Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on supply, because we should in this period be looking at the government's approach to management.
We should be talking about agriculture today. We want to talk about it, but the government is turning its attention elsewhere, as is its habit, instead of dealing with the real problems confronting it daily. Since 1993, the government has done everything except look after the problems put to it.
Today the government is disturbing this allotted day on agriculture with the introduction, as a total surprise and in a sneaky and unusual way, of a bill that has nothing at all to do with economic difficulties, nothing to do with the way this country is being governed, but that instead pits the House of Commons of Canada against the National Assembly of Quebec.
Hon. members will understand that I, like my Conservative colleague who made the motion, cannot help but address that issue in the context of this debate.
Generally, the way the House of Commons operates is that the House leaders of all parties reach agreement in a civilized and correct manner, respectful of the rights of each, of the standing orders, of tradition, habits and parliamentary good faith. It is our habit here to reach agreement and to ensure that the business is properly organized. We have some idea of what is coming and the government has some idea of the kind of fight, the kind of opposition it will get from us on each bill. There is nothing really secret in all of this, with the exception of a few surprises like the one we had this week about the vote, but nothing more than that.
Things are clear and the business of the House is based on mutual respect, confidence, honesty and clarity. That is how things are generally done in this House.
In the past few days, however, based on certain things leaked to the press, we were expecting the government to introduce a bill that, more than ever before, places the House of Commons and the members of this House in the position of having to make decisions that will restrict the powers of Quebec's national assembly.
Not only is this government not content with ignoring the constitutional responsibilities of each level of government but now, when it comes to something that has never been challenged by anyone, that the history books accept as a given—Quebec's right to decide its own future—the government has decided to get involved.
Oddly enough, the entire process has been changed for the introduction of this bill. Gone were any notice, clarity, trust or honesty. The whole thing was done during the night. The night was what it was, and I challenge the members opposite to say otherwise.
Yesterday evening, after the dinner hour, I myself checked with the government and the House whether it was indeed true that a fast one would not again be pulled on Quebec, whether a bill that might limit the rights of the national assembly would not be introduced. The answer yesterday evening at 7 p.m. was “Never, there is no question of it”.
When I give someone my word, they can believe it, and I expect to be able to do likewise. I have always thought that honesty and frankness took precedence over any parliamentary strategies.
On a certain night in November of 1981, a plot was hatched behind Quebec's back, in the kitchens of the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa, to patriate the constitution. That was what happened. It has been described as the “night of the long knives”. On many occasions, the present Prime Minister has claimed never to have had anything to do with the “night of the long knives” and with what the history books will call the “night of the long knives” with respect to Quebec.
Last night, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., there was a “night of the long knives”.
