Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

Supply

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

But there is a problem with clarity, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly said that what is happening here is we are taking the issue of the clarity of the question away from government and giving it to every member of the House of Commons, everyone, the Bloc Quebecois included. It is a decision for all MPs.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will not be confined by party discipline on an issue of whether a question or a majority is enough to break up the country. One of the reasons why I am afraid of the Conservative Party and I am afraid of the Reform Party in the future is that if they ever did acquire power I would be afraid that they would have enough party discipline in order to accept a question that was unacceptable.

This way future governments will be required to undertake a free vote in this parliament before any government can negotiate separation.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure my colleagues would be willing to give their unanimous consent so my colleague can ask a question to the eloquent Liberal member, who showed us in spectacular fashion that federalism is leading us nowhere.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the House give unanimous consent to extend time for three minutes to provide for one more question?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to ask a question.

Yesterday morning, I was in Sept-Îles, in Quebec. I could have been in Rivière-du-Loup, or Rimouski, or elsewhere. Since the member would like so much to understand what is going on, I would like to ask him why he does not tell the House that it would be interesting if the committee could travel to listen to what Quebecers have to say.

I would like him to come and listen to what Quebecers have to say when they are being told that a question that basically focuses on a mandate to negotiate will not be allowed. I would also like him to come and listen to what Quebecers have to say when they read in the bill that a question that envisages economic or political arrangements with Canada will not be allowed either.

Does the member realize that this bill belittles the Quebec National Assembly, the only parliament where Quebecers have a majority and always will?

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

I would actually submit that clause 3 of the bill is a hollow clause. It really does not commit the government to do anything other than to consult, which would happen normally anyway.

The bottom line of this whole issue, and the reason I do not think we have to seek witnesses outside the House, is that we are really discussing an internal parliamentary democracy issue. The reason I love this bill actually is that it is one of the few instances where parliament has actually seized control and is eliminating the power of the executive.

One of the terrible things that has occurred over the years and I think got us into a lot of trouble with the Charlottetown accord, the Mulroney years and even the Trudeau years, is that the executive branch of government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, had too much power. Now we have an instance where parliament is actually taking some of that power back. I think it is a very positive thing.

I do not think it is impossible for the Bloc Quebecois to rally more sovereignty support, perhaps not separatism support, but sovereignty support. We see the Reform Party in the House today that is very much in favour of decentralization and more power to the provinces. We know that has been the tradition of the Conservatives for a very long time. We also see that the Conservatives are in fact supporting the Bloc Quebecois on this particular issue.

So theoretically it is possible in this place for us as MPs on all sides of the House to change the nature of the country. But it is an internal problem. It exists in this House. It does not exist in the provinces. It exists between all MPs versus, in many instances, the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was one of the first to stand up during the question and answer period but I was not given a chance to ask a question. If I could have the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to ask the member a question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House. However, I want the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac to know that I did seen him, but, if he will remember, the speaker before the member was recognized for a question. We win some and we lose some and that one you lost.

I will put the question. Does the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this debate at this point. As we can see and hear, it is at the request of the Bloc Quebecois as well as of my constituents.

This is a rather painful debate, because it is based ultimately on the assumption of a desire by Quebec to separate and the negotiations that could follow. It is very painful because, in my opinion, it would be a step backwards for Canada and Quebec. It would also plunge the people of Quebec and Canada into problems we have no idea how to resolve. It is also very painful because the people of Quebec are less than ever interested in the option of the people opposite.

After the remarks made in the fall by the Quebec Premier and by Minister Facal, who were continuously threatening to hold a referendum during their current mandate, our government has decided to bring the matter out in the open. Even though it is painful, even though this time could be given to other priorities, this is a debate that was forced on us and one that had to be held because it is useful for everyone now.

This morning, I heard the leader of the Bloc Quebecois setting himself up as the sole champion of Quebecers, saying “Quebec does not want Bill C-20”. He was talking about Quebec, its separation, and so on.

I would remind the Bloc Quebecois that it is an election and even a referendum behind. In Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, the Bloc Quebecois was defeated in the latest election by 7,600 votes. This was the case in Bourassa, in the northeastern part of the island of Montreal, as well.

The people of the Bloc Quebecois tend to say “Yes, but there are the English. You were elected where there are anglophones”. For them, votes are not equivalent in ridings if there are a lot of allophones or anglophones. In both Bourassa and Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, there cannot be more than 1,000 people of anglophone origin.

In Mercier and Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, neighbouring ridings, Bloc Quebecois members were elected, but with a majority of 10,000 votes fewer than before. In Québec, the Bloc Quebecois had 500,000 votes fewer than last time.

I would also point out that the referendum was in 1995. As the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect to my colleague, when he said I had 10,000 fewer votes than previously, he lied.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member may have been mistaken. If this is the case, this is not a point of order, this is a point of debate.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

It was 10,000 fewer votes, Mr. Speaker.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

If the member had the wrong numbers he should withdraw his words now. If not—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Naturally this is only debate. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were 10,000 fewer votes in both ridings next to mine and 500,000 fewer votes across Quebec. Liberal members from Quebec can represent those Quebecers who do not want a referendum and do not want sovereignty.

The Bloc Quebecois is talking about a travelling committee. If we were cynical, we would have accepted its proposal. We would have had the pleasure of seeing the Parizists, the Bouchardists, the Liséists, the Monières, the Bellefeuilles—

[An hon. member]

Democrats.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

The leader of the Parti Quebecois had an option. Now, these people have options and we could have seen them outline their contradictory options.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are yelling, as you can hear, and they are desperate, because they do not like clarity. It scares them.

I was a member of the national assembly in 1995 when the Quebec Liberal Party tried to have the Parti Quebecois say clearly that the referendum vote would be about the creation of a new country but the amendment was defeated. These paragons of clarity refused to say that they wanted to have a brand new country. They hid behind the June 12 agreement and had Quebecers vote on that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

It was not an agreement with Canada, but with the Action démocratique under Mario Dumont. The referendum question was on that agreement. These people are afraid of clarity. Their leader, Parizeau, spent the whole summer saying he wanted to trap Quebecers like lobsters, and use lots of tricks and tactics to confuse people. Parizeau was even ready to make a unilateral declaration of independence after he had refused to use the word country in the referendum question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

These paragons of clarity keep talking about self determination. We all accept the principle of self determination. But a unilateral decision is not the way. One just does not get out of a country like one gets out of a shopping centre. They do not accept that Quebec self determination is counterbalanced by other things. They do not recognize the heritage we share with all Canadians, our common history, our economic and social links.

All that does not count. They just want to have a vote and get out. It does no work that way; not in a co-operative, not in a marriage, not in a workers' union and not in a professional association. These people are irresponsible. They want to restructure the partnership with Canada. The member for Joliette said “We want to rebuild Canada”.