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

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

6:45 p.m.

The 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

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

A recorded division on Motion No. 83 stands deferred.

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

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

moved:

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following:

“and the Government of Canada and the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government proposed a referendum on secession.”

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

6:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

moved:

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 28 on page 5.

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

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

moved:

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:

“to the borders of the province and, subject to subsection (3), the rights,”

(b) by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following:

“(3) The Government of Canada shall not negotiate terms of secession that will alter, erode or jeopardize the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada unless those peoples have explicitly consented to the negotiation of such terms.”

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

6:50 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

moved:

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following:

“(3) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the amendment provides that, where there has been a clear expression of a will by the population of a municipality in the province, who have cast fifty percent plus one vote of the votes cast in a referendum in the municipality, that the province not cease to be part of Canada, the territory of that municipality shall continue to be part of Canada if (i) the territory of the municipality is immediately adjacent to the territory of another province; or (ii) the territory of the municipality is part of an unbroken chain of municipal territories in each of which there has been a clear expression of a will by the population of each municipality, who have cast fifty percent plus one vote of the votes cast in a referendum in the municipality, that the province not cease to be part of Canada, and the territory of at least one of the municipalities is immediately adjacent to the territory of another province.”

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-20, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) “municipality” includes a village and a reserve as defined in the Indian Act.”

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

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The next question is on Motion No. 85. 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

6:50 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The 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

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

A recorded division on Motion No. 85 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 86. 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

6:50 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The 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

6:50 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

6:50 p.m.

The 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

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

A recorded division on Motion No. 86 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 88. 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

6:55 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

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.