House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was referendum.

Topics

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Madam Speaker, we take note of the reservations expressed by the New Democratic Party regarding the bill.

I have two questions for our colleague. First, is it the NDP's opinion that the current clause dealing with the issue of majority might lead to arbitrary measures on the part of the government and the House of Commons and, second, does the NDP wish that the committee proceedings be as open as possible?

Does the New Democratic Party want the committee to travel across Canada and Quebec to hear individuals and groups on Bill C-20?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, what I had to say previous to the question asked by the hon. member addresses the first part of his question. With respect to the committee process, of course we would like to see it as open as possible and we would certainly support the view that the committee should travel. It should go to Quebec. It should go to other parts of Canada. This is an important national debate. In my judgment it is an unfortunate one but one that it appears we need to have. We would certainly support the view that the committee should travel and should seek as wide a consultation as possible.

I would hope that within Quebec we will see the same variety of opinion that a colleague of the member who just spoke was eager to point out existed in the rest of Canada with respect to this bill.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, this is a great and historic debate and I am very honoured to be part of it today. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Canada is very important to me. It is important to my constituents. It is important, I would hope, to all members in the House and to people around the world. Although we have differences, Canada is place where people can live in harmony with and tolerance of one another. It is the envy of many countries worldwide because as a nation we can agree to disagree when and if necessary and yet coexist. We can work together and share values and resources.

Secession would be traumatic for all involved and it would certainly be difficult to negotiate. Bill C-20 which I support is intended to protect the rights of all Canadians if we ever have to tackle such an issue, and I hope we will not.

It provides a means to ensure that a decision which would have profound and irreversible consequences such as secession would be made only as a result of asking a clear and unequivocal question.

Canada is recognized as a model of openness and tolerance where disputes can be resolved through debate without recourse to force. This means that we can engage in discussion at many levels in our country and our lives and well-being are not threatened because of the points of view we express.

In this country it is possible for populations of different cultures and languages to respect each other and yet live together in harmony. This is not the case in many areas of the world where identity based decisions result in violence. One can only think of what has recently happened in the Balkans in the last number of years.

We must continue to express tolerance and openness toward each other, not only to serve ourselves but to serve as an example to other populations around the world that face ethnic, linguistic or identity based tensions.

Our ability to work out our differences has been recognized by our neighbour to the south. On October 8, 1999, President Bill Clinton, after having said that the United States values its relationship with a strong and united Canada, remarked as follows:

The partnership you have built between people of diverse backgrounds and governments at all levels is what...democracy must be about, as people all over the world move around more, mix with each other more, and live in close proximity more.

Here then is recognition of the success we have achieved as a great multicultural federation able to face its current challenges and those that the world as a whole will have to face more and more often in the future. We have done it and we are successful at it. Here is recognition of the fact that our country can be a role model for other states that are emerging or evolving, for states that are starting out on the path of democracy.

Ours is a large and diversified country where each province and territory can solve problems by finding and implementing its own solutions. We have learned from one another over the years. At times we share solutions and best practices and we can also choose to be distinct.

If we have differences, for example, they need not be irreconcilable, leading to the strife as is the case in many parts of the world. They can be examined and we can find common ground that suits all. As our federation evolves we must strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and ensure that all Canadians benefit from the strong economy we are enjoying now and that their rights are protected no matter where they live in this great country.

We have a federal government and provinces that are strong in their areas of jurisdiction. We respect certain principles and have mechanisms and programs in place to ensure that all Canadians enjoy the same rights and have access to a comparable quality of life whether they live in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or any and all points in between.

Where regional differences create disadvantages we try to make up for them, most notably through our equalization program. Canadians know this and appreciate the choices and mobility afforded them by those programs. In 1996 our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said:

That's what Canada is, and that's why it is respected and envied by so many on the international scene. It is the country that gives the best guarantee that human beings will be treated like human beings, with full dignity.

Truer words were never spoken. There are other ways to solve our problems and work out our differences. At the federal and provincial levels our first ministers and their officials meet and negotiate regularly. We see finance, health, industry and agriculture, to name a few, trying to address collectively the problems people in our society face.

Our courts also resolve disputes, examine issues and then render decisions and opinions based on fact and law. Elections that we often take for granted in a democracy are held and allow citizens to express their views on larger issues which affect them no matter where they live in Canada. This is the ultimate way we work out our differences, but it has allowed our country to thrive and to prosper. We are stronger as a result.

With Bill C-20 the federal government wants to ensure that we can handle the most difficult issue a country could ever have to face: the possibility of its own breakup. However, the country would have to go through this while making sure that the rights of all Canadians are protected. That is important to note.

Bill C-20 ensures that if Canadians are asked if they want their province to separate from Canada it is through a question they can understand clearly. We live in a democracy. Bill C-20 is our democratic response to the talk of secession.

In 1980 and again in 1995 the Quebec government asked its citizens questions that could have led to the separation of Quebec. If Quebecers are asked again, the federal government wants to ensure and needs to ensure that they know what they are being asked and what the consequences of their answers would be.

What would the impact be to Canadians, to Quebecers and even to the world if Quebec were to separate from Canada? A great nation would no longer exist, and that would be a tragedy. Our example to the world showing that minorities can coexist and flourish would be lost forever. Secession would break up Canada but it would also result in the division of Quebec society itself, a rift that history has taught us could last no more than a generation. Disagreements would continue for many years, long after formal negotiations would have been concluded.

In his speech opening the 18th Sommet de la Francophonie in Moncton on September 3, 1999, the French president, Mr. Jacques Chirac, expressed his admiration for our country. He said:

It is so symbolic to be here in Canada, a country which searches for and comes up with ways to live together in a peaceful and tolerant fashion. Today, Canada, this land of first nations, francophones and anglophones, provides an example of a cultural and linguistic diversity that is not only accepted but also valued.

The Canada we now live in would no longer be. The once exemplary federation decentralized and tolerant would now be a broken nation. It would be a major setback for the coexistence of minorities worldwide.

In the opinion on unilateral secession rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998, it was stated that only clear support for secession would give rise to an obligation to undertake constitutional negotiations should Quebecers decide to separate from Canada.

Support for separation would need to be expressed by a clear majority in favour of secession, answering a clear question on the very secession point. The question that would be put to voters would have to be straightforward and clear. It could not cloak a separation from Canada and its grave consequences in wordiness thereby allaying any confusion. That is totally unacceptable. Bill C-20 will ensure that facing the possibility of separation Canadians would know what they are being asked and would know how the government will uphold democracy.

In conclusion, the bill is an enormously important one. It is of historic consequence and one that all of us should support.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

Madam Speaker, I was very much intrigued by what my colleague had to say, because it contains contradictions.

The hon. member describes Canada as a success story. How could Canada be a success story if one quarter of the population, namely Quebec, has been trying in vain for more than 30 years to obtain some recognition of its distinctiveness?

It can now be said that half of this distinct people wants to separate from English Canada, precisely because it has always been denied recognition this obvious and fundamental fact.

How can Canada be said to be a success story when the federal government just introduced a bill whose main purpose is to threaten Quebecers, frighten them and force upon them what we already know will be unacceptable criteria for a referendum?

For instance, the bill requires the question to be clear while we all know very well that the questions asked in previous referendums were very clear. The 1995 question was “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?” This is a rather clear question. If questions asked in the past were clear then obviously future questions will always be seen as unacceptable by English Canada.

I ask the hon. member the following: how can he truly and seriously declare that Canada is a success story when we have reached the point where the federal government has introduced a bill that threatens Quebec and in a way deprives the Quebec people of some of its rights and has every appearance of an antidemocratic measure?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the party opposite says things like frighten and intimidate and tries to pretend that somehow Quebec has been a victim in all this when the reality is that Canada is a federation that works.

Time and time again not only have we proven it here at home but people around the world say that we are a country second to none because of our tolerance, our compassion, our assistance to others, and the ability to allow linguistic, cultural and religious groups to maintain what they believe and think is important. We have done that in a very meaningful way which allows the people of Quebec and all parts of Canada to live in a way and in a sense of harmony that is unparalleled in the world.

To the member opposite I say it is quite frivolous to hear that, but I want to directly answer his comment about the Government of Quebec question and how clear it was. Let me for the record say that in the 1980 referendum this was the question:

The Government of Québec 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 Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, administer its taxes, and establish relations abroad—in other words, sovereignty—and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be submitted to the people through a referendum; on these terms, do you agree to give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?

Oui or non. Do you think for one minute, Madam Speaker, that is a clear question? I do not think so. When the member opposite tries to hoodwink us by saying it is, I say it ain't. It is not, and he should reread the question to find out and then he would know.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a delight for me to be here today to speak about an issue of grave importance to all members of Canadian society.

Something is happening in Ottawa. Something is happening in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Something is happening in every province throughout this great country of ours. In a way that something makes me a bit sad because if it is not properly addressed, if it is not looked into, if it is not handled in the right way, it could lead to the breakup of the greatest country in the world, our country Canada.

My duty as a federal member of parliament is to articulate the concerns of my constituents, to be their advocate. But as a federal member of parliament I have an even greater obligation. That obligation is to our country Canada and to the protection and preservation of national unity.

Each and every one of us in this room must be invigorated by our triumphs of the past, by the magic of the present and by our hopes and dreams of the future. Canada has triumphed over much adversity to be in the situation we are in. It is the year 2000 and we are recognized as the greatest country in the world in which to live, work and raise a family. There is a magic in the air. We are in a new millennium. There is a new command, to dare to dream about a fantastic future for our country that is strong, united and free. With Bill C-20 unity will reign supreme. This bill will be a blueprint.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, you can see that I have piqued the interest of members of the opposition. They know that I speak the truth.

That is one thing that will be front and centre in the clarity act. Veracity will reign supreme. If any province or territory in this country, not only the province of Quebec, wants to embark on the vacuous voyage to independence, truthfulness, honesty and clarity will be front and centre. Not only the government but the Canadian people and all parties opposite have clearly said that without that there will be negotiations. The truth of the matter is that the bill we are proposing is going to bring clarity to the future of this great country of ours. Let us look—

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

An hon. member

What about the billion dollars?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, do not worry about it. I am used to the heckling.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am having a hard time listening to what is being said. With all due respect please listen to the hon. member.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, the simple truth of the matter is that some of the people who have been advocating separation in the province of Quebec have not shown clarity in what could happen if the people of Quebec ever embarked on that voyage.

Let us take a look at a few of the situations, such as currency. My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois have said that if something ever did happen, and God help us that this does not happen, they would still use the Canadian dollar. There is nothing preventing them from doing that. The Bahamas use the American dollar. But think about this. They say they want to be maîtres chez nous, masters in their own house. How can they be masters of their own house if they relinquish power to the most important thing, which is their monetary system? Think about it.

The member of parliament who is our Prime Minister comes from the province of Quebec. The finance minister is a member of parliament from the province of Quebec. They are putatively the two most powerful people in the government and they come from the province of Quebec. They can defend the interests of Quebec and the interests of other provinces with regard to the monetary situation.

Look what happened when former premier René Lévesque gained power and said that they were leaving, quitting and separating from Canada. There was a mass exodus of businesses from the province of Quebec. Why? Because business people want stability. Where there is talk of separation and independence people will not invest money. My colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has a lot of money but perhaps he does not want to invest in Canada.

With regard to the province of Quebec, some people are saying that Quebec would automatically be a member of the United Nations, NATO, GATT and NAFTA. That is not necessarily true. One has to negotiate oneself into these organizations.

The United States has made it abundantly clear that Quebec would not automatically be in NAFTA. Think about that. Without the protection of the North American Free Trade Agreement the milk marketing board in the province of Quebec would be obliterated. There is enough surplus milk in the state of New York to flood Quebec. Tell the milk producers in the province of Quebec that it would be all over. They would not be able to sell any more milk because they would be undercut.

On citizenship, one thing which really puzzles me is that they say they will still retain their Canadian citizenship. That is like saying, “I am leaving home but I am taking the MasterCard and the family compact with me”. Why in heaven's name would they want to do something as offensive as separate yet retain the citizenship of the country which they were separating from? Because the Canadian passport is recognized as the best passport in the entire world. That will not automatically happen. That is something the country will have a say in.

On duplication, one of their famous mantras is “We can do things cheaper because we would be our own country”. Let us take a look at the Charlottetown accord of 1992. The province of Quebec held its own referendum as opposed to the rest of the country which held the national referendum. Afterward the cost of the referendum was figured out. In the province of Quebec it cost about $6.63 per person for its own referendum on the Charlottetown accord. For the rest of the country it was about $4.83. So much for doing things cheaper on its own. It is just not in the cards, and that was clearly evident.

Now on to transfer payments. I had a real job out in the real world before I got elected as a member of parliament. I was in business. I believed it was good business if I gave someone $10 that they would give me back $11, $12, or even $10.01. With the transfer payments, the people of Quebec should be made aware that they send the money to Ottawa. Somehow they have the convoluted idea that we just throw the money away and they get nothing in return. The opposite is true. They get over $3 billion a year more in transfer payments from Ottawa than they send to Ottawa.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I know the hon. member over there is a little upset because the truth hurts.

I am a product of an Irish mother and a French Canadian father.

My son, Tyler, studies in a French school in Pembroke, Ontario. He speaks French better than I do. I speak French like a logger. In my heart, I am proud of my French culture and heritage but I am even prouder to be a Canadian.

In this debate we must remember that being polite and gracious is not a sign of weakness. We should be exploring the problems that unite us instead of deploring the problems that divide us.

We as Canadians who are strong in unity can and will face any challenge. We as Canadians strong in unity will march forward vanquishing any naysayer who stands in the glorious path of liberty, prosperity and most of all unity. I say this to my colleagues in the House, venez avec moi mes amis. Come with me because my resolve is that a greater, more beautiful and brighter future awaits us in this millennium. Come join with me and Canadians and each and every one of us will do whatever we can. We cannot fail at this critical time. Let us sprint forward together, united, and we will continue to flourish as a country in this millennium.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Madam Speaker, we appreciate our colleague's great eloquence but the truth escapes him.

When he claims that he knows the truth, he sounds like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his colleagues. That minister is not proud of his pupil because he does not even know that nowadays states that share jurisdiction adopt a common currency and citizenship.

That is what sovereignists have always wanted and proposed to the rest of Canada, and they will keep on doing so. Members opposite are rather like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about whom a commentator said today:

“For his troubles, Dion sits at the bottom of the hit parade of Quebec politicians. Only a tiny minority of Quebecers approve of his performance. He is an object of open ridicule in many media quarters”.

The member is saying what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been repeating for years. This does not work in Quebec. This is not accepted by Quebecers because they want the freedom to choose their future. This bill will take away that freedom. It is an undemocratic bill and we will fight against it until the very last in the House.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, if the Government of Quebec asked an honest and clear question, we would have no problem with the result. I say to my friends and to the Government of Quebec that they must be careful: the question will have to be honest and clear.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the eloquence of the hon. member because he chose the wrong venue. He would be a cheerleader for a football team than a member of parliament. This is no picnic, the bill is an attack against the democratic rights of Quebecers. The members opposite should refrain from making stupid statements.

He said that Quebec would not be a party to international trade agreements; this is pure nonsense, it is simply not true. He said that we receive $3 billion more than what we pay each year; this is simply not true. They owe us at least $2 billion per year for the last two years. Quebecers pay too much taxes to the federal government, compared to what they get back.

He said that all is well in Canada, that everybody gets along fine and that we all live in harmony. I beg to disagree. The premiers are unanimous in saying that the federal government must give back what it took away from the Canada social transfer, but both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are not listening. Where is the harmony in this great Confederation?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, this is terrible. My friend across the way said that I am a football player.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

No, no. A cheerleader.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I am a hockey player, not a cheerleader.

It is true that with the transfers to provinces—listen to this and say it to the people in Quebec—they get more than $3 billion each year.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

An hon. member

It is not true.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I like my friends across the way a lot because they are passionate and demonstrative. It is perfect, as far as I am concerned, and it is good for Quebec, but it is even better for Canada. Let Quebec stay in Canada, and all will be well. Do not be afraid of me, I am only a backbencher.

The Prime Minister resides in the Province of Quebec and we do not have any problems with our friends. I like my friends a lot, and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the same haircut as me.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jim Jones Progressive Conservative Markham, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address Bill C-20, the clarity act. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi.

This bill, the bill that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has the audacity to call the clarity act, falls just short of being rightfully tabbed the most unclear, the most ambiguous and certainly the most imperilling legislation ever proposed in the history of our great nation.

Today in the interest of time and procedure, it is the disingenuous, disruptive spirit of this bill rather than its blatantly flawed details that I will address during the time I have been given. As I read carefully through the bill I find difficulty in uncovering its merits.

The reason is that this bill simply has no merit. In fact I submit that it represents not only the wrong course of action for Canada but moreover its presentation to the House for consideration is nothing further than adding another instance of Liberal government dishonest, poll driven practices. I cannot in good conscience allow myself to look past the clarity act or past the motivations behind the government's proposed legislation.

The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is quite a brilliant individual. The member holds a bachelor of arts, a master's degree and a Ph.D. In addition he has served as a professor of political science, as a journal editor and as a research fellow. No one is questioning his expertise on Canadian constitutionalism. Indeed his expertise is the very reason why he was recruited to run for the Liberal Party. However, with such distinguishing credentials and given that he is so clearly gifted, it is truly puzzling that the hon. member would make the mistake of proposing this ill timed, ill conceived, and most glaring, this ill advised bill.

Perhaps I can serve as a beacon for the House and shed some light on my colleague's motivations.

When he was recruited to run for the Liberal Party, my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was a professed federalist; and he remains as such today as the banner boy for the federalist forces of Canada. During his byelection campaign we were introduced to the member as an experienced, reasoned academic who possessed practical and realistic ideas for saving Canada.

We were told by political analysts that the minister's strength as a candidate was his supposedly unyielding support for reforming and ultimately renewing confederation. He was called upon by the Liberal Party to quell Quebecers' wishes to separate from Canada.

The hon. member came to Ottawa as an adamant proponent of plan A, that is a proponent of negotiating and conciliating with Quebec toward a new constitutional arrangement.

Clearly the minister's recent bill is not indicative of the plan A approach but rather of the directly opposite plan B approach.

How are we to reconcile what certainly seems to be a glaring discrepancy? On one hand we know that the minister came to Ottawa as a fervent advocate of plan A and on the other hand we have this new bill, the clarity bill, which obviously comes to us from the plan B school of thought proposed by the same minister who previously had not simply leaned toward plan A but as we all know had built his reputation on furthering plan A.

What do members suppose would urge an apparently intellectual resolute individual like the hon. minister to make a 180 degree turnaround on such an important national issue? Given the recent history of the Liberals the answer is quite simple: the polls.

Polling conducted following the 1995 Quebec referendum indicated that constitutional fatigue and a sense of exasperation had descended upon Canadians. Having recently undergone two attempts at constitutional renewal, first in 1987 with the Meech Lake accord and then in 1992 with the Charlottetown accord, Canadians were admittedly tired of hearing about constitutional negotiation.

Following the referendum Canadians were so embittered by the near loss of our nation that many jumped aboard the plan B ship. This shift among Canadians was manifest in the polls of the day. Therefore, because of the prevailing sentiment in the nation at the time, many colleagues across the floor surrendered their once strong support for plan A and flocked to the masses as they adopted plan B, all in the name of electoral success.

My colleague turned a blind eye to the reality that plan A was and remains the most favourable course of action for the survival of our nation. The Liberal trademark weather vane government is assuredly not the type of leadership Canada needs as we prepare for our most important challenge since confederation.

For the first time in our history the stages of possible succession for a province and for the resulting breakup of Canada are defined. It is truly regretful that it has become common practice for our reddened leaders to govern the polls, placing utmost importance upon polls of the day rather than upon what is ultimately best for Canada. By bending and stretching when told, hoping to sweeten the public come election time, the government is not only depriving Canadians of the leadership they so rightfully deserve from Ottawa, but even beyond this the government is compromising the future of this great nation.

Today Canada does not need a government that governs solely according to the public will without first engaging its own steadfast conscientious deliberations on the issue. Yes, it is true that we must actually solicit support from the public in order to gauge its inclinations.

However, basing questions of national interest on the fluctuating preferences of the public, particularly when the public may not be fully apprised of the complexities of the matter and particularly when the public may very easily be swayed by its own emotions, is not only thoughtless but I submit is the wrong course of action for the country.

The bill legitimizes the breakup of a great country that generations past and present have worked so hard to build. Canadians have been misled into thinking that the bill presents the most favourable course of action for Canada in dealing with the impasse Ottawa has reached with Quebec. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would have Canadians believe that laying down strict rules for the secession of Quebec is the only alternative left for Canada. However, this is most definitely not the case. There is an alternative to Bill C-20.

The alternative, the most favourable alternative for Canada, is to focus on reconciliation between our nation's two founding peoples. The alternative to the minister's bill is to do what was intended by our forefathers and by Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister: to fight for the preservation of Canada—and we have to remember this country is only 133 years young—to fight for the prosperity of all Canadians; to pursue aggressively the inclusion of all Canadians in the political discourse, and to stand firm and unite against challenges both external and internal.

The alternative, contrary to what my colleagues across the floor would have us believe, is not to facilitate the separation of the nation's two founding peoples but rather to work toward a constitutional resolution.

With the right leadership and with a concerted effort to draw political actors, officials and Canadians together, our continued union between Canada's founding peoples can doubtless become the most flourishing, successful and triumphant union ever forged.

The bill proposes to cede the right of secession of our provinces. With the bill the condition for the separation of Quebec and for other provinces will be set as law. Once met, those who would destroy what countless Canadians have given their lives to build and to preserve will have the guarantee of entering into negotiation. For what? For the destruction of our great land and for undermining the work, the effort and the unrivalled commitment of our forefathers.

In closing I offer the following to my colleagues in the opposition and those in the governing party who still have the courage of their convictions to think for themselves. I would encourage all of them to join us as we expose the Liberals for the improvident, distanced, poll driven defeatists they are. I would encourage them to do what they know is best for Canada: to oppose Bill C-20, the clarity act.

Canadians deserve better leadership than they have received from the Liberal Party and from the untrustworthy, vacillating Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We have a responsibility to Canadians. They must know exactly what the bill means for the future of our country. I am afraid that should the bill pass Canadians will gain nothing further than a false sense of security. The clarity act is the wrong course of action for the country.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened quite carefully to what our hon. colleague was saying in this debate and I have a couple of questions for him.

He said something to the effect that it was terrible to give the option to Quebec to possibly separate. I agree with that because I want the country to stay together. However, what would his alternative be? Would it be to say that no province or no people within a province could vote democratically and make decisions on what they want to do? That is my first question.

The second one has to do with the issue of clarity. It seems to me that the votes in the past on this issue have been very unclear. They could take our country into a kind of abyss, which is exactly what the member wants to avoid. It seems to me that it would be in the greatest interest of keeping Canada together if those people voting in a province on such an issue have a clear question so that they clearly understand the consequences of their decision.

As a result I believe—and I think the hon. member would too and I ask him to express this—that if the people got a clear question and clearly saw the consequences then they would vote to stay in Canada because it is a wonderful country and it is part of what we are all together. We want to stay together. I would like the hon. member's comments on those two questions.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jim Jones Progressive Conservative Markham, ON

Madam Speaker, these questions are very interesting. The questions that come to mind are why is the bill even here and what has been done since 1995 to resolve this issue.

I am transparently aware that the only thing the interprovincial affairs and justice ministers have done is to have a reference of three questions to the supreme court and a letter writing exercise between the federal interprovincial affairs minister and the interprovincial affairs minister of the Quebec government.

With what we have going for us, I would have worked a lot harder trying to resolve this issue with the interested parties, not only the people of Quebec but with the other provinces. Instead, it may be purely coincidental that this was brought out just before Christmas. It was the same old story as in the 1997 election. A book was published in the U.S. where the president of the United States waged a war because his popularity had waned. Maybe they brought this forth to conceal the impending fraud and scandal that are starting to emerge from the HRDC and the transitional jobs fund.

A lot more could have been done by working on plan A in trying to resolve this 150 to 200 year old situation instead of just bringing forth an act that talks about a clear question. It did not specify a clear question. It did not specify what is a clear majority, and there are a lot of other things it did not make clear.

A lot of Canadians have not been happy about this issue over a long period of time, but it will only give them a false sense of security.