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

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

March 13th, 2000 / 3:25 p.m.

Elgin—Middlesex—London Ontario

Liberal

Gar Knutson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 49, and I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed. .[Text]

*Question No. 49—

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Since 1990 have Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada or Atomic Energy Canada undertaken or had universities and/or other Canadian university institutions undertake research or visits in the province of Quebec north of the 48th parallel in connection with pluton and/or granitic pluton with the aim of burying nuclear waste and if so: ( a ) how many studies were done; ( b ) what are the titles of the studies; ( c ) how many visits were there; ( d ) what locations were visited; and ( e ) which Canadian universities and university institutions were involved?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Elgin—Middlesex—London Ontario

Liberal

Gar Knutson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

I am informed as follows. Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited have not undertaken any studies, research or visits in the province of Quebec in connection with pluton and/or granitic pluton with the aim of burying nuclear waste.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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 committee, and of the motions 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

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When the House proceeded to question period the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington had the floor. He has five minutes remaining in his allotted 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

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to resume my debate on this very important bill, Bill C-20.

I was talking about the kind of stalling tactics the Bloc members are implementing on this very important and historic bill. It saddens me. I heard the member for Quebec East call me a liar while I was speaking. I suppose that is part and parcel of where some of those people come from which is too bad. I do not think it is appropriate. I think it is quite unparliamentary.

I want to say in review it really is shameful when we see something as important as this bill come forward that there are now amendments to amendments being proposed. It is a shame that 300 press clippings were read in the House and 1,000 amendments were proposed. It shows nothing but contempt not only for the House but for the Canadian people wherever they live in this great country of ours. It really is undemocratic.

For the record indicate I want to indicate that on December 13, 1999 the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry said that everything they can do to slow down the bill to prevent its passage will be done. That really is shameful. That is not what democracy in Canada is all about.

Let me say what the leader of the Bloc said not so very long ago on February 7:

I can tell you that it's going to be a long process...very, very long...The record was 471?....more than that.

The implication is that this is going to be stalled, this is going to be dragged out, this is going to be extended, all at the expense of democracy. That is unacceptable and that is not the Canadian way. It is simply outright rubbish.

On February 8 the hon. member for Roberval said that there was no way whatsoever that the Bloc would co-operate in passing Bill C-20. Again, it is crystal clear where these people opposite are coming from and that is in an undemocratic way to simply tie up the business of the House, using every procedural trick in their arsenal, when Canadians want to talk about other things. They want to talk about jobs. They want to talk about trade issues. They want to talk about globalization. They want to talk about transportation in the west. They want to talk about farmers. They want to talk about health care. They want to talk about education. They do not want to get stalled by those people opposite who want nothing more than to stall the business of the House, to tie it up, to do whatever they can procedurally or any other way to hog-tie the House of Commons.

We on the government side will not allow them to get away with it. Why? Because it is not in the best interests of Canadians, wherever they live in Canada. We on this side of the House will ensure that does not happen.

That is why we are crystal clear when it comes to Group No. 1, which we are debating today, which deals with the preamble. The House should not forget that this is a very simple bill that has three statements to it. It is very simple, very straightforward and very uncomplicated. It is those people opposite who are making it into something far greater than it was ever intended to be, and that is unacceptable.

Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments in Group No. 1, which deal with the preamble, and now the amendments to the amendments which they are proposing, simply go counter to what we have in mind.

The bill closely reflects the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. Each of the preambular clauses is drawn from elements of the court's judgment. Despite the attempts of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, to conveniently ignore certain parts of the judgment, it is all important that all of its elements be reflected in the clarity act preamble.

That is what we on the government side are doing. We are being straightforward. We are being simple. We are being clear in terms of what we are doing, because Canadians expect that kind of common sense approach when it comes to government. Canadians expect that of us. We are here elected from across Canada to represent every region and every area of this country. No matter where we come from, we are here to govern in an appropriate and solid fashion, and we continue to do that. Why? Because it is expected, it is required and it is necessary.

When we brought in as a government the clarity legislation, Bill C-20, we did so with great intent, with great purpose, to ensure that people throughout Canada, and the world for that matter, who are watching this process will know that we come from a very solid and straightforward foundation, knowing that this is a time to act in a meaningful way on behalf of Canada. That is precisely what we on the government side, with the help of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, will do.

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

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to speak at least one last time to this bill. It is a bill which attempts to bring clarity, finally, to an issue that has probably been the most confusing issue for Canadians right across the country, not only in the province of Quebec but certainly in my riding and clearly from sea to sea to sea.

Some of the statements made by members opposite I find rather interesting. First, I heard the hyperbole of the member of the New Democratic Party earlier today. In fact he was quite apoplectic, to say the least, shouting and going on about the fact that aboriginal Canadians are not named in the document—

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

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

He is right.

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

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

I am trying to reiterate it fairly and accurately because I want to point out the fallacy of the argument.

The member could not understand and got awfully excited about why we would not include aboriginal Canadians in the list of people who should be consulted. I know the member knows this full well because he is one of the most knowledgeable people in the House. He has been around a long time. I give him credit for his success in this parliament and the length of his stay here, if nothing else. He knows that he could check the supreme court decision with regard to this. I will share this with members opposite.

The final subsection of the bill stipulates that no minister of the crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession expressly mentioned by the court, such as the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province—which the hon. member knows full well deals with aboriginal Canadians—the rights, interests and territorial claims of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

That is in the supreme court decision. I read that and I listened to the knowledgeable member of the New Democratic Party going on about the government not mentioning aboriginal Canadians in the bill. I wonder what has happened. I think I know. That member and members of that party are looking for a reason to oppose this bill. They are digging a little deep. They cannot be kidding—

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

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is absolute nonsense. The member was pointing out the fact that aboriginal people—and even the minister says that 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

3:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think we are into a point of debate rather than a point of order.

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

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member should seek an opportunity to rise in debate in a normal way instead of jumping up in such child-like fashion and interrupting the flow of someone who is trying to articulate a point which might be contrary to his and might be somewhat more factual. I am not making it up; I am reading from a document that quotes the supreme court.

If the member does not believe that the supreme court decision I am reading is accurate, the member should say so, I suppose. But I do not know where he would be coming from. What is the point of that debate?

It could only be—and not to be unfair because there is really another party I want to talk about a little more—that the NDP has looked at this and said “Darn it, they really have something here. They will put forward a bill that is clear to Canadians; a question that is clear”.

Most of their ridings are in eastern Canada, in the maritimes. I am sure the people in the maritimes are about as fed up with this talk of separation as are the people of Quebec, Ontario, the west and our territories. I am sure they are all sick and tired of this whole debate and would like, once and for all, to put the rules straight on the table.

The members look at it and say “Holy smoke, they might have something here. They have actually put together a bill which says there has to be a clear question, that the appropriate democratically elected people in the country have to be consulted and there has to be a clear majority”. Frankly, I think that is what the majority of Canadians want, including those people in Quebec.

In an attempt to find a way to oppose this bill, they have latched on to the tried and true aboriginal issue. We saw that in Charlottetown and in Meech. We came to recognize as a nation that if we want to try to amend the constitution, which is exactly what would be required under any attempt by a province to secede, the country is not governable in that sense. To amend the constitution of Canada is virtually impossible, to date at least, with perhaps one or two very minor exceptions to do with education, because any one person, as we saw in the Manitoba legislature, can refuse unanimous consent and hold up the entire country.

Any premier can go back to the legislature of a province promising to hold a vote, renege on that vote, and the whole thing dies.

If a member wants to throw something into the mix, throw in the tried and true aboriginal question and sure enough the process will be derailed.

I do not understand where the responsibility lies for a Canadian parliamentarian to do that. I do not mind that someone disagrees with the bill. In fact I understand the Bloc members disagreeing with it. It is their raison d'être to separate.

I found some of the statements of Bloc members really interesting. Let me share one with the House. One Bloc member said “You cannot judge clarity because there are language differences”. Is that not an interesting situation.

I wrote out what I consider to be, and what I think my constituents would consider to be, a clear question. It is fairly simple and fairly straightforward. It states “Do you wish to separate from Canada and become a sovereign nation, yes or no?”

Here is the question in French: voulez-vous vous séparer du Canada et devenir un pays souverain, oui ou non?

Where is the language difference? Where is the problem?

Members opposite do not like that question. Maybe they want a question that says “Do you want to maybe separate? We will cut a deal. We will see if we can get more money out of them. We will see what we can do better for you because you voted for us. Maybe we will get you some HRD grants, or maybe we will not. What do you think of that, yes or no?”

If they want to play games because they know they cannot win when it is a clear question, I understand that tactic, but I do not think the rest of Canada appreciates that tactic.

Then I heard the same Bloc member say, and I found this to be astounding, that his constituents do not want clarity, they want money. That is what he said. They want money for economic development and jobs. These are the same opposition members who would stand to castigate the Minister of Human Resources Development for investing in the province of Quebec, in the various ridings of members opposite, and ridings right across this country.

Those investments are investments in people, the people of Quebec. The reason the members do not like them of course is because they are afraid those investments might make, God forbid, the country's government look good. That is not the reason it is done. Our policies are very clear. We go into economically depressed communities and we try to help them, because we understand as a government that is part of our obligation.

I do not care what party sits on this side of the House, that will always be, and should always be, part of the obligation of a government which tries to run a nation with the disparities and the geographical differences that exist in this country. Members ought to travel this land, go to places in Quebec and Labrador. Anywhere in this country they will see the need for government assistance.

Finally, I heard a member stand to say that Quebecers were not consulted when other people were allowed to join this country. Presumably the member was referring to Newfoundland. I do not understand that. I say to the member, what about the rest of Canada when it comes to the province of Quebec voting on a referendum question that would indeed destroy this country? Does the ROC, the rest of Canada, not have something to say?

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

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC

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

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

The member says no. I heard that. I think they do and they want a clear answer.

My constituents have said to me that if they really want to go, let them go. I want to make sure that the question is darn clear before we are put in the position where we have to negotiate that kind of deal. That is what this bill does.

I am a little frightened because Reform members support it, but I appreciate the fact that they do so because they have listened to their constituents.

The House should pass this bill, and quickly. It should be passed so that we keep this country together and everyone understands the nature of the game.

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

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill that nobody would have expected a responsible democratic government to come up with.

I have tabled an amendment to delete from the bill a number of the whereas clauses at the bottom of the first page. I would like to say a few words about these clauses and explain why I believe they should not be included in the bill. In fact, I consider that the whole bill should have been withdrawn by the government.

The first whereas that I would like to delete reads, and I quote:

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 of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if 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;

As you will note, the French version of this text is in the negative, as it reads “ne saurait être considéré”. This is not the way the supreme court worded its opinion. On the contrary, it said in the affirmative that the question had to be clear and that there had to be a majority in the qualitative sense of the term, equally clear.

The legislation before us is not a clarity bill but legislation on bad faith. I will explain why I believe this legislation reeks of bad faith.

First, the clarity of a question does not depend on the length of the sentence but on the way people perceive the issues behind the question in relation to their own interests. A question can be short or long, but the way people perceive their interests depends on the conditions in which the debate occurs and on whether each and every party will be allowed to express its concerns in light of the issues behind the question.

In the 1995 referendum, the question was simple. It was this: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign state and to propose a partnership with the rest of Canada? This is a simple question that was debated not only during the referendum period, which lasted one month, but also long before that, considering that, in April 1995, during the Bloc Quebecois convention, the notion of partnership was introduced. On June 12, 1995, the three parties, the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and the Action démocratique, agreed on a basic partnership proposal to be submitted to the rest of Canada, should Quebecers vote for Quebec sovereignty.

Well, no one in this House or elsewhere claimed that the question was not clear. Let me note that most people who claimed that the question was not clear do not read French, and, consequently, they simply repeated what they read in the papers concerning the so-called lack of clarity of the question.

I think that, in Quebec, the question is so clear that the majority of Quebecers would know the question referred to even if all they saw on a sheet of paper was a yes and a no block. The issue was debated even before I was born. Everyone knows what is at stake.

For many Quebecers, it is very clear that Quebec must acquire all the powers needed to ensure the future it deserves.

However, some people think the House has the divine power to judge the clarity of a question better than average Quebecers. I want to point out to my colleagues, in all humility, that members of the House are average citizens coming from their environment of average citizens. On this side or the other side of the House, we do not have supernatural brain power that would place us above and beyond the people in our capacity to judge the clarity of a question.

Average citizens know they are able to judge whether they have understood the question and whether they agree or not with the proposal made to them. Average Quebecers are as intelligent and as capable of judging the clarity of a question as any member of one side of the House or the other. That, through legislation, this parliament should appropriate the almost divine right to decide whether a question is clear or not, goes beyond the abilities, the competency and the very right of the House to democratically make decisions on behalf of the people.

When we call on the people, the people must have the last word and, in a democracy, they have the last word. When the people elect a member of parliament, they do not ask whether the member is clear or not; they make a value judgment on the man or the woman and take the decision to vote for him, for her or for another person. When people read a question, they assess it in terms of their interests and decide whether the proposal contained in the question suits them or not.

This decision will not be taken by this House in place of the people. We do not have the right to do so. If we did, we would usurp the democratic right of each and every citizen. In that regard, Bill C-20 clearly goes beyond the prerogatives of this House. But there is even worse.

Through this bill, the House also wants to give itself the right. When I say this House, the fact is that there are two sides: the government side and the opposition side. The government side outnumbers the opposition side, that is got to form government in the first place. It always votes the same way as the Prime Minister, because this is the way our Parliament works. This bill enables, not this House, and not the government, but the Prime Minister and him alone to determine the clarity of a question and, worse yet, to determine the majority required to win a vote for sovereignty.

In a democracy—at least this is what I was taught—each person has an equal right to vote. My vote is not more important than the vote of any other person, and nobody's vote is not more important than mine. This is the basic principle of democracy. Yet, this bill suggests that a vote could have more weight than another one, which is totally unacceptable. That is why I intend to now move a motion to amend Motion No. 2.

I move:

That Motion No. 2 be amended by adding, between the words “were” and “consulted”, the word “democratically”.

Something this bill is seriously lacking. This amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

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

3:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is now on 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

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 has been charged by opposition members as being arbitrary, a constitutional voie de fait, goodness knows what other charges. This is very surprising. I will repeat what I had the pleasure of saying in a public forum organized by the member of parliament for Markham and presided over by ex-premier Bob Rae, that the revolutionary aspect of this bill is that the federal government by legislation voluntarily limits its prerogative, executive powers.

There is no question that in 1980 when the first referendum arose there was no right under constitutional law or international law for a province unilaterally to secede. There was no right at all.

The issue of what was a clear question and a clear majority, I could remind the hon. member for Macleod who referred to this earlier, was discussed very fully at that time, and it has been around.

When the supreme court came into the picture it was because there was a plethora of individual suits before individual judges of the Canadian judicial system. The federal government had several options. One was to challenge the constitutional standing to sue of the individual litigants, which I think technically, in legal terms, might have been the better course. The other was to go ahead, and the supreme court has rendered an advisory opinion, which is not of course legally binding on the federal government.

What we have in Bill C-20 therefore is what European Union jurists have rightly hailed as a rather surprising evolution in the rules as to self-determination going well beyond the European Union's own rules developed in 1992 for the special case of eastern European states and the issue of recognition under international law, which is of course one of the ways in which a new state comes into existence.

What is interesting and surprising in Bill C-20 is that the federal government, so far from imposing its will on other people, is saying “We are prepared to recognize a right of self-determination, to recognize it legally, but here are the basic conditions. We want to be sure this is what people want. What is the objection therefore to saying that we would require a clear question and a clear majority before we go ahead with this?”

In these terms it is very difficult to see what all the fuss is about with this particular law. It takes nothing away from anyone in Quebec or any other province. It is an example of the federal government voluntarily limiting its own response and saying “In the exercise of our prerogative powers in the future, we will consider ourselves bound by the expression clearly given of people of a particular province”.

I do have something to say, though, on a larger issue that has been touched on by some of my colleagues and that is the nature of the parliamentary processes. It is inconceivable that a bill with a handful of sections, covering even in the French and English versions a handful pages, should be the subject of I am told, originally, 1,540 amendments. Now they are down to 400.

Surely we are entering into an undergraduate game with frivolous, repetitive or otherwise uninteresting and boring propositions. Why should the business of the House be held up by this sort of activity?

It is sometimes said that parliament is controlled by members and that there are no limits on the control members can exercise. People cite the parliament in Great Britain. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, are a student of that parliament and you will know that it has always been a very robust parliament. You will remember that Oliver Cromwell said to parliament, “You gentlemen have been around too long for all the good you have done. Go, for the sake of God, go”. It is recorded that not a dog barked at their departure which was gently assisted by Oliver Cromwell's friends.

What I am really saying is that it is a necessary part of the parliamentary process that the rules of the game are observed. We can have a tyranny of a majority but we can also have a tyranny of a minority. The British parliament has never hesitated to establish rules that ensure respect by all parties, majority and minority, for the rules of the game and for the ability of parliament to conduct the national business.

In the United States those of us who are old enough will remember Jimmy Stewart, the senator who could speak for 22 hours uselessly on a bill, but the United States congress has now regulated that power. There is a basic criticism of the parliament in Germany in the 1920s, a democratic regime that did nothing about the forces of evil of the right or the left in that situation. The German democracy collapsed as much from the inanition of parliament in exercising its powers to control the abusive use of parliamentary procedures as by the extremist forces outside.

I am really saying to members of the opposition that surely the points have been well established in debate. What is achieved by wasting the time of the people of Canada, wasting the time of citizens who are expecting us to act on important bills? Has the point that opposition members have been trying to make not been made adequately enough in the debate?

I have no doubt therefore that we will be forced as parliamentarians to consider proper rules to engage the orderly conduct of House business.

One of the ideas whose time has certainly come is electronic voting, the United Nations system. I think those of us who like the happy ritual of elevating oneself and sitting down again and think it is a quaint old fashioned custom are having doubts about it. It is an idea that perhaps may go very quickly through the House, as well as the ability to establish new rules that ensure no one will be able to make an abusive use of parliamentary procedures. That is a tyranny of a minority carried out incessantly and carried out without proper respect for parliamentary customs and procedures. It can in my view be dangerous to the constitutional system that we all respect.

Parliament is an ancient institution, but is also an institution of mutual respect that rests on a delicate system of checks and balances respected by all members. I would suggest to the members opposite that the Reform Party made the point with the Nisga'a treaty what can be done with parliamentary procedures.

As a distinguished Reform member said to me yesterday, stated once it is interesting, stated twice it becomes boring. However it does direct attention to the fact that the pre-emptive concern with sovereignty association issues has been at the expense of this parliament's considering the modernizing and updating of parliamentary procedures. It is long overdue that we bring parliament into the 21st century. Decent rules that assure proper respect for other members' rights are part of that.

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

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I do not agree with my colleagues from Waterloo—Wellington and Vancouver Quadra when they say that the members of the Bloc are immobilizing parliament with their amendments. I think that it is very important for the opposition to be able to protest when they do not agree with a bill introduced by the government. If the Bloc members want to see the MP vote like little rabbits, jumping from on amendment to another, that is fine. That is stupid, but that is fine. If that is what they want, I have no problem with that.

I believe most of the amendments moved at this stage of consideration of the bill are futile. I would like to explain why.

Bill C-20 is very simple. There are two fundamental paragraphs that form the basis of this bill. The rest is only cosmetic. The two paragraphs that I consider important are 1(6) and 2(4).

Paragraph 1(6) reads as follows:

(6) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada if the House of Commons determines...that a referendum question is not clear—

The other paragraph says the same thing, and I quote:

(4) The Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on the terms on which a province might cease to be part of Canada unless the House of Commons determines...that there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

This is what is required to start negotiations on the separation or secession of a province.

I am a strong federalist. I think my colleagues from the Bloc defend everything coming from Quebec. I think opposition members believe, as I do, in a civil society.

Consequently, I believe my colleagues opposite are not looking for a situation where Canada would be dismantled by an unclear question. I believe this because I firmly believe in a united Canada. I also believe in the parliamentary process, as other members opposite, Reform and Bloc members. If there were a clear question on the secession of a province, I would have no choice but to accept it.

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

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Fifty per cent plus one, like Mr. Mills.