Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to hear the member for Winnipeg—Transcona speak on this issue because he is a member with great experience. But I think he has actually misread the act in some respects, and there is a contradiction in what he said.

In the course of his speech, he made allusions several times to the fact that Bill C-20 sets conditions on the question and the prospect of separation. But I submit that is not what Bill C-20 does at all. What Bill C-20 does is it sets limits on the government. It says very clearly that the government cannot enter into negotiations before the House of Commons has determined whether the question is clear or not and other aspects of the percentage and that kind of thing.

In my view—and I would like the member to comment on this—this is quite a different kettle of fish, shall we say. Limiting the government is something that indeed all members of parliament, even those of us on the backbench on the government side, would like to see a government limited from time to time and indeed this bill does that. I would suggest to the member that not only does it do that, but that everything in the bill is entirely within the scope of the House of Commons. It is not something that is inconsistent with what we can do as members of parliament because we have added no additional powers to parliament. We have merely limited the powers of government, which I would have thought would be entirely in keeping with what this parliament should be doing at any time.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is fishing for differences that are not there. I never said that it is was not within the purview of parliament. In fact, I thought I had made an argument about why it was within the purview of parliament.

With respect to the language of conditions, I used the word conditions in an entirely different sense than the hon. member attributed to me. What I said was that the bill outlines what would create the conditions for an obligation to negotiate. I am trying to stick very carefully to the supreme court ruling. It said that only after a clear question and a clear majority—a clear question being a question that was very clear about the fact that it had to do with separation and with the province holding the referendum on becoming an independent country and with a clear majority on that clear question—would there be an obligation to negotiate. That is the sense in which I was using the word conditions.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have several questions for the hon. member from the New Democratic Party.

First, he talked a little about the clear question. I would now like to hear him describe his idea of a clear majority.

Second, he should explain the biological or genetic advantage that the people from Winnipeg, from his riding or from his province have over Quebecers to understand what is a clear question. What is missing biologically or genetically in Quebec the explanation surely lies there so that we cannot understand what is a clear question while they can?

Why should we need the advice of the hon. member from the northeast part of Prince Edward Island, a member whom I do not know but for whom I have much respect? Why should his advice be superior to that of the national assembly that, unanimously or by a majority, could determine what is a clear question? I would like him to enlighten us about that as well.

While I am not very experienced, I know that we cannot mention absent members in the House, but we can present members. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who is here surely has much to say on this issue, but he has not risen since this morning. I rose in part to take his place.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has been reading La Presse all morning. Perhaps he would also have something to say about Bill C-20.

I am looking at the member for Brossard—La Prairie, who has been twiddling his thumbs all morning. He might have had something to say about Bill C-20. I could say the same for the member for Bourassa.

Members from Quebec have been instructed to shut up or else they are simply devoid of ideas and afraid to stand up. I am therefore speaking on their behalf.

In closing, I would like to ask the member from the New Democratic Party if he thinks the following question is clear, and I will read it slowly:

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?

That was the first question. I will now read the second one:

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 of all its rights and those of its members 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, the band itself 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 reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township. Yes or no?

Does this question, written by the governmental party without any consultation, seem clear to the hon. member?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for leaving me so much time to answer his questions, for having gone on and on about something that I had nothing to say about, and for pointing out in his own procedurally quirky way the absence of people that he is not supposed to point out the absence of.

With respect to the last question, I know what the member is up to. He wants me to say it is a clear question. Then he is going to point out that 50% plus one is enough for that, and then he is going to extrapolate from there that 50% plus one is good enough for any other referendum.

Of course, what is debatable here is whether a referendum having to do with the secession of a province like Quebec is in fact a qualitatively different kind of referendum, and whether 50% plus one is all that would be required. That is part of the debate that is going on in committee.

There are people in all parties who feel that 50% plus one is the standard, and there are people who do not. Whether it comes to be something that is actually in the bill, or whether amendments are moved to that effect, we shall see.

The member also brought up this genetic, biological argument, which I think was unfortunate. The fact of the matter is that, yes, voters in my riding, voters in Prince Edward Island, which I think he also mentioned, voters everywhere in Canada ought to have a say through their parliament about what the conditions would be which would obligate them to negotiate the secession of a province that contains some 10 million of their fellow citizens from their country.

As far as I am concerned that is self-evident. I do not think we are non-participating spectators in the process that would break up our country. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with my colleague from the Bloc. I think that all Canadians have a say in what conditions would create an obligation on the part of their government to negotiate the secession of a particular province from Canada, and I make no apologies for that.

Quebecers have their rights too. This relates to the other thing the member said. He was listing members from Quebec and why they have not said anything. He believes that in order to be a true Quebecer one has to agree with him. These other people who have not spoken up in favour of the position he advocates, they are somehow not true and real Quebecers. I think this is one of the more despicable elements of the way the Bloc members conduct themselves with respect to this debate, that somehow people who do not agree with them are not real Quebecers.

I allow for a Canada in which Quebecers can defend their right, not the right of the rest of Canada, but their right to have a clear question and a clear majority, their right not to be snookered by a separatist government that has a strategy to get them into the lobster pot that Jacques Parizeau described.

That is a democratic principle which respects the rights of all Quebec citizens and not just the rights of sovereignists and separatists to cleave to their own particular strategy.

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

Madam Speaker, during my speech, I will certainly raise points that may be somewhat redundant. Since I do not want to sound redundant, I will put some emphasis on certain points that were raised this morning.

I will start by taking a look at the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I can see that, by my mere presence, I woke up a number of government members and I am very happy about that.

The motion before us today arises from the frustration expressed by the four opposition parties about the approach used by the government to decide how the committee on Bill C-20 will proceed.

It felt a little strange to hear what the eight members delegated by the government to deal with this issue had to say. They all said the same thing, almost word for word “You know, with just three clauses, this bill is not all that important. It is not very detailed. There is no reason to worry”.

We realize that it is indeed important. Besides the great legal and constitutional issues raised by this bill, which I will address in a moment, the fact remains that it stirs up emotions and triggers reactions. As a matter fact, this bill is the result of a poll taken last summer by the federal government and paid for with our taxes.

What I really want to discuss is what happened at committee on Monday night when we were trying to decide how to operate. We discussed whether the committee should travel. The government said no, the committee should not travel. Its position was clear: people can come to Ottawa, it is not that far. If people from Quebec want to come to Ottawa, the government will pay their expenses. It is as simple as that. That is the decision that was made. The government said “The committee will not travel”.

We then thought “Okay, the committee will not travel, but why?” And the answer came back “No time”. It is clear, you are either for or against it. We were told we would not travel. We said “Okay, it is fine, we cannot travel”.

Then we asked “Will there be any time for people to prepare, because we are breaking new ground here?” Not only can we not travel, but we are now being told that we must be done by Friday. An member of the opposition introduced a motion requesting an extension until February 28, to give people time to put a brief together. The government said “No, there is no time. It is now or never. Your mind must be made by now; this is a simple bill. Show up now or forget it”.

We suggested publishing a notice in the papers to let people know when the committee hearing would be held. The government said “No, you cannot do that”. “Could we at least send an invitation to the provinces, we asked, telling them that we will be doing some legislative work and considering an important bill that concerns them in certain regards? Could we simply invite them, to tell them that we are here and that we will try to do a good job?” The answer was “No, that is out of the question”. We then asked that the committee be allowed to hear witnesses who wish to appear. Again, the government said “No, that is out of the question”.

The committee will hear only 45 witnesses. We asked “Does this mean that we will all submit our lists of witnesses and the steering committee will decide?” Again, the answer was no. Limits are being put on the number of witnesses by political party. Some members suggested we might look at that together. The government said “No, this has been decided; there will be 15 witnesses for the Liberal Party, 12 for the Reform Party, 10 for the Bloc Quebecois, four for the NDP and, because we are very kind, another four for the Progressive Conservative Party”. “Does this mean we may invite other witnesses, we asked?” Again the answer was no. A committee member asked “Could someone who wants to appear, who is following the committee proceedings on television, invite himself? This is a democracy. One may want to be heard and say 'I have questions and I would like to address them'.” The answer remains no, he cannot.

For the first time—for one of very few times at least—to be a witness at a legislative committee studying a bill, one has to be sponsored by political party. Those who have no connections, like the non-aligned people—because I was asking the question: what do non-aligned people do? Imagine this, the government will invite witnesses who will toss ideas that might be more or less close to ours, but at least we will discuss. As for the others, the doors are closed. This is a tightly closed committee.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Undemocratic.

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

Exactly. The hon. member for Lévis just said it. Is the bill undemocratic? We will discuss this later. But is the legislative committee democratic and open? The answer is no. This is absolutely terrible.

We will, of course, support the Bloc Quebecois motion asking for the committee to travel. But when we say that the committee will travel, whether you like it or not, that means that more witnesses, maybe, will be heard, that we will take more time. We are talking about a bill that, for the Liberals, has become unimportant. We talked about a flip flop by some opposition parties on Bill C-20. But it is quite a flip flop that the Liberal Party has made on the most important bill ever introduced in this House. But it is not important, there are many other things to do. That is quite a flip flop, is it not? The Prime Minister should look at himself in the mirror. That is quite a flip flop.

We are only hoping that, in effect, this will be discussed because it is not clear. The role of the committee is not clear. The bill is not really clear either.

We just hope that the government will wake up and say to the committee: “Listen, you are having problem getting witnesses in the short term because you are pushing people around.” The people are told: “Come and appear before the committee. These are the days and time of the hearings. You show up on this day, at that time, or do not bother. You either show up or you do not.” Then I go: “Wait a minute, I have previous commitments. I am a member of a board or of an organization.” And they say: “No, this is it. Either you find it important or you do not. You come on that day or you do not show up at all.”

This is an outrage, a slap in the face by the committee. And the funny part is that we had our “Cassoulet”, as he was called.

Members will remember that children's program on Radio-Canada called “Plum-pouding”. The star of that show was the father of Marc Labrèche, a comedian whose first name I forget now; he played a French spy. He would take off his hat and call his boss to receive orders. He always said “What do I do now?” The name of the character was Cassoulet.

What I am about to say is unbelievably funny. There was a Cassoulet, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in committee until I rose in the name of the opposition. He was listening to the proceedings, but his cellular phone was on all the time. He took notes and brought them to the parliamentary secretary, who then said “Here is my position”. The connection was direct. There was another invisible player and I can tell members it was not the Holy Ghost, but minister's office or the office of the government House leader.

This is insulting. It was funny to see, really. However, it was insulting for the eight Liberals present. They had absolutely nothing to say. The cellular phone determined everything. I agree that technology is important nowadays, but I do not agree with Cassoulet and his cell phone. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The motion will probably be defeated because Cassoulet, the House leader, the whip, and the Prime Minister will say no, we vote against that. Let us get it out of the way. We have important issues to deal with. The government has a heavy legislative program.

Yesterday, we had the opportunity to talk briefly about Bill C-20, the bill dealing with the clarity of the referendum question. If it were so clear, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would probably never have submitted a 16 page document dealing with a three clause bill, three clauses that are supposed to define what negotiations will be in the event of a secession. Is that clear? No, it is not. The bill makes no mention of the question nor does it specify what the majority will be. The committee has already started hearing witnesses, at least those who have been able to come before it, but they do not agree.

Everybody wants a clear question and a clear majority. What everybody is really saying is that if Quebecers decide to get out of this federation, everybody must agree on this. We do not need a bill to do this. I asked this question to the minister, because it is important.

We are currently considering a lot of legislation. There is, for instance, Bill C-23, which contains hundreds of clauses. They are significant. These bills mean something to us. They call for our careful consideration, as citizens and as members of this House. We did not hesitate to propose amendments.

The minister said that we must not complicate things. He said that if Quebec ever leaves this country and thus breaks Canada apart, things will have to be kept simple. Maybe because it will be too complicated. This bill is supposed to enlighten everybody, but it does so only partially.

I want to raise some points that show how unclear this bill is. Of course, the question is not clear, because it is not spelled out. The majority is not clear either, because it is not defined.

Yesterday, I asked the minister about this. For those who were unable to watch that wonderful program live, I said “The only thing you indulged in in your presentation, Minister,—and even in French I used the English term—is Quebec bashing”. It was bashing, and nothing else. People need only read the minister's speech. The only province associated with secession was Quebec.

I therefore asked the minister “If you wanted the bill to be so clear, Minister, why did you not have the balls to be clear and use Quebec and not a province in all three clauses? Are you telling us that another province wants to separate?

That is certainly not the case, since you spoke only of Quebec in the whole 20 minutes. You attacked almost all democratic institutions. Thus I contend that you do not want to use the term Quebec”. The answer was “We do not want to use the term Quebec”. Why? The supreme court opinion was about what? Cape Breton? Prince Edward Island? No, it was about Quebec. The title mentions Quebec. The preamble mentions Quebec.

They thought it might be dangerous to attack Quebec directly, so they removed the term Quebec from the clauses. The minister avoided the issue and said “Well, I will not reply to that”.

The other question I asked him was “Is this constitutional amendment?” He answered “Yes”. I asked “What amending formula will apply?” Because the supreme court referred to a constitutional amendment. “What amending formula? The 7-50 formula? Unanimity? Which one?” He replied “We do not know, we will see”. I said “What? You are supposed to be clear, and you do not know? There is a problem”. If the 7-50 formula applies, the weight of some provinces increases or diminishes, depending on whether or not Quebec is a partner to that amending formula.

I even went further because, sometimes—most often in the rest of Quebec, among anglophones and allophones and even among some Quebecers—people are afraid of telling the truth and asking the real questions.

In this case, it is Mr. Bouchard, in Quebec City, and the Prime Minister and member of Shawinigan, in this House. Let us suppose there is a yes vote on a clear question. The result will be clear. But who negotiates for whom? How will the people of Ontario accept that Quebecers share the debt and the assets of the country? Are the hon. members of this House comfortable with this? Probably not. Am I comfortable with the idea of entrusting a Quebecer, namely the member for Shawinigan, with the task of negotiating? I am not sure.

What do we do with the 75 members from Quebec, men and women who were elected democratically, whatever their political stripe? Are they still part of the constitution? If the constitution has to be amended unanimously, does Quebec have a veto? If a negotiating committee on secession is struck will Quebec be part of it?

If members ask those questions to the members of the government party, they will say “André, do not raise those points, people in the west will react negatively”. I say “Of course, it is all fine and well not raise those points, but do you want clarity, yes or no? If you do not, stop. If you do not, you have to go all the way”. Let us ask the real questions.

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

The Bloc members and the Conservatives know that.

[An hon. member]

We are Quebecers first and foremost.

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

I believe one can be a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian. Earlier the NDP member told the member for Repentigny that being a Quebecer does not necessarily mean being a sovereignist, and being a Canadian does not necessarily mean being a Liberal.

[An hon. member]

Put that in your pipe.

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

The court talks about political actors, as mentioned by several speakers. Why is it that the federal government decided it was the political actor? It wants to have the lead role, maybe like Bruno Pelletier in “Notre-Dame de Paris”, or something like that. It wants to be applauded, but this is not what the supreme court said.

It said “it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear question”. It will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority, to engage in a negotiating process, to decide what its results will be. Liberal members are political actors. We are political actors. The provinces are political actors.

We could go much further and broaden the scope. The Liberal government has highjacked the supreme court's opinion, and is serving it up its own way. It put people in a comfort zone regarding the future of the country. It told “With this bill, Quebec will never separate; you can sleep on both ears, everything is under control”. We must remember what the Prime Minister was saying before the 1995 referendum “Everything is being looked after”.

I am definitely not a sovereignist; I am definitely not a Liberal. But I most definitely have questions. For us in the Conservative Party this bill has been a hard blow. We have members outside Quebec. But we should abide fully by everything the supreme court said.

As I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday, what is a political actor? He answered with a non-answer. I said “If the provinces are political actors, do you suggest that the provinces pass the same bill, this bill that is so clear? The provinces are, so far as I know, equal partners in the federation, so if they are equal partners, are you prepared to suggest that they adopt the same bill?” The minister replied “Not really; it is not necessary.”

I also asked whether or not we like the Senate, until there is a constitutional change, have to live with it. It needs to be improved, clearly. We Conservatives agree with that. But how is it that the Senate has no representative on this legislative committee of the House of Commons?

We have a bicameral system after all, two chambers. Whether we like how it works, or not, we have to live with procedures. Whether or not we like to have the wool pulled over our eyes by the Liberal majority in a legislative committee, we must unfortunately live with it.

Power must be properly exercised because it is something we run into head on pretty quickly. I asked the minister “So what about the Senate?” “Oh, we don't know about that”. But the Senate has a right of veto on this. There are Liberal senators traipsing about with a letter demanding an amendment, because the government is not even respecting the parliamentary system. When it hits the Senate, the senators are going to tell you “Here we are, and maybe we are appointed, but there are some in our bunch that would like to do their job properly and to have some recognition. Maybe not individual recognition, but we do have the upper chamber. Show at least some respect for your own parliament”.

I followed up with two questions, with which I shall close. “Are you open to amendments?” Because in a parliament system—

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

The answer was “No, it is not necessary. It is clear and quite simple. You are for or against”. It is a slap in the face. As the parliamentary process goes, it is a kick in the pants. The government brings in a bill and says “You may consider the bill, but we will not change it.” Not at all. What purpose are the witnesses going to serve in committee? One witness would say “I think the majority should be 70 %.” The government is going to say “Good”. The witness would add “The territory of Quebec is indivisible”. To which the government would reply “Oh, I do not know about that”.

Why refer the bill to a legislative committee if the government cannot make a difference?

My last question, and I will finish with that, was for the minister: “If the bill is so simple, so clear, so directly in line with the Supreme Court of Canada, before Royal Assent, since you have the prerogative to do so, could you not ask the Supreme Court to establish if it is contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, to the existing legislation in Canada and to the Canadian Constitution or in keeping with them?” The answer was “No”.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent speech. He covered a lot of territory there.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Because he knows what he is talking about.

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

He may know what he is talking about. I hope he does. At any rate, he raised one issue that makes me question whether he knows what he is talking about. He made allusions several times to the fact that Bill C-20 sets parameters on the events and the negotiations leading to the secession of a part of Canada or a province of Canada.

I submit to the member that if he reads the act very carefully he will see that the act exactly does not do that. It does not define the question. It does not define the number required for a majority vote, and it does not define the actual conditions of the negotiations. It precisely avoids doing that.

What it very clearly does instead—and I would ask the member to agree with me or disagree with me, and if he disagrees to please explain—is limits the power of a government, any government, a future government of this country, to negotiate with a province on secession. It says that government must first go to the House of Commons and determine whether or not the House of Commons approves of the certain events leading up to the negotiations that government might want to do, for example the question has to be clear, the House of Commons has to determine what is a clear majority, and so on and so forth.

I submit to the member that in doing so, in limiting the power of future governments in negotiating with a province that wishes to secede perhaps on an ambiguous question, what in fact the government is doing is withdrawing from the separatists in Quebec. I do not necessarily say this to members of the Bloc Quebecois because they are very good parliamentarians, but it withdraws from the separatists in Quebec of having one of their winning conditions. That winning condition would be a leader of a government side who would be willing to negotiate on an unclear question and might have a majority in the House that has such party discipline that they would follow that leader no matter what he did.

Basically the winning condition that we are trying to avoid by Bill C-20 is surely the leader of the Conservative Party who we know, if he ever did come to power, would be instantly ready to negotiate on an ambiguous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the last comment of the hon. member, I should say that if Mr. Clark were in power, if there were a new government, we would probably not be faced with the same situation.

Two things I want to say. When the hon. member says “limit the power of this government”, it is not true. He should read the opinion of the Supreme Court and examine the bill, then he would see that it is not a question of limiting the power but of increasing it. They are grasping, claiming to be political actors. The rules for the vole are not altered. What percentage will be needed in this House to say that the question and the majority are clear and to start negotiating the dismantling of our country? Will it be 50% plus one or will there be new rules?

Under Bill C-20, the federal government would force all of Canada to negotiate the terms and conditions of secession, if 49% of members in the House said the question was not clear and 51% said it was.

The federal government has given itself every power. This bill may not seem important today, but I dare the government to take it to the supreme court right now.

The member says the bill does not mention a clear question or suggest a clear majority and a negotiation process. I will reiterate what the hon. member said. We in the Progressive Conservative Party will take his note and his remarks and send that to the people of Ontario and western Canada. We will tell them that the clarity bill is not clear on the question. It is not clear on the majority and it is not clear on the negotiation process.

Therefore, I want to thank the hon. member personally and on behalf of the Conservative Party and all the federalists who still hope to accomplish something in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted. We appear to be having a kind of dialogue here. I draw the member's attention to a subclause 2(4) of the bill, and I will only read it in part, which says very clearly: “The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms” of a province seceding “unless—there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province”.

The act is absolutely clear. It says a government will not enter into negotiations unless parliament has approved. What we have simply done by this bill is that we have given parliament the power, not government the power. We have given parliament the power to decide whether any government, especially a Conservative government, shall ever enter into negotiations to break up this country. As for myself, I will trust parliament any day over a government that might be led by a Mr. Joe Clark.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is good news. If we ever come to power, and he leaves, so much the better. That is good news. I cannot disagree with that.

My point is that, according to him, without a clear question and a clear majority there is no negotiation. He says “This parliament is given the power”. But the way it works is that there is no exceptional provision in the bill.

The government now wants to include an exceptional provision in case secession occurs, but not within our own operation. They eliminate all the provinces, all the other partners and the other place and they say “Here is where it is done”. And they do not change one iota of parliamentary proceedings. Who are the Cassoulets in the Liberal realm? The PMO decides. On an issue as crucial as this one, why did it not say it would be decided by a free vote in the House to the two thirds representing seven provinces, minimum. Why not have done that? Why could the government not take the spirit of the amendment to the Constitution of 1982 and establish it here in this House?

Before someone on the other side of the House is empowered to negotiate the break up of this country, it will take more than 50% plus one, from all appearances. There should be a majority of the members here, representing a majority of the regions of the country, before a Prime Minister, who has done nothing to save the country, can go and negotiate the end of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted actually because the member wants to refer everything to the supreme court which, I have to say, follows the tradition of the Mulroney Tories who made laws so vague that we are still cleaning up the mess with the supreme court.

I point out to the speaker that the supreme court in this country comes under the Supreme Court of Canada Act. The supreme court comes under this parliament. So what he wants us to do is to refer the question to a body that in fact is under this parliament. There is a sort of confusion. We are going to go round in circles here.

Why does he not become a real true parliamentarian and take control in this House of the future of the country and use this House as the forum for debate and decision rather than going outside to an unelected body like the supreme court?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberals who started the supreme court “game”, not me or the opposition parties. Who made the reference to the supreme court? Who said “We do not know what to do with the sovereignist, nationalist, and independentist movement in Quebec. Help. We call on the wisdom of the supreme court judges. We will ask them questions and hope they will side with us”? Who said that? Not me. We were opposed. We are of the opinion that, within a country, people are supposed to talk to each other, to understand each other, and to make compromises. Clearly, that is not how they see things across the way.

Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovermental Affairs stated—and it said it all, a wonderful, poetic statement—“I respect the supreme court of my country”. The minister should teach a lesson to the hon. member and show him how to respect the judiciary system of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to take part in the debate on the opposition motion on Bill C-20 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

Some may think the Bloc Quebecois is exaggerating or wants to set a precedent by asking the government that the legislative committee on Bill C-20 be allowed to travel across Quebec and Canada. But there are three fundamental reasons for the Bloc Quebecois' request.

First, it is common practice for the House of Commons to have committees travel. Since 1994, parliamentary committees have travelled throughout Canada and abroad on more than 60 occasions. A few examples will prove to those listening that the government does not stint on money and resources when it is not worried about consulting the public.

The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs travelled to Germany in January of 1999.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights travelled to the eastern provinces in March of 1999.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade travelled to Quebec City, St-Hyacinthe, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Toronto and Vancouver in March and April of 1999.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travelled to British Columbia in May of 1999.

Before signing the Nisga'a treaty, the Liberal government had the committee responsible for examining this treaty travel to British Columbia to hear from citizens there who wished to voice their concerns about the treaty.

Finally, as we speak, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is now travelling in British Columbia and in the State of Washington.

The second reason is that all the opposition parties, which represent 62% of voters, have asked that the committee be allowed to travel. The Reform member for Macleod has accused the Liberals of not respecting Canadians or democracy. The NDP leader and member for Winnipeg—Transcona said the following, and I quote: “The government has acted not expeditiously but with arrogance. It is showing its disdain for the rules and traditions of the House on matters of such importance. This bill deserves more attention and different treatment”.

These are not the words of a Bloc Quebecois member or a sovereignist, far from it.

In addition to the opposition parties, a large number of groups of Canadians and Quebecers, a large number of individuals, have called for the committee to travel in order to make it easier for the witnesses to take part. Who are these groups that are deploring the government's tactics for looking at Bill C-20?

Let us see what the spokespersons for some of them think about the government's steamroller tactics. Let us see what they think, which is probably what is stopping the Liberal government from letting the committee travel, for fear of hearing the truth about Bill C-20.

Marc Laviolette, president of the CSN, said “Basically, the Prime Minister ought quite simply to pass legislation stating that Quebec is not entitled to secede. Period. That would be the end of it, and it would be clear. But instead he has decided to play at being democratic.”

Henri Massé, the general secretary of the FTQ said “There are all the makings of a good debate in Quebec, and this has been the case since the 1970s. The debate is being conducted in a civilized fashion, the forces present are quite responsible and need no outside help”.

Monique Richard, the president of the CEQ, also had this to say “This bill flies in the face of the most basic rules of democracy and our parliamentary system. What entitles the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to come blindly marching into this debate and tell us what to do and how to do it?”

Daniel Baril of the FEUQ calls for the withdrawal of the bill in the following terms “Mr. Prime Minister, we demand the withdrawal, pure and simple, of your bill and we ask you to come back down to earth with us”.

Geneviève Baril puts it as follows “If the Prime Minister wants to give lessons on democracy, let him go back to school and do his homework”.

The Montreal Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society says “We will never allow Ottawa to eliminate the right of the people of Quebec to freely decide its future. Canada will lose a few feathers in Quebec, but it will lose more internationally. No one on this earth will ever again listen to a country that promotes rights and freedoms but fails to honour them itself. Canada is violating its international commitments and is turning into a prison of nations. It is time the Prime Minister get out of his village and realize that he is taking an action that is an embarrassment to the whole international community”.

As for François Saillant, of the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, the FRAPRU, he said “The federal government is tarnishing the image of the Canadian people on the international scene by denying the people of Quebec a right as fundamental as the right to self-determination. This is totally unacceptable on the part of a government that has been boasting for years that we are the best country in the world. The Canadian government is once again showing its hypocrisy when it comes to the respect of fundamental rights”.

Jean-Yves Desgagnés, of the Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec, points out the following “The federal bill is an attempt unprecedented in Canadian history to impose on the people of Quebec a legal yoke to prevent it from being the master of its own destiny. Twice, in the 1980 and 1985 referendums, Quebecers were asked to decide on their future. That process was conducted under rules determined by the Quebec national assembly and no one in Quebec, whether on the federalist or the sovereignist side, challenged the legitimacy and democratic nature of these two consultations. Why question the political maturity of that people and its ability to discuss its future in serenity and in the respect of the various views expressed?”

Mrs. Claude Majeau, of the Fédération des locataires d'habitation à loyer modique du Québec, had this to say “The federal referendum bill is a tactic which may divert the attention of Canadians and Quebecers from a very important issue: the use of the federal government's budgetary surpluses”.

All the parties in the national assembly and a great many community groups in Quebec and in Canada are begging the federal government to withdraw Bill C-20. This shows that there is a strong consensus in Quebec.

The government is too afraid of being democratic. It knows that its bill undermines the basic principles of democracy. It knows it will have to withdraw it. So it goes underground. It works behind the scenes, hoping that the legislative committee will make as few waves as possible.

There is an old saw about still waters running deep, but we should also heed what appears on the arch over the door to the opposition lobby. It says in part: “A time will come, which is not yet, when I'll bite him by whom I'm bit.”