Mr. Speaker, far be it from me. I want to address the motion before us. I compliment the Chair on his wise observations.
I rise on behalf of New Democrats in the House today to support the motion that has been moved by the Bloc Quebecois. I think it points out what is wrong with the process that has accompanied the introduction of Bill C-20 and the process that has followed the introduction of Bill C-20.
New Democrats have been unhappy with the process right from the beginning. We were unhappy before we ever saw the bill. We felt that the Prime Minister was engaging in a rhetorical battle with the Bloc and with others in Quebec and creating an expectation about the bill that turned out not to be accurate. That is to say, there was some speculation prior to the introduction of the bill that the bill might actually set a particular percentage of support that would have to be met in any referendum. Not just separatists but federalists were also concerned about that particular prospect.
The bill was introduced by surprise when commitments had been made that the bill would not be introduced until the following week. Then all of a sudden on a Friday morning it was introduced. It was debated at second reading in the House. There were only three days of debate and closure was moved.
I know the government House leader likes to say he only moved closure because the Bloc Quebecois members were not really interested in debating it, that they were using dilatory measures to preoccupy the House with matters other than Bill C-20. The fact is that we cannot win with the government House leader on this. If we use dilatory measures, then he says that we do not really want to debate it. And if we debate it, he says we have had enough debate, that we have had lots of opportunity to debate it.
When we have a bill like this one, which on the face of it, as we like to say in procedural matters is of prima facie import, having to do with the possible breakup of the country, it is something that parliament should debate in principle for a long time. A long time in this parliament has come to mean three days of debate. That is certainly not what a long time used to mean in terms of parliamentary debate.
When it comes to unimportant things, we can debate them forever. We can bring them forward this week, then three weeks later bring them up again, four weeks later bring them up again and five weeks later bring them up again. But if it is really important, we must not debate it at any length because somehow that transgresses on the government's understanding of how parliament works. It does not transgress on the understanding of how the opposition thinks parliament works and I do not think it transgresses on the understanding of how the Canadian people think parliament should work. They would think “Why do those guys not spend their time on the important stuff and be more efficient with the not so important stuff”. We have it exactly backward in parliament. When something is really important—