Mr. Speaker, this is my opportunity to express, once again, the official opposition's support in principle for the so-called clarity bill.
I want to address the big issues which the official opposition wanted to address with this bill. First, we felt that it could be improved in terms of its clarity. The journalists in this country have named it the so-called clarity bill for good reason. There are some areas that could be improved.
Second, we felt that the idea that this could be established by a few people in a room somewhere is old fashioned politics. We wanted to have the broadest consultation possible. This was a strategic decision that we made.
We also felt that some of the issues that were being put forth in the bill—and there are four of them—could be expanded. We wanted to make sure that all the issues were addressed; the major, important issues.
Finally—and this is the area that I think the bill completely misses—we wanted to put forward things that could improve this federation, to stop the eternal and infernal battle that the bill addresses.
I listened carefully to the House leader say that he felt it was reasonable to move time allocation at second reading and to shorten the committee process because the Bloc was doing things to slow down the whole process of parliament. That is legitimate. My colleagues in the Bloc have done everything they can to slow down the work of the House. However, I know that the government never approached the Bloc to say “If you stop this we will allow the broadest consultation to take place”. That, to my mind, would have been the reasonable, prudent course to take. The government should say “We understand you are really against this, but this is so important that we will allow the broadest consultation to take place”. That is the sort of thing we would expect.
Here we are as the allies of the government on the bill. It is very rare for all opposition parties to want to consult broadly. Maybe we have different motives in doing that. Maybe some would want to inflame passions. Maybe others would just want to have this very well debated throughout the country so that everyone would know whether this was the right way to go. I hope that the positive motives would be the ones ascribed to the official opposition.
I vigorously denounce the committee events which took place. The words we use in the House are carefully chosen. I use that as the strongest denunciation of the process. We went in with the idea that witnesses would be heard. We had prepared our witnesses long in advance. Other parties had not expected this to be so hasty and did not even have their witnesses available.
We felt that surely the provinces should be brought into this process, and we presented a motion to that effect. This is very important. The Prime Minister said that. That motion was defeated. I will never understand the defeat of the motion to bring in every provincial legislature, the premiers' offices, at least to present a brief.
We were allowed 12 witnesses for this whole process. Who are our witnesses? We called for every provincial legislature and the territories to be our witnesses. That does not seem to me to be something that the official opposition should have to do. It would be a natural thing for the government to say “Please give us your input. Come if you will or present a brief if you will”. It is a very strange process in my view.
I could use a host of words to describe the process at the committee such as arrogant and anti-democratic. That would sound chippy and partisan, so I will only say that I denounce vigorously the process at committee, and I am the ally. Why would the ally not get at least a hearing for something this important? I vigorously denounce it. I think it is a mistake.
This is playing into the sovereignists' hands, because they will be able to say this is undemocratic. They are right, because it is.
Let me turn then to the one thing that we gained from the committee. This is to say that we did gain something. We gained televised hearings. The hearings are televised. Even clause by clause is televised. That was not preferred by the government, but there was this one small gain. The public will be able to listen to and watch the witnesses. There are witnesses, literally at this moment, being heard on Bill C-20.
I will go back to the things that the official opposition wanted to do. We wanted to clarify the question. This is something we have vigorously agreed with and talked about back in the history of our presence in the House. A clear question is mandatory. We take it so far as to suggest a question.
The question is this. Should this province secede from Canada and become an independent state without any special legal link with Canada, yes or no?
I have listened to my colleagues in the Bloc say that there is no need for it because the assembly in Quebec will put forward a clear question. I say quite frankly that is an area in which we disagree.
The previous questions talked about more than one thing. Although every politically active person in Canada knew exactly what the question meant, I do not think the average Joes on the street, paying attention to politics periodically, had the absolute idea that there would be no more MPs in Ottawa from Quebec if it had passed. I do not believe for one second that they felt their passports would be taken away from them in the broader context. A plain question in my view is fair to Quebecers and fair to everyone else. Those are my comments on the clarification of the question.
On the clarification of the majority the minister and I had an interchange yesterday. He said that the official opposition position was not fair and not reasonable. In fact he used a very strong word. He said that it was irresponsible.
Let me explain to every person in Canada why we feel 50% plus one of the voters voting in the referendum is fair, reasonable and legitimate. First, the two previous referenda were run under those rules, in my judgment. I listened to the Prime Minister say “We won the last referendum” when it was 50.5%. It was very close. The Prime Minister himself said “Phew, we won”.
It is difficult to change the rules in the middle of the game. It can be done if both parties agree. I listened to things such as amending the constitution for various reasons takes two-thirds. The parties agreed when they signed that constitution. If only the Fathers of Confederation had thought of this we would not have the problem. I agree that it is not the ideal percentage, but it is the one that the last two referenda were run under.
There are two sides to this question. The bill mentions that the boundaries of Quebec is one of the issues that needs to be discussed. If 50% plus one will break up Canada, in my estimation it could also break up a province trying to secede. Because the question would be clear and the majority would be clear it removes all the fogginess. That is debatable. I will admit that.
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if 50% plus one of all votes cast in a referendum is not acceptable, to tell me what is. We can debate that. With arguments well presented maybe he could change my mind and the mind of the official opposition. For various reasons that is not on the government agenda.
Once again that is a bit of a gift to those who say that they raised the bar, no matter what the percentage, to suit their purposes. That is risky and leaves an opening for those who want to say that Canada is not democratic. The committee proceedings and that particular point are not particularly democratic.
I also listened to the minister ask how we could possibly break up the country on a judicial recount. It does not matter what number we put on it. What about 60% plus one? Could there be a judicial recount there? What about 70% plus one? That is not an argument that has logic behind it.
The four major issues in the bill are minority rights, definition of borders, the native people's position and the sharing out of the federal debt.
There are other things too, such as citizenship and the use of the Canadian passport, the sharing out of federal assets, the maintenance of creditor confidence, the use of the Canadian currency, international recognition, participation by the province in question in international agreements to which Canada is a party or its exclusion from them, as well as transportation and service corridors. All these things are important to me and I would like to understand why these issues are not included in the bill.
I talked about a battle between what I consider to be the status quo in Ottawa and the desires of Quebec. These are legitimate desires to have the original constitution respected. These are very similar to aspirations that come from outside Quebec. I was born in Quebec. I have lived in the west. I have family in Quebec. I have a reason to be concerned and interested in what happens there, more than just the Canadian flag.
I would like to give the message that there is another approach to continuing this battle. There is another way other than going down the road of the status quo versus those who feel they need to leave the country. We need to listen to one another. There are strong allies outside Quebec for the changes that Quebec is hoping to undertake.
In conclusion, I would like to say that millions of Canadians from outside Quebec also believe that we cannot accept the status quo. Quebec will therefore be able to count on friends and allies if it tries to change Canada. Quebec will notice that many people also consider that a fundamental reform of the federation is a priority.
