House of Commons Hansard #63 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was yea.

Topics

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

March 13th, 2000 / 5:45 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to designate Thursday, March 16, an opposition day.

The House resumed consideration of 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 Reference, as reported (without amendment) from the legislative committee, and of the amendments in Group No. 1.

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

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but having been here this afternoon it may seem to people watching that this is a dispute between Ontario and Quebec.

I know that hon. members opposite do not mean it that way, but because they are the closest to Quebec it sometimes comes across that way. Indeed, people from western Canada, particularly in my area, look upon this more as a debate down east that does not make reference to them.

In my province the largest ethnic group is comprised of Anglo-Saxons, followed by the Ukrainians, the Germans and then the French. I was born in a French town. I refereed hockey in a dozen French communities, so I know very well what it is like and I am very proud to have lived in those French communities. My son-in-law's name is Tetreau and I am proud of that as well.

Having said that, I am not about to leave the west out of this picture. As westerners are looking at this debate this afternoon, many of the people in my constituency are asking what we are arguing about. They are losing their farms. To them this is not an important issue over their individual issues because of what has happened.

Let us take a look at what was handed to Quebec with confederation. It was guaranteed 24 senators. That is the same as the four western provinces. It was also guaranteed so many members of parliament, regardless of what happens to its population. The only other province which got that guarantee of course was Prince Edward Island.

What we do not understand about this is, when people talk about a sovereign nation, nobody explains to the people west of Ontario what they mean by that. To westerners a sovereign nation is a separate entity unto itself. It has its own laws, its own money system, its own trade and commerce, all of that. It is indeed a separate nation.

When I read what Quebec voted on, it talked about sovereignty and then all these other things. As far as the people of western Canada are concerned—and let me say that it is very clear as I travel in western Canada—if my hon. friends in the Bloc want a sovereign nation, it will have to be the total meaning of sovereignty. It will not be some sort of association. It is one or the other. They cannot have it both ways.

At the present time Quebec is part of an association, the federal government, and so is Saskatchewan an associate of this government. We do not ask for separate identities. The Europeans are coming together for particular reasons, because they are bound by international agreements or monetary agreements. Quebec would have to have a separate agreement entirely. Otherwise, B.C. would want to go. Not too long ago it was the four western provinces. Some of my friends from the west will remember the WCC, the Western Canada Concept Party. That is what it actually wanted. Its separation was based on a financial barrier, for obvious purposes.

While my people are floundering around trying to understand how they are going to live for another year, we have people here whose reasons to become separate and totally apart from Canada they say are not based on economics. That could be proven.

It has never been quite clear to the people of western Canada why these people are attempting to separate. To be honest with you, Madam Speaker, in all of my reading and following of this issue, that issue has never become fundamentally clear to me and it has never been fundamentally clear to the people beyond Ontario in western Canada.

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

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, this is indeed a very sad day in the parliamentary history of Canada, because we have before us a bill that is misleading even in its title, 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 Reference. Many observers have commented that this requirement is nowhere to be found in the opinion of the court.

This bill deals with clarity, but the bill itself does not provide for conditions, except one, to which I will come back later on. At all of its stages, exceptional rules have been applied to this bill. This bill, supposedly on clarity, will be passed through a process that can hardly be considered democratic.

This bill has been very well understood by David Jones, a former minister-counsellor to the U.S. embassy from 1992 to 1996. In an article published in a publication available to all diplomats in Ottawa and elsewhere, he wrote “In any case, this bill on clarity is a masterpiece of political ambiguity. It allows the Quebec government to hold a referendum on any question it wishes, but Ottawa reserves the right to evaluate afterwards whether the question was clear, and, by way of consequence, whether the federal government will negotiate or not on the basis of that question”.

This is still David Jones talking, a former minister-counsellor to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa from 1992 to 1996. He said “Without saying it in so many words, Ottawa rejects the questions of the 1980 and 1995 referendums”. We are not the ones saying that. He goes on “Surely, a majority government could declare unclear any question but this one: Quebec will secede immediately from Canada”. This is what David Jones said.

He also talks about the 50% plus one majority. Nowhere is it said in the bill that it is not enough, but the bill provides enough latitude to state, once it is over, that it is not enough and that any other majority would not be enough either.

What else does Mr. Jones say? He says “When it moves away from the basic political rule of 50% plus one, without proposing another percentage, any democracy is moving in unchartered waters”.

This bill only contains one clear provision and it is the one that says that what will not be considered as a clear question, and will consequently not commit the government to negotiate, is a referendum question that: a )—merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada

This is very serious. It comes back to the explanation given by David Jones. Moreover, a question will not be considered clear if it: b )—envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada—

With these two paragraphs, as the former political adviser of the United States embassy says once again, the government is retroactively stating that both referendum questions were not clear.

If, in the historic progress of the Quebec people, there is one thing that is clear, with respect to the movement that appeared with several small parties, but flourished with the Parti Quebecois and later with the Bloc Quebecois, it is that this movement is part of the ever-changing modern model that everyone here is applauding, that is the model of the European Union.

I again quote from a text written by René Lévesque that he presented to activist members in his riding of Laurier, before submitting it to the Liberal Party, which rejected it. He said “We believe that it is possible to avoid this joint stalemate of the Canadian federation”—joint stalemate where the government introduced Bill C-20 instead of talking about the situation of Western farmers—“by adapting to our situation the two major tendencies that dominate our era, one of which is the freedom of peoples and the other is political and economic groups freely negotiated”. This was in 1967.

How is it that no colleague from the other side tried to respond to our repeated claims that this bill is deceptive because it gives English Canadians the illusion that it will make the sovereign independent movement disappear in a jiffy?

This is an illusion and a danger because it implies that the process is an easy one, that they only have to say no and to pass a bill for the sovereignist movement to disappear. This is not so.

It is amazing, but no one talked about the will to negotiate. Having met an angel on his way, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wrote “No, sovereignty partnership is not moderate because, between sovereignty partnership, the referendum and its conclusion, secession occurs”. That is it.

Instead of being an agent of what could be a renewal of the relations between Quebec and Canada, he says “No, no, no. The only possibility for you, my friends, is to vote for secession, period. We will decide if we will agree to negotiate with you”. He does not say that he will not have the means to object.

For example, in a referendum where the question is on the partnership option, if the results are 53.5%, given a strong vote like the last time, you will not be able to initiate any negotiation because those who pay down the debt will pressure you. You will not be able to resist the people's pressure. We are not the ones who are creating confusion, you are.

I sincerely regret all the time spent to try to thwart the sovereignist movement, or to convince Canadians that there is nothing to worry about, that the government will rid them of that gang, as the government House leader has said, speaking about us. Well, I have got news for you because there is a good chance that the Bloc will be even stronger next time.

In spite of this vote, in spite of this charade, this travesty of democracy that is the exceptional procedure used throughout consideration of this bill, I hope that our colleagues opposite will seriously think about the relations between Quebec and Canada. We have no choice because we are neighbours and we will remain neighbours for a very long time.

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

6 p.m.

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-20. I would like to do so by referring to some of the motions or the amendments that have been put forward today.

Today and this evening at 6.30 the House will be voting on 411 motions or amendments by the opposition parties. Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5) the Speaker has grouped the motions for debate into five groups. I would like to speak to the motions in Group No. 1.

Group No. 1 deals with the preamble of the bill. The preamble itself contains eight clauses. In addition to the preamble the clarity bill itself is actually very clear and straightforward. It contains three operating clauses.

There is a reason I have chosen to speak on the preamble and on the motions within Group No. 1. I ask the Canadian people to decide for themselves tonight as they watch the House of Commons start to vote at 6.30 p.m. whether in fact what they are experiencing here is democracy at work, as my friends in the Bloc have said a number of times today, or is it really an abuse of the parliamentary process and parliamentary rules and procedure.

I do so by looking specifically at Motions Nos. 5 and 9 and talking a bit about the preamble. The bill closely reflects the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. Each of the preamble clauses is drawn from elements of the court's judgment. Despite Premier Bouchard's attempt to conveniently ignore certain parts of the judgment, it is important that all the elements be reflected in the clarity act preamble.

When we look at Motions Nos. 5 and 9 which are the motions I would like to start with, we will note that Motion No. 5 seeks to delete a word from the first clause of the preamble. So that Canadians know what we are talking about, clause 1 of the preamble states:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally;

Instead of a motion being brought forward by my friends in the Bloc to question or to amend this, because I have heard time and time again the amendments are here to make the bill better, what does Motion No. 5 say? Motion No. 5 states that Bill C-20 in the preamble be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 1 with the following, and it deletes the words that the Supreme Court of Canada “has confirmed” and replaces them with the words the Supreme Court of Canada “is of the opinion”.

Are we talking substantive amendments or are we talking as in my days as a lawyer of what we would call frivolous and vexatious motions? Let us look at that.

Let us move to Motion No. 9 which again is a substantive amendment with so much rhetoric across the way saying that they are are trying to make this bill so much better. What does Motion No. 9 say? Let us look at clause 4 of the preamble. It is important for Canadians to know what we are talking about. We are not talking about the government abusing democracy or wanting to invoke closure so that we do not have the ability to debate or make substantive comments. We are talking about proposing frivolous and vexatious motions.

Do the people of Canada know that today in the House of Commons when we start voting at 6.30 we will be potentially voting continuously until 2.30 a.m. on Thursday morning? Is that democracy at work or is it again an abuse of parliamentary procedure at best?

Let us look at what clause 4 says:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free from ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves and that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession;

What part of that section of the preamble has been moved to be changed? Are we amending ambiguity? Are we amending that there is an obligation that negotiations be entered into? Are we amending anything substantial?

Let us look at what Motion No. 9 says. It is a funny thing. It sounds like Motion No. 5 because again they want to delete a word. The word this time is not “confirmed”. It is the word “determined”, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has given an opinion, instead of using the word “determined”.

Those are the substantial democratic amendments the members of the Bloc have proposed. Is it so substantive that we change the word “confirmed” to “determine”? What is wrong with those words?

I remind members of the House of Commons that certainly as a lawyer who practised 18 years and as a member of the Ontario bar, I knew that when the supreme court made a pronouncement it was regarded as highly persuasive and binding on all lower courts.

Governments in Canada have always acted as though reference opinions were binding on them. Governments not acting in accordance with reference opinions risk legal challenges on any aspect of opinions dealing with legal issues. Is this a question of semantics or is this a question of substance?

I would also like to quote what the supreme court noted in the reference regarding remuneration of judges of the provincial court. The court stated: “The fact that this court's opinion is only advisory does not leave the parties without a remedy. They can seek a declaration. This court's opinion will be of highly persuasive weight”.

Opinion, determination, confirmation; is it truly necessary that for this first group of amendments, Motions Nos. 1 to 12, that we sit here for two or three hours to determine on the preamble? What in substance is talked about in the preamble?

Motion No. 2 did address the fact that whereas when the Quebec people were consulted by referendum in 1995, the winning choice was the one that obtained the majority of the votes declared valid, that is 50% of the votes plus one.

That could possibly be a substantive amendment, but what is intended and what does that accomplish by putting that amendment in? We could also go into the history of Canada from the date of confederation and the British North America Act and what powers were given to the provinces and Quebec's special status in Canada. We could do that as well.

Sometimes people just say things for the sake of saying things. I would submit that Motion No. 2 is exactly that.

If my friends in the Bloc were actually true to their substantive amendments, why is it that they propose in Motion Nos. 5 and 9 that the words “confirmed” and “determined” be substituted by the words “of the opinion”, but at the same time in previous Motion Nos. 4 and 8, they seek to delete both paragraph one of the preamble and number four? And if they do not get away with that, then in Motion No. 3 they completely seek to strike out the entire amount of the preamble.

I say to all Canadians, is what we are seeing here substantive amendments? Is this how we try to make our lives better? Is this what the Canadian taxpayers are paying us to do, to sit here for 55 hours to vote on, with all due respect to some who may claim in the House of Commons, substantive amendments?

I would submit that that is not the case. In fact this is not a case of democracy at work, but it is truly a case of parliamentary procedure being abused at best.

Why is the federal government taking this action in the face of such strong opposition? I would submit that the government has taken this decision because Quebecers have a right not to lose their country unless it is clearly expressed in their will and unless negotiations are concluded that respect the rights and interests of all Canadians.

As the only government representing all Canadians and as one of the parties in possible negotiations, it is important that the Government of Canada signal the circumstances under which it would enter into negotiations that could lead to the breakup of this country. Given the dramatic consequences of secession, it is in the interests of Quebecers and all other Canadians that such negotiations only be undertaken if it is the clear will of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.

When we talk again about substance or frivolity, when we talk about democracy or abuse of process, I would ask all Canadians as they watch tonight and for the next 54 hours that they determine what truly is happening here.

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

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that we even have to debate this bill. In my view it is quite simple and straightforward. It should have gone through the House without any debate at all.

This is a straightforward bill that acknowledges the right of the people to decide. All this bill does is to say that in this partnership that we are in, if one of the partners wants to leave and go on its own, it is important to at least discuss the partnership. That is what this bill is all about.

There has been more than one occasion of this so far. Two or three times in a row when asked to vote on the whole question of whether or not they want to remain a part of Canada, the people have decided they want to remain as part of Canada. The question is when is this debate going to end?

None of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have stood up to tell us when enough is enough. When would the separatists say enough is enough? They lost the first time. They lost the second time. They lost the third time. And they will lose again for as long as we have a country and a nation. We will continue to have a nation for the next 10,000 years, just as we have had for the past 10,000 years.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a ruling. Even the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, and others have clearly applauded and clearly stated that they want the federal government to obey the decision of the court. We are responding to what Mr. Bouchard stated in the early days of when the judgment came down. That is that we have to have clear rules and everybody has a right to play as long as we know what the rules of the game are.

We are saying that at the federal level in order for us to decide whether or not we are going to participate in the breakup of this partnership, two things are absolutely unequivocal.

First, there should be a clear question that is straightforward with no monkeying around and no ups and downs. The people have to be asked a very clear question. That is fair and none of my colleagues will dispute that.

Second, there has to be an absolute majority, a clear majority. I do not think any one of my colleagues would object to that. If we were to ask a question of the people and have a clear answer to it, then let us sit down and talk. That is what the government is doing, unlike my colleagues opposite who are trying to break up one of the best countries on earth. It is the best country on earth. It is not just me and my colleagues in the House of Commons who say that. Every single person in the country knows that this is the greatest country on earth.

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on the proposed amendment to Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

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

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.