa government. He has taken part in all of the debates on the political future of Quebec either as a minister, a senator or a concerned citizen.

In his article Mr. Castonguay stated, “Quebec independence would have profound repercussions for all of Canada and its citizens, including those in Quebec who want to remain Canadian. So it should be no surprise that the federal government wants to set some rules of conduct that it intends to follow in the event of another referendum on sovereignty. That is the objective of the recent bill on clarity tabled in the House of Commons”. He went on to say, “I find it difficult to see this bill which in no way limits the prerogatives of the national assembly as an attack on Quebec”.

These are the words of a great Quebecer with vast experience in political and federal politics whose integrity and political judgment have earned him the esteem of his fellow citizens regardless of political stripe.

Mr. Castonguay chose to reflect carefully on the clarity bill before entering into the debate. More than a month after the bill was tabled, he acknowledged loudly and clearly what many believe in their hearts but do not dare to say in public.

It is perfectly legitimate for the Government of Canada, while respecting the powers of the provincial legislative assembly, to set rules that would guide its conduct within a process that could lead to the secession of a province.

Mr. Castonguay's statement is at odds with the many objections that were raised when the draft bill was introduced and which have been raised since the bill was tabled that challenge the very legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in this affair. Those secessionist critics are trying to convince people not only in Canada but on the international scene as well that the House of Commons is usurping its powers when it takes the necessary measures to set rules that would guide its own conduct and that of the federal government in the event that a province initiates a process that could lead to secession.

Those critics claim that we, the members of parliament representing all Canadians, are subject to unilateralism of the secessionist leaders and have no choice but to stand idly by should our federation break up. Wanting to reduce the members of this House to mere spectators belies the profound ignorance of the origins of the Parliament of Canada. It flies in the face of our political traditions and practices.

I think a little history 101 is in order. In the introduction of the reference regarding the secession of Quebec, the supreme court in its wisdom provided some historical background. In the courts own words:

Confederation was an initiative of elected representatives of the people then living in the colonies scattered across part of what is now Canada. It was not initiated by imperial fiat.

The justices of our federation's highest court went on to describe the circumstances in which our federation was born:

In March 1864, a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada...began to explore prospects for constitutional reform. The committee's report, released in June 1864, recommended that a federal union encompassing Canada East and Canada West, and perhaps the other British North American colonies, be pursued—

An opening to pursue federal union soon arose. The leaders of the maritime colonies had planned to meet at Charlottetown in the fall to discuss the perennial topic of maritime union. The Province of Canada secured invitations to send a Canadian delegation.

On September 1, 1864, 23 delegates—five from New Brunswick, five from Nova Scotia, five from Prince Edward Island, and eight from the Province of Canada...met in Charlottetown—The delegates reached agreement on a plan for federal union...featuring a bicameral central legislature.

As we know, this plan would take the form of the 72 Quebec resolutions. Those resolutions were debated and in March 1865 approved by the Canadian Legislative Assembly with the support of a majority of members from both Canada East and Canada West.

Our parliament and the House of Commons was born out of the desire of elected representatives of what were then British colonies to establish a federal government. The federal parliament and the House of Commons is the tangible expression of that union, which was freely approved by elected representatives.

As Mr. Lucien Bouchard pout it so eloquently on July 1, 1988, “Canada was born 121 years ago, as the result of a process that drew on the sources of dialogue, negotiation, and openness”.

Since 1867 the House of Commons has been made up of members representing the constituent entities of the federation. Since 1867 members of this House have always taken pains to fulfil their responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, of which the preamble stipulates that they are free “to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada”.

Yet some people claim that we, the elected members of the House of Commons, have no say, have no right to take tangible measures when faced with a threat of secession. If there were to be a secession they try to deny our role to the point of relieving us of our responsibilities toward all Canadians.

This line of reasoning by the secessionist leaders is the result of such mental acrobatics and such twisted logic that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an academic and expert in international law, sometimes finds it difficult to endorse it.

On December 8 in an interview on RDI he declined to give a flat no to the following question:

Isn't it legitimate for the federal government to want to assess the clarity of the question?

When pressed by the interviewer to clearly state his position he had this to say:

The supreme court suggests that Canadian political actors, which may include the House of Commons, can assess the clarity of the question and the majority, but not before the referendum.

In closing I would like to quote from an interview in Le Devoir on January 27 by Mr. Benôit Lauzière who was the paper's editor from 1986 to 1990. In that interview Mr. Lauzière described Canada in this way:

It is above all a generous idea...and in my opinion, therein lies the principle of a modern citizenship. I almost want to say that we are condemned to ensuring that it works. Because what is the alternative? The resurgence of every sort of nationalism.

We would be running counter to the western world. There aren't many places like it in the world. As a citizen, I don't detest having several orders of government. It comes back to the idea of checks and balances—

The secessionist leaders must acknowledge that we have the right to take the measures necessary to prevent our federation, “a generous idea” wherein “lies the principle of modern citizenship,” to use the words of this former editor of Le Devoir , from disintegrating following a referendum with an ambiguous question and an ambiguous result.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with emotion and gravity that I take part in this debate.

I will begin by quoting René Lévesque, a former member of the Liberal Party of Quebec, who said as follows:

We believe that it is possible to avoid the shared impasse of Canadian confederation by adapting to our situation the two predominant movements of our era: the movement toward freedom of peoples, and the movement toward freely negotiated political and economic groups.

The spirit and the letter of this statement, which can be said to underlie the evolution of the sovereignist movement in Quebec, is being questioned, denied and rejected in the supposed clarity bill.

By its very wording, Bill C-20 entitled “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” misleads those listening or watching. Never did the supreme court say or write that for a question to be clear it could not be associated with an offer of partnership.

Recently, we have had the support of the researchers at the C.D. Howe Institute, who confirmed that they did not understand why the government was saying this in its bill.

Not only does this bill lack clarity, but the only thing it does do is preclude any other negotiation than secession negotiation. It does not state clearly what kind of majority Canada would require before entering into negotiation. After playing around with all kinds of numbers, it does not dare setting a specific one because it knows full well it would not have the support of the international community.

Neither does it say what a clear question would be. The only thing the bill is very clear about is that the question could not envisage other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada.

The Government of Canada missed the opportunity to show some openness and a modern attitude toward the Quebec issue. This government, which wants to be the most forward looking on this issue, is embracing the most conservative views imaginable.

During the 20th century, particularly during the second half, the people of Quebec became increasingly aware of who they were, of their culture and also of the fact that, as a small minority within North America, they needed protection. For that, they could only count on themselves. Progressively the people of Quebec—very progressively and more widely—awakened to the idea of sovereignty.

The bill is entitled “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 word secession does not belong to the vocabulary of sovereignists. The word secession refers to a Quebec surrounded by walls. Nothing could be further from what sovereignists have in mind.

The Liberals who, today, support free trade with the whole world, with the exception perhaps of a sovereign Quebec, should remember that it is thanks to sovereignists and Quebecers that the free trade agreement that they now want to extend to the whole world was passed, this at a time when their leader was so bitterly opposed to the idea.

Sovereignty is an open and modern project by a people which, while being sovereign, would want to renegotiate its economic ties with Canada. To me, it is very significant that the only clear thing in this extremely confusing bill is that Canada refuses this renegotiation of the relations between the two great peoples, and also with the aboriginal people. This is shameful.

The more this government opposes a democratic debate, the more its bill—I do not wish that, but when we see how they are behaving, we cannot help but think that it is likely to happen—will become illegitimate, obsolete, reactionary and conservative. This bill, which does not propose any renewal of the relations between peoples, can only be considered a meaningless document.

It is our hope that the sovereign people of Quebec will be able to count on the sovereign people of Canada to understand that the future does not lie in conflict or confrontation, but in negotiation, that it does not lie in a refusal to negotiate, in a refusal to accept reality and in an idea that some people have in their head about Canada. We hope that Canadians will have the intelligence to see that, north of the United States, it is better to negotiate together to be stronger than to continue to get deeper and deeper in the common impasse described by René Lévesque.

Bill C-20 is a denial of the Canadian attitude that we have always known. It is a denial of democracy in Quebec and of its history. Let us not forget that Robert Bourassa is the one who passed Bill 150. People can say what they want, but the Quebec National Assembly, under the Liberal premier of the day, passed a law providing for a referendum, with rules defined by the national assembly, to get out of that impasse.

The 1992 referendum did not get us out of there, since the negotiations were grossly inadequate. In 1995 we almost got there. We think that at the time we could have negotiated.

Finally, this bill seems to be a desperate attempt to prevent something, the sovereignty of Quebec, which will happen, I am absolutely certain, even if I do not know when or how.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?